On Presidential Experience

A couple of days ago, I offered some thoughts on the nature and level of experience needed for the office of Vice President. Continuing on that theme, I wanted to comment on the experience and skills needed for the presidency.

When talking about experience, it's important, I think, to distinguish that part of a person's background that can be characterized as "credentials." In other words, I would propose to look at a candidate's credentials, not as a synonym for experience, but as a separate component of experience. "Experience" would refer to everything the candidate has done in their life that may reflect on their capacity to serve as POTUS. "Credentials" are merely the objective achievements he or she has attained along the way. Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have somewhat similar credentials but, I would suggest, dramatically different kinds of experience. (By "similar credentials," I mean they're both first-term statewide officeholders with several years of prior experience in lower offices.)

Focusing now on the broader question of experience, it is clear that Obama and Palin have each taken a dramatically different route to get to their respective stations in public life. Obama's career has been mainly as an advocate of liberal-left social and economic policies on behalf of lower-income, urban blacks. He lacks any kind of executive experience -- which is to say, he's never actually run anything, except arguably his own campaigns for public office.

Sarah Palin's experience in the public arena has been not as an advocate for any particular group, but as a manager and executive dealing with the nuts and bolts of government. As such, she is bound to have much less of a record of positions on the hot-button issues of the day than Obama, who has spent most of his career in legislative posts where debate and advocacy are the main requirements of the job.

Obama's experience as an advocate would serve him well as president. One of the important aspects of the modern presidency is defining and promoting an agenda for America's security and prosperity. The ability to communicate, persuade, and build majorities for particular programs and policies is obviously key to a president's success in carrying out a legislative agenda. President Bush was successful in his first term because he was able to define and articulate a compelling vision for responding to the myriad of threats posed by international terrorism. On the other hand, he failed to demonstrate anything close to the same skill in marshaling support for initiatives such as immigration and social security form.

Of course, only part of a president's job involves policy advocacy. In many respects, as George Bush famously noted, the president is the "decider." He doesn't always need to obtain the approval of voters or the Congress before taking a particular course of action. This is most often the case in regard to foreign policy and in the administration of the executive branch (especially personnel decisions). By definition, these are instances in which the president is acting as an executive rather than as a de facto legislator.

There a number of skills or traits a presidential candidate should possess in order to be a good executive. For example, an understanding of what the government does and how it works is of paramount importance. The only thing that mitigates the importance of such understanding is the fact that, left to its own institutional devices, the government will continue to operate on a day to day basis whether or not the president pays attention to it. However, to the extent that a president seeks to tinker with the machinery of government in pursuit of some policy objective, it's imperative that he or she know what the hell they are doing.

There are no shortages of examples to use in making this point. To cite just one, a president may decide that, in order to cut government spending, it would be a good idea to reduce the size of the military. However, it's important for the president to realize that such a cut may make it difficult to increase the size of the military at a future date, because while you can recruit more enlisted personnel on fairly short notice, the effect of the intervening cuts will be to reduce the future supply of officers to lead the new troops to be added in the future. Government is a machine with many moving parts, and it is essential for any president who aspires to change the status quo to understand how the pieces all fit together.

Apart from mere knowledge, a president needs sound judgment in it many forms. Most critically, a president needs to be able to decide when it is necessary and appropriate to use military force. Deciding whether and how to respond to a perceived threat to the national interest is the central concern of the Commander-in-Chief.

I see nothing in Obama's background that would suggest that he has particular faith or confidence in the use of American military force for any purpose. He has no personal military background. He doesn't appear to have any significant friends or associates of a military bent. He opposed the war in Iraq. He opposed the surge, predicting it would not work. His expressions of support or concern for military families all seem to focus on the burdens the government has imposed on them, rather than on what they have achieved through the sacrifices they have made. Moreover, judging from his friendships with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Obama appears at least sympathetic to the view that the U.S. military is a source of trouble in the world, rather than a tool for advancing the cause of peace and freedom.

An Obama supporter would likely rebut the foregoing observations by asserting that the use of military force in places like Iraq or Vietnam was a mistake, cost thousands of lives, and consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars that would have been better spent on domestic needs. Those are debatable arguments, but I think they ultimately miss the point. Assuming there are situations where military action is appropriate, a president should have the judgment to recognize those situations and decide on the proper form of military response. Possibly, Barack Obama has the capacity to do those things, but I'm aware of nothing in his experience that would lead to that conclusion. By contrast, John McCain, for example, (a) opposed President Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Beirut, (b) supported the first Gulf War, and (c) advocated for the troop surge in Iraq that helped turn the tide of victory there. Thus, he has a record of sometimes supporting military action, sometimes opposing it, and sometimes supporting a different form of military action than the one being taken.

