Presidents and Experience: A Myth? (John F. Kennedy/Lincoln vs. Dick Cheney/Richard Nixon)

In the run-up to what could be the decisive contests for the Democratic nomination, Obama's relatively light political résumé — eight years as an Illinois legislator and three years in the U.S. Senate — continues to be the focus of his rivals' attacks. Hillary Clinton advertises her seven years in the Senate and two terms as First Lady, saying "I am ready to lead on Day One." And the message has gotten through: by clear margins, voters rate her as the more experienced of the two candidates. The fact that this hasn't stopped Obama's momentum doesn't mean he's heard the last of it — not with John McCain, who has spent 26 years on Capitol Hill, the likely Republican nominee. "I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced," says McCain. "I know how the world works."

Obama's credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors. Depending on what your leanings are, you could compare his work history — lawyer, state legislator, Washington short-timer, orator — to Abraham Lincoln's, or to a thousand forgotten figures in politicalgraveyard.com. The question of experience takes on added bite this year, though, because the next President will inherit a troubled and menacing satchel of problems. From the Iraq tightrope to the stumbling economy, from the China challenge to the health-care mess, from loose nukes to oil dependence to (some things never change) Cuba policy — the next President will be tossed a couple dozen flaming torches at the end of the inaugural parade, and it would be helpful to know that this person has juggled before.

But if one moral of the Bay of Pigs is "Beware of charisma" or "Timeworn trumps callow," what do we make of the mistakes and miscalculations of deeply experienced leaders? Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed court-packing scheme, for example, or Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy? For that matter, Kennedy would not have faced such a harsh early tutorial if the venerable warrior and statesman Dwight D. Eisenhower had not allowed the Cuba-invasion plan to be put in motion during the last of his eight years as President.

There's something egglike about the concept of experience as a qualification for the highest office. At first blush, the idea appears to be something you can get your hands around. Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to cajole the Congress, understanding when to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when to call on the National Security Council — that sort of thing. But bear down even slightly, and the notion of experience is liable to crack and run all over. If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along. Lyndon Johnson, for example: his experience as a master legislator no doubt helped as he steered his historic civil rights and welfare agenda to passage. By the end of two years as President, however, "he was out of gas," recalls Johnson aide Harry McPherson. The longer Johnson was in the Oval Office, the more feckless his presidency became.

Was it Franklin Roosevelt's experience as governor of New York that gave him the power to inspire in some of the nation's darkest hours? Or was that gift a distillate of his dauntless battle with polio? To a keen student of human nature, all of life offers lessons in how to lead, inspire and endure. Lincoln's ability to apply useful lessons from his motley experiences was among his most striking traits. When Ulysses Grant explained his grand strategy to defeat Lee by attacking on multiple fronts, Lincoln immediately thought of a lesson in joint operations learned years earlier on the farm. "Those not skinning can hold a leg," he said approvingly. For other temperaments, no amount of schooling, no matter how specific, will do. Richard Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator and Vice President; he watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best-organized administrations in history. When Nixon's turn came, though, his core character — insecure, insincere, conspiratorial — led him to create a White House doomed by its own dysfunction.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926-2,00.html

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Presidential
• experience
• Barack
• Obama
• inexperienced
• john
• Mccain
• economy
• speech
• interview
• debate
• energy
• oil
• gas
• prices
• NAFTA
• tax
• cuts
• foreign
• Middle
• East
• policy
• Iraq
• war
• vice
• president

[Veetoria]

This is dead on correct...

Experience is great...but it can sometimes make you fearful or blond you...I think character is most important and who understands and cares for the American people more...

In my mind, that is not the candidate that has 7 houses, 12 cars and a jet...but the man who has one house, a car and a bike...

[politicalfarce]

Chaney is very experienced. Look what a nice job he did.

[CircusofPython]

The only experience that is valid is having already been President for one term. The job of Head of State and Head of Government is like no other, and no other government job can adequately prepare one for the role.

[celciaM]

What he said its to not evaluate someone from their experience time, its to evaluate someone from their judgment and vision, and most of all their intelligence and values, since were are not born with the same characteristics our actions can are different regarding our experience time.

[awwfriend]

He wasn't really. Im not a republican, im not American. Lincoln said "if i could save the union without freeing any of the slaves i would, if i could save the union by freeing some of the slaves i would, if i could free all the slaves to save the union i would". im studying this atm in history in higher education. i guess lincoln did succeed in many areas such as reconstruction after the civil war however i wouldn't say he was the most successful so therefore not the best.

[Frasure3000]

exactly. me too

[Frasure3000]

you are absolutely right.

[Frasure3000]

excuse excuse.

[Frasure3000]

oh really? lmfao. i bet ur saying that because he was republican. lincoln was one of the best, if not the best president in US history.

[azzy1965]

ok the 100 day 8 year thing sounds like a shot from the passionate squirt gun you carry on your side. even my 13 year old understands this. the 8 years bush was prez, these 2 countrys were conceiving plans to do this any way. his attention span was on 1 thing. war. you know it i know it, we all know it

[azzy1965]

all you just said was happening before obama was even elected  fact

[awwfriend]

Lincoln did not succeed.