A Critical Examination Of The Experience Question

Politico recently published an article I wrote called "The Experience Fallacy," which was an attempt to show, through the historical record of our past presidents, that political experience is not an indicator of quality in a would-be-president. Given that one of the main thrusts of the anti-Obama campaign is his lack of political experience (this is an important distinction, as you will see), with some charging that he is the most inexperienced person to ever even run for president in the "modern era' (whatever that means), it seems highly important and relevant to look more closely at the relationship between political experience and presidential leadership -- which of course means that no one has done it.

As I wrote in the "Experience Fallacy," using an impartial ranking of quality is important here to avoid bias, so I based my analysis on the 2000 Wall St. Journal poll of historians, which touted its composition of "liberal" and "conservative" historians. This is not how I would rank our presidents, but that is not the point.

To make things a little clearer, and go beyond the brief Politico article, here are a few more charts that sort the presidents by their various levels of political experience. First, let's look at total political experience, which tends to be the biggest area where people attack Obama:

What jumps out, beyond that having more political experience is not an indicator of a better president, is that the top tier of experienced presidents are mediocre to bad, with the exception of Jefferson, a Founding Father. In fact, the sweet spot appears to be in the 10 to 21 range, which includes six of the top ten presidents. It also seems important to have some political experience, as the three generals are only saved by Eisenhower, and it certainly is a mixed bag below the ten-year level.

Now a look at federal political experience, you know, when people sneeringly say or write that someone who has only been in the Senate for four years can't be president:

Again, large amounts of federal political experience do not seem to be a good thing (except for Jefferson). The sweet spot here is again lower down the experience ladder: six of the top ten had between 1 and 11 years of experience, although really having more than six starts to get risky. It is also clear that it is a risk to have no federal political experience (think about the beginning of Bill Clinton's term as he struggled to work in the federal bureaucracy).

Finally, a look at state political experience, which has not been mentioned much during this campaign, because it's something Obama has that Clinton and McCain do not:

Finally an area where it does seem to pay to have more political experience, although the absolute upper end again is not a good indicator of success. But eight of the top ten Presidents have between four and ten years of state experience, and the large group with no state experience is for the most part not great company for a presidential candidate to be in. It is also important to note another fallacy: that state executive experience is more important than state legislative experience. It's easy to see where this comes from, it makes sense to think that a former governor will be better equipped to be president. But it is not borne out by the facts.

Putting all of this together, here is the best combination of political experience: between one and six years of federal experience, and four to ten years of state experience, for a total of less than 22 years of total political experience. Barack Obama has four years of federal experience and six years of state experience for a total of ten. He is in the best areas in all three categories. John McCain has 26 years of federal experience and zero years of state experience for a total of 26. He is in dangerous areas in all three categories.

It is extremely important to place all of this in the proper context. This emphatically does not mean that Obama will be a good president and McCain will not. What it does mean is that the whole experience argument is a complete crock. Levels of political experience do not equate to presidential success. Great presidents have had little to no political experience (much less than Obama has). Great presidents have had much more political experience than Obama and close to the amount McCain has, well, just Jefferson, but there still is a historical precedent. Terrible presidents have had very similar levels of political experience to Obama and terrible presidents have had very similar levels of political experience to McCain.

A few counter-arguments to the counter-arguments. Yes we are completely ignoring non-political experience. Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander in World War II. Woodrow Wilson was the head of Princeton. Teddy Roosevelt was a rough-rider. Ronald Reagan was an actor. All experiences that had valuable impacts on their presidencies. But this is not an attempt to show what the perfect personal biography is to make a great president. The charges against Barack Obama are not that he lacks the personal, non-political experience, to be a good president (far from it). The specific charge is that he lacks the political experience and the evidence shows that not only is that completely false (same as Lincoln, more than Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Eisenhower), but also irrelevant.

Another complaint might be that comparing eras is impossible because we face "more difficult" times now. This particular form of self-importance is probably prevalent throughout history, but it doesn't make it more right. Tougher than building a new country from scratch, with war with Great Britain and France, revolutions, and civil war a constant threat? Tougher than trying to hold the country together in the build-up to the Civil War and the actual event itself? Tougher than putting the country back together after the bloodiest war in the nation's history? Tougher than fighting two world wars and the Great Depression? Tougher than the Cold War and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction?

