I've noticed a fundamental illogic in claims that Obama does not have experience sufficient to be President - an illogic that deserves to be called out.
Here's how it goes: Against the claim that Obama does not have enough national experience to be President, his supporters (including me) cite JFK and Theodore Roosevelt - two great Presidents who were criticized when first running for or assuming the office, as being too inexperienced to make a good President. To which Obama's opponents are quick to reply: yes, but JFK (Congressman for six years, Senator for eight) and Theodore Roosevelt (Governor of New York for two years, Vice President of the United States for less than a year)had much more experience than Obama.
Well, first, regarding Roosevelt, I'd question whether his experience was more or better than Obama's - though I'd be willing to concede that being VP even for six months is certainly impressive.
Much more important, however, is how the actual prior experience of JFK and Roosevelt misses the point regarding Obama: because, just as in the case of Obama, both candidates were derided for their inexperience when they ran for President in 1960 (JFK) and Vice President in 1900 (Roosevelt). JFK was told he should be patient, and let one of his elders in the Democratic Party get the nomination. (Sound familiar?) And when Roosevelt was elected McKinley's Vice President, Republican politico Mark Hanna infamously told his friends, "You've put that damn cowboy within a heartbeat of the presidency."
Tragically, Hanna's nightmare came true when McKinley was assassinated. But its ending was one of the greatest Presidents in American history, as Theodore Roosevelt moved America into the 20th century with flair and wisdom.
I expect Barack Obama will do the same for our country in the 21st.
6 comments:
If a politician with the most experience is what people want, why is no one drafting Dick Cheney? He has gobs of it, and look where that experience led our country! Maybe experience isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Ha - good point, Delia!
I agree with you 100%, at least in spirit. Knowing that we're on the same side, I'm going to throw a little gasoline on the fire and point out the experience that each man had which dwarfs anything Obama can point to....
Teddy Roosevelt (my favorite president)
* NY State Assemblyman
* Failed NYC Mayoral run
* Frontiersman/Conservationist
* NYC Police Commissioner
* Ast. Sec. of the Navy
* Colonel US Army (Rough Riders)
* Posthumous Medal of Honor
* Governor of NY State
* Vice President
* President
* Nobel Peace Prize
The peace prize came as a result of his negotiation to an end of the Russo-Japanese war, so it came after he entered office, but it's impressive nonetheless.
JFK
* WWII PT Boat Command
* Navy and Marine Corps Medal
* Purple Heart
* Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal
* WW II Victory Medal
* 6 Years in Congress
* 7 Years in Senate
* President
Less density to his resume than Obama for sure on Kennedy's part, but being in combat against the Japanese is something that plays HUGE with the voting public. That goes for Roosevelt as well. Both of these men had that possibly artificial credential of combat experience that prepares them for the role of Commander-in-Chief. That means little to me in terms of qualifying a person to be president, but it certainly is a factor.
Again, I'm 100% with you on this issue, but we can't completely discount the perception of lack of experience that Roosevelt in particular had compared to Obama. If anyone thought that Roosevelt was inexperienced, they weren't paying attention. When that criticism is leveled at Obama, I think there's at least a sliver of legitimacy to it.
He has my vote, and I think he has yours, so we're probably just preaching to the choir anyway. ;)
Plugh- To suggest that Roosevelt's combat experience was 'artificial' is a pretty big leap. JFK- yea probably.
as for experience- if we wanted the most experienced person to be president, we wouldn't have a two term limit. obviously someone who has been president for 8 years has the most experience, but we don't work like that.
The thing that will make obama is his ideals- the experience is made up with a good staff. 1 person can't know it all, they just need to have the correct fundamental philosophy to make the right decision after facts have been presented by a competent staff.
Again- I'm no friend of Obama- but he's as qualified as Hillary.
But Mike P :) - you've included Prez and Nobel Prize in TR's experience - not relevant to whether he had sufficient experience to become President, since both happened after he became President, right?
And the same, of course, applies to listing JFK's Presidency as a credential in (tragically) his one and only Presidential campaign...
Mike,
I don't think either Roosevelt or JFK's combat experience is artificial. I think that combat experience as a major credential for the presidency is artificial. Clearly both of these men had powerful experiences at war. Roosevelt experienced the up front, gory kind of war that most presidents never come close to.
Dr. Levinson,
I simply included the presidency in the lists above as a way to cap off the credentials with the final accomplishment in this debate. It's not meant to be included in their credentials for the presidency. Also, I noted that the Nobel Prize was won during his presidency, but seemed noteworthy to demonstrate a continued trend of accomplishment that is only reserved for the very best of presidents. Tragically, we'll never know whether JFK would have earned such recognition later in his presidency.
Post a Comment