Bill Clinton faced similar questions as those posed to Obama about his own preparedness in 1992. President George H.W. Bush claimed that his dog knew more about foreign policy than Bill Clinton and Al Gore while Pat Buchanan said at that year's Republican National Convention that their foreign policy experience was limited to visiting the International House of Pancakes. Four years before that, it was Dan Quayle who was maligned as not being prepared for the office as Lloyd Bentsen derided him in the VP debate as being "no Jack Kennedy." 14 years earlier, it was President Gerald R. Ford who was questioned by NBC's Tom Brokaw as to whether he was "intellectually" up to the job of being president. As far back as 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran and was criticized for his ostensible lack of experience, there have been questions about whether candidates are truly up to the task of the presidency.
All of this begs the question of something that my friend Jack Cartwright and I discussed recently: who is ever really qualified, or ready, to be president? For one, anyone who is 35 years old, a natural-born citizen (have that birth certificate ready!), and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years is technically qualified to be president. What makes one truly qualified and ready for the awesome responsibilities of the Oval Office though? Despite all of the media attention afforded to this question in some presidential races, it really does not matter a whole lot to voters as long as the candidate agrees with them on the issues. Indeed, party affiliation and ideology are among the most reliable indicators of how individuals will vote, especially in a general election, way more so than whether a candidate has enough experience or preparedness for the position. On the one hand, this makes sense given that, just by human nature, you would want someone in power who shares your world view. So why does this question even matter? Well, on the other hand, it can be troubling given that the candidate might be so ineffective at carrying out the policies you prefer that they could potentially make those policies more maligned (this was among the many arguments made by Ted Kennedy-supporting liberals in 1980 about President Carter, who was also questioned about his preparedness for the presidency in 1976). That latter point, combined with the history of presidents having to guide us through perilous moments like the Osama bin Laden raid or 9/11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the world wars or the Civil War, makes the question of readiness all the more important. It is for these reasons - the fact that a president may be so woefully inexperienced that they could not effective promote the public policy their campaign championed and the fact that a president may not be able to be a steady hand at the tiller in times of crisis - that this question is worth examining.
Arguably, the answer does not depend exclusively on the extent of experience in political office of a certain leader, as Jack and I agreed. As Jack pointed out, Abraham Lincoln only served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives - and before that eight years in the Illinois state legislature - yet he was an absolutely remarkable and exceptionally brilliant leader amid the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson's political experience was limited solely to the governorship of New Jersey for just two years yet he was a strong and effective leader in several respects, successfully implementing various progressive domestic policies despite the country being majority Republican and leading Allied forces to victory in World War I. John F. Kennedy, though maligned for his supposed inexperience, was an amazingly capable leader throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis. Barack Obama, despite only serving four years in the U.S. Senate and seven years in the Illinois Senate, has, in my opinion, demonstrated admirably calm, cool, and collected leadership in situations such as the financial crisis, avoiding a Depression, and in the raid on Osama bin Laden (General McRaven offered significant praise for his handling of the latter). However, a significant amount of political experience is no detriment. George H.W. Bush, arguably the most qualified president in history, was a good leader in the sense that he navigated his relationship with Congress very well and had a rational, nuanced foreign policy. Lyndon B. Johnson's experience as Senate Majority Leader was instrumental to his understanding of his former congressional colleagues in working to push through his Great Society programs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served as governor of New York and as assistant secretary of the Navy, was a tremendous leader as well. Nevertheless, George W. Bush, despite serving six years as governor of Texas and being surrounded by politics his whole life (as my friend Haydn pointed out), was arguably not a good leader given his unwise decision to invade Iraq and sustained mismanagement of the war and his horrid response to Hurricane Katrina. Ultimately, some political experience is probably necessary because it gives one the necessary understanding of the political process, the tools and skills of managing relations with legislators, and the comprehension of public policy issues and their implementation that can make one a solid leader. However, merely because x candidate has more political experience than y candidate does not make y candidate less prepared for the presidency.
However, the answer does arguably depend, to some extent, on the professional background of a candidate. Ulysses S. Grant, though having a remarkable history as a Civil War general, was an ineffective leader given the rampant corruption in his administration. His lack of any elected political experience may have contributed to this problem. George W. Bush may have been surrounded by politics because of family history before his governorship but his life experience prior to the governorship included jobs like running a failed oil business and being an owner of the Texas Rangers and so this did not necessarily give him the kind of skills to be prepared for the presidency. Jimmy Carter, a politically ineffectual president in terms of promoting his domestic priorities, suffered as well from a lack of varying professional experience as he relied solely upon advisers from Georgia and was way too much of a micromanager - thanks to the kind of skills he learned in previous jobs - to be effectual. This question of professional experience is important because it is arguably the distinction between what made Barack Obama, in my judgment, qualified to be president but Sarah Palin, in my opinion, not ready to be president. Prior to Obama's political experience, he was already an incredibly impressive individual and that professional experience gave him important skills for the presidency. He was a civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, an accomplished author, the president of the Harvard Law Review, a leader of a statewide massive voter registration initiative, and a community organizer helping poor people stay in their homes in the south side of Chicago. This experience mattered because it gave him the kind of argumentative, rhetorical, management, and intellectual tools, skills, and background that helps one be an effective president. On the other hand, Sarah Palin, prior to her governorship, was a mayor of a small town, on a city council of a small town, and chair of an oil and gas conservation commission. Before that, she was a local sports news broadcaster and beauty pageant. This limited professional experience did not give her the depth of understanding of public policy that Obama boasted in 2008.
Further, personal characteristics and qualities of a president, especially the temperament of a leader as Jack explicitly argued, are important in the sense of preparedness. You need a steady hand at the tiller and someone who can provide calm, measured, cool, and reasoned leadership in times of crisis, danger, and uncertainty. This is one of the arguments Obama made against John McCain in 2008 as he directly called into question McCain's "temperament" at that year's Democratic National Convention. Voters seemed to agree as McCain was ridiculed for his "erratic" behavior- as many in the media described it - during the campaign while Obama was widely praised for his calm stewardship abilities.
In the end, the kind of person who is prepared to be president is someone who ought to have some kind of political experience, important and relevant professional experience, and the right personal stamina and calm-headedness to handle the task of the presidency. However, I agree with this assessment: "I feel like it really depends on the person," Jack said. Really, that answer to the question, though frustratingly simple, is very much true. All of the evidence that has been presented here, and in our long history of presidential elections featuring candidates of varying qualities, shows this to be accurate. In 2016, we will have to judge for ourselves. When it's 3 a.m., who do you want answering the phone?
No comments:
Post a Comment