-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Philip Klein and John McCormack have chimed in with their take on the relative or overstated importance of “executive experience” in a presidential candidate. At issue for both men, as it is for me, is whether Rep. Paul Ryan should run for president. (Also at issue, of course, is whether Michele Bachmann is a viable and creditable presidential candidate. I say: she absolutely is.)
McCormack seems to agrees with my contention that “judgment and ideology are far more important than ‘executive experience.’”
One of a president’s most important jobs, he writes,
is to enact good policies. That requires intelligence, sound judgment and principles, the ability to persuade, courage, and character. Real leadership, as opposed to executive experience, is what matters.
One needn’t sign bills into law as a governor to be a leader. After all, one-term former congressman and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln did not have any executive experience when he was nominated in 1860. But he did lead on the most pressing issue of the day by proving in the Lincoln-Douglas debates to be the most persuasive opponent of the expansion of slavery.
I’m not putting Ryan on the same pedestal as our nation’s finest president, but Lincoln clearly shows that one doesn’t need to be a CEO or a governor to be a good president. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were all governors.
And yet all four were very different presidents. The reason Carter was the worst isn’t because he didn’t have as much experience as the others. It’s because he was the most liberal.
Klein disagrees, but really doesn’t offer, I think, a very compelling reason why. He says that the federal government has gotten a lot bigger and more complex, which is true, but so what? That’s hardly prima facie evidence that a president requires “executive experience.”
Instead, what it means, I think, is that a president today has a lot more critical appointments to make. He has to appoint talented and capable executive officers who can well manage the federal behemoth and rein in the bureaucracy.
This, unfortunately, is where George W. Bush seemed to fall short. He appointed, for instance, Michael D. Brown as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Yet Brown seemed ill prepared for this job and out of his depth. And so, when Hurricane Katrina struck, the result was a bureaucratic disaster compounded on top of a natural disaster.
Phil does offer up a more compelling political rationale for “executive experience” in a presidential candidate. “The way you defeat incumbents,” he argues,
is not merely by going after their policies, but by making the case that they are incompetent. The incompetence argument is one that appeals to voters who may disagree with you ideologically. It’s how Rudy Giuliani defeated David Dinkins as mayor in the liberal New York City and how Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.
To take back the White House in 2012, Republicans will have to win over independents who voted for Obama over John McCain. An important part of the anti-Obama message will be: “You took a chance last time on somebody young and inexperienced, and it turns out he’s completely out of his depth.” It’s much easier to make that argument with a candidate who has executive experience.
Phil may be right about this; but if so, that’s only because too many analysts have hoodwinked the American people into misunderstanding the nature of the presidency. Again, “the president is as much an administrator and delegator as he is an executive.”
Phil acknowledges McCormack’s point that “there are a number of governors who have been bad presidents.” However, Phil adds, “there’s no doubt that in Reagan’s case, for instance, the experience of having managed a large state, grappled with the legislature, dealt with crises, and overcome mistakes, was a huge asset once he became president.”
Again, executive experience is always helpful; I certainly wouldn’t discount it. But Phil doesn’t fully explain how, exactly, Reagan’s “executive experience” was crucial to his success as president. Instead, he assumes that which he wants to believe for political reasons.
The truth is that a good presidential candidate, and a good president, need not have executive experience. What they do require is good life and professional experience to help inform their judgment and public policies. And, on that score, both Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan are eminently well qualified.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/19/putting-executive-experience-i
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.19.11 @ 8:45PM
The President's job is basically like that of the Roman Emperors at the Colosseum, you give the thumbs up, or you give the thumbs down. You don't do any of the training, you don't do any of the work, you don't do any of the fighting, you don't do any of the killing, you just make the big "scary" decision, "to do something", or "to not do something". And then you sign your decision onto paper with a,..... wait for it,...... with a pen!! It's not that tough a job at all!! Except for the occasional paper-cut, I guess!!
The only difference between the Roman Emperor and U.S. President, at least the Roman Population didn't have to see and hear what the Emperor had to say every single week, of every single month, of every painful year of their rule. So in a way, the Romans got off kind of light!!
Now Reagan wasn't a Great President because he was a Governor beforehand, he was a Great President because he had principles that he truly believed in, and he didn't sell them out depending on what the polls were saying that day, or which way the wind was blowing that week.
And Giuliani wasn't a Great Mayor because he was a, oh wait a second here, he wasn't an Executive before he was a Great Mayor, oops my bad!!
