Let me suggest the following question: Who among our 43 presidents have been the most "experienced" in terms of the resumes they brought with them to the Oval Office? And, concomitantly, who have been the most "inexperienced"? My own answers to the first question, in chronological order, would be James Madison (former member of Congress, secretary of state, not to mention constitutional drafter and co-author of the Federalist); John Quincy Adams (former member of Congress, ambassador, secretary of state); James Buchanan (governor, senator, Secretary of State); Richard Nixon (Former member of both House and Senate, vice president); and George H.W. Bush (U.S. ambassador to U.N., China, head of CIA, vice president). The most inexperienced have included Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
Eclectic list. What about evaluations? Among the "experienced" Presidents, we had some successful ones (Madison, Adams), some failures (Buchanan, Nixon), and some utterly forgettable ones (Bush Sr.). Among the "inexperienced" set, we also had some successful ones (Lincoln, Roosevelt), some failures (Harding, Carter), at least one with a mixed resume (Wilson), and several forgettable ones (Fillmore, Pierce). I'm going to dodge the obvious fight and say that history is still out on Clinton and W. Bush.
So it seems that experience does not play that much of a role in giving us our best or worst Presidents. Levinson argues that this shows that
The office is truly sui generis, and success requires a combination of intelligence and judgment as much, if not more, than it requires a resume that includes holding certain jobs.
On the question of pure intellect, Obama is arguably at the top of the field, 2008 and even historically. On judgment, it may be too early to tell, but I've liked his instincts thus far. Of course, if the office is truly truly sui generis, then it may be that there is no way to really predict, prior to the fact, who will make a good President and who will not. But Obama deserves the same chance as everyone else to earn our faith and gain our trust.
2 comments:
I do find it interesting that when we have a black candidate who can possibly win, that suddenly the president's job needs experience.
Technically speaking, nothing qualifies you for the presidency. I Thought you were not president until you were elected and you served.
David,
You note at the bottom of the post, that Obama is "arguably at the top of the field" (on what you base that, I don't know). However, you fail to note how well intelligence has served in the post of the Executive. You list "experienced" and "inexperienced" and then judge your opinion of their performance, might it not be fruitful to do the same for intelligence.
What then, if you find intelligence makes little difference? I've heard John Quincy Adams was one of our brightest Executives but not one of the more successful. You make the tacit assumption that intelligence is key. Why?
Post a Comment