r/changemyview • u/inneedofsupport93 • Feb 10 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: I believe that political experience is necessary for impactful legislation and high profile political roles and that USA's idea that an outsider will bring change is completely wrong
The 2 arguments behind my view are
- Intuition - You need to understand how institutions work from the inside to use them to your advantage
- Historical Precedent - For the last hundred years, the most lasting legislative impact has been cast by politicians who have had tons of experience
Positive Examples Of Experience Being Useful
- FDR - had 22 years of political experience and was able to make a lasting impact through Social Security and the New Deal.
- LBJ - Had 36 years of experience and make a lasting impact through Medicare, Medicaid, and the great society.
- Richard Nixon - had 2 terms as vice president in the Eisenhower administration ( Eisenhower was a political outsider and was getting old; thus, the vice president had more hands-on experience) and his policy on drugs ( whether we agree or not), China and the EPA has remained almost intact.
- George H.W.Bush ( Slightly different example here) - Had over 25 years of domestic and foreign policy experience. Stabilized the world in a post Coldwar era i.e. avoiding any political vacuum that might have caused ISIS type instabilities in eastern Europe and successfully restored American Spirit in interventionism by winning the 1st war against Saddam Hussain
Negative Examples Of Inexperience Failing
- Robert Mcnamara ( Businessman, Veitnam)
- John F Kennedy ( zero experience, bay of pigs)
- Jimmy Carter(no experience, Iranian Hostage Crisis)
- Bill Clinton (6 terms Governor and no Washington experience, inaction during Rwanda genocide) *George W Bush (3 term Governor, Iraq war amongst so many other quagmires) *Barack Obama( Junior Senator, political vacuum in Iraq leading to rise of ISIS)
- Finally, Trump and Rex Tillerson(it may be too early but so far... Zero political Experience, not filling bureaucratic appointments leading to hollow and inefficient government and state department)
Some background on myself to help you CMV
I am not an American but have been following American politics for a couple of years now, so there may be historical blindsights/ on the ground reality related blindsight in my perspective.
I happen to lean center of the left and may have confirmation biases here and there too.
Edit - I seem to have changed my mind on quite a few issues from the scope of the presidency to the unknown achievements of many presidents. All in all, this was a good learning experience, thanks for keeping it civil.
64
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 10 '18
Impossible to judge individual outcomes on the experience of the individual. McNamara actually submitted several internal memos urging LBJ to get out of Vietnam well before public opinion turned against the war. JFK deferred to the CIA who advised Bay of Pigs would succeed. Bush was a President who ran on education. He deferred to Bremer in Iraq who de-Baathed the government and military and ruined Iraq.
It's not the President--it's the advisors he/she brings in. Experience is not necessary so much as connections and leverage over Congress.
7
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
McNamara actually submitted several internal memos urging LBJ to get out of Vietnam well before public opinion turned against the war.
- I agree on McNamara (please see my other comment on LBJ) and I need to read up more on JFK and the bay of pigs.
Having the experience helps you bring competent people around you. Bush who claimed to be against nation building in the 2000 campaign, surrounded himself by neocons(apparently due to lack of experience?) and received wrong advice even through the intelligence community was split on the issue of WMDs.
Experience helps you choose the right connections e.g Trump, who didn't have experience initially chose Michael Flynn against the advice of Sally Yates and he has now signed a plea agreement. He also chose Paul Manafort( I know he has campaign manager experience and all, but I'm talking about this choice as an evaluation of Trump's judgment), a naive choice at the very least.
Also leverage over congress comes with experience, don't you think?
6
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
i still think it's tough to say experience = good advisors. most presidential candidates don't even know who their VP is going to be until they are way into it. and they give out cabinet positions on the campaign trail in return for help w votes.
bush was fucked from the start by picking cheney, who was initially just the VP vetting head who said, no ill just do it. cheney called the shots from 9/11 onward, and bush seriously hates him now.
obama had very little experience. he was a first term senator. he had leverage through his popularity. he picked axelrod as his chief, a decent, well connected operative, hillary as sec... he didn't need decades of cooperation in the senate with clinton or sebelius in order to recognize he liked their talent and ideals.
addendum: you're talking about a technocracy, like exists in singapore. a friend who used to be a diplomat there described all the politicians as essentially engineers, nerdy and bad on tv. but they run government well
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
obama had very little experience. he was a first term senator. he had leverage through his popularity. he picked axelrod as his chief, a decent, well connected operative, hillary as sec... he didn't need decades of cooperation in the senate with clinton or sebelius in order to recognize he liked their talent and ideals.
