The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Judgment and Ideology Matter Far More Than ‘Executive Experience'

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Judgment and Ideology Matter Far More Than ‘Executive Experience'

By John R. Guardiano on 8.17.11 @ 5:11PM

Are members of the House of Representatives qualified to be President of the United States? Daniel Larison doesn't think so. Thus he judges both Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan as "unqualified" for the Oval Office.

And he adds:

Even if the party were inclined to accept a young House member, the electorate would not, because a large majority would find such a nominee to be ill-prepared for the position.

This has become a common refrain among elite pundits such as Larison and David Frum. They seem to think that, in order to be politically viable and credible, a presidential candidate must have "executive experience."

Of course, executive experience is always helpful. And it is true that, with the notable exception of Obama, most of our recent presidents have had executive experience. But that hasn't always been the case.

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman all had little or no executive experience. Yet no one would say that their presidencies failed or fell short because of this. Their presidencies might have fallen short for other reasons, but not, it seems to me, because of a lack of executive experience.

And no, being vice president doesn't count. The vice president has historically been a figurehead who wields no real executive authority. (Dick Cheney might have been the lone exception to this rule.)

The Constitution, moreover, doesn't say anything about House members being "unqualified" to be president. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, in fact, makes the Speaker of the House of Representatives third in line, behind the vice president, to become president in the event that the president or vice president is killed, dies, or becomes incapacitated.

The obsession with "executive experience" also stems from a misunderstanding of the presidency. The president is as much an administrator and delegator as he is an executive. He appoints a vast array of cabinet officers and officials who will do the actual executive work of government.

Now, this isn't always true. In defense and foreign policy especially, the president often must make executive command decisions that only he can make. But the success of these "command decisions" depends far more upon ideological bearings and good judgment than it does upon "executive experience."

All of which is to say that Congressmen Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan have every reason to run for president, and voters have every reason to take them seriously.

View all comments (24) | Leave a comment

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:25PM

Speaking of poor judgment with executive experience (no, Clint, put down your pen---you're gonna agree with me on this one)---Bloomberg is inviting families only to the 9/11 commemorations, excluding first responders.

What a huge, flaming, lowlife, asshole.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 5:33PM

We are being set up by The GOP Ruling Elite & Their Media Flunkies for their "Annointed One", Mittens Romney.

Start now to stop them.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.11 @ 5:37PM

I'll vote for Romney and The Gov over Barack, but I won't be thrilled.

Now Michele is as hot intellectually---as her PANTS! It's nice to have beauty and brains all in one chick.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 6:06PM

Just like I said.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.11 @ 10:01AM

There is no doubt Bachmann is attractive, and she is an articulate spokeswoman for her wing of the Republican party.

I'm curious about what makes her seem exceptionally gifted intellectually.

I think generally most people who make it to and keep their seats in Congress have some intellectual ability; it's a hard job to keep if you're an idiot.

But what about her makes her stand out to you among other legislators as an intellectual?

Trinacria| 8.17.11 @ 5:55PM

Mr. Guardiano,

You cite the following examples of presidents with little or no executive experience: Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman.

With all due respect (and at the extreme risk of pointing out the obvious), one would be hard pressed to find more compelling examples to support the contrary view.

Kingofthenet| 8.17.11 @ 6:09PM

these so called "born agains", like the New Apostolic Reformation "ministers" that both Bachmann and Perry pander to, want to turn America into a Christian version of Iran. these people are the ultimate "WE Know What's Good for YOU" crowd

IF these people ever get REAL political power, you can kiss freedom in America goodby

and as a side note, when I hear these so called evangelist preachers, it sounds like they are quoting from the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition rather than the Holy Bible.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 6:13PM

Wow, King.
If you really believe what you say then you are delusional.
What you believe is actually the exact opposite of the truth.
Christians want to keep America free. It's the Left that seeks to destroy your freedoms.
Haven't you learned that yet? Do you enjoy what Obama has done to this country?

beebop| 8.18.11 @ 5:46AM

The point is that he doesn't believe it. He is just doing the Labron thing -- blowing chalk dust.

