Another Good Writer Questioning the Value of Experience

David Von Drehle of Time Magazine at Yahoo! News writes in "Does Experience Matter in a President? ":

My favorite excerpts:

There's something egglike about the concept of experience as a qualification for the highest office. At first blush, the idea appears to be something you can get your hands around. Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to cajole the Congress, understanding when to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when to call on the National Security Council - that sort of thing. But bear down even slightly, and the notion of experience is liable to crack and run all over. If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along. Lyndon Johnson, for example: his experience as a master legislator no doubt helped as he steered his historic civil rights and welfare agenda to passage. By the end of two years as President, however, "he was out of gas," recalls Johnson aide Harry McPherson. The longer Johnson was in the Oval Office, the more feckless his presidency became.

...

Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine. At the same time, the value that voters place on rÉsumÉ is constantly shifting. James A. Baker III is an authority on this. In 1980, he managed the campaign of his well-credentialed friend George H.W. Bush, under the slogan "A President we won't have to train." But the public mood was sour on Washington, and victory went to an outsider, Ronald Reagan, who had never served in Washington. Eight years later, the mood was stay the course, and Bush's experience as Vice President was his ticket to victory. Then the atmosphere turned again, and in 1992 the public demanded someone new. Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."

  Much more at source.

The article does pin the Bay of Pigs fiasco on JFK, but I'm not convinced the problems all stemmed from his governance.  The plot started under Eisenhower.  It may have not been well thought out in the first place.  It might have been an operation that Ike allowed thinking that, if the Cubans wanted to risk their lives trying to reclaim their homeland for capitalism, let them go.  Ever since Republicanshave been trying to beat JFK with the Bay of Pigs bat, but really were we willing to create an Iraq type situation 90 miles offshore?  And BTW, Cuba had a big brother called the USSR that might have started a major war over an invasion of the island.  JFK is looking more and more like a bloody genius now, isn't he?

I think Kennedy had the better idea.  Just because the Cuban immigrants thought that if they jumped in and got in a mess, the US military would be forced to rescue them and commit to regime change, doesn't mean that any promises were made by the government under the president in command at the time.     

At a time that more and more is being unearthed about the lies of the Republican political machine and how they control our news and analysis media, we should re-examine all the "stories" of the past and see who have the most interest in keeping old lies around.

But experience, obviously, isn't all it's cracked up to be.  And as I said before, there is no experience that can begin to prepare a person for being president, except being it. Nice to know that James Baker thinks that too.  

tags: time magazine  james baker  lincoln  jfk  bush  reagan  lbj  2008 presidential primary  2008 election  obama  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit