Experience and the Presidency
posted by Daniel Solove
Much has been made of late about experience and the presidency. John McCain and the Republicans have attacked Barack Obama for lacking the experience to be President. Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is now being criticized by Democrats as lacking experience. Both sides are accusing each other of hypocrisy. Some Republicans are attempting to make silly distinctions based on who has more “executive” experience, something that ironically even McCain lacks. Obama has defended himself by talking about his experience running his campaign, an argument I don’t find to be particularly compelling.
Although I certainly recognize that Obama doesn’t have a ton of experience, my reaction to Palin was immediately one of shock at how little experience she had. Am I just being partisan, since I support Obama and the Democrats? On ideology, it’s easy for me to articulate why I think the Democratic ticket is better than the Republican one. But I’ve been trying to figure out why I react so differently to Obama and to Palin on the experience issue.
I think the reason is this: It’s not really about experience in the way most people are talking about. Obama is well-known. He’s been on the national stage for many years, and when he was on this stage, it was well-known that he was a potential future candidate for President. When I refer to being on the national stage, I don’t mean necessarily being a member of Congress or the Vice President — Rudolph Giuliani was on the national stage, despite being a mayor. We’ve heard a lot about Obama. He’s been in numerous debates — as has Biden and McCain and Clinton and others. We’ve seen him speak many times. There have been countless media stories about him, many discussions about him and his ideas. He has been interviewed countless times by the media.
In contrast, Palin is a surprise. For most of us, we’ve never heard of her before. We’ve never seen her interviewed by the media. We’ve barely read anything about her until recently. We know little about her.
This, I think, explains my reaction and the reaction of many others to Palin. The big problem isn’t that she lacks experience. It is that this late in the game, only a few months away from the election, we’re suddenly being introduced to her for the first time. The other candidates have been tested by being in the media storm for years; Palin has not. We’ve had time to learn about the other candidates, to see what is unearthed about them, to find out about their virtues and warts. They’ve been washed in media acid for quite some time. Palin has not. If Palin had been on a presidential or vice presidential short list a few years ago, if she had been scrutinized by the national media for years, if she had been well-known throughout America by both Democrats and Republicans, I don’t think I’d feel the same way about her lacking “experience.”
In other words, experience isn’t really the issue here. It’s that Palin is unknown and untested, a stranger who has suddenly appeared into this race like an unexpected guest. I don’t think that two months is a long enough time to get to know her. So Palin abruptly appears in the middle of this long-going campaign, like a bolt out of the blue at virtually the eleventh hour, and now we must sit through a media frenzy to get any information about her. This media scrutiny is important and to be expected — we need to know more about her — and we need to see how she withstands the media acid. But it is unfortunate that it all must be compressed into just 60 days. The result will be a more potent media frenzy, a distraction during the final stages of an election. With Obama and McCain and other candidates who have long had their backgrounds scrutinized by the media, the attention will be on the issues. But with Palin, the media will be focused on the getting up to speed on her background. I find this very unfortunate, as this final stage of the election process should be focused on the issues. This is why I’m angry at McCain’s choice of Palin. It detracts from the issues in this election and is creating a circus-like sideshow.
September 6, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
Responses (22)
Heidi Kitrosser - September 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well said, Dan. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are no known near-future plans by the McCain campaign to place Palin in unscripted media situations. For example, she’s the only one of the four running mates not currently scheduled for a Sunday news show event. But as you point out, she’s exactly the candidate the public ought to be hearing from — without a script — right now. If the campaign gets their way, we may well not hear from Palin without a script until the VP debate.
Jaya Ramji-Nogales - September 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Well said, Dan. It’s exactly this “unkown” component that makes McCain’s choice of Palin a brilliant (if risky) strategic choice. We’ve had a year and a half of media inundation with the primaries and so have heard plenty about Obama and McCain — perhaps to the point of oversaturation. Biden is already a pretty well-known entity. Palin, on the other hand, is interesting simply because she’s new and we don’t know anything about her. While I would hope this wouldn’t be a reason to vote for her, it may be for some, and certainly attracts attention to McCain’s campaign and away from Obama’s (whether that’s a net positive remains to be seen).
James Grimmelmann - September 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I respectfully dissent. I don’t disagree with what you say about unfamiliarity, but you shouldn’t discount the actual difference in experience between Obama and Palin. He’s served nationally, for longer, and representing more people. She’s flat-out unqualified to be President, and it’s an insult to our political institutions to pretend otherwise.
The difference in experience is rhetorically visible. Most of the arguments being made on her behalf are transparently ridiculous. Running a campaign isn’t automatically comparable to holding public office, but Obama’s campaign has been so extraordinarily well-run that it’s worth taking into account. The biggest argument against it is simply that managerial experience isn’t much of a predictor of political competence: witness George W. Bush.
Matt Bodie - September 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I agree that exposure is part of the issue, but I don’t think it’s the whole issue. There’s a reason that her pick was a surprise, and it’s that her credentials don’t meet the usual expectations for a potential VP. I realize there’s a chicken-and-egg problem here. But if she had been, for example, governor of Georgia rather than Alaska, or Mayor of New York instead of Walinda, then she would have been more on the radar. Sebelius, Kaine, Pawlenty and Jindal were all relatively unknown, too, at least to the general public. But their credentials are better, they were “in the game,” and there would not have been the same shock.
As an Obama supporter, you shouldn’t concede the experience issue so quickly. You say “experience isn’t really the issue here,” but Obama has an experience argument to make. Obama has not only had more exposure — he’s had legislative experience (state and federal), and he has experience in the U.S. Senate with foreign policy issues. It’s just not the same as mayor of a small town and (briefly) governor of Alaska. He has had to take positions on national issues — not just as a presidential candidate, but as a senator (and senatorial candidate). I think you slight his experience if you say that he and Palin have the same experience, but he’s had more “vetting.”
Michael Lee - September 6, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think it is erroneous to conclude our failure to hear of her, might constitute a lack of experience on her part. We can be sure her gubernatorial opponent did plenty of vetting, albeit on a stage outside our sphere of awareness.
Your comments raise a secondary question. For some reason, Democrats seem hell-bent on history, at the expense of anything else. They want to be the party that brought us our first black president. If Obama is “all that,” think how much better he might be with ten years experience under his belt. Relatively speaking, barely got his learner’s permit. Maybe we should let him drive around the block a few times before we let him out on the freeway.
History is inevitable anyway…why not get it right the first time?
Michael Lee
Michael Lee - September 6, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think it is erroneous to conclude our failure to hear of her, might constitute a lack of experience on her part. We can be sure her gubernatorial opponent did plenty of vetting, albeit on a stage outside our sphere of awareness.
Your comments raise a secondary question. For some reason, Democrats seem hell-bent on history, at the expense of anything else. They want to be the party that brought us our first black president. If Obama is “all that,” think how much better he might be with ten years experience under his belt. Relatively speaking, barely got his learner’s permit. Maybe we should let him drive around the block a few times before we let him out on the freeway.
History is inevitable…why not get it right the first time?
Michael Lee
Daniel J. Solove - September 6, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Matt,
I’m not arguing that they have the same experience. True, there are differences in the degree and nature of Obama and Palin’s experience in national/foreign policy issues. But if you step back, I don’t think that the experience differences are incredibly dramatic. So if I concede your point that Obama might have better experience than Palin, it doesn’t strike me as a really dramatic difference.
Regarding your argument that Obama has had to take positions on national and foreign policy issues, this goes to my being-on-the-national-stage-for-a-while argument. We don’t know Palin’s positions on many of the issues in this election. We don’t know where she stands on foreign policy issues. And beyond positions, we don’t know her basic thought processes on these issues. We know quite well how Obama and McCain generally approach these issues.
True, one could call this a matter of “experience.” One could cast the argument as Obama having had more experience thinking and formulating judgments on issues of national and foreign policy. But I believe that it is a different argument from “experience” as I often see it made, which is in terms of credentials. Rather, it is an argument about how well we know and trust their judgment on such issues.
Brett Bellmore - September 6, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’m having a hard time understanding how your failure to have heard of her is analogous in any way to a lack of experience on her part, rather than simply exposing ignorance on your part.
No, the experience differences are not all that great, especially given that Obama has spent the majority of his time in the Senate campaigning for President, rather than functioning as a Senator. He’s got marginally more total experience, she’s got more executive experience. It’s pretty much a wash, setting aside the partisan motivation for discounting experience in a state you don’t hear about a lot.
Larry Sheldon - September 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Is it your argument then that “I never heard of her, therefore she is inexperienced?”
Does it surprise you to learn that some of us think that may be the most attractive thing about her?
TJ - September 6, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Well, it seems the argument is more of the type, “I’ve never heard of her, so I shouldn’t vote for her.” This is not an “experience” argument as such, I think, as much as an argument that people who are a heartbeat away from the presidency should be vetted in some form.
As for the suggestion that people may vote for Palin precisely because she is unknown, I can observe the phenomenon but do not understand it. You wouldn’t marry someone that you just met, right? And while you might just as much not want to marry someone that you know very well (familiarity breeding contempt), usually being unfamiliar is a per se disqualification to trusting that person with important decisions that affect your life. Why this reasoning does not apply to national politics is something I have trouble grasping.
Daniel J. Solove - September 6, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Larry — My argument is not “I’ve never heard of her” but that she’s never been much of a part of the national debate. There are many governors who have been, but Sarah Palin has been a relative unknown — not just to me, but to many people, including people in her own party. Indeed, one of the selling points that has been made about her is that she’s a new fresh voice. I think it’s too late for fresh voices in this election.
