The U.S. President is arguably the single most influential person in world politics. While all political leaders act under complex conditions and constraints, the U.S. President has at his or her disposal enormous powers, including discretionary powers. So it stands to reason that when citizens of a democracy select a President through a democratic electoral process, the question of a candidate's "experience" would loom large. Unfortunately, this question has loomed very large indeed in the current Presidential contest, but in ways that distort and confuse proper understanding. Hyperbole and outright misrepresentation are long-standing features of our electoral process. But they have recently risen to the level of absurdity in the wake of John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, a little-known Governor of Alaska, as his Vice-Presidential running mate.
McCain has long decried Barack Obama's "lack of experience." His selection of a person who has served for twenty months as Governor of one of the least populous states in the U.S. (Fred Thompson and Rudy Guliani were simply misleading when they described Alaska as the largest state, unless they meant sheer square mileage, in which case Greenland would be one of the largest countries in the world)--whose main political experience is her service as mayor of a town of 7000 residents--seemed to many to undermine his critique of Obama. But, in a feat of political ju jitsu worthy of Karl Rove, the Republicans this week have loudly and unanimously asserted that in fact even Sarah Palin has more "experience" than Obama.
This is absurd. But it is also an occasion to reflect on what experience really means in Presidential politics, when treated as a serious idea and not as a slogan. I submit that there are three ways in which experience is relevant to the suitability of an individual to serve as President.
The world. The most general, and significant, experience at issue is an appreciation of the challenges and complexities of the world, born of the experience of living in the world. Experience here relates to time and space, to an individual's involvement in a range of things in a range of places, so that s/he is familiar with the concerns of many different kinds of people and communities, and is comfortable dealing with these concerns, people, and
communities. This cannot simply be a matter of living long, i.e., being old. It must involve exposure to and engagement with many things. But also, presumably, a demonstrated ability to think intelligently about these experiences, to surround oneself with others who think intelligently, and to make intelligent judgments and public statements about the world. In this sense Barack Obama gives up nothing to John McCain, and far exceeds in experience Sarah Palin. He has lived in many different places, in the U.S. and in the world--Hawaii, Indonesia, Boston, Chicago, Washington, D.C. He has experienced growing up as a multi-racial child, raised by a single mother, whose accomplishments through academic success exemplify "the American dream." He has experienced the world as a citizen, but also as a serious and successful student, as an educator, as a writer and published author, as a community organizer, and as an elected official. And he has traveled much of the world and has engaged the people he has encountered. But what can be said of Sarah Palin? She has spent almost her entire adult life in Alaska. She has barely traveled. She has no experience of urban America. She has lived an interesting life and has no doubt experienced many challenging and rewarding things as an ambitious young politician, mother, and winter sports enthusiast in Alaska. That she has risen to prominence and demonstrated her own brand of civic commitment in the Alaskan context is evident. But the U.S. President is the most important leader on the world stage. And Sarah Palin is anything but worldly. Yet the Republicans propose to place her a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and have the temerity to exalt her "executive experience."
Politics. Politics is a complicated business. It involves forming and running organizations, leading people, forging alliances, allocating resources. The U.S. President does these things at the level of the world. It may be true that Sarah Palin was a good mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and that she is a good Governor of Alaska (of course, it may also be false, and those Republicans who typically prate about the venality of politicians have offered as evidence of Palin's executive abilities nothing beyond the fact that she has held these offices). And it may be true that in this sense she has more executive experience than Barack Obama. But what too few commentators have noted is that Sarah Palin has no experience engaging the broad range of issues that confront the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, by all accounts she has virtually no experience even thinking about these issues in their complexity. Commentators have noted that she gave a rousing performance at the Republican convention (if this were a serious criterion of national leadership, then why not just choose Meryl Streep?) . But there has been a deafening silence about her views regarding serious questions of geopolitics, military policy, tax policy, environmental policy, health policy, or Constitutional affairs. What does Sarah Palin think about these things? Noone seems to know and, appallingly, few seem to care. Instead, she is being touted as a "gun-toting hockey mom." What? Is this what we need at a time when we supposedly face global life and death issues of what candidate McCain has called "transcendent importance?"
