| |
Does Obama's and Palin's 'Inexperience' Matter?
By John A. Tures
Associate Professor of Political Science
LaGrange College
September 3, 2008 — Worried about Illinois Senator Barack Obama's short time in elected office? Concerned about Sarah Palin's slim resume? Don't fret; history shows that political experience, while reassuring to voters, doesn't always predict who the best presidents are. Former Vice-President Al Gore argued that Abraham Lincoln did not have much political experience when he sought to be our nation's Chief Executive. "Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln's experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Illinois, and one term in Congress during which he showed the courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country that was popular when it started but later condemned by history," Gore said at his speech at Invesco Field, as reported by Kevin Flynn in his article "Gore: Obama's 'Lack of Experience' No Different Than That Of Lincoln" for the Rocky Mountain News. But that's just one example, right? To test the Gore hypothesis that experience is overrated, I look at the "political experience" of the top five presidents, as ranked by a survey of 58 historians by CSPAN in 2000. By political experience, I count their years in the United States Congress, their years as a governor of a state, and their years as a vice-president. These historians ranked the five best presidents (in order): Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. I also look at the "political experience" of the five rated the worst by that same group of historians. These include (starting with the worst) James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and William Henry Harrison. I add up the scores from Lincoln (2), F. Roosevelt (4), Washington (2), T. Roosevelt (3) and Truman (10) to a sum total of 21 years. That's an average of 4.2 years of political experience for the top five presidents, before they sought to lead America's executive branch. For the poorly performing presidents, we have a greater level of political experience. Adding Buchanan (20), A. Johnson (18), Pierce (9), Harding (6), and W. Harrison (0), together, we get 53 years of political experience, or 10.6 years of political experience per candidate. Had the month-long presidency of Harrison been disqualified as one of the worst administrations, the average would jump to a more than 3:1 ratio of bad presidential experience to the good presidential political experience. Of course, this measure of political experience doesn't measure service in the state legislature, mayoral work, or cabinet employment. Nor does it incorporate business, military or educational experience. But it is striking to note how overrated Congressional, gubernatorial or even vice-presidential experience is when foretelling presidential competence. So don't exclusively spend your time adding up the years on the job for your candidates. Look also at their character, their positions on the issues, their ability to communicate their vision to the American people. As Gore added in Denver "The experience Lincoln's supporters value most in that race was his powerful ability to inspire hope in the future in a time of impasse." |
|
|
