PRIOR TO BECOMING PRESIDENT, Andrew Johnson held every office possible in American democracy. He was an alderman, a mayor, a state legislator, a governor, a congressman, US Senator, and Vice President. James Buchanan was ambasador to England, US Senator and Secretary of State. William Howard Taft was a Federal Appeals Court Judge, a Governor of the Phillipine Territory during a period of rebellion, Secretary of War and also acting Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren was a State Senator, US Senator, Secretary of State and served eight years as Vice President under Andrew Jackson before obtaining a Presidency in his own name. Herbert Hoover led a multimillion dollar corporation to provide relief to the people of Belgium - led European relief efforts after WWI, was Secretary of Commerce during the commercial 20's.
These men brought rich experience to the Presidency. They are also among America's worst Presidents when routinely ranked by historians.
Abraham Lincoln had experience managing nothing more than a post office, general store and a law practice prior to his executive term. He served one two year term as a Whig Congressman. With only limiited millitary experience in the Illinois millitia, Lincoln was an excellent commander in chief, able to correctly assess his generals strengths and limitations, predict enemy movements and set a long term strategy that would beat the South. I need not tell you that he is routinely ranked as the first or second best president, with the difference between he and Washington too arbitrary to measure.
Theodore Roosevelt was governor for just two years and vice president for less than seven months prior to becoming President. His most significant experience had been as police commissioner of New York City, and an assistant navy secretary at a time when the U.S. navy was not the armada it would come to be, of course he was leader of the Rough Riders unit. But not a lot of elected or executive experience. Yet he transformed the presidency into the imperial bully pulpit we know today..
Harry Truman did have a good stint in the Senate prior to his Presidency, but in relative obscurity as the servant of Kansas City boss Tom Pendergast. As is illustrated time and time again in recent historical books (though not so much at the time) Truman turned out to be a good President who the call on using the atomic bomb and refocusing the country energies to the needs of the cold war
Franklin Delano Roosevelt served a short time as assistant sec of navy (as did his cousin) and just one term as governor prior to becoming President...yet he turned out to be one of the greatest presidents ever, tackling the twin problems of the Depression and World War II.
Not a one of these last four Presidents had Cabinet-level experience,and none had Executive branch experience beyond assistant level before getting the top job, and they got along fine. So experience doesn't matter..or does it?
There's no want ad for the Presidency..Presidents have been sherrifs, lawyers, judges, business people, millitary heros and of course governors and senators. Only one man, Woodrow Wilson, got a PhD and he was also the only one who studied the office in an intense way.
The Question For Obama
Barack Obama has generated a lot of headlines....but one question abounds. Does he have the experience to lead? Three years and a few months ago he was a state legislator. It does seem that if he can get over this question, there's no limit to where he can go.
Given the examples I started with, one might say there's no problem for Obama, experience is not that important, and it might even hurt. But does that mean inexperience is an asset? Well, we can't say that either.
Benjamin Harrison was a one term senator. Jimmy Carter a one term governor. Warren Harding one term Senator. Franklin Pierce did not finish his Senate term. These inexperienced Presidents pretty much lived up to expectations that their inexperience might dictate. They are not ranked as successful at the time or now (though Carter is acknowledged for some foresighted decisons on millitary and energy policy and for his celebrated ex-Presidency)
I think its probably that historians will add to the current President to that list. With only one and a half years as Texas governor, flanked by supposed experts in foreign policy, I believe history will judge him as a President lacking personal skills that would enable him to grasp the foreign policy or domestic political situation, around him, and hence, George W. Bush adds weight to the side of Experience Does Matter.
Certainly, some Presidents who brought a lot of experience--Washington, Jefferson, Reagan (though an actor served two terms as governor), and James Polk had much experience and achieved much as Presidents, making experience seem essential to the job.
The Paradox of Foreign Policy Experience
When the charge of non-experience is brought up against a candidate, its normally in the area of foreign policy. "How can a one term governor (or one term Senator) lead the nation in such a trying time" is the charge you can always expect to hear. A look at history would make one think twice about raising this charge.
