Almost every President in the modern era was a military general, Vice President, Senator or governor prior to being elected to the Presidency.
Assuming that the following candidates matched your political views/platforms:
Is a candidate qualified enough for the Presidency, if his or her highest previous political experience was the House of Representatives?
Is a candidate qualified enough for the Presidency, if his or her highest previous political experience was that of a state legislator?
Is a candidate qualified enough for the Presidency, if his or her highest previous political experience was the mayorship of a big city (i.e., Los Angeles, New York)?
Is a candidate qualified enough for the Presidency, if his or her highest previous political experience was the mayorship of a relatively small city (Albuquerque, Sacramento, Spokane, etc.)?
Is a candidate qualified enough for the Presidency, if he or her has no political experience whatsoever, but is an accomplished person (i.e., scientist, inventor, author, professor, etc.)?
Very clever, but the OP is asking for responses that are more along the lines of the minimum qualifications to represent a major political paarty in November, not to take the oath of office in January.
IIRC, the only General elected after 1900 has been Eisenhower. And Supreme Commander Western Front was no common military posting.
You did not include a person with significant experience in *appointed *political/policymaking office (cabinet secretary, JCS, diplomat).
I’d amend your 2, 4 and 5 to be an accomplished person with a smaller-jurisdiction political experience. None whatsoever does not do it for me. And FWIW I’d throw the smaller states in to the level of the cities.
In the case of members of Congress, I’d also condition that if s/he has less than 4 years in US Representative/Senatorial office, they should have had some prior service at the state legislature or mayoral level.
Experience is something I see in a very flexible light. The President has to be able to simultaneously lead in two different styles - an authoritarian style (as Commander-in-Chief and head of the Executive branch) and a consensus-building style (in terms of getting Congressmen, other departments, other countries, even voters in general to agree with him).
I’m not so concerned with actual positions held as long as these experience qualifiers are met and so long as the candidate showed success in those areas. And seeing success sometimes takes a while - I’d want a candidate to have about 10 years of experience in each area. (And that tells you something about what I expect in age too. To get that much proven experience, a candidate for me is going to be 50+ years old).
Most business and military leaders and political executives (mayors and governors) have the authoritarian style of leadership down. So I’d like to see somewhere that they learned how to build a consensus.
And most political appointees and legislators are already strong on the consensus-building side, so I’d want to see some kind of business, military or executive experience.
So in the list provided, I’d have to look at what many of the other candidates did before, but 1-4 are all possibilities for me. Let’s say Joe founded a successful company and resigned as CEO so that he could be a successful state legislator. Good enough for me. Or he went from city council to mayor. OK.
Probably only #5 (no political experience) would be a deal-breaker, but I suppose it’s possible to get the types of experience I want without direct political experience.
I don’t consider it a minimum requirement, but I have to admit that I’m more comfortable with a presidential candidate that has spent some time as the governor of a state or even the mayor of a large city. It means that they’ve managed a large government/political organization before.
Which might, as a liberal, put me in a bit of a quandary come the next presidential election.
Being president is a pretty exceptional position.There aren’t any minimum qualifications for the job beyond being able to convince a majority of voters in enough states to get a majority in the electoral college.
If you are asking for the minimum qualifications needed to get my vote, that’s a different question. I would like to see some administrative experience where the candidate is responsible for handling large sums of money. I think that I would also like to see that the candidate has been elected to something at a significant level (congress, senate, governor) before trying for president.
These are not hard and fast requirements for me though. If the candidate has a political viewpoint that is compatible with mine, I would be willing to overlook deficiencies in the resume that would keep someone whose policies I really dislike out of office.
It’s probably not that significant anyway. The republic survived LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and 2 Bushes after all.
That’s going to depend on how much you like the candidate. Dan Quayle famously tried to argue that he was at least as qualified to be Vice President as John F. Kennedy was to be President. Neither William Howard Taft nor Herbert Hoover had ever been elected to any political office (nor high military rank) before they were elected President.
Wendell Willkie not only had no political experience at any level when he was nominated by the Republicans in 1940, he had been a Democrat supporting Roosevelt in 1932.
Wendell Willkie and his running mate, Senator Charles McNary, both died in 1944. That would have made for a strange scenario had they won.
I would vote for someone with zero political experience if I was impressed with their career and ideas, but only if they ran with someone like Biden or McCain to help navigate Congress.
Ideally, a Presidential candidate should have the following experience:
They should have held a major executive leadership position like Governor or Mayor of a large city, so they’re experienced in being the person in charge.
They should have served in Congress for several terms, so they understand how to get things done there.
They should have served as a Vice President or cabinet official, so they have experience in working in a White House administration.
They should have served as a Secretary of State or Defense or National Security Adviser or General or Admiral, so they understand national defense issues.
They should have worked as a banker or corporate executive, so they have experience of how the economy works.
They should have had lots of experience working outside of politics, so they understand the needs of ordinary people.
So just find somebody who fits this resume. And has all of the other qualifications to be President. And is willing to run for the job. And do it a second time so you have a Vice President ready to step in just in case.
At this point in time, I think an absolute LACK of political prior positions would be about my freaking favorite. Honestly? Fire every single politician in Washington and start from scratch. Screw everybody - how about having a government that actually will follow existing laws and ignore partisan politics and do what is actually best for the people of the country?
be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. The only exception to this was for those around at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their requirement was that they had to be a citizen when the Constitution was adopted. be at least 35 years of age. have lived in the United States for at least 14 years to be president.
In my opinion, state governors make the most productive presidents. The experience stands them in good stead, and is the closest thing there is to relevant experience.
Unfortunately, most voters vote on who they LIKE first and foremost, and on who they AGREE with second. They rarely consider who has the skills to get things done.
For example, I disagree with just about every position of Barack Obama. And I agree with just about every position of Ben Carson. But I don’t believe that EITHER of them are qualified to be president, since neither of them have the least bit of experience in navigating the ins and outs of the political system.
(of course, if one takes the opinion that “that government is best which governs least”, then the least qualified candidate is actually the best choice. I’m not opposed to that philosophy either.)
Barack Obama has more experience at being President and “navigating the ins and outs” of the Presidency then every living human on earth except for 2 people.
Not when he was a candidate. And that’s what we’re talking about.
Give me a knife and a bunch of people with brain tumors, and eventually I’ll be an experienced brain surgeon, too.