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.
