The Facade of Humble Beginnings

Politicians love to talk about their humble beginnings. Kamala Harris has reminisced about her time spent working at McDonald’s when she was younger. Tim Walz often emphasizes his career as a teacher and a high school football coach. J.D. Vance leans heavily on his Midwestern roots. At the recent Democratic National Convention, President Biden spoke about growing up in a working-class Pennsylvania family. Likewise, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talked about working as a waitress without health insurance, proudly declaring, “It was then, only through the miracles of democracy and community, that the good people of the Bronx and Queens chose someone like me to elect them in Congress.”

Contrary to the popular narrative, these stories are not proof that politicians on the whole are truly representative of their constituents, nor do they prove that the American Dream is accessible to everyone. They tend to be examples of exceptionalism. The luckiest, most savvy politicians may overcome the financial adversity they face, but the majority of people experiencing financial burdens could never even consider running for office.

It is difficult for someone without a significant amount of money to start a campaign, and maintaining one is even more difficult. In order for a local campaign to be successful, candidates typically need to devote significant time to canvassing and speaking with voters. That makes it strenuous or impossible to have jobs on the side, and campaign funds obviously cannot be used for personal expenses. State and national campaigns require even more effort. Without comfortable finances, prospective candidates may choose to work other jobs at the expense of their campaigns or not run at all.

Even if politicians win their elections, elected posts are the antithesis of stability. The jobs are often badly paid, and many local positions are part-time, meaning they are inconsistent and paid less. For instance, being a member of the New York State Legislature is a part-time job, even though many legislators reported working full-time hours in 2012. As a result, more than two-thirds of the Legislature had additional part-time employment to make up for the low pay.

Not only that, elected positions are controlled by finicky voters who could easily become dissatisfied and cast out their current representative. Some politicians face the prospect of losing their job every two years. As a result, they enjoy very little job stability, particularly in areas where voters swing from one party to the other.

It’s clear that the J.B. Pritzkers of the world—the politicians who can pour money into their campaigns while paying their rent—have a huge advantage in politics. Systemic barriers prevent those who most need representation from directly advocating for themselves. So while it’s touching to hear stories of politicians who have beaten the odds, it’s also important to remember that the fundamental problems remain. 

There isn’t an obvious blanket solution to the barriers mentioned above. They are varied, making it impossible to take care of all of them at once. For example, providing public financing for campaigns might help make campaigning more accessible, but it doesn’t solve the low pay or instability. To solve the larger issue, there would need to be comprehensive changes on both the electoral and legislative levels. 

These problems are also individually difficult to tackle. It would be political suicide for legislators to give themselves a major pay raise, so very few choose to do it. Even if they did, the benefits of a pay raise are murky at best. Some studies suggest that paying legislators more and having them meet full-time will create a more diverse body and increase their productivity, resulting in the passage of a greater number of bills. However, other studies warn that pay raises for legislators would attract politicians who are only in it for the money, ultimately decreasing the quality of the legislative body. Similarly, some would say that public campaign financing makes campaigning easier for candidates with less money. Others would argue that it accentuates disparities, providing an advantage to a small number of wealthy donors. 

That’s not to say that it’s impossible for change to happen. Programs like small donor public financing can make campaigning easier while avoiding the drawbacks of other policies. On a more individual level, greater awareness of local politics would also cause a shift in perception, potentially leading voters to be more open-minded about other solutions. After all, if we can’t easily address these problems through policy reform, we can at least change our rhetoric to better discern their existence. 

Successful politicians are noticeable to us: they’re the faces we see on the news every day. But for every famous, successful politician, there are countless unknown politicians whose campaigns were crushed by those with more money or establishment connections. At a rally in Philadelphia, Harris declared, “Only in America is it possible for [two middle-class kids] to make it all the way to the White House.” While her rise is indeed remarkable, it is the exception, not the rule, and it should be thought of as such.