Experience and the presidency
With all the talk of experience that has surrounded this year's presidential primaries (particularly on the Democratic side), this quote from a George Will article in today's Washington Post may summarize my feelings on it best:
In the wake of that observation, I may be inclined to vote for the least-experienced candidate from now until the end of time.
Song lyric of the day:
"I met my maker, made him cry
And on my shoulder he asked me why
His people won't fly through the storm
I said 'Listen up man, they don't even know you're born'"
- Oasis, D'you Know What I Mean?
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.
In the wake of that observation, I may be inclined to vote for the least-experienced candidate from now until the end of time.
Song lyric of the day:
"I met my maker, made him cry
And on my shoulder he asked me why
His people won't fly through the storm
I said 'Listen up man, they don't even know you're born'"
- Oasis, D'you Know What I Mean?
3 Comments:
I keep saying that, to me, experience in national politics is categorically bad. Everyone, and I mean everyone, decries Washington politics, but then when it comes time to vote, they purposely choose the candidates most invested and indoctrinated in those politics.
I don't disagree with this, but I think the type of experience a person has helps determine whether that experience is good or bad. So a 20+ year veteran of Washington who has routinely bucked the institution could be a good thing (maybe, not necessarily), whereas a 1-termer who stuck hard to party lines could be a bad thing (that'd be both Dems).
I don't think people generally like electing Congresspersons to executive positions, but we won't have much choice this time around from the looks of it. So maybe that's the key: legislative experience is bad experience.
Everyone decries "Washington Politics" meaning either too much hard-line partisanship or too much compromise, depending on where you stand. Unless, of course, you agree with the hard-line partisanship, in which case it's a heroic, principled stand. Or, if you agree with the compromise, then it's "a proven record of getting things done" or "bipartisanship."
While I agree that experience isn't everything - indeed, I voted Obama - I'm sick of making decisions based on meaningless labels like who's beholden to "Washington politics."
Post a Comment
<< Home