It should come as no surprise that I, as a person who is a fan of Smart People, endorse Barack Obama for president in 2008. I'm confident he's significantly smarter than anyone else running. Enough has been made of his vague promises to change the Washington atmosphere, but his specific plans on just standard governmental business is just fascinating.

I have, however, pledged not to make this a politics blog so much as a political history blog. About Presidents.

With that in mind, I'd like to direct you to the following piece Nightline did on Barack Obama.



There's a moment at the end where the anchor mentions that the Clinton campaign has already released a rebuttal to the interview, which they hadn't yet seen in full. The precise quote was "Considering that Senator Obama was a state senator just three years ago, he is the last person to be questioning anyone's experience. If he is elected, he would have less experience than any American President of the 20th Century."

Hold the fuck on.

The first thing I thought when I heard that was "Woodrow Fucking Wilson" and I immediately darted off to Wikipedia to confirm my suspicion. Now, Obama has talked a lot about how he has the "right kind" of experience, even if it's not necessarily enough. But let's see if we can talk about the experience question - in the modern, dominant, and embattled presidency of the 20th Century, how much experience does an aspiring President traditionally have?

Well, first, what counts as experience? Barack is keen to point out that he has more time in elected office than either of his chief competitors - Hillary Clinton will have eight years of Senate experience by the time the 2008 election rolls around, John Edwards will have had six. Barack will have had four, but eight years in state government before that. Of course, Hillary spent twenty years as the first lady of somewhere or other, but are we counting that? I don't think that's a position in the constitution.

If we're to play against Barack, we'll say that a position in national government, whether it means you're in the legislative branch, appointed by the president, or, what the hell, married to the president counts. Let's also say that having an executive position over any other government institution is also a reasonable way to have experience - say, Mayor, Governor, or if we're feeling salty, the Chairperson of the County Board (Just a few more years, Todd Stroger, and we'll elect you president!). And let's not count anything in state government, because that is obviously riding with training wheels.

The first President we'll look at is Teddy Roosevelt. War hero, right? He started as a state assemblyman and was on the United States Civil Service Commission from 1888 to 1895. Does that count? I'm not sure how important that was. Kind of a low level appointment, let's put that on the same level as State Senator, along with his experience as the president of the board of the New York City Police Commissioners for the two years after that.

T.R. was appointed Secretary of the Navy in 1897, and promptly resigned it in 1898 to serve in the Volunteer Cavalry in the Spanish-American War. He was in the military for less than a year, and was elected as Governor of New York in 1898. In 1900 he was forced upon McKinley as a running mate by Thomas C. Platt, became Vice President, served as VP for six months and then McKinley was shot and he inherited the Presidency.

So Teddy had, by our standards, about... four years of experience in National Government? Are we counting Military experience? Shit, why not.

William Howard Taft! Mediocre president, superb Chief Justice. Two years as the Governor-General of the Phillipines, and four as the Secretary of War. Filipinos loved him, though.

Next up was Woodrow Wilson, who I mentioned previously. He was the President of Princeton University for eight years, and then the governor of New Jersey for two. And while I respect his time as the president of a university, doesn't count. Two years. Didn't he lead us through World War I or something? I hear he was a racist. Fucking Wilson.

Harding had six years in the Senate, and two years as the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. Silent Cal Coolidge was mayor for two years, Lieutenant Governor for three, Real Governor for two more, and Vice President for two before becoming president on accident. Hoover was head of the Food Administration for four years and Secretary of Commerce for eight. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years and Governor for four. Truman was a Senator for ten years and VP for four months. Eisenhower had a bunch of important military positions for about eleven years that I don't really want to list. Kennedy spent fourteen years in congress, LBJ for 12 with two as VP. Nixon had four in the house, two in the Senate, and eight as VP. Ford spent an uneventful 24 years in the House of Representatives, including eight years as minority leader, and then less than one as VP. Carter spent four years as Governor, Reagan eight. Bush I was a representative for four years, ambassador to the UN for 2, head of the RNC for 1, head of the CIA for 1, and VP for eight. Clinton was governor for 12 years, GWB for 6.

What a lovely list! Now, I'm not entirely sure how we're sorting this list. What better prepares you for the presidency? Being President of a University? Serving in the Military? But one could argue that Wilson's greatest triumphs were leading the US through war and his postwar efforts at a new world order, or that Eisenhower's greatest legacy was his effective management of a nation in peacetime, with the Space Race, Social Security, the Interstate Highways and the nearly unrivaled prosperity. Is legislative experience less effective than executive? Truman and Kennedy did pretty well for themselves. Does a long, illustrious career make a glorious president? Nixon and Ford seem to be the exception to that rule. And of course, Wilson and Roosevelt, routinely ranked in the Near Great category of presidents (around #5 or #6) had less experience than Obama.

So what's the point? It's hard to tell what experience an effective President needs; it often seems to be associated with the historical circumstances of the era - General Wesley Clark could have been the spiritual successor to Ike had he run in a different era. Eisenhower and Wilson embraced their roles as outsiders in their successful presidencies. George Bush Sr. did a pretty good job in the early 90s despite being a longtime government insider (admittedly in a time where something like that was more of an asset - he handled the Gulf War and the breakup of the USSR well). One could pretty easily argue that now is the time for an outsider, given the rampant power abuses and corruption of this administration, while led by a supposed outsider but infested with longtime political institutions.

Does Barack Obama have the experience to be President?

No, he needs to be appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy. But maybe after that.

Labels: barack obama, dwight d. eisenhower, george h. w. bush, presidents, teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson