The most often heard criticism of Obama (other than that he’s a closet Muslim radical who has sex and crack with crazed rednecks in the back of limos) is that he lacks the experience to be President. Hillary’s “red phone” ad is said by some pundits to be the most effective of the season thus far and she and McCain each say they trust each other more than they do Obama in terms of experience for the job.
So, this begs the question: what IS the best experience one can have to be president?
I read an article several years ago about how state governors often do best in presidential elections (though that was not the case this year obviously) because the campaigning is so similar, just on a national level instead of state. There’s some argument, possibly verisimilitude only, but I can understand how in many ways the role of governor (particularly of a wealthy and diverse state) could prepare you for presidency more than a position of national senator could due to having been the head of an executive branch of government.
For his role as Commander in Chief. That said, the governors who have been elected president (Bush 2, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.) vary widely in job effectiveness.
Senators have the edge of, presumably, intimate familiarity with the D.C. power structure more than state governors. Presidents with a significant military background are relatively few (Eisenhower is the only career military I can think of in modern decades, though of course Bush 1 and JFK served in wars but both were very young men with no real power) that it’s almost impossible to judge how much it aids being Commander-in-Chief, and certainly McCain’s views on Iraq aren’t made more palatable to his detractors by his military career (though it’s a near certainty his position on torture would be informed by his experience). Ross Perot argued that self made business tycoons would bring an element of fiscal responsibility and business vision sorely lacking from the curriculum vita of most candidates (not that it worked so well for Herbert Hoover*).
Anyway, that said, what in your opinion is the best resume’ for a U.S. President? Draw your answers from conjecture, history, or any other source.
*not that Hoover can be blamed solely or even primarily for the Depression that happened on his watch
There isn’t a “best” resume. That would include doing more things than is humanly possible. I’d want someone to have been in the military, in the foreign service, in the House, in the Senate, serve several terms as VP. And that’s just getting started.
Or, one might claim that the only thing that really prepares one for being president is… having been a president before. But that doesn’t really answer the question.
I’d say being the commanding field general of a victorious war would probably be the best thing for a presidential resume. If George Marshall had commanded the Allied Expeditionary Force instead of Eisenhower, he could have walked into the presidency just as easily as Ike did.
BTW, I’m not convinced that being a Governor is better experience than being a Senator. Governors can more easily campaign for the presidency, but that’s because Senators have a hard time pointing to what they’ve actually done, and their record is easily distorted. Being Governor of a large state might be good experience for the presidency during peacetime, but Governors aren’t used to dealing with National Security issues, foreign relations, and the military. A Senator might very well have more experience in that area if he/she sits on the right committees.
Religious issues aside, I’d much rather have a Senator McCain in the WH than a Governor Huckabee.
I don’t think resume really has anything to do with it, not at the top level of the government or of any other large organization. Who had a stronger list of offices held, or prestigious alma maters, than GHW Bush? Well, Calvin Coolidge, maybe.
When the job in question is staff or advisory, then yes, that stuff matters. But for the top job, ISTM personality and character are the fundamental requirements - empathy, humility, diligence, persistence, a sense of history and a sense of responsibility come out on top of the list for me. Those things are only tenuously related to resume. And there are millions of people with those qualifications who’ve never been in any office but would still do a solid job in the top one. John, how can you put religious issues *aside * when talking about Pastor Huckabee?
Ike did offer Marshall command of the Normandy invasion, to let him get his own shot at headlines. But Marshall realized, after a lot of thought, that the war would be over sooner if he stayed in the logistics side.
You’re absolutely right, though.
What experience in preparation for winning the Six Day War did Golda Meir have, btw?
For my part I’d like to see a president who has experience in the real world, either working as a professional (doctor, engineer, scientist, businessman…anything but a lawyer :)). Military experience is a plus as well though not essential. Political experience is pretty far down on my own list, though some experience is a must, even if it’s at a local level. But to a certain extent a candidate needs to be able to play the game and to SHOW that he or she can play the game.
Basically I want someone who has shown he or she has made it in the ‘real’ world and isn’t just a politician…someone who is successful outside of politics.
Nitpick: Golda was PM during the Yom Kippur War, not the Six Day War.
As for her background, she served for as a member of Knesset (Parliament) for 20 years, was Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Minister of Labour and Foreign Minister. She was also a leader of the Zionist movement before the foundation of the state of Israel, and her name is on Israel’s Decleration of Independence - making her, in effect, one of the country’s Founding Mothers.
I’ll agree that Grant wasn’t much of a president, but when it came to reaching the presidency, his resume’ outshined everyone else’s because of his victory. I can’t think of a resume’ that could have beaten it.
Personally, I’d prefer a president who has seen a great deal of the world and appreciates the global community. Someone who will analyze the situation when catastrophe strikes instead of pointing to a section of the globe and saying “Kill them all!”
So many people seem to misunderstand the experience issue. It’s mostly for our benefit not the candidates. It gives us an opportunity to look at the candidates and see how they’ve handled themselves in the past. The candidates didn’t learn on the job as Governor or Senator or Vice-President; they relied on their past experience for performing those jobs. But we can look at a candidate and say “he did a good job as Governor handling that tax problem and that earthquake, so I have some basis for thinking he’ll be a good President.” Being a governor didn’t make him a better leader, it just gave him an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership abilities he already had.
Those of you listing military service: why? How does it prepare you to be president? I don’t see how military service gives any advantage to being president. The ‘real world’ doesn’t exactly work like the military does. People don’t just follow orders just because you issue them.
Since the president is Commander in Chief, it would be helpful for them to have some military experience. It’s not a huge issue for me, but if there were two presidential candidates with very similar resumes and similar positions, I’d be more inclined to support the one who had military experience.
Nah…Coolidge was just governor of Mass. and then vice president.
The real answer is James Buchanan. State representative for 6 years, member of the House of Representatives for 10, ambassador to Russia for 2 years, US Senator for 11, Supreme Court nominee, Secretary of State for 4 years, ambassador to Britain for 3.
So someone with a Harvard MBA, no legal background, with experience in the oil patch, who ran a Major League Baseball team, and served in the Air National Guard, before serving as governor of a large state, would be your dream candidate?
