Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is contemplating a run for the Senate seat just vacated by Ted Kennedy's passing. And Newsweek's Mark Starr claims that he could actually win. At this point, Schilling is downplaying the possibility of running, but refuses to rule it out. Although I'm a huge fan of Schilling the baseball player, I am skeptical that he would be an effective senator. The viability of Schilling's potential candidacy and others like it is largely a result of widespread political ignorance.

If he does run, Schilling would instantly become a viable candidate - at least as viable as any conservative could be in strongly Democratic Massachusetts. Why would a candidate with no prior political experience and little apparent expertise in public policy be taken serious by voters? Because of his name recognition as a recent Red Sox star. Many former athletes and other celebrities have successfully turned their earlier fame into a political career: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Bradley, Steve Largent, baseball Hall of Famer Jim Bunning, and others. Other candidates with few or no qualifications win simply because they are members of prominent families. Ironically, Ted Kennedy - the man Schilling might try to replace - initially won his seat largely because of his own family connections. As his 1962 opponent put it, "[i]f your name were Edward Moore [instead of Edward Moore Kennedy], your candidacy would be a joke." George W. Bush is, of course, another politician who gained high office in large part on the strength of family connections.

Celebrity status and family ties would not be major political assets in a world where voters were highly knowledgeable about candidates and their qualifications. Rational, well-informed voters would be unlikely to pick a candidate with few or no qualifications for the job over an opponent with genuine public policy expertise. However, the real-world electorate is "rationally ignorant," and most voters knows very little about candidates. Moreover, voters also tend to do a poor job of evaluating what little information they do have. As a result, celebrity candidates and scions of famous families enjoy a major advantage thanks to their superior name recognition. Political ignorance causes political nepotism, and also gives a leg up to sports and entertainment celebrities. Although a few celebrity candidates went on to become outstanding political leaders (e.g. - Jack Kemp), on balance the electoral success of celebrities and members of famous families probably reduces the average quality of our office-holders.

This problem is very far from the worst result of political ignorance, But it is yet another way in which ignorance reduces the quality of government.

UPDATE: Some commenters cite Ronald Reagan as an example of a celebrity who became a highly effective political leader. But Reagan was involved in political activism for some 15 years before he ran for governor of California in 1966. Unlike Schilling and others who try to go straight from nonpolitical celebrity into electoral politics, Reagan had quite extensive political experience before seeking public office.