Warning: The following post will get dorky.
I’ve belabored Crowley’s leadership ambitions long enough. But I failed to ask myself an important question first: why would he want to climb the ladder anyway? As a philosophy major in undergrad, I remember reading about the nature of leadership in Plato’s Republic – (told you it’d get dorky).
The book is a thought experiment about developing the utopian city. In another words, it’s a classic that few read cover to cover – I haven’t – Sparknotes is like catnip for procrastinators.
Anyway, one section of the book explains how the very people who want leadership positions are the ones who shouldn’t be leading.
“The state in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the state in which they are most eager, the worst.”
Think high school student government. David Foster Wallace did a good job summing up the personality type.
Think back to the sort of kids in high school or college who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game. The kind of kids other kids would want to beat up if it didn’t seem so pointless and dull.
Although Crowley would have been difficult to beat up at 6’4,’’ he is the student government-type; he’s been in office since he was 24.
Maybe Crowley isn’t after personal gain entirely, but he sees the chance to do some good and get paid to do it. A member of Congress makes $169,000, and state assembly members make around $80,000.
Nevermind free parking, great health insurance, or the 16 weeks off they get each year. They were scheduled to be in session only 137 days last year.
Granted, their time off is considered “work-breaks” or “home-district periods,” where they meet constituents. I agree, meeting with the public is probably about as fun as a day at the DMV.
But these are the perks the public knows of, it’s only through scandal do we see what else they get.