![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
experience is
Oct. 27th, 2016 11:14 amMuch of the polemic supporting Hillary Clinton for president focuses on how qualified her experience makes her. I wish there would be less emphasis on that. It's a point, yes, but not a very strong one. What matters is what's been done with that experience, and while Clinton's abilities and policies can be robustly defended, dispute over that is what the argument over her is about.
Experience alone doesn't qualify. The most broadly and lengthily experienced president in US history was James Buchanan, also the worst president in US history; and Obama was elected for his judgment and gravitas, despite a notable lack of experience. Indeed, some pointed out at the time that Obama's resume - a lawyer from Illinois with a certain amount of state legislative experience and a couple years in Congress - was not as thin as it sounded. We'd once previously elected a president with that resume, and he'd turned out to be pretty good.
More seriously, I'm reluctant to go back as far as Lincoln to draw comparisons, since the duties of both President and other offices has changed so much since then, but it might be useful to compare post-WW2 presidential nominees in simple cumulative time of relevant experience. The question is, what counts as relevant experience? Of course a wide variety of personal experiences, including in business, can help prepare a candidate, but I'm going to focus mostly on high government office, though noting other leadership positions. ( Read more... )
Experience alone doesn't qualify. The most broadly and lengthily experienced president in US history was James Buchanan, also the worst president in US history; and Obama was elected for his judgment and gravitas, despite a notable lack of experience. Indeed, some pointed out at the time that Obama's resume - a lawyer from Illinois with a certain amount of state legislative experience and a couple years in Congress - was not as thin as it sounded. We'd once previously elected a president with that resume, and he'd turned out to be pretty good.
More seriously, I'm reluctant to go back as far as Lincoln to draw comparisons, since the duties of both President and other offices has changed so much since then, but it might be useful to compare post-WW2 presidential nominees in simple cumulative time of relevant experience. The question is, what counts as relevant experience? Of course a wide variety of personal experiences, including in business, can help prepare a candidate, but I'm going to focus mostly on high government office, though noting other leadership positions. ( Read more... )
