As we go through more rounds of presidential debates and
continue our trudge through the endless campaign we will hear a lot
about “experience.”
Those who have completed only one (John Edwards) or two (Fred
Thompson) or even no (Barack Obama) terms in the Senate will argue
their experience outside the Senate as lawyers or writers is also
relevant in assessing their ability to take on the intellectual
rigors of the presidency.
Conversely, if you have made your career in the Senate (John
McCain) or have been inside the White House before (Hillary
Clinton) you will make a compelling argument that in dangerous
times and with complex legislative battles ahead it is better to
know the ins and outs of the Washington power structure than storm
the gates for the first time.
Those whose experience is largely outside of Washington will
argue that running the nation’s largest city (Rudy Giuliani) or a
Democratic-dominated state (Mitt Romney) are the best training
grounds for dealing with a complex federal government and a
contentious opposing party.
There is certainly a case to be made that recent presidents like
Jimmy Cater and George W. Bush who lacked foreign policy experience
before ascending to the presidency fared poorly. Yet for every
Carter there is a Ronald Reagan who could see what the “experts”
could not — for example, the solution to the Cold War was “we win,
you lose.”
So experience in and of itself does not ensure success, nor is
there a single type of experience which might prepare one for the
presidency. Nevertheless, experience can be viewed as evidence the
candidate can do the job. Looked at this way, there are several
types of experience which may be helpful, indeed essential, in
determining presidential timber.
First, voters would do well to look for experience in dealing
with adversity or crisis. FDR survived personal adversity, JFK
became a hero in war, and Reagan was tested by personal hardship
and student riots. Later all were known for their mettle and grace
as president. Under stress has the candidate been cool, composed
and thoughtful or does adversity bring shrill defensiveness? The
presidency is not a TV ad — it cannot be scripted and you get no
retakes. It is fair for voters to look askance at the candidate who
might appear to offer nonchalance good cheer or folksy charm but
has never shown grit under fire — whether literal or
figurative.
Second, voters might want to see evidence of intellectual
creativity and imagination. As we vividly saw in the Bush
administration, advisors have limitations and are often wrong, so
ultimately we must rely on the president to generate an agenda and
work to solve both the political and policy problems of the day. A
well thought out philosophy of governance, the ability to
creatively solve problems and a record of innovation would be
compelling evidence that a candidate is up for the job. Is the
candidate recycling clever aphorisms or offering thoughtful
responses which show an active intellect?
Third, experience in leading a great enterprise can foretell the
ability to lead the country. Eisenhower led a war and Teddy
Roosevelt led the Rough Riders and the state of New York. Whether
heading a business, a city, a state or a legislative agenda, a
candidate can demonstrate skills he will need to tame the enormous
federal bureaucracy, competently select and fire advisors and
manage multiple endeavors. It is fine and sometimes necessary to
heckle government from the sidelines but we are selecting a chief
executive not a pundit.
Fourth, a candidate with experience in persuading and cajoling
those who disagree with him would demonstrate qualifications to
succeed at the bully pulpit, a key aspect of the modern presidency.
President Bush has been roundly criticized by both opponents and
supporters for lacking the ability to make his case on issues from
Iraq to immigration with clarity and without casting aspersions on
his foes. Has a candidate “sold” skeptical opponents or allies on a
course of action or a policy approach? The president is nothing if
not the persuader in chief and a record of persuading those who
disagree, not just pleasing those who agree, is essential to the
job.
It is easy in a campaign to get caught up in the latest debate
soundbite or the newest YouTube clip, but talk is cheap. Given the
demands of the presidency, it seems wise to be skeptical of a
novice and look for a record, not just a promise, of successful
leadership.
Since history demonstrates that there is no perfect resume to
guarantee a great or even good president, voters would be well
advised to look for evidence the candidate has done the things
he’ll have to do as president — navigate in a crisis, creatively
solve problems, lead large undertakings and convince others to
follow. The candidate who has done many or all of these deserves a
serious look; the candidate who hasn’t done any might be advised to
get some more experience.
