The Un-asked Question is Asked

The other evening, I was having dinner with a conservative friend. Generally, we avoid politics at meals, so as to keep both the yelling and food down, but occasionally it creeps in. It did when he began going on and on (and on) about Barack Obama's "inexperience."

I ate my pasta in polite quiet, though, all the while knowing what I was gnashing to respond. But finally, he said "inexperienced" one too many times.

And so, as warmly as possible, I asked it --

"More inexperienced than George Bush?"

His reaction was unexpected shock. There was total silence. A deer in the headlights look. Then I inquired, "How did that work out?" Still no answer. At last, I politely changed the subject.

Days later, I was talking with another friend, this one liberal, and recounted the conversation. He was aghast. I was admonished to be careful, because of what a Republican "might say" in return, twisting the disastrous presidency of inexperienced George W. Bush to a comparison of Barack Obama.

Story continues below

advertisement

But my friend missed the point. This wasn't some theoretical case of what "might" be. I'd actually made the comment. And the other person actually didn't have a response. I don't mean "didn't have a good response." Or even an understandable one. I mean - literally no response.

I also realized something else, bigger.

After eight years of the far-Right positioning Democrats, with little regard to the truth, I refuse any longer to define my own personal interests based on what conservatives "might" say. Because we know what they will say. We know it will be critical, sometimes reprehensible and occasionally a knowing-lie. So, I can't concern myself with that. If conservatives want to try to compare Barack Obama to George Bush in any regard, I am more than happy to take that challenge and paint them with reality.

Far-right Republicans will try to turn any Democratic presidential candidate inside out. And I won't accept my terms based on their terms. I know what they "might" say. But more importantly, I know what I will say in return. All it takes is looking around, seeing reality and merely describing it.

When one gives in to what the far-Right "might" say, they win. Not anymore.

So, let's return to that first conversion and break the silence of what wasn't said about George Bush's inexperience when he first-ran for president.

If there's one thing what we've learned after eight years is that most Republicans today have drawn battle lines and support the Administration party line totally, near-blindly. In such a view, George Bush must be wonderful, with few flaws. Yet if that's the case, their "inexperienced" argument becomes their own worst enemy. Because it forces a Republican to acknowledge either that 1) the once-inexperienced George Bush has done a great job, or 2) the once-inexperienced George Bush has done a flawed job.

And I can live with either acknowledgment.

If the former, that means "experience" when running for president is meaningless. But even better, it opens the debate to the Republican record and actual issues, something the McCain campaign has been twisting to avoid. It forces a Republican explanation that the economy is strong, there's no housing crisis, global warming doesn't exist, the $482 billion budget deficit isn't the largest in U.S. history, the job market is booming, gas prices are low, and that the Iraq War is going quite well and near a happy conclusion - just like the war in Afghanistan.

If accepting the latter, however, that's just as good - because it requires a Republican acknowledging that because George Bush was inexperienced when he came to office, he screwed up.

Once the discourse is on these terms, Barack Obama's 14 years of elective experience easily exceeds that of George Bush when he first ran for president. At least Barack Obama has four years in the U.S. Senate, where he serves on the Foreign Relations committee. Add to that 10 years as a state senator in Illinois. Of course, to some, statehouse experience doesn't count - but if so, consider then that George Bush's only experience was as head of a statehouse. Take that from his resume, and Mr. Bush is left with nothing. Six years as state governor of Texas. That's it.

But let's go further and put George Bush's political "experience" in full perspective: the Texas state legislature only meets every two years - and for a mere 140 days. That means in his six years in office, George Bush presided over the legislature for barely one year.

I'll take that "experience" debate any day.

However, there's an even-more important point to the "experience" argument than just that. For the past 32 years, no first-term U.S. president (but one) has had "experience" when elected.

Not George W. Bush. Not Bill Clinton. Not even the conservatives beloved Ronald Reagan. Not Jimmy Carter. None had any foreign policy experience, any federal experience, any experience with the joint chiefs of staff and managing the U.S. Armed Forces. No experience with the CIA, FBI or NSA. Just their home state. (Only the first George Bush did, and he got defeated for re-election.)

Sorry, no matter how big its economy, being California governor has never inherently qualified anybody for Commander-in-Chief. That's one reason you don't remember President George Deukmejian.

And why 37 out of 38 California governors were never seen by the public as experienced enough to become president.

In fact, Ronald Reagan was seen as a wildly scary loose-cannon and huge risk. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were all considered deeply inexperienced. Yet, although all of them ran against experienced, sitting presidents - they all won.

John Kennedy, who inspired a generation, was considered extremely inexperienced, which is how Richard Nixon ran against him: the two-time vice-president and foreign policy expert against the elitist kid. And the kid won. Did a nice job, too.

The Republican Talking Point Mantra today likes to make a big deal of "experience" - yet without ever defining it. The implication focuses on the U.S. Senate, and that four years there isn't enough experience for Americans. Pop quiz. How many former U.S. senators served two terms as president in the history of the United States? Extra credit if you can name them all. Take your time.

Ready?

It was a trick question. The answer is zero. No former U.S. senator has ever completed two full terms as president. That's how much Senate experience matters to Americans.

In fact, the American public has only elected a former-senator to be president to two terms on one, single occasion - but his Senate experience didn't help, since Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace. Further, the American public has only elected two presidents directly from the Senate - Warren Harding and John Kennedy.

By those standards, all senators - including John McCain - fail on the enough "experience" scale.

The point is that the American public has shown itself unconcerned with years of "experience" when selecting its president. Especially U.S. Senate experience. The results have been mixed, but then that's where the elected-president's judgment and quality of appointments he makes come in.

Which returns us to that original conversation and the silence that followed. In truth, the issue has never been that George Bush failed because he was inexperienced - it's because he was intellectually incurious, surrounded himself by entrenched ideologues, politicized the government, refused to adapt, and blindly followed paths for Republican gain, not for the nation. He failed because he made incompetent decisions every step of the way. And the American public finally grasped it, which is why George Bush today has a 29 percent approval rating plummeted down from 90 percent.

And addressing that with a Republican takes away the only campaign issue of "inexperience" they are even trying.

All that's left, then, is judgment. Vision. Where one stands on the issues. And ultimately, the ability to put all that together and bring about a better America.

- Like another politician from Illinois, arguably the least-experienced man to become president, who served only one term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and just four terms in the Illinois House. Abraham Lincoln. He did okay, too.

In a perfect world, Barack Obama would be serving his third term in the U.S Senate. In a perfect world, we would be out of Iraq. But Barack Obama has 14 years of elected office, and John McCain has voted with President George Bush 95 percent of the time. We deal with life as it is, the best we can.

No one else can define what are your own personal interests. Conservatives had their say for eight years. They messed up America. Their time has passed. So have their arguments.

Comments

[gitnu]

Its not only whether past Presidents had experience or not , its what kind of experience they had.

Truman was a captain in WW1 and had been VP, Eisenhower had commanded one of the largest military forces ever assembled during WW2, Kennedy had military experience and had been a US Senator,Nixon had been a Senator, US Representative and VP, Ford had been a Congressmen for 25 years before becoming VP, Carter served in nuclear submarines,the Georgia Senate and had been governor of Georgia for one term, Reagan was governor of California for two terms. They all had significant experience in running either large organizations,businesses or political entities.
Compared to almost all recent prior US Presidents, Barack Obama, with only seven years in the Illinois Senate and a little more than 3 in the US Senate, does have far less experience than most.
His experience in general is limited to local government and the legal sector, without much direct responsibility for anything.

[redleaf]

Harry Truman was a former senator who served two terms as president.

[Cranberries]

Superb piece with several important points, and I appreciate your meticulous documentation.

I do not understand this focus on "experience." It reminds me of the saying that generals are always fighting the last war. And of Rumsfeld and Cheney, whose "experience" did them and us little good. Corporate CEOs are often hired on the basis of "experience" with results that are no better than you'd get with random selection. I always say they should have to make the same disclaimer as mutual funds: "past performance is no guarantee of future performance."

[deecee22]

Thanks for the history lesson. I sure hope that this question is ask of the candidates in the first debate. the one thing the republicans and democrats agree is that Obama has run the best political campaign in history and will be copied for generation to come.
a vote for mccain is a vote for the draft.

[allonfla]

THE best article i've read in months - you should go on tv with your facts because the msm has no clue. or may be they do and refuse to let us in on it. Seriously, thank you for this history lesson. my favorite line .......":When one gives in to what the far-Right "might" say, they win." - That line is for all of you who continue have an anxiety attack when obama does anything that the republicans will criticize. let the man do what he does best.

[LeftRight]

Hell, if you look at it from the real perspective only ONE man has EVER moved into the White House with the experience to do the job. Just one. Grover Cleveland was elected as the 22nd President of the United States in 1884. He lost his bid for re-election in 1888. Then he came back in 1892, and was elected as the 24th President of the United States, thus not only becoming the only man who was "ready on day one" but the only President in US history to serve two non-consecutive terms!

And for what it's worth, the only "experience" that I look at (and most of America looks at!!!) is how a first time candidate runs his campaign. By THAT definition Barack Obama has all the experience he will ever need to become number 44, and the first Black President!

[Gogetter]

"I refuse any longer to define my own personal interests based on what conservatives "might" say. Because we know what they will say. We know it will be critical, sometimes reprehensible and occasionally a knowing-lie. So, I can't concern myself with that."

Thank you for this. All of this hand wringing over Obama inviting republican criticism of his convention speech, or the Berlin speech, or this, or that. It's amazing how democrats/liberals have such deference for what republicans might say, how they might criticize. The "Obama needs to hit back hard" narrative is one thing. But the idea that he or any democrat needs to walk around on eggshells lest they give republicans an opening to pounce and score points, now that's weakness.

[rock2casbah]

This is a great article. I am glad that all of my friends and family are on the same page with this election. There is no other choice but Obama. But for those who have to deal with someone stuck in silly and have to try to sway them when they trot out the same tired talking points, well here is your ammo.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, I've gotten tired of trying to convince my one brother-in-law. We never talked politicis until xmas 2005, when the NSA spying story first broke, and his stock answer was, "no laws have been broken" and would refuse to even concede that maybe we should look into whether any laws were broken or not. Not even an investigation for him.

I find it really amusing that he actually came out one time and accused me of not supporting the troops, when I served in the military and he never did!

[hopeless277]

Brilliant. Just freekin' brilliant. THIS is the kind of thing we all need to read and remember. One more point that has been pointed out previously, Cheney and Rummy had all the experience one could want. How did their decisions work out?

[rbloom]

The fact is, historically, experience has little to do with presidential performance. Sen. Obama already has more pre-presidential governmental experiece than three of the four guys on Mount Rushmore (Jefferson excepted). And the most experieced man ever to become president -- with 30 years in government, including multiple terms in the Senate and four years as secretary of state -- was James Buchanan, who is often rated the worst president ever.
Here's an article on this:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/years-experience-government-2111870-president-obama