Giuliani was a Great Mayor, because he had principles and he stuck to what he believed in, and also because Mayor Dinkins was a complete **cking disaster, so anybody would have been an improvement over that Human Tornado. And just in case you don't agree with me on Giuliani, I've got proof, thousands of New Yorkers who weren't murdered because Giuliani became Mayor completely agree with me (so there!!).
I could be the next President, because it's not a tough job, here's my interview.
Mr President should we spend more money than we take in every single year for no apparent reason, other than that we're completely irresponsible and corrupt, and we want to ruin the lives of the unborn American Citizens who will have to clean up all our mistakes after we dead?
Me as President: No!! We should spend less!! And you're all fired too!!
See, that's easy!! It's thumbs up, or thumbs down!! Which is also my campaign's motto too, "Thumbs Down in 2012!!". Kind of catchy, huh? I think it'll look good on a bumper sticker too, not that I'd put one of them on my car, I think they're childish, but that's just me!!
The "real" problem that accounts for most of our problems as a Nation, going back many decades now is, People keep electing Democrats, as Mayors, as Governors, and as Presidents, and the Democratic Party just sucks!! "Thumbs down" on the Democratic Party!! See, it's easy!! All right, so the point I'm trying to make here is, Paul Ryan is not a Democrat, so he's completely qualified to be the next President with or without Executive experience.
John Guardiano | 8.20.11 @ 9:38AM
Lullabys, Legends and Lies --
Thanks for your note, which had me rolling with laughter. You have a future as a humorist! Or maybe you are one already?
Best,
John
Dai Alanye | 8.21.11 @ 3:58PM
It should be pointed out that Willy Clinton had executive experience yet made a complete botch of his first two years in office. Newt and Dick Morris saved him from failure--the one by forcing budget reforms, the second by introducing the political tool of "triangulation.".
Instinct beats experience in performing the office of President. Michelle Bachmann is more a cheerleader than a statesman yet have we any doubts she'd make fewer blunders than Obama?
Of course even Hillary would have made fewer blunders than Obama, as would almost anyone down to Joe Biden.
Nite| 8.19.11 @ 9:59PM
Obama doesn't have experience of any kind except playing golf and community organizing. We can all see how that turned out.
WJ| 8.20.11 @ 9:03AM
Obama amnesties millions of illegals and TAS still has nothing to say about it. This site is losing relevance.
Tom Osterman| 8.20.11 @ 11:05AM
More to the point, a President must constantly persuade the American people of the wisdom and soundness of his policies. Since this means taking a great deal of heat, he also needs backbone, a clear understanding of what he wants to do and the ability to sell his policies. Mere managerial ability isn't enough.
Mimi| 8.20.11 @ 4:35PM
I think a person's character is the MOST important...Then JUDGEMENT!If the Present office holder was truthful and was trusted, and a simple knowing that the RIGHT thing would be done and the best choices for the country were expected even if his PARTY views were different it could be tolerated and some kind of respect given.
Lies don't work and crazy ideas foriegn to our liberty and freedom expectations force us to become disrespectful and shout out contempt...and I am sure others feel this way!
Tom Osterman| 8.20.11 @ 7:47PM
A person's character should be the most important, but isn't. Look at the '92 election. Bush 41 was clearly a man of far better character than Bill Clinton, but Clinton talked circles around him in the election. The inability to persuade the people to vote for you is a crippling if not fatal flaw in a politician in an election. You can't expect the voters to notice your character, and you for sure can't just tell them you have good character.
Oldefarte| 8.20.11 @ 3:11PM
I'll respectfully disagree with John's point, since [the correct professional] experience is highly critical to the job of POTUS. A president is/should be an administrator/manager who [as with Reagan] knows how to MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS [and has the political courage to do so correctly], to delegate his authority [and not attempt to micro-manage subordinates/events], and the ability to PROBLEM SOLVE CORRECTLY. This current president [and many others] simply does not have the faintest idea as to how to do any of these things, and even if he did so have, he would choose not to do thus because of his radical/extremist liberal philosophy. He wants everyone dependent upon the government for survival in order to politically manipulate them and their votes, and that is disasterous to this country. We are [and thrive under] CAPITALISM and become bankrupt under SOCIALISM. In line with this thought, please view the following HUMOR from a current bestselling book passage [uh oh, the SPACE/VERBAGE POLICE are going to get me for this longetivity no doubt]:
'......Pick a fight with a liberal on: ELITISM.Liberals believe in egalitarianism. They don't often get called on it, though, because no one bothers to defend elitism—but you should. Ask a liberal, "So you really disapprove of competition and hierarchy and achievement and want everything to be equal do you? Well, answer me this, if you were president and you needed a handful of troops to do a delicate, dangerous job, who would you turn to—a unit of racially and sexually and disability diverse troops or the elite: Special Forces, Navy Seals, Delta Force? When you watch football, assuming you're willing to watch something so violent and competitive, do you want to watch the elite, the best of the best, the professionals who made it to the NFL on the basis of their talent and training, or a United Nations coordinated rainbow coalition of teams drawn from men and women from around the world to make it a truly global unisex game? Or suppose you needed serious surgery, would you prefer the operation to be done by a surgeon with years of practice behind him, drawn from the elite of the medical profession, or by a deserving recent immigrant, selected for the task as a result of the new Obamafair™ social justice program designed to boost the self-esteem of low-skill workers while simultaneously combating society's sexist, racist, elitist hegemony?" ....'