True experience in foreign affairs is rare for Presidents. Just a few have been Secretary of State, in fact that office as a launching pad for President was a more common trend in the 19th century than it is today. Yet foreign policy is were many an inexperienced American President has prospered. Jimmy Carter, the one-term Georgia governor, for all his domestic problems, had his greatest moment in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, Truman the party hack excelled in meeting the challenges of Greece and the Marshall Plan, Woodrow Wilson, the college president, kept America out of WWI long enough until we could enter at the tail end with less bloodshed than had he followed the calls of more experienced folks, and maximum benefit to our world position. Ronald Reagan the actor made correct foreign policy decisions regarding the deescalation of the cold war (despite advisers such as Paul Wolfowitz begging him not to trust Russians)
An Undeserved Trip to the Woodshed?
While John Kennedy, the inexperienced young Senator who took over the White House in the Cold War era of 1961, did make errors in decision making during the Bay of Pigs event -- famously causing Dwight Eisenhower to scold him, to taking him "to the woodshed", during a secret meeting at the Presidential retreat. For history, this might have been a powerful argument for the need to go with experience and age when selecting Presidents, not young and telegenic Senators.
But Kennedy later excelled in the same theatre he previously erred in, and in the Cuban Missle Crisis Kennedy's actions not only avoided disaster but Kennedy put the U.S. in a advantageous position over the Soviets -- more than anything his experienced predecessor had done. Kennedy took personal control of the crisis and did not merely listen to Pentagon suggestions. His inexperience might have given him a fresh perspective on how to deal with this unique crisis.
Best said, experience is a wash. At best its a weak positive corelation. It helped in some cases, hurt in others..not conclusive. Strictly looking at years of experience doesn't seem to a valid tool for judging a candidate for such a complex job. The office is more dynamic than any static experience can account for. While a president might be a great foriegn policy genius, domestic problems could mount. A great economist President might be ruined by foreign affairs.
And certainly events play a role... Hoover sacked with great depression. Andrew Johnson was doomed succeding Lincoln and beseiged by republicans...Carter's dillegence was great for camp david, but overshadowed by event sin Iran. The immensly successful politician Van Buren was waylaid by a bank crisis right as his Presidency started. But is that a cop out?. Do we still have to answer the question "Could experience determine how a President will deal with the myriad problems they might face?"
Maybe FDR's Quote Could Provide Some Insight
In evaluating how to judge experience in a candidate, I'm reminded of FDRs quote.
The Presideny is not merely an administrative office, that is the least of it, the biggest part is moral leadership.
What does that mean? Does it mean a good President should go to church a lot? I don't think so. I think FDR is talking about charisma, communication and persuasion when he talks about moral leadership. The tenent ths seems to run through good Presidents is the ability to persuade. Successful Presidents move people: Congress, Foreign leaders, Cabinets and most importantly the American People.. if you see that in the person you are probably picking a successful president that person will persuade. Great communicators such as Washington, both Roosevelts, Lincoln, and Reagan had effective presidencies. I'd put in the category of good communicators Wilson, Kennedy and Clinton - for while they had mixed results, their best moments came from their public communications.
And when I speak of the ability to persuade, to communciate successfully, I don't mean just image, I don't mean anything a consultant could tell a candidate to do. A good President needs to be convincing, concise, in many ways the appealing on tv thing looks flat and fails. A happy face who says nothing will not be convincing. Reagan took concise stands on an issue framed in a way average voters could understand and in ways that were bad for his opponents..
The current president suffers from his lack of ability to communicate and persuade. Most of his legislative success came because of his party's control of the chambers. His policies generally rate low in popularity polls. Most importantly, President Bush does not show the ability to increase support for his programs after major speeches. Though its speculative, I believe he might have been lucky as the better of 2 lousy communicators running in 2004, in that he actually decided on a message, and probably would have been defeated by a more concise speaker.
So, if you are going to look for experience. Perhaps look for experience that involves persuasion.. Lincoln was a busy trial laywer, Reagan of course was an actor and spokesperson. Wilson as a university president high profile job invovling him selling his university. Clinton was, well, he was always running for President.
As for Obama, I make no calls yet but I do say that the tool to make a call is 'can the person pesuade?' In judging everyone running in '08, I'm carefully assessing their communication ability. And so far, (to depart from historical analysis and just look at the current situation), I see Edwards and Obama as potential here and Hillary and McCain as not scoring well in this category.