At the same time, Barack Obama has worlds of experience dealing with these issues. He studied them at some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. (in what kind of world beyond Republican conventions is having been a top student at an Ivy League institution a mark of shame?). He taught about them at one of the nation's leading law schools (That's right. He was an educator. Not a car salesman). He dealt with them at the grass roots-level, as a community organizer (Since when do the Republicans, the party of "voluntarism" and "faith-based initiatives" and "compassionate conservatism," sneer at individuals who choose community service over self-aggrandizement?). He has engaged them as a state legislator and U.S. Senator, and though he has not served in these offices for a long time, his service is continuous with his range of experiences, and has also placed him in continuous dialogue with policy-makers and experts. And he has written about these issues, and spoken out about them clearly and intelligently. Obama, in short, has a world of experience thinking about, communicating about, and engaging the most pressing national and international issues. Whether we agree with him or not, we know what he thinks, and we know that his thinking is informed by real inquiry and conversation with others who know what they think, and why.
Electoral Politics. You can't have it both ways. You can't invoke the rhetoric of populism, and then dismiss a Presidential candidate who attracts millions of voters and record crowds as a celebrity. Yes, Barack Obama is sharp, good-looking, and charismatic. He also campaigned in every state of the union; and organized a trend-setting grass-roots effort based on the use of the internet and the mobilization of the young and the raising of huge amounts of funds from small and middling donors; and his performance in debates and primary contests allowed him to come from behind and win the Democratic nomination by attracting over 20 million voters. That is why he is the Democratic Presidential nominee. Because he emerged victorious from the primary electoral process. In a democratic society this, in the end, is the experience that counts most. And having won these elections, he selected as his Vice-Presidential running mate one of his competitors in the primaries, an individual who has served with distinction in the U.S. Senate for decades, and who has twice run his own campaigns for the Presidency. Someone with a level of experience that matches and perhaps exceeds his own, who complements him and who has long been regarded with respect. And who did John McCain choose? Not one of the "experienced" old white men against whom he ran in the primaries, who alone get to participate at the highest levels of Republican politics. Not someone who is his equal in political experience and whose accomplishments and ideas make them a potential leader on the world stage. Instead, this candidate of "national security" and foreign affairs and "wisdom you can trust" selected--apparently without any serious vetting-- a "gun-toting hockey mom" from one of the least populous and least representative states in the nation, a person with no national or international experience who has given no evidence of even having compelling ideas about national or international issues. In the past week we have been treated to the embarrassing spectacle of a level of unanimity about "Sarah Palin, rock star" that would have made Leonid Brezhnev cringe behind Kremlin walls. From Lindsay Graham to Rudy Guliani to Christine Todd Whitman to Tom Kean--Tom Kean!!--we have heard that Sarah Palin is just what the U.S. needs. Is any more evidence required that the Republicans, after eight long years in the White House, are in desperate need of experience out of office, to reflect on the bankruptcy of the Republican Party in the wake of the abysmal Presidency of George W. Bush? If there is political justice, and if the principles of accountability that lie at the heart of a democracy are enacted, then the American people will generously afford them this opportunity.
Jeffrey C. Isaac is a Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington.
You've made the Republicans arguments for them. Keep it up, please, and the election is in the bag for Conservatism.
Semper fi
1. Obama is familiar with the law of the land. WHY - He graduated from law school. Palin majored in journalism.
2. Obama was a community organizer in Chicago; Palin was on the PTA In Wasilla (pretty rough crowd, there).
3. Obama served eight years as Illinois state senator representing a district nearly the size of the entire state of Alaska; Palin was mayor of a town of 5,500 for six years (did I mention the attempted recall).
4. Obama graduated to United States Senator in 2004; Palin to Alaska Governor in 2006.
I did forget to mention Palin's term on city council as well as Obama's time as a senior lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
5. Obama has met many foreign leaders; Palin has met none. Palin has been to Kuwait and Mexico (on vacation), do I need to list where Obama has been??
6. Obama was vetted by Clinton and the press; Palin wasn't even vetted by McCain
Do I need to continue??
By doing so, you are making the GOP's argument for them...
Michale.....
Semper fi
FDR was governor of NY for only three years before being elected President.
Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Illinois house of reps for only two years before being elected President.
Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia for only four years before being elected to President.
So how is Palin any less experienced or any less ready to serve as V.P.?
But, I guess, that unless they come after the precious guns, then most conservatives don't care about all the other rights.
Semper fi
Here Palin is lacking (sorely). Other than trips, which were no way political or educationally world experience, she has been stuck in Alaska, the vast wilderness.
And Sarah Palin is in no way an organizer (a huge must for the Prez and VP). Her action is barge in, take control and boss, and/or bully) everybody. She does not forge political allies. Instead she alienates political associates.
And this is exactly how she would run this country (which, by the way, would run it right into the ground).
And we all know that the statisticians say the figures show that McCain will probably not last his entire term. And it has pretty much been practice that the incumbent Prez gets elected for his second term, usually no matter what kind of a mess he/she made while in the first term (as shown by the re-election of Dubya).