Is the job more complicated now than in previous eras? Undoubtedly. Does this mean we can't "trust" someone with less experience to do it? There is less data to go on here, but given that the "modern presidency" certainly existed when Reagan (who ranks #8 in the Wall Street Journal Poll) was president, it seems the answer is yes.

The historical facts will certainly not change the media narrative or the minds of many Americans. The Experience Fallacy is too deep-rooted to be confronted that easily. But we need to start attacking these false arguments head-on, and who knows, maybe some actual facts will seep through.

Comments

[lemuria]

Hi, doesn't Obama have 8 state years, rather than 6? I'd love to use this chart in my canvassing, but I want to make sure all the numbers are correct first.

[S1m0n]

It's occurred to me that anyone who has been in the senate, say, for upwards of a quarter century has GOT to be mediocre. The more talented run for president or take a cabinet position, the less talented fail to get re-elected at some point.

In fact, by the time you've been 25 years in the senate, you are almost certainly at or slightly above the zenith of your abilities; this is the Peter Principle in action.

[S1m0n]

In this election 'experience' doesn't mean 'experience'. It code, and means age. More specifically, it means that Barack Obama isn't a boomer.

[Michigosling]

The only reason McCain can accuse Obama of insufficient experience is that the standard Republican "Washington Insider" charge won’t work, against him, and he can’t attack Obama for lacking domestic policy experience, either.

Nor is it his own Washington experience that McCain claims would make him a better President than Obama. It's his leadership in foreign affairs, especially his having gone to Vietnam and been a war hero. So let’s look at the war heroes we’ve elected:

No more brilliant military leader ever occupied the White House than Ulysses S. Grant. Perhaps he was no Lincoln or Jefferson, but he was undeniably a great war hero. And let us not forget Zachary "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor. Franklin Pierce was a Brigadier General, and Jimmy Carter was a naval officer. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan served our country, and Gerald Ford was also a genuine decorated war hero.

Mr. Vogels’s data demonstrates little correspondence between military leadership and a successful Presidency.

[klmebane]

being a prisoner of war doesn't mean someone has foreign affairs/policy experience. as a former marine (myself) i respect his service, but getting shot down alone doesn't make him fit to run a country. knowing the differences between who we're fighting and who's supposed to be on our side would be a nice start. some basic knowledge of geography might help too. john mccain's many gaffes make me think he isn't mentally competent, and i don't know that i want a man with a temper like his with his finger on the button. if he loses it and blows somebody up that has the same weapons our country will be obliterated.

[foxbat]

Mr. Vogels may not show directly military service, but take a look at http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html. That page gives a nice rundown of experience vs. success using several surveys. It shows the rankings of 42 presidents ... recall that Cleveland was 22nd&24th ... through GWB.

Using your sample group of military leaders:

UlyssesGrant#37
ZacharyTaylor#34
FranklinPierce#40
JimmyCarter#28.5
JohnTyler#35
MillardFillmore#36
JamesBuchanan#41
GeraldFord#28.5

Given your sample group, there seems to be negative correlation between military and successful presidency, although there is actually no correlation as, looking at some other well-known military presidents, we see there are some good ones too:

GeorgeWashington#3
TeddyRoosevelt#5
DwightEisenhower#9
AndrewJackson#8
JohnKennedy#12

Obama has the same/more combined experience, in years, than 5 of the Top 11 presidents including Lincoln, FDR, TeddyRoosevelt, Wilson, and Adams. He's also within one year of experience of two others in the Top11: Truman&Eisenhower.

What's clear is that experience doesn't predict success and military experience certainly doesn't predict success. The problem is that, to the general voter on the street, these statistics mean nothing because they won't read them and will erroneously assume that experience, especially military experience, is a predictor when it isn't. The danger for Obama in trying to show this himself is it draws more attention to "experience" for people who DON'T assimilate information and it could backfire. It has to be done by third-parties like MSM. The problem is that the MSM is not doing a good job this election cycle.

[NER]

Thanks for this information-- I'll be using it liberally when the occasion arises!

[okayigive]

Thank you for the analysis, very nicely done. I have always wondered what is the definition/criteria of experienced being used as a measuring stick in this election. Do those who tout experience use quantitative standards rather than quality as a measure of experience? I really have a problem with quantitative measures because years on/in a job position may only show rote behaviors that doesn't always translate into having the ability to lead, grow and adapt to change.