Suppose she had been a more visible nationally, like Jeb Bush or Elizabeth Dole. Suppose we had heard a lot about her before. Suppose she had expressed many opinions about national and foreign policy issues, debated them on television and in the national news media, been involved in the national political arena (not necessarily as a member of Congress, but as Giuliani or others have been). Then she wouldn’t be such an unknown or a surprise. Even if she had been a candidate for president in the primaries, there would at least have been some period of time for people to get to know her.
My argument is not about experience. It’s about being known to the country and being a part of the debate over national and foreign policy issues.
AngryDem - September 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
She is a total joke. Let’s look at her substance, not her rhetoric. She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against, and she has no domestic policy positions….except maybe “tax cuts are our salvation.”
the test of republican “intellectuals” will soon be: do you stand up and acknowledge your leaders can make a mistake? or are you sheep who will do whatever the leader says?
Anon - September 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I am absolutely sure that by the time of the election the majority of the 100 million plus people voting will know less about McCain, Obama, and especially Biden than the people commenting on this blog will know about Palin then, and probably even know NOW. You guys are pretty unusual, as I’m sure you know. Most people don’t vote based on deep assessments of policy. I highly recommend Bryan Caplan’s “Myth of the Rational Voter” in this regard. Therefore, why the heck does it matter that people don’t know anything about her now? If they want to be good voters they can go and research all the candidates’ experience and policy positions between now and November. The majority of voters won’t.
As for the objection that Palin hasn’t been on the national stage for very long, and therefore doesn’t have that type of experience (i.e. press conference experience/interview), I really don’t think that type of experience is very important. If she was the same person in all ways, but had been on Meet the Press 4 times and This Week 2 times over the last 4 years, would that make her oh-so much better? This post indicates it would. That’s very unconvincing. That’s like thinking that going on talk shows helps one rationally reflect on one’s positions and refine them and make them better. Most politicians are proof that that doesn’t happen very much.
CiarandDenlane - September 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The premise strikes me as doubtful. I’ve thought for months that Palin was the most likely VP candidate and — judging from the betting lines at Intrade — so did a lot of other folks. I heard, months ago, about the troopergate scandal and Trig. I probably already knew more about her than about my own home state governor, Tim Kaine, who was similarly mentioned as a possible VP, albeit on the Democratic side (FWIW in evaluating this, I am an independent who volunteered for Kaine’s independent opponent, Russ Potts, in the gubernatorial election). {I’m not, by the way, accusing you of a partisan double-standard, as, for all I know, you might have felt the same about a Kaine nomination or been able to distinguish the cases).
There are still things I don’t know about Palin’s or, for that matter, Kaine’s, views on the issues, principally foreign policy, but that may be a function of experience, rather than exposure, as those issues simply aren’t in the portfolio of governors and mayors.
I was intending to take on your argument even assuming the premise. There’s a certain circular feel to it (though I now think it’s not actually circular) and I would also worry that, even with modern communications, it might seem to relegate Alaskans and Hawaiians to a permanent semi-colonial status (if Anchorage had only been an Acela ride away from the Times and the Post, Palin would have gotten much more exposure much earlier). But, on further reflection, you may be right. I’ll mull.
Matt Bodie - September 7, 2008 at 9:30 am
I guess I’m arguing that this is more complicated than simply “experience vs. exposure,” because certain types of experience give you exposure as well as other good things — knowledge of how things work, practice at handling problems, familiarity with people and institutions that you will have to work with as president. And you could have a lot of experience without a lot of exposure. For example, if Palin had been governor for twelve years and had balanced the budget, maintained high approval ratings, etc., she still might have not had a lot of exposure, but she’d have more of a record to show how she might govern as president. Conversely, if Obama had been a senator for twelve years, he’d have more of a record (like McCain) of sponsoring (or not sponsoring) legislation, voting, serving on committees, etc. His record is not as robust as one might want to get a fuller picture of his ideas and judgment.
So anyway, I think the candidates’ experiences should not be treated as debating points (e.g., the argument that her inexperience “knocks out” McCain’s experience, or that Obama’s inexperience “knocks out” any concern about Palin’s experience). Instead, let’s have a more fine-grained discussion of their experiences and, more importantly, what those experiences show. Palin is apparently a popular governor with a year plus of success in Alaska. Let’s hear more about that. In other words, let’s give her record — as well as Obama’s, McCain’s, and Biden’s records — more exposure.
By the way, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a “Northern Exposure” joke yet.
Brian - September 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Thank you, I think you have pointed out the real issue quite well.
I acutally like Gov Palin, like I would like a character in a movie of her life. She really did take on corrupt and entrenched interests, in her own party, and blew open a scandal involving oil companies playing inside-baseball with Alaskan republican politicians, very much against their will.
I could care less about the “bridge to nowhere” silliness. Are we to disqualify, for example, all politicians from North Dakota – which had absolutely crazy political advertisements consisting of the politicians from each party promising that they would be able to bring home the better subsidies? Within her context at the time, Alaska, she was a genuine reformer – it seems absurd to complain that she didn’t commit political suicide by running against support for Alaska from the federal money pot. She simply was not on the national stage where that even made sense in terms of reform (she had no ability or power to actually reform the handouts).
And therein lies the rub, as you point out. A small town reformer who cleaned up state government is admirable… but really, she is just that. Maybe she could be a transformational national leader… but how can we even suppose she will be able to maintain her ‘cleaning up’ on national stage, she simply has not been subject to the pressures and realities of the national stage. So yes, I think she is clearly unprepared (which does not, to me, disqualify the ticket, it is simply reality) for exactly the reasons you mention.
A.J. Sutter - September 7, 2008 at 10:23 pm
BTW, do Alaskan governors appoint or nominate judges? Has Palin done so? If so, what kind of folks did she pick?
I would hazard a guess that Obama’s understanding of the role of the judiciary is a bit deeper than Palin’s.
Rick Garnett - September 8, 2008 at 12:31 am
I’ve known about Sarah Palin for awhile. Then again, I follow Alaska politics. (I grew up there.) Surely, the fact that people in the “lower 48″ happen to be better informed about the existence of Barack Obama than about the existence of Sarah Palin says nothing — absolutely nothing — about their fitness as candidates? The Palin selection has brought about a flood of appreciation for the value of “experience”, even among those who strongly support a first-term Senator for President. This suggests to me that the election is not about experience (if it were, McCain would be up by 20, right?), but about policy preferences. Which is fine.
Daniel J. Solove - September 8, 2008 at 12:57 am
Rick — You write: “Surely, the fact that people in the ‘lower 48′ happen to be better informed about the existence of Barack Obama than about the existence of Sarah Palin says nothing — absolutely nothing — about their fitness as candidates?”
I don’t think that people in the lower 48 just “happen” to be better informed about Obama than Palin. Obama made a deliberate choice several years ago to enter the national stage. Has Palin attempted to enter the debate on national and foreign policy issues before? Has she made attempts to be part of that discussion and was just ignored by the media? It seems to me that she was primarily focused on Alaska politics and has been suddenly thrust onto the national stage. I don’t think that this is the media’s fault. Did she try to be a player on the national level before and was ignored? Or was her focus on Alaska and its concerns?
This doesn’t make her unfit as a candidate, but it is a lot to ask to of people to elect somebody to such an important office who has suddenly been introduced to them in the 11th hour of the election process.
Quite honestly, I find the coverage about the Palin issues — did she want books banned? what was her role in “Troopergate”? etc. — to all be tremendously distracting from the issues in this election. If she were more of a national figure before — like Schwartzenegger or Giuliani or others — we wouldn’t be having these conversations now. We’d hopefully be talking about the issues. That’s why this whole Palin choice has made me so angry — it’s thrown an enormous distraction into the election.
JP - September 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Prof. Solove,
I generally agree with the point of your post: exposure is important. Nevertheless, I don’t understand why the Palin pick makes you “angry,” or your characterization of this as last-minute and a distraction.
Sure, there has been a media frenzy over every detail of Palin’s life, but it can’t be sustained for the entire time until the election. Also, what exactly is the Palin story distracting us from: whether the Obamas give each other “terrorist fist jabs”; whether McCain made up a story about a Vietnamese guard drawing a cross in the dirt? Surely you don’t think the media would be discussing the nuances of the candidates’ policy positions if only McCain had chosen Romney!
Maryland Conservatarian - September 8, 2008 at 12:16 pm
sigh…Some people are still making the case for Hillary…
Prof. Grimmelmann writes: “He’s served nationally, for longer, and representing more people.”
CiarandDenlane - September 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“Angry” sounds like an overstatement.
A further thought: It seems to me that most of the governors on (what were said to be) both sides’ short lists are no more familiar to the country than Palin. Two weeks ago, how many people knew more about Napolitano, Sebelius, Kaine, Pawlenty, Crist, or Jindal than they did about Palin?
What’s sucking the oxygen from the serious discussion that we’d like to think we’d otherwise be having (JP has a good question how likely that is) is not (or at least not just) that Palin is more unknown than those other VP possibilities, but that she is more interesting.
In any event, get over that anger. If the Feiler Faster hypothesis is correct, there’s a long way to go in this race and time left to hope (but, alas, not expect) that, for once, some politician will credit the voters with a time horizon longer than a year and a half.
Leave a Reply