(Cross-posted at Open Salon)
In the midst of an ongoing debate about the presidential election, a family member forwarded a side by side comparison (completely unbiased, natch) of John McCain vs. Barack Obama. It lists McCain's 22 years experience in Congress against 170-odd days for Obama, though I'm not sure how they arrive at that--probably only counting actual days the Senate has been in session since Obama's election in 2004.
It seems, despite contrary opinions after the nomination of Sarah Palin as the Republican VP nominee, that McCain (or at least his supporters) want to polish the experience chestnut when it comes to attacking Obama. That's fine with me. First of all, counting Obama's experience at the state and federal level, let's round off to nine years--six years in the Illinois State Senate, three years in the United States Senate.
That got me to thinking: where would this put Barack Obama among U.S. Presidents, in terms of experience. In other words, among our 43 presidents, who has had 9 years or less experience in state, federal, or in the case of our early presidents, colonial office?
I relied mainly on the American Heritage Pictorial History of the Presidents of the United States as my source; for the presidents after Lyndon Johnson (eh, the pictorial history was a nice find at a library sale), it was good old Wikipedia. By my calculations, the following presidents have had as much or less experience in state or federal elective office than Barack Obama would, should he take the oath of office this January:
Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
That list pretty much runs the gamut from heroes to zeroes. Five of them--Grant, Arthur, Taft, Hoover and Eisenhower--never held elective office at all and Chester Arthur, perhaps one of the unlikeliest presidents we've ever had, never held even held a federal-level appointment before becoming vice president, and then president on the death of James Garfield.
Of course, it is the quality of the experience, and the quality of the person occupying the office, that really tells the tell. William Howard Taft, a rather underrated president, did a decent job consolidating the reforms begun by Teddy Roosevelt and went on to become the only man in history to serve as both President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Clearly, Taft had an intellect almost as big as his waistline. Even Chester Arthur, something of the poster boy for nonentity, mediocre presidents, managed to push through much-needed civil service reform. Ironic, perhaps, given that Arthur owed his position to the power of New York Senator Roscoe Conkling and his powerful political machine though the fact that Garfield had been shot by a man who'd been turned down for a civil service position no doubt helped.
I think Obama hit it right on the head when he said this is about judgement, not character. It should also be about the type of mind the candidate has. I firmly believe that Herbert Hoover's presidency was undone not so much by the stock market crash and Great Depression as it was his inability to think laterally; to step beyond conventional wisdom when it was clear conventional wisdom would not work. Franklin Roosevelt was able to do so with the New Deal and start the country back on the road to economic recovery.
If asked which ticket would best be able to do this, and best be able to solve the problems we're facing, the answer to me is a no-brainer.
(Hint: It's not McCain-Palin!)