Does Experience Matter? A Historical View

One of my friends, Kelsey, has suggested a pro and con list of the leading candidates. I am intrigued, so I thought I would give it a shot. Yet before I do, I want to discuss one of the biggest issues being debated, experience. Does political experience make you a better president, or is character more important, or simply ideas. What can history tell us about experience? Note, just because experience helped or hurt these presidents does not mean the same is true with our candidates.

Lets began with looking at those men who are considered by most to be our greatest presidents: George Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan. There are others that can be thrown in, especially based on your party leanings, but these tend to be accepted by both parties (Reagan is the one controversial, yet most liberals would still agree with his skills while not agreeing with his politics. Many people would include JFK because of his popularity, but scholars do not list him, with his lack of achievements.

George Washington’s history is fairly well known. His background was in the military. Washington set the standard for what was considered the greatest qualification for being president, military service. Being a war hero is a big plus, but some type of military experience was almost always necessary until the election of Bill Clinton. Washington entered the presidency, with no political experience, none official at least. However, the military then and still today, but more then, was very political. You did not become a General without playing some politics. Then there is leadership. Washington may not have had political leadership, but had plenty of experience in management.

Lincoln also has a well known history, one with some but limited political experience. He had this military credentials, leading men into the Blackhawk wars, but that was also very limited. Lincoln was involved in politics most of his adult life, one way or another, but for actual service he served four consecutive terms in the Illinois state assembly starting in 1834. In 1846 he elected to the US House of Representatives and served for one term only. He did make a big splash attacking the sitting president for the Mexican War. In 1858 he ran for the US Senate against Stephan Douglas in which he lost but made a name for himself. It was not until 1860 that he won his next election as President. So Lincoln did have some experience but did not hold an office from 1848 until when he ran for president in 1860.

Teddy Roosevelt had a life time of public service, but only a limited amount of elected office experience. From 1888 to 1895 he was appointed to the Civil Service Commission where he spent his time fighting corruption and bring about reform. In 1885 to 1896 he was President of the NYC police commissioners and again fought corruption and brought about reform. In 1896 he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy, but resigned in 1898 when the US went to war with Spain. Teddy created his own cavalry command, known as the Rough Riders, and became the nations biggest war hero. Based on his popularity Teddy was elected Governor of New York, but only served half his term before being put on the presidential ticket as VP (sounds a lot like Palin, for McCain’s sake lets hope that’s were the similarities end). A year or so into his term as VP, the president was killed making TR the new Commander and Chief.

Franklin D. Roosevelt has a similar résumé as his cousin Teddy, but with a bit more experience in elected office. From 1910 to 1913 he served in the New York state Legislature. In 1913, like his cousin he was appointed to Assistant Secretary of the Navy, which he resigned in 1920 to run on the losing ticket as the VP with James Cox only to lose to Harding. In 1921 he caught polio and most thought his political ambitions were over only to be proven wrong when in 1929 he won the governorship of New York and stayed there until 1932 when he ran for the President and won. Still just a one term Governor (Palin is sounding better).

Ronald Reagan’s leadership experience came from a much different source then the rest. He did have military experience, enlisting in the reserve in 1937, but health problems kept him out of WWII. In 1941 he was elected to the Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild and then later from 1947 to 1952 and again in 1959 he was president of the Guild. SAG was not intended to be political, but in Reagan’s case it was. Reagan worked with the House Committee on Un-American Activities bringing Hollywood elites before Congress in order to root out communist. In 1967 he ran and won the governorship of California and served until 1975. The next year he had a failed run for the White house. It was not until 1980 that he won the presidential election and 4 years later won every state in the Union except Minnesota where his challenger was from. He was a very popular and effective president and only had one term as governor under him.

I would like to mention just one other, Ike. Most do not consider him to be one of the best, but he was an effective presidents. Ike came directly from the military with no political experience. Being the commanding general of WWII does give him leadership and some political experience (Ike keep getting bigger when Patton slipped because he could not or would not play the political game). The most important issue in the 1950s was the cold war, and Ike knew how to play that game, but had never been elected to any office before he was president.

So does experience matter? It seems that many of these great presidents had very little. Of these great ones, it seems that being a governor was important in their success. I thought all the talk about McCain’s character was overkill, but after analyzing past presidents, experience is not always the key, character seems to be important and basic leadership skills. Ultimately I feel it is not always experience, but the issues that should help us decide who we should vote for, but we need to consider the character as well. Obama has more experience in public office than Ike, but Ike had great advisors like John Foster Dullas to help. Palin has limited experience, but as much as the two Roosevelts and Reagan. It is their issues and what they want to accomplish and if they have the character to follow through. Another good President, Harry Truman, had little experience but on his desk read the sign, “The Buck Stops Here” and that is how he governed. With today’s politicians the buck seems to stop everywhere but the president. I think experience is important, but it does not need to be elected positions, we need to look at their life experience and what kind of person they are and can they live up and take on the challenge of the job.