With the nomination of a relative newcomer to national politics, ColoradoPols, along with just about everyone else in the nation has pretty much hopped onto the “experience” bandwagon. How much does experience in politics affect a person in the role of an executive?
I thought I’d write this diary up about past presidents and their “experience.” See if you can guess which president had which experience.
1. 12 years in Congress, 12 years in Senate and 2 years as VP.
2. 7 years in Senate, 6 months as Governor, 2 years as Secretary of State, 4 years as VP
3. 7 years as Secretary of Commerce
4. 2 years in Congress
5. 4 years as Governor, 5 years in Senate, 1 month VP
6. 8 years as Governor
7. 5 years as Governor
8. 8 months Senate President, 9 years in Senate, 2 years as Governor, 1 month as VP
9. 3 years in Congress, 3 years in Senate, 8 years as VP
While I agree that having a previous record allows the public to get to know how you will vote or have voted, it is not an indicator of how well you wield executive power. Management of people can be done incredibly bad by very bright people. Intelligence has not been a good indicator of how well a person can lead. Neither is mere charisma for that matter. The situations that the President of the United States will have to deal with are such that no job can prepare you for it. Can some people cope with the pressures and the responsibilities better than others? Of course, not all of our Presidents have been gems, but we do not always know that til they get there. So instead of harping on how well does Alaska compare to a community organizer, or is senate experience somehow more valuable than municipal experience, how about instead we get back to what we are good at, nitpicking their policy speeches.
Want to know who you thought would do well based on experience alone?
1. Lyndon Johnson
2. Martin Van Buren
3. Herbert Hoover
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. Andrew Johnson
6. Ronald Reagan
7. George W. Bush
8. John Tyler
9. Richard Nixon