Tension Between 'Insiders' and 'Outsiders'

I think a lot of different truths have been expressed on a thread over on Hogg's Blog. (Worth clicking here and reading Hogg's post and its 20-something responses before you continue.)

I don't think it's a matter of one person being right and someone else being wrong.

There are different potential truths for readers to walk away with from the comments that have been expressed.

When I read this thread earlier (before several more comments were added), this comment by Ed Cone made a lot of sense:

“I’m not arguing that this inner circle is malevolent — it may be a natural product of the way people network, and it may sometimes produce effective and honest government — but it damn sure exists.”

He's simply acknowledging that the inner circle exists.

And while that certainly could be a bad thing, it also could very well be a good thing.

That’s where deeper analysis of individual “insiders” becomes necessary. (Who are the good ones? And who are the bad ones?)

Inner circles exist all around us.

In schools, in churches, in governments, in businesses, in families.

Just about everywhere, they exist.

By implication, those inner circles are where a considerable amount of power resides.

People with that power tend to think there’s good reason for them to have it and try to keep it. (As long as they don't go outside of certain boundaries and as long as they're not hurting others, they're entitled to try to keep that power.)

People without that power either accept that or think that things would be better if they (or at least other "outsiders") had it.

Although some people now argue that we should move away from it, the district system was set up as a means of giving some “outsiders” a shot at some of the power.

Arguably for better and for worse, the district system has succeeded at creating new “insiders.”

People who were once outside the system gained a passageway into the system.

Now, those people are a part of the “insider” system themselves.

“Outsiders” have to work to become “insiders.”

In local politics, I’ve gotten the impression that many “outsider” candidates have not worked hard enough to make themselves known and to earn votes.

I’m not sure if there’s enough creativity flowing into many campaigns.

If I was running and had any impression that the media wasn’t paying enough attention to my campaign, I’d be trying to figure out ways to make it impossible to ignore me. (I’d still be sure not to do anything stupid or illegal to gain that attention.)

Some candidates have run several times before without making the gains that you’d think they might be able to make--if they worked harder, smarter, and more creatively. Some candidates have been primarily responsible for their own lack of success.

There are examples of incumbents (“insiders”) losing elections. Some of them have probably taken things for granted.

But those examples provide evidence that “insiders” can be beaten. (I’ve been somewhat shocked a few times to see certain candidates lose. In this election, some former "insiders" are trying to make a come back so that they can be inside the circle again. From experience, they must think it's better to be an "insider" than to be an "outsider.")