[MissDaphne]

In my humble opinion, having just read the first two volumes of Edmond Morris' biography of Theodore Roosevelt--the most meaningful Obama parallel is with TR, who faced the actual JP Morgan and his cabal of big money guys. TR understood that there had been a fundamental shift in the power balance of the world, and that ordinary people needed to have the ability to have a decent life, or we were all going to hell in a handbasket.
I think Obama gets it, and is incredibly smart, and has a plan for all of us that favors us more than the conglomorates.
To risk sounding melodramatic. One of these guys shows up once in a generation or so. JFK was one--despite his short presidency, he put stuff in place, and inspired other actions, that are still with us today.
John McCain is the past. I'm the past. BO and the brilliant kids that I have the privilege to work with are the future. Let us not be so narcissistic (I know, I am butchering spelling) that we fail to see the next steps.
Anita

[foxbat]

I concur. Many people often try to draw the parallel with Lincoln because of the state senator experience, the Illinois connection, no military experience, but a very and even being tall and lanky, but you're right that he and the situation are probably more akin to TR although there are some stark differences. Recall that Roosevelt advocated strongly for war with Spain and his motto was "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Despite that, he also did believe and practice strong diplomacy, winning the Peace Prize for his role in negotiating peace in the war between Russia and Japan.

With that said, TR and Obama are similar in their call for shifting change. They are also simliar in calls for universal health care, attention to fair labor practices as well as going after big business, and as you pointed out, going up against the entrenched establishment.

Probably the starkest difference between Obama and TR would be on race relations, especially TR's views on the dominance of White over races of color. With that said, he also had several situations where he bucked the system with regard to race relations. Much of his negative racial issues seem to be driven by his expansionist ideology, so perhaps that may explain some of the seeming disparity in some of his actions at a more global level versus his actions as they dealt with individuals.

[Cakey4814]

I'm going to make a superficial statement here..Obama looks so presidential standing next to McCain!

[Duros62]

"[I]t won't gain traction with the media because it has more than 4 words in it!"

Can Obama lead? Yes!

There, done.

Excellent analysis, Phil. make it get some play.

[RexPrimoris]

Forget experience; I just want a president who can tell the difference between Sunnis and Shias without getting a hint from a fellow senator, and who isn't going to be another neo-con puppet...

[galinha]

An excellent analysis. Unfortunately this won't gain traction in the media because it does not fit with their agenda. Articles like this NEVER find their way into sites like Realclearpolitics. All they gobble up and put in display are articles that are either anti Obama or cast doubts on him like the experience nonsense.

[CeciliaBertrand]

Right - it won't gain traction with the media because it has more than 4 words in it!

[debwarot]

Some day, at some point, the MSM will be forced to acknowledge what they have become - creators and shapers of the news, not reporters.

[snobama]

amazing the lengths to which one can go to make things fit the way one wants...

its great fodder for mccain...

obama is the only senate neophyte (1 year in senate if you consider he was running for president the 2nd year) with 0 executive experience at the state level (part time state legislator -- which means 3 years not 6 really) that is presumptuous enough to run for president

I knew he was inexperience and unqualified .... buy this is just plain scary....

every american needs to be made aware of your research... and make their own conclusion from the numbers...

[klmebane]

mccain is scary. and either willfully ignorant or stupid. at least obama knows the difference between sunni and shi'a and what countries border pakistan, among other things.

[foxbat]

Hillary Clinton tried that "part-time" line as well; didn't work. Time did a nice article about Obama's experience: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1704117,00.html. In it, there's a great line that Obama quotes from Bill Clinton, "The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."

You are right that every American needs to be made aware of this research, but they shouldn't don't make conclusions from the numbers without looking at the story behind the numbers. Remember the quote by Disraeli or Twain, depending on who you believe,"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

[gladys46]

I also appreciate the work put into these stats! However, I believe that McCain's unfitness reveals itself daily! That "experience" ploy is just that a ploy ... it is also synonymous (IMO) with other words constantly tossed by MSM pundits describing Obama ... such as "uppity," "presumptuous," "exotic," "foreign," "elitist," and "celebrity." The adjectives all put together causes one to wonder what is left ... is it the almighty "N" word!!??

Probably.

[jahjah]

obama is even more experienced than George Bush junior and ronald reagen so why the media does not highlight this even bill clinton is not experienced but he was president two terms stop this exprience madness, mccain is more of the same washington status quo

[pilotsknob]

I appreciate the research put into this article....it puts the experience vs non-experience argument into perspective. Perhaps the Obama campaign should use these facts to counteract the McCain camp.