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:18PM

Looking in the mirror again, king of useful idiots? You really need to get some help.

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:12PM

Since 1789, 19 Presidents and 33 major presidential nominees served in the U.S. House of Representatives at some point in their career.
Garfield is the only sitting member of the House of Representatives to have been elected President.

albert constantine jr| 8.17.11 @ 6:30PM

While all executive experience is not the same, I seem to recall that one thing that Truman, Nixon, Kennedy, Ford and Garfield had in common as far as executive experience is service as a military officer. While all billets and positions are not one of command, and the level of obedience and control one experiences in the military is significantly different that the civilian world, I nevertheless think that such a background better prepares one for the office of the presidency much better than that of community organizer.

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:40PM

Agreed. Check out the link below. Enjoy.

Clint| 8.17.11 @ 6:51PM

AndOne Of Our Tea Party Candidates Michele Bachmann would be The First Women, & Obama Is The First Black And The First Tea Party Candidates In Congress were elected & Our Other First Tea Party Candidate & Co-favorite Dr. Ron Paul Is Running.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:15PM

Remember being a senator does not qualify as having executive experience either. The whole argument is bogus and frankly really getting old.

simon templar| 8.17.11 @ 6:28PM

A little i-candy for my friends, OT, Margie, OF, and all. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 1:33AM

He is truly a pygmy.

Mike 3/505| 8.17.11 @ 10:37PM

Truman was an Artillery Battery Commander in the Army...executive experience...he also owned a store...executive experience. JFK commanded PT-109...executive experience.

Executive experience includes that "judgement" thing.

Not only is Obama's ideology wrong, but his inexperience keeps him from running an "effective wrong policy."

Regards,

Mike

Jocon307| 8.17.11 @ 10:49PM

Mike makes a good point that "executive" experience doesn't mean just holding an elected office as an executive.

But I actually want to quibble with Mr. Guaridano's phrase regarding the line of succession to the presidency.

You wrote " [the Speaker of the House becomes] president in the event that the president or vice president is killed or incapacitated."

Why do you say "killed" instead of "dies". Certainly it is if the President or Vice President dies, regardless of their manner of death.

(G-d forbid and a long life to all who hold office)

This is sloppy writing.

Sorry to be a big old nag!

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.18.11 @ 2:57AM

Mr Guardiano,

You are flat wrong. You are wrong on all counts. Your entire article is total garbage. I expected a better article from you. This garbage is the sort of thing that I would expect from Antle or Bandow, but not from a respectable journalist like you.

You dismissed Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, and Truman as supposedly lacking executive experience before they assumed the Presidency. I will not even mention the fact that all of them except Truman were, AFAIK, failed Presidents. I'm just going to say that with the exception of Kennedy, this is untrue. All four of these guys were MUCH more accomplished than Bachmann or Paul before they assumed the office of President.

Nixon was Vice President for eight years, during which time he often chaired the Cabinet (when Eisenhower was ill). Before that, he was the guy who got rid of Alger Hiss. Ford was the House GOP leader and a Vice President before he assumed the Presidency via succession. Truman served as Vice President, Chairman of the Truman Committee (which saved taxpayers $200 bn in today's money, while Bachmann has not saved taxpayers a cent), and, before that, as an Army Colonel and as commander of an artillery battery. The least experienced of these four guys, Kennedy, had 14 years of Congressional experience under his belt - 6 years as a Congressman and 8 years as a Senator - before he was sworn in as President. It is insulting to these guys to even compare Bachmann and Paul to them.

You then wrote that the Speaker is second in the succession line. That's right, THE SPEAKER. Michele Bachmann is not, and has never been, the speaker of the House. She has never even chaired a House Committee or Subcommittee. She is not even considered one of the GOP's legislative leaders on Capitol Hill. (Are you listening, Ron Paul?)

