How important is experience for a presidential nominee?

Great Debates
1

I’ve heard both Republicans and Democrats rallying over the lack of experience the other party has (both for Obama and Palin), but it made me start to think… Exactly how important is executive experience for presidential/vice presidential nominees? I can see how experience would be important for a dictator, but for the president of a democracy who has access to experts, committees, cabinet members, and other resources, it seems a little less vital. How many individual, sole decisions does the president make on a daily basis that doesn’t involve briefings or other input from others?

Perhaps I’m severely underestimating the experience a presidential nominee really needs, but it just seems to me that because so many decisions are made by so many people, it’s not something that should be such a main focus…

2

No I think you have it right. I think anyone with a good head on the shoulders can perform the duties of President. They surround themselves with smart people who know every aspect of the duties and use common sense and precedent to follow or throw aside the advise given.

This is just chaff McCain threw out in the beginning in a half assed attempt at attacking Obama. That came back to bite him in the ass with his VP pick. And now the Obama camp is taking a same bite of the fluff pie.

3

I think there have been other threads on this topic, so I’m not sure how much discussion you’ll get out of this one.

But, here’s my take on the experience issue:
The Presidency is a completely unique position, and no other position provides the requisite experience for the job. What we should focus on, instead, is a person’s innate abilities - their intelligence, their wisdom, their inquisitiveness, their charisma, their leadership skills, et al. - that suggest that they will be able to handle the tasks presented to them.

Prior experience, then, is valuable insofar as it demonstrates that a person has the skills we are looking for. If we see how they previously handled a stressful crisis situation, we can get an idea of how they will handle the next stressful crisis situation. Previous experience gives us a data set that we can examine.

But experience merely serves as an example of what a person can do. The necessary skills, though, can be present even without the prior examples. We just have to look elsewhere to get an idea of how they might perform, such as by looking at their work experience, their education, their writings, or their current performance on the national stage.

I suppose that someone without a lot of experience is a wildcard; if they haven’t been a governor for 30 years, we don’t have a long track record to see how they might deal with various executive situations. In this election, though, none of the candidates have decades of executive experience, so any choice must be based on an examination of their innate qualities.

But that doesn’t mean that none of them are qualified, nor does it mean we are doomed by their ignorance of what the President must do. I’m comforted by the thought that Abraham Lincoln had very little experience when he became President during one of the most turbulent times in our nation’s history, yet his personal attributes ably guided him through his Presidency. Given a sufficient skill set, lack of experience is no detriment.

4

As brought up in other threads on the subject, Cheney and Rumsfeld had plenty of executive experience, and yet they still screwed up. They knew how to handle government bureaucracy and how to get their agenda moving, but their agenda was incredibly narrow minded.

What we need is someone with a history of making high quality decisions and someone who gives the impression that they know how to make such decisions. That’s why I think Obama’s win over Hillary makes him a great choice. He knows how to get things done. He sized up the election, came up with a long term strategy, and executed it flawlessly. Even with the Reverend Right scandal he didn’t back down. He answered the criticism with brutal honestly, a tactic I don’t remember any other politician trying, and it worked. I consider it strong mark of intelligence when you know what works besides conventional wisdom.

5

I think I could tell you, by age 25, whether or not someone would ever make a good president. Me? I’d be horrible. I’m unorganized, change my mind a lot, impulsive, don’t like to be bothered by working much more than 40 hours per week, like to leave my work at the office, etc. Those qualities will increase and decrease in intensity over the years but they are unlikely to ever profoundly change. Experience means next to nothing for me. A little bit is probably necessary just so the candidate knows what he’s getting himself into, but too much can just as easily be a detriment as too little, IMO.

Schwarzengger has been a pretty good governor of the largest state in the union without any experience. I know his approval ratings are low right now but they’re still higher than the last governor - a career politician - and he has been re-elected.

6

I used to think the only “experience” that could qualify one for President is having been President. Given our current administration, I’ve had second thoughts on that too.

7

In random order:

  1. The person should have extensive experience dealing lawmakers.
  2. The person should have extensive experience negotiating with people.
  3. The person should have exposure to powerful people.
  4. The person should have exposure to a variety of cultures.
  5. The person should have an understanding of history and the origins of the great issues of the day.
  6. The person should have contacts. He should know who to turn to for information and advice.

The person should have extensive experience dealing with lawmakers.
This is another way of say “Know your business.” The President isn’t a legislator, but law defines his power and is his tool for implementing policy.

The person should have extensive experience negotiating with people.
This is the essence of politics, and the wider the range of the negotiations the better: negotiating from strength, from weakness, negotiation with the trustworthy and the lying, negotiation with your enemies and with your friends.
**
The person should have exposure to powerful people.**
The President should not be intimidated when dealing with the world’s wealthiest and most dangerous. I think only extensive exposure to powerful people can bring this about.
**
The person should have exposure to a variety of cultures.**
This is related to having exposure to powerful people. The only way to truly understand the humanity of cultures other than your own is to know a few members personally.
**
The person should have an understanding of history and the origins of the great issues of the day.**
If you don’t know about America’s wars, labor struggles, race relations, and religious histories you’re going in handicapped.
**
The person should have contacts.**
Most of the President’s work is delegation, and the more you personally know about the people you’re delegating to, the better. If you know three honorable people who are experts in South American affairs, that’s better than knowing zero.

Almost any other experience can be beneficial including being in the military, running a business or living in poverty, but they aren’t as important as the six in the list.

As for how important those things are in order to be a successful president, I’d say that depends on the crisis’s the president faces in office. At some times in history it’s possible to bob along without knowing much. But I regard my list as a baseline for considering someone for the job.