The day is upon us -- Hillary Clinton's last-ditch effort to save her presidential campaign in Ohio and Texas (and Vermont and Rhode Island, but no one seems to care about them even though an Obama victory by a large margin in Vermont, where he has a significant lead in polls, would create a bigger gap in delegates than the virtual dead-heats in Ohio and Texas).
For the past few weeks -- and, actually, the majority of the campaign -- Clinton's main criticism of Obama has been his lack of experience. She was first lady for eight years and has been a U.S. senator for seven years, and Obama has been a state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for only three years. Advantage Clinton. Clinton is all action and Obama is all talk. Clinton is realistic and practical and Obama is hopelessly hopeful and naive. And the beat goes on.
But what does this mean? Does experience in national politics automatically qualify a candidate as a better leader? Or is experience completely irrelevant, having no direct bearing on the quality and effectiveness of one's tenure in the Oval Office? Below is a resume of sorts for a selection of presidents from the past 75 years and an extremely subjective verdict for each -- let's see how much experience actually matters.
Franklin Roosevelt
Experience: Two years in the New York state senate, seven years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, four years as governor of New York.
Verdict: Little experience, great president. (Yep, my verdicts are that simple.)
Harry Truman
Experience: 10 years as a U.S. senator, 82 days as vice president.
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Was president when Allied forces achieved victory in Europe; kinda, ya know, dropped those atomic bombs on Japan; integral in the formation of NATO and the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe after World War II; hastily and without Congressional approval entered the Korean War; had a 22 percent approval rating when he left office, lower than Nixon's when he resigned. Also, a pretty big racist.
Verdict: Moderate experience, probably a sub-par presidency.
Dwight Eisenhower
Experience: Umm...none? He was pretty old, I guess, and he was a five-star general in World War II. But, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The Interstate Highway System (!); Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960; deployed the first American soldiers to Vietnam (oops!); carried on what FDR started in making the United States a global (nuclear) superpower; instituted an anti-immigration policy called, umm, Operation Wetback.
Verdict: Less experience than me (I was student council and senior class vice president!), pretty solid presidency.
John F. Kennedy
Experience: Six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, eight years in the U.S. Senate.
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: His assassination and sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, mainly, but he did other stuff. The Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the run-up to the Vietnam War (keep reading -- it actually gets better), the formation of the Peace Corps, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the space program, and a lot of victories for civil rights.
Verdict: A decent amount of experience, a very good presidency (maybe not as good as people remember, though).
Richard Nixon
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years in the U.S. Senate, and eight years as Eisenhower's vice president (during which time he was acting president three times when Eisenhower was sick).
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Not an easy one to boil down. Other than continuing in Vietnam, he was actually quite brilliant with foreign policy (Kissinger helped), particularly regarding China and the Soviet Union. But his domestic policy was an absolute joke and he was a tad on the corrupt side. His paranoia and general distrust and contempt for the people he was supposed to be leading eventually got the best of him and resigned from office having tarnished and disgraced himself and the office of the president.
Verdict: You don't get much more experience than he had, and you don't get a president who is more widely thought of as a horrible president than he was (George W. Bush being the exception, mainly because people forget about Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan).
George H.W. Bush
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA for a year, vice president for eight years under Ronald Reagan.
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The fall of the Berlin Wall, the beginning of NAFTA negotiations, the Gulf War, military action in Panama, economic recession, breaking his "no new taxes" promise.
Verdict: About equal experience to Nixon, but with better results. Not great results, but better than Nixon and much better than his son would do in the next decade.
George W. Bush
Experience: Governor of Texas for six years.
Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Wow. Yeah. I think we know how this one turned out.
Verdict: Not much experience; in the upper echelon of worst presidents ever, sandwiched between Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.
So let's see: We have a great president with little experience (Roosevelt), a not-great president with moderate experience (Truman), a quite good president with absolutely no experience (Eisenhower), a very good president with a decent amount of experience (Kennedy), the most dichotomous and widely mistrusted president ever with a ton of experience (Nixon), an okay president with all the experience you could ask for (Bush I), and one of the worst presidents in the nation's history with very little experience (Bush II). And what does this all mean? That experience means nothing.
4 comments:
or maybe not so much that it means nothing, but that it is part of a larger picture and while it is beneficial in some cases, it is not the determining factor of what a president's legacy will be.
very exhaustive research, andrew. and somehow i'm still waiting for my photo gallery back from you.
kidding kidding.
Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Vioxx. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of which concentrate the world’s wealth and resources and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘ good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.
who the fuck left that last comment? (not you alison!)
maybe this anonymous person should start his/her own blog instead of posting comments that are in no way related to the extremely thorough and well-thought-out post. next time you comment on a blog posting, make sure it is one that is at least moderately relevant
(my apologies for leaving this comment, which is not related to andrew's bloggings. i deemed it necessary this one time)
I have a soft spot for Richard Nixon. There, I said it. I mean, I know that he did some bad things,* and our political views are like night and day.
But let's just say that I totally understood Michelle Williams in "Dick" when she gets that crush on the prez. I mean, I didn't crush on Nixon, but I sorta felt bad for the poor old guy. Let's just say that I understood where Michelle's character was coming from.
That said, nice post/research, buddy!
* understatement
Post a Comment