Democrats had chosen a first-term US Senator with no legislative accomplishments over a vastly more experienced rival with many accomplishments. Even giving Obama's speaking abilites, he never would have beat Hillary, had he not been black.
Frankly, Democrats were the first to play identity politics with their joke of a Presidential nominee. Republicans, with a formidable McCain as their Presidential nominee, called the Democrats' bluff with their own stab at identity politics in the form of Sarah Palin. Keep in mind she is the most popular Governor in the US, so she was well known in political circles.
Let's do some quick math: First, they say she has 80% popularity rating - probably overrated but we'll go with that number.
So 80% x 700,000 people (and we wil lcount every man, woman and child - even though the children can't vote). That equals 560,000 people who just love her.
Now, let's take my state of New York and Gov Patterson, with a population over 19,000,000.
And let's just give him a 30% popularity rating (i am low balling on purpose).
So 30% x 19,000,000 = 5,700,000 people.
So if I was to follow your argument and, I guess if those people were dollar bills, that would make Gov Palin RICHER than Gov Patterson.
Amazing how stupid an argument can become when you look at it in another light doesn't it?
Semper fi
Interesting response to Jeffrey's post.
To me, it goes without saying that none of the candidates has had experience as POTUS, as none of them has been POTUS, so I am confused about what your point is.
I agree with you that Obama has better judgment, however I also still believe, along with Jeffrey, that the life experience he has had RELATIVE TO Sarah Palin does in fact represent "something" rather than "nothing."
Among other experiences...successfully navigating his way through American academic institutions with rigorous intellectual challenges, and familiarity, i.e. "experience," with national and international issues that far exceeds that of Sarah Palin.
I would appreciate also some specific references to statements from previous presidents that "nothing" prepared them for the job.
Respectfully...
My point about none of the candidates have experience as POTUS is that people are talking about experience AS IF any of them have some.
So we get arguments where folks say that McCain's 26 years on Capitol Hill trounces Obama's 4. We are all looking at experience based solely on time spent in this role or time spent in that role, but not looking at how they operated while in that role.
For example, Palin surely has more executive experience", however, as more news comes out about how Gov Palin governed, we are beginning to get a sense of how she governs. Her "experiences" are not what you want her to bring to the VP. I think if you took off your Party affiliation hat, you would see that she is just like VP Cheney (who, as we are learning lied to Dick Armey about the Saddam threat-a lie that led us to war).
Why did I say nothing prepared previous Presidents for that role? I can only give this anology: It's like being a college football star and going to the NFL. Yes, you know how to play football, but the football played in the NFL is on whole other level.
Hence my earlier argument about it boiling down to judgement. Please note that I am not saying that experience shouldn't matter. I am just saying that we should be careful comparing one candidate's experience to the other.
And, at 836,109 sq miles, it's not even in the top ten of world's largest countries, even if it was a country....
However, it IS the world's largest island... If that helps any.....
Michale.....
Sorry... couldn't resist =) Good writeup!
This is the most astute assessment I have read about the "experience" issue in this election.
I hope it goes viral.
I fully expect supporters of McCain/Palin who spend a lot of time in these comment sections to continue to assert Palin's superior "executive experience." Perhaps if they are really able to think about this issue rationally, they might be able to appreciate your take on this.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE DEMOCRATIC
Which of the following has had experience as the POTUS?
A. Sen McCain
B. Sen Obama
C. Pinky, from Pinky and the Brain
Ans: C - Pinky.
Yep, there was an episode where Pinky actually got elected via the shennanigans of the Brain. He quit when he realized that the nobleness of the position was too much for him and wasn't meant to be trifled with.
Why did I pose this question? To show that all the talk about experience is bunk, since none of the candidates can claim to have ANY experience at being POTUS. And as any former POTUS would tell you, nothing prepares you for the job.
So, then that only leaves judgement as really the deciding factor. And in that respect, Sen Obama is way ahead of McCain (and Palin).
}}}}}}}}}
To show that all the talk about experience is bunk,
{{{{{{{{{
If what you say is true (I am not committing either way) why do you think it is that the Democrats are obsessed with the EXPERIENCE card???
Just today, I count several HuffPo commentaries that deal with this one specific issue...
If EXPERIENCE is such a NON ISSUE, why are the Democrats so frantic and hysterical about it???
That's not a rhetorical question. I am sincerely curious as to your take on it.
Michale.....
Similarly, I am sure you know of folks who got managerial positions simply because they had the tenure and were also awful managers as well. And, maybe you've seen young and "inexperienced" folks become managers and do a great job!
Same line of thinking here.
great line!