He served four terms in the Illinois House; one term in the federal House - which ended in 1849. His next political experience was a losing effort in the Illinois Senatorial election of 1858. Yet he was elected President of the United States in 1860.
The second greatest President in our history would not even be nominated today, let alone elected.
There has not been a President elected since 1952 who has not been an (ex)governor, (ex)Senator, or (ex)Vice-President. We’ve become an oligarchy of sorts. Why?
The federal government is so much bigger and so much more complicated than it was in the 1860s. IIRC, the federal budget in the 1800s was typically 3% of GDP, whereas it’s close to 20% today. The US was also not a world power in the mid 1880s. We’re an entirely different country-- much more centralized and much more of player on the worlds stage.
He might not have been elected in 1860 had the Democrats presented a united front (got something like 40% of the vote; but he did take the Electoral College, so this is open to dispute).
I personally find it difficult to pluck someone out of history, dump him into the present, and declare what would happen. Guess I lack imagination. . . .
Seems most of our presidents have had prior political experience. You mention Eisenhower; I don’t think Herbert Hoover held any other elective office; before that you may have to go back to U.S. Grant. (In fact, I think most of the “non-political” presidents were Famous Generals.)
On edit: a question for Lincoln scholars - is it possible that the folks who elected Lincoln had little expectation of winning in 1860? Their previous (and only other) nominee didn’t do too hot in '56; and the Republican party was made up mostly of recycled Whigs, who had been loosing elections for half a generation.
But how does that account for governors being elected, and how does it account for no Representatives being elected, or even nominated?
BJMoose, you’re correct. Hoover had no elected office, but was famous for his humanitarian work and was Secretary of Commerce under his predecessor. Someone else who wouldn’t be nominated or elected today.
That was an accurate statement in 1860, and necessary. Big business back then actually was what you think it is now. Today is an entirely different world. Lincoln was a smart man, I doubt he’d say the same thing in today’s world.
Hope you’ll forgive the slight hijack, Frank, but can anyone think of any president besides Hoover who neither held any previous office nor was what I’ve just taken to calling a Famous General?
Hijack a Mod’s thread? I must be nuts. . . .
No, that would be interesting. Frankly, I only went back to '52 because that was as far back as I could be sure from off-the-top-of-my-head knowledge. Anyone who can add is welcome.
This is my fault. I was attempting to draw attention to the question by using a famous name as an example. He is only an example.
Yes, he’d point out that big business IS just as ruthless as it ever was, that labor is still more basic than capital, and that the Republicans are definitely the party that wants to elevate business to godhood. And the fact that he wasn’t a slavering-at-the-mouth capitalism-at-any-cost-socialism-is-the-devil sort would likely cost him the election. Especially if he ran as a Republican.
And you are wrong. Completely and utterly. As usual. Socialist leanings made sense in Lincoln’s America. They do not make sense today, if anything the pendulum has swung too far in that it’s the excesses of labor that need to be curtailed. Lincoln would be smart enough to see this, so I highly doubt he’d be spouting socialist drivel.
Also, William Howard Taft. He had had a bunch of appointed positions (Solicitor general, gov. of the Phillipines, Secretary of War) but no elected offices.
There barely exists a labor movement at all in America. When it comes to labor issues most Americans are passive victims who can be treated like garbage, not activists.
If Dick Cheney can become VP, I see no barrier to the undead attaining high office.
As for the central question, it might be rephrased slightly differently: must a president come from the professional politician class? Not too many major candidates today come from outside this class; Fred Thompson is the only example in recent years I can think of, and look how well he did.