The recently announced candidacies of Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson have me wondering about their chances of success. Clearly their lack of previous political experience doesn’t help them, as all recent presidents I can think of had previous political experience. But if we go further back, have there been any instances in which a person without political experience was elected to be president of the United States?
I don’t think Eisenhower had any actual political experience, unless you count being a general in the Army as “political” (and when you have to deal with guys like Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery, it could certainly feel that way).
Hoover?
Wilson? eta, forgot he was Governor of NY
Would you believe New Jersey?
Ulysses Grant
Yes, I would. I was rushing to beat the edit window and typed it wrong.
Secretary of Commerce.
Ain’t Wiki great? If you’re counting being an Army general as a political office, then no, there haven’t been any.
So it seems like if a candidate has prior military experience, that can be a way to “skirt the political requirement.” Which doesn’t apply to either Carson or Fiorina. Still interesting to learn that has happened, particularly as recently as Eisenhower.
Refresh my memory: what was George Washington’s political experience before becoming President?
He was in the First Continental Congress
He was involved in the leadup to the Revolutionary War. It was his already existing prestige that caused him to be appointed commander of the army in the war. It’s not like he was a political nobody before that.
Later, he was president of the constitutional convention.
And I think a member of the House of Burgessess in Virgina, for whatever that’s worth.
He was also elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758. While limited in various ways, this was a legislative body composed of elected representatives, so it would not be unreasonable to compare it to being a member of a state legislature today.
I would argue that high ranking general officers (especially during active wars) are essentially equivalent to cabinet positions, since they’re appointed directly by the President, subject to Congressional approval, and politics is part of their day to day job description. They do display a somewhat different skill set than people who have to run for elective office, though. In addition to Grant and Eisenhower, I’d suggest Zachary Taylor who was a general during the Mexican-American War but not the overall commander in that action. From what I can tell, he was almost as surprised as anyone else that he ended up as President.
We’re counting generals as political figures? Then there haven’t been any US Presidents without political experience.
In 1940, the GOP nominee for President was businessman Wendell Willkie, who’d never held any political office. He may come closest.
I remember Eisenhower’s quote about dealing with Churchill and DeGall. “On one side I have a man who thinks he talks to God and on the other, I have one that thinks he is God.” So yeah, he had political experience.
The Presidency is a political office far more than an executive one. Every President who got there directly from the military has found that the two systems are vastly different.
To be sure, the Presidency is different from everything, including the Senate and Governorships. There’s no way to prepare for it. But not having political experience is a huge handicap.
Yes. A Richard Brookhiser PBS special on Washington’s early political career included Brookhiser reading from a letter the young candidate wrote to his campaign manager, complaining about how expensive it was to buy booze for all the voters in his district.
Fun fact: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill all lost their first political campaigns.
Truman famously said of his successor, “Poor Ike. He’ll get here and say 'Do this, do that,” and pound his desk, and nothing will happen. It’s not at all like it is in the Army."
Yeah, you can’t think about military presidents without having that quote pop to the front of your mind.
nm