TIME Magazine Says Experience Not Necessary to be President
October 30, 2008
|
Posted by Ray Fowler
NEWSFLASH! TIME Magazine argues that experience is not necessary to be president — except that was seven months ago in March when they ran a two-article cover story on Sen. Barack Obama. Check out the following excerpts defending Sen. Obama’s lack of experience. (Where was TIME when people started attacking Gov. Sarah Palin as being light on experience?)
From: Does Experience Matter in a President?
Obama’s relatively light political resume … continues to be the focus of his rivals’ attacks [i.e. Hillary] … Obama’s credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors …
Wouldn’t it be nice if time on the job and tickets punched translated neatly into superior performance? Then finding great Presidents would be a simple matter of weighing résumés … But it has never worked that way, which is why Lincoln’s statue occupies a marble temple on the Mall in Washington, while his far more experienced rival William Seward has a little seat on a pedestal in New York City.
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 … To a keen student of human nature, all of life offers lessons in how to lead, inspire and endure. Lincoln’s ability to apply useful lessons from his motley experiences was among his most striking traits.
From: The Science of Experience.
In making the case that she would be a better President than Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton never forgets to summon the argument that she has more experience. But as the Florida State simulations show, experience doesn’t always help. In fact, three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself … can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance …
Experience is not only insufficient for expert performance; in some cases, it can hurt. Highly experienced people tend to execute routine tasks almost unconsciously … and they retrieve the information they need quickly, rarely pausing to apply rules … Which is not to say that, if elected, Clinton or John McCain would drive the country off a cliff — or that Obama, as a comparative novice, would be more cautious and less burdened by his habits. But the study of experience does indicate that the more seasoned candidates wouldn’t automatically outperform Obama as President.
Do you find TIME’s arguments convincing? Either way, it makes for some interesting reading seven months later and just days away from the election.
Related post: Obama, McCain and Palin TIME Magazine Covers
Categories: Politics
|
Leave a reply
I’m not sure why we should revisit a cover story and a discussion that’s seven months old. But since we have, here are two observations:
*Bush came into the Presidency with solid experience in running his companies into the ground, and we can see how well he applied what he knew.
*McCain has built a campaign upon 30-years of Republican success in creating national division along cultural lines, and he insulted the country by choosing Sarah Palin, who is — above all else — entirely unprepared for the Presidency and even, it seems, unprepared for the Alaskan Governorship.
Aren’t Americans tired of national leaders who use their experience in these destructive ways?
Aren’t Christians tired of hearing from Christian leaders whose politics have more in common with Republican demagoguery than with the New Testament?
I value the truth. When TIME declares that inexperience is okay, then they can’t – seven months later – say it isn’t. That’s all. Not partisan politics. Just a simple request for consistency in positions.
Hi 3D – Well, I don’t usually post cover stores that are seven months old, but I stumbled across this one while preparing the other post on the TIME Magazine covers. The reason I thought it was relevant was that it was mostly forgotten by the time the whole experience issue came up again with Sarah Palin. And TIME certainly didn’t raise the same arguments for Palin as they did for Obama. Instead we got “The Education of Sarah Palin.”
I am guessing TIME would not publish the same articles today. In fact, this month instead of “Does Experience Matter?” we got “Does Temperament Matter?” which ties into the whole McCain is a hothead and Obama is cool as a cucumber storyline.
Now I happen to think McCain is a hothead. It is one of the reasons I didn’t vote for him in the primaries and why I was disappointed when he became the Republican pick. He would not be my choice for President, but then neither is Obama. I guess it is one of those “lesser of two disappointing choices” years.
Sharon – I agree. A little consistency would be nice. Which is really the whole point behind the post.
Consistency is certainly important. TIME does fail on that issue. I find this to occur on both sides of the aisle, and indeed probably in all of our own hearts as we subconciously or consciously favor our own candidates despite apparent contradictions. I do believe that we could just as easily point to conservative Christians who railed against President Clinton’s sexual immorality, and argued, quite reasonably I thought, that character does matter. That if he couldn’t be trusted to keep his marriage vows, he was less trustworthy in the political arena. I have yet to hear similar comments about how McCain’s desertion of his disabled wife for a rich, young, beautiful heiress might show a lack of character. When I have brought this up, I have, rightly, heard from fellow believers that he admits this was wrong, and that this was a grave moral error. We should forgive and move on. However, I did not see this same response when Pres. Clinton apologized. I’m sure I, too, have been inconsistent many times in my political decisions, so am not pointing fingers, rather observing that this is something probably innately human.
Bethany – Thanks for commenting – good points all around. By the way, did you notice I quoted from two pro-Obama articles in one post? Not bad for an old conservative Republican like me!
If we had to go on “experience”, then then George Bush should win hands down. He’s the most experienced person on the planet when it comes to the job of President of the United States.
Unfortunately, with 8 years of ‘experience’, the vast majority of Americans think he’s doing a terrible job. Even his own party is embarrassed by his poor performance.
‘Good judgement’ trumps ‘experience’ everytime.
I’m sure if John McCain had to do it all over again he would have made some different choices. Heaven knows he’s run for the Senate a bunch of times and has tackled the “Big Office” more than once.
You would think by now he would have the experience to whip the pants off a much less “experienced” young black man who has only run for office a few times.
The fact that a very experience white politician like McCain is trailing in the polls either says a lot about Him or a lot about His Opponent.
Norris – I think that is exactly the point that the TIME Magazine articles were trying to make on behalf of Sen. Obama. I just thought it was interesting when the experience issue came up again with Gov. Palin, that they did not offer the same arguments in her defense.