In fairness to Obama, sound judgment on military matters will sometimes entail opposing military action when others are in support. Thus, Obama would arguably deserve credit on this score for opposing the war in Iraq if we stipulate the war was a mistake (which I'm prepared to do only for the sake of argument). Even with that important stipulation, however, I don't believe Obama's opposition reflects well on his military judgment. First, his anti-war position was completely in keeping with the views of his supporters, and thus required no exercise of political courage. Second, his stated reasons for opposing the war, as set forth an October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally, portrayed the case for war in terms that can only be described as cartoonish. Specifically, Obama charactertured supporters of the war as "arm-chair, weekend warriors . . . [attempting] to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Obama's resort to ad hominem attacks dispels any suggestion that his opposition to the war was the product of sound military judgment. Therefore, even if Obama was right about the war (again, debatable), there is no evidence he arrived at his position in a careful, serious fashion.

Another crucial area in which a president's judgment is tested is in the evaluation of people. Lincoln was about the least well-credentialed president in U.S. history. He had no formal education to speak of and his prior experience in public office was highlighted by a single term in the House of Representatives during the Polk administration. One thing he did have going for him was an impeccable ability to differentiate between the people he could rely on to do the things he needed to be done and those who needed to be watched carefully, if they were to be utilized at all. People like Generals Grant and Sherman and Secretaries Stanton and Seward operated with pretty much free rein, and deservedly so. On the other hand, Lincoln hovered over General McClellan the way a mother hovers over a toddler learning how to use scissors for the first time. Lincoln realized soon enough that McClellan, for all his obvious talents, was worthless to him as a commander, and moved on.

These days, a president's ability to size up a person's character, abilities, and motivations are unlikely to determine the survival of the Union, but it can still have an enormous effect on the success of an administration. Presidents have been all too often burned by the scandalous behavior of trusted associates. Subordinates with hidden agendas or unwarranted influence within the administration can lead the president down the wrong path or, even if the president is on the right path, undermine policies before they can bear fruit.

I think this aspect of presidential judgment deserves particular attention because, in my view, and that of many others, Barack Obama is an incredibly poor judge of people. Supposedly, he didn't realize until a couple months ago that Jeremiah Wright was a racist anti-American, or that Tony Rezko was a crook. He still doesn't seem to understand that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and attempted murderer. If Obama can be friends with these people for years and not see that they are scoundrels, how can he be trusted to sort out the good guys from the bad guys when he's president?

From the standpoint of overall experience, Obama appears to be an extremely risky choice for president. He has no meaningful executive experience. Virtually all of his experience is in the area of advocacy, which is only a relatively small part of what a president does. He has no record of which I'm aware that would suggest that he would exercise sound judgment in the use of military force. He has not been in the Senate long enough to have accrued a depth of understanding as to the intricacies of the government. Finally, he appears to lack basic judgment in regard to people, even those who have played important roles in his personal and professional development.

Obama's experience pales in comparison to that of his opponent. As noted above, McCain has an extremely strong background in matters relating to the military and foreign policy, including executive experience as an officer in the Navy. Right or wrong, he taken a judicious approach to the use of military force, with no obvious bias either in favor or against the use of force. In terms of legislative skills, he has at times been so influential in shaping the national agenda as to seem to be operating a shadow presidency. Just in recent years, McCain has been at the forefront of such diverse issues as campaign finance reform, the fight over judicial nominations, immigration reform, and Iraq. Because of the range of issues he's taken on and his long tenure in Congress, there appear to be few, if any, areas of the federal government in which he lacks significant experience. He's fiercely independent and thus can be counted on to exercise real judgment rather than follow the party line. His POW experience demonstrates that he's a man of principle who values character. I would submit this makes him less likely to succumb to errors of judgment in assessing the makeup of those with whom he comes into contact. A guy who values good character in others is more likely to recognize it, or notice its absence, as compared to someone who assumes there are equal parts of good and bad in most people.

I have many quibbles with McCain from a substantive standpoint. In terms of experience, however, he could not be much better equipped to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. Obama, unfortunately, leaves a great deal to be desired.