Does Experience Matter?
Matt Bai of the New York Times opines on the lack of governing experience held by the candidates currently ahead in the polls:
Of all the campaign themes that will emerge leading up to the 2008 primaries, one you probably won’t hear a lot about is experience. That’s because the candidates who are at the moment best positioned for the nominations of their parties have surprisingly little of it. At a time when the nation looks for a leader to meet profound challenges to its decades-long dominance as an economic and military power, the five candidates who lead in state and national polls — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney — have won a grand total of five statewide elections in their cumulative political careers and have served a combined 20 years in statewide office. (Fred Thompson, who may soon be among the leaders in the Republican field, served eight years in the Senate.) In fact, the executive with the longest tenure in the group is Giuliani, who would be the first mayor in history to ascend to the presidency without holding some higher office first.
…
Then again, there are reasons to think that accumulated wisdom really does matter. Bush the Decider campaigned on the premise that a good president, like a C.E.O., need only be able to judge shrewdly among policy options A, B and C. But his presidency illuminates that running a White House isn’t, in fact, a simple multiple-choice test; a president’s advisers often disagree not only on the means of achieving their goals but also on the goals themselves, and a president has to filter out competing ideologies before he can clearly see the options laid before him.
Experience is what prepares presidents to stand by their convictions even when experts urge them not to, like Johnson’s signing the Voting Rights Act, or Harry Truman’s integrating the Armed Services. It is also what enables presidents to recognize when compromise — even odious compromise — is the last, best option, as Bill Clinton did on welfare reform. Lacking that kind of expertise, George W. Bush never did seem to master the balance between principle and pragmatism, the veteran politician’s art of when to build bridges and when to burn them. Whoever gets the nominations next year will want to study Bush’s experience closely — if only because they may not be able to count on their own.
Meanwhile, political columnist Lee Bandy of The State writes about Governor Richardson after a recent campaign swing in South Carolina:
Democrats might have the best presidential candidate in New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
“I haven’t seen anybody in either party who has the depth that this fellow has,” said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a staunch Republican.
“He has got a wealth of experience.”
Just check Richardson’s resume.
He has been a member of Congress and a diplomat, represented the United States in the United Nations, was U.S. energy secretary under President Clinton and was re-elected governor of New Mexico in a landslide.
Richardson has crept into contention for the Democratic presidential nomination as an easygoing candidate. He now leads the Democratic party’s second tier of presidential hopefuls and could move into the top tier as others fall by the wayside.
Those who have observed him closely on the campaign trail say he’s a natural, the real thing. He has a big smile and an easygoing manner that makes voters feel extremely comfortable around him.
…
Running in the shadow of better-known candidates who have served in elected office for shorter periods of time, Richardson loves to point to his breadth of experience.
One of the biggest factors weighing in his favor is his personality. He’s well-liked.
Unlike his fellow Democratic competitors, who often come across as rigid and rehearsed, Richardson seems relaxed and sure of himself as he campaigns across the country.
Richardson also distinguishes himself among the eight Democrats by calling himself a “moderate.”
As governor, Richardson kept a tight lid on spending and lowered taxes.
“He comes across as being a different Democrat,” observed Dave Woodard, a political scientist at Clemson University and Republican consultant. “He likes capital development and all that stuff. And, let me tell you, he can really galvanize a crowd. I’ve seen it. He is impressive.”