You then claim that "The obsession with "executive experience" also stems from a misunderstanding of the presidency. The president is as much an administrator and delegator as he is an executive." You are wrong, Mr Guardiano. Those who say that executive experience is necessary are right and have shown that they understand the Presidency. You don't. The President is the Chief Executive of the country. He is responsible for the vast federal government in DC (which, of course, should be downsized, but it will take an experienced executive to do that) and the US military, as well as relations with foreign countries, including peer competitors like Russia and China. And contrary to your claim that the President is a delegator, the President has to make many decisions (including ALL of the most important decisions) himself. As President Truman rightly said in 1953, "The papers may circulate around the Government for a while, but they finally reach this desk. And then, there is nowhere else for them to go. The President - whoever he is - has to make a decision. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That is his job."

The very title of your article is ridiculous and wrong. Politics is about pragmatism, getting things done, and compromise, NOT about ideology. No President - not even Reagan - governed the country 100% consistently with a particular ideology. The President has to set priorities, pick his fights wisely, uncompromisingly defend his priorities, and compromise when necessary on non-priorities.

The Presidency is too important a job to entrust it to a rookie Congresswoman. The US entrusted it to inexperienced Senators a few times, and look: what happened? JFK nearly got the US nuked and Obama's litany of failures is too long to list it here. It is no coincidence that EVERY person elected President since 1896, except Kennedy and Obama, had some executive experience.

Michele Bachmann appeals to most grassroots supporters of her party. She's an uncompromising ideologue. She also has no executive experience, no record of accomplishments, and little Congressionale experience. Hmm. Didn't the American people elect someone with exactly that resume in 2008? If yes, what are the results?

What you and other Bachmann supporters need to realize, Mr Guardiano, is that Bachmann is not qualified to be dog catcher, let alone President.

JimH| 8.18.11 @ 8:08AM

Kennedy did at least command men in combat. In light of his later political decisions I'm not sure how much that was worth.

Mike 3/505| 8.18.11 @ 8:52AM

Jimmy,

Executive Experience....critical to be POTUS. As Truman said..."the buck stops here." Store owners, CEOs, Military Commanders, POTUS, are all executives, the single place where a decision gets made.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.11 @ 9:52AM

Mr Guardiano writes:

"[T]he success of these 'command decisions' depends far more upon ideological bearings and good judgment than it does upon 'executive experience.'

I agree entirely with this; however, I want to cavil with the use of the word "ideology."

Can't we go back to calling a person's general beliefs about government, justice, politics, and so on a "political philosophy"? Other terms, like "worldview," might be substituted as desired.

"Ideology" is a vague word that has so many conflicting meanings that it almost seems meaningless.

It's a delicious irony that people on the *right* use this word these days much more often than people on the left. (The term was not invented by Marx, but Marx is responsible for the way the word has been used by political thinkers for the past 150 years or so.) At any rate, the word so often means beliefs of which we are not aware or that we do not choose by reasoned deliberation -- interested beliefs, as it were -- that it can almost seem comical to have advocacy journalists calling for their candidates to have a stronger "ideology."

BD57| 8.18.11 @ 11:22AM

Where "executive experience" has value, IMO, is primarily in training its possessor to make decisions and accept responsibility for the same. It's also helpful if, in the process, one learns how to manage subordinates - find good ones, identify & get rid of the bad ones, etc. - the kind of things you have to do to see to it that your decisions are honored by those who are supposed to implement them.

With that said, "executive experience" is neither "good" nor "bad" in and of itself. "To what end?" is what matters .... if "executive experience" would make the Obama machine more efficient, then I'm thrilled it's lacking.

These days, bragging about "Washington experience" ....

"Hey, you need me in DC!!!! Why? Because I've been there the past 20 years!!!!! What? Yes, we've run up a lot of debt during that period .... No, we haven't done a thing about Social Security & Medicare even though we've known there's a train wreck in our future the whole time .... No, we've never made a serious effort to get a handle on it, even though there were periods when we could've taken a shot at it ...

But, Hey!!!! Elect me!!!! I know how this place works!!!!

I'm glad Obama's agenda has been hampered