« A prayer to be rightly movedAlmost in time for my birthday »

10/06/08

Experience

Filed under: Politics — Kyle Email @ 09:11:02 am

My Republican friend Melanie wrote a post on her blog in which she quotes a conservative radio host as saying:

"We are at a critical time in our nation's history. And thanks to the failings of the Bush-Cheney administration, along with the incoherency of the McCain Campaign, we are about to hand the presidency to the most inexperienced, unqualified person to ever run for this office."

First of all, I think this statement is wrong on the face of it, for the simple fact that it claims Obama is the least qualified to ever run for president. Certainly he's more qualified than Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, both of whom ran multiple times in the general election. I'm sure that if you scour the history of losing presidential candidates you'll find plenty of others with little or no political experience.

But let's talk about people who actually held the office of the president. I did some quick Wikipedia research (come on, you know you do it too) and found out how many years our recent presidents held previous political offices before ascending to the presidency. For the sake of consistency I'm counting the time from when each individual was first elected to a political office to the year he was elected or appointed president. I am not counting any political party involvement, work on political campaigns, community organizing, or other non-elected office that may have preceded an elected office, even though one could argue that is also a kind of political experience.

Here are our 12 most recent presidents (plus one hopeful) in descending order of prior political experience:

Gerald Ford: 26 years
Harry S. Truman: 23 years
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 22 years
George H. W. Bush: 22 years
Richard Nixon: 20 years
Bill Clinton: 16 years
Lyndon B. Johnson: 15 years
John F. Kennedy: 14 years
Jimmy Carter: 14 years
Barack Obama: 12 years
Ronald Reagan: 10 years
George W. Bush: 6 years
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 0 years

In addition to Eisenhower, there are four men who have also held the office of president without holding any prior elected office: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, William Taft, and Herbert Hoover.

Later in her post Melanie criticizes the nature of Obama's experience:

What has he led? Senators do not lead. They write and vote on legislation.

This must be a new idea in American politics. Most of our presidents, including our greatest ones, have come from legislative backgrounds. It is only a recent trend, starting with Jimmy Carter, that has seen more state governors become presidents. This trend began not because governors are more experienced or qualified than legislators, but because after the Nixon presidency the voters wanted someone outside Washington (i.e., someone untainted by experience) to be president. The notion now that being a U.S. Senator somehow makes one less qualified to be president is absurd.

P.S. Using the same standard I used above, I count 8 years that Sarah Palin has held elected office.

5 comments

Comment from: Andrew [Member] Email · http://www.brendoman.com/andrew
Are you talkin' trash about my wife? Do we have to take this outside?

In all seriousness, you should comment on her blog. For sake of argument, I wonder what it would look like if you distinguish between say, state or local government and national government? I'm at work and don't have the time to look into that on my own right now.
10/06/08 @ 11:59
Comment from: melanie [Visitor]
my husband doesn't realize that i locked the comments on that post, not b/c i'm not interested in other opinions, but b/c it was mostly just a personal rant. i am GLAD though that you still refer to me as a friend after reading my post b/c i was afraid you might not.

i appreciate the insights on his experience, and i suppose i find it of some comfort, though my main concern is more with his liberalism.

i should add that in a huge way, my post was not directed at people like yourself who ARE liberals and are voting for Obama b/c you actually AGREE with him on most issues.

my question is for conservatives who are voting for him. that's the part i really don't get. if obama's election is an indictment of the last 8 years from liberals, then fine. but in my opinion, people who vote for obama can no longer call themselves conservatives. or at least you won't hear ME calling them that!

10/06/08 @ 12:10
Comment from: Kyle [Member] Email · http://www.brendoman.com/kyle
Sorry, Andrew. I didn't mean to slight Melanie by not commenting (I actually didn't know the comments were turned off, so that's no excuse). It's just that after putting some time into the math and the writing of this, I felt it deserved its own post on my blog. I hope that neither of you ever takes political disagreement personally. And I do think you have a good point about making a distinction between local, state, and national experience. I admit that Ronald Reagan's 10 years as governor of California were probably more valuable than Obama's 8 years as a state senator. But I don't think Obama's experience should be dismissed either. People tend to talk about him solely in terms of his four years in the US Senate, ignoring the fact that his political career began years before that. And Melanie, I see your point about conservatives voting for Obama. I would be frustrated if I knew otherwise liberal-minded people who supported a Republican president just because they were unhappy. I'm just pleased that it's working in the Democrats' favor for once. This may be the first year that I get to vote for the winner.
10/06/08 @ 13:07
Comment from: melanie [Visitor]
ha ha! i was totally thinking of you when i just read something about Reagan Democrats. wasn't reagan the greatest american to ever live or something? LOL

10/06/08 @ 13:24
Comment from: susan [Visitor]
Kyle, I found your blog thru our mutual friend, Mel.... bravo! Love the list!! Following up on Mel's comment about conservatives voting for Obama, what about all the Hillary-supporters who must sure as heck be liberals who say they're voting for Mac b/c they're pissed that Hillary didn't get the nomination?? A LOT of people don't vote on party lines, liberal v. conservative ideals, or any other "line".... we vote on the person we feel is most aligned with those issues closest to our core being. And for me, this time, it's Obama. I am proud to be part of the Obamanation!
10/07/08 @ 09:29

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

You can just use your OpenID to provide your name, e-mail and url.