Clint| 8.20.11 @ 3:48PM
We're being set up by GOP Ruling Elite Flunkies for their "Anointed One" Mittens Romney.
TexasMom2012| 8.21.11 @ 4:40PM
No to Mitt. He has proved that he has character and business skills but NOT sound judgement. Examples include Romneycare and his continued belief in the discredited AGW theory. I have voted almost exclusively Republican since Reagan and my first vote but I am don't voting for a Democrat in Republican clothing. I used to vote for some Dems here back when we had some conservative Dems in the state but no longer. That is why Perry switched parties... The Dems left us no more choice here. I punched a straight ticket since 2000.
Jocon307 | 8.21.11 @ 4:59AM
I think one aspect of so-called executive experience that is important may be just the idea of being "the boss". Of knowing, as Truman put it "the buck stops" with you.
Elsewhere someone said the JFK didn't have any executive experience, but didn't he command a boat in WWII? That's an indisputably executive position.
I really do think that the public IS going to be looking for somebody with a proven record of LEADERSHIP. My guess is the public does think they screwed up by electing an empty suit last time.
They are also going to want a person who gives a damn about what the public thinks and who has some heartfelt respect for the American people.
You know, with this post I'm convincing myself that Perry is THE GUY.
Not my intent, but perhaps I'm right.
Oldefarte| 8.21.11 @ 10:11AM
This [Elsewhere someone said the JFK didn't have any executive experience, but didn't he command a boat in WWII?] is possibly true, but also possibly typical Kennedyisk BS for political purposes, since it's been reported that he had a tremendous back problem [and was weakly since childhood]. In PT-109, it was said that he saved a crew mate by placing the life perserver in his teeth and swimming for safety also etc. Also, he was to have been so stricken with back pain that he had to lie on the floor in order to sleep, which if true, how could he have possibly performed all of these extreme physical activities in his life? Finally, his COMMANDING A BOAT is no great claim to executive experience, since Carter and Kerry were both also similarily experienced and no one with common sense would want them as president either!!!!!!!
Kyle Smith| 8.21.11 @ 1:34PM
Paul Ryan voted FOR TARP 1, GM Bailout, Boehner's first budget deal with obama which cut millions not billions, and Boehner's debt ceiling deal, which has a trigger that drastically cuts defense and medicare reimbursement to doctors if the Republicans can't reach an agreement with left wingers like Patty Murray and John Kerry.
DOES THESE FACTS ABOUT RYAN'S VOTING RECORD MATTER TO ANYONE?
TexasMom2012| 8.21.11 @ 4:45PM
Yes but his budget plan that passed the house and was not allowed a vote in the Senate is a blueprint for helping get spending under control. His votes are not as important to me as his most excellent ideas! And his grasp of the budget issues. Perry/Ryan or Rubio or Palin or Haley or Bachman but preferably Ryan 2012 Can you imagine him in a debate with Biden? Comedy gold!
J.C.Eaton| 8.21.11 @ 2:04PM
Mr. Guardino, common good sense compels me to disagree with your throwaway line re:Mr. Lincoln being our greatest president. He couldn't brush the dust from the sandals of General Washingtom, the man who started a war{French-Indian] almost singlehandedly; founded a nation[almost single-handedly], refused Kingship[repeatedly]provided the most lasting of presidential precedents, obtained the adoption of the Constitution[albeit,not single-handedly, Mr. Franklin was of some small assistance] and did it all without killing off 600,000 of his countrymen. Best,
TexasMom2012| 8.21.11 @ 4:49PM
All the while risking his life liberty and his sacred honor... The founders had all their skin in the game. They would have been executed and their families left destitute if the Loyalists had won the war.
I agree that Washington is a more formidable figure than Lincoln although they were both great. Every time I hear Mr I,Me,My Obama compare himself to others... I think that the best real comparison to any other President has to be Carter although Obama comes up short there as well.