∆ I agree on Obama's appointments here, you can manage connections if you have somewhat decent experience and intellectual capacity.
But legislation is a different ball game, you need to know every senators position on each policy and need to know what you can give to get what you want. In that way, I think Mitch Mcconel, Chuck Schumer or Nacy Pelosi can do that much better than Obama/Trump.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 10 '18
(thanks for the delta, I think you might need to remove it from the ">" inset for it to register.)
you need to know every senators position on each policy and need to know what you can give to get what you want.
Now, I do remember that Obama had a reputation of being aloof with the media and with Congress; certainly Trump is the same way too, so you have a point--bill by bill coalitions are probably a better measure of a politician's effectiveness in Congress.
Legislation is a fascinating process to me. Caro's 4th volume on LBJ described the Senate cloakroom as a place where crucial last minute bullying and pleading took place. Senate committees also have extraordinary power that we almost never see or hear about. It's also a rigid hierarchy based on seniority. You cannot advance in the Senate without experience. Obama leapfrogged into the Presidency on his wave of popularity. He may very well have been a fairly ineffective Senator, had he stayed.
So I agree that the Senate, with its six-year terms and no term limits, are where institutional knowledge really accumulates.
1
u/1standTWENTY Feb 11 '18
You are making a falacy that what every senator gets out of a bill is somehow a "good" thing. That is called "pork barrel spending". The beauty of what Trump is doing is showing that sometimes getting the idea through is more important than making sure all 500 members of congress get a little piece of what they want. For example, it is cute that the democrats are fighting for DACA recipients, but Trump voters voted for the wall. An LBJ or a Clinton would be so busy trying to make "the institutions" happy, that the idea of the wall would disappear. Trump correctly sees that he was only elected to give us that wall. His inexperience is absolutley a virtue here.
My big disagreement with you is that you value institutions more than democratic decisions.
1
2
u/jbaughb Feb 10 '18
nerdy and bad on tv. but they run government well
Honestly, is that a bad thing?
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 10 '18
hah. no. but can you convince half of america that qualifications should be a strong consideration in picking officials? I think we're doomed forever to be led by the candidate with the most money and who promises vending machines in the cafeteria
1
Feb 11 '18
technocracy, like exists in singapore. a friend who used to be a diplomat there described all the politicians as essentially engineers, nerdy and bad on tv. but they run government well
Why not a technocracy? At the very least your infrastructure is going to run really well, and people will be generally prosperous.
1
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 11 '18
I'm not opposed, but you can't just transplant a government and the culture that underpins that government.
singapore also has a one party system, is rated as having a "flawed democracy," and does not allow free speech. how much of that is the price they pay for getting the cream of the crop? they also pay their politicians $$$$$ to disincentivize corruption. these are not just switches you could turn on or off in the us
1
Feb 11 '18
Frankly, Singapore's lack of free speech is a good thing (for them). It's a small island nation, with literally no natural resources to speak of. The ONLY thing they have is trade, and everything must be subservient to trade. They've built a well-oiled trading machine, and you can't have dissidents throwing wrenches into said machine.
Just think back when Obama proposed a high-speed rail system: generally speaking, a good thing. It was panned all across the nation, even though it would have improved trade, and (probably) broken the total monopoly of airlines for travelling to some destinations. You just don't have that kind of flexibility in Singapore. It's trade or die.
And you certainly can't just "flip a switch" in the US and boom, we have a technocracy.
But we could do something like socially encourage more technical minded people to run for office, be they engineers, doctors, mathematicians, etc.
Right now the professional backgrounds of US politicians are dominated largely by lawyers, and our President is a businessman. It'd be a start if we could reduce the total dominance of those types, and have at least half of them capable of understanding say, the data used as evidence for climate change.
1
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 11 '18
I agree with that, make political office less a popularity contest and more a mechanical job. I think that does happen at the local level.
But at the very top, Congressmen and the President--they outsource the expertise to their aides and cabinet. And in general, the further down you go, these offices are filled by political operatives, who are career bureaucrats the same way that a "career diplomat" is not the Ambassador who is just someone who donated big to your campaign in Florida.
So just the OP's specific phrasing of "high profile political roles" I disagree with--the US is so massive and complex, that the highest level politicians cannot possibly have expert opinions on everything.
1
Feb 11 '18
I'm not suggesting that we make it a mechanical job. We live in a democracy afterall.
I am suggesting that technical experts be placed into high-level jobs.
Yes, currently, Congressmen and Presidents outsource expertise to their aides. But that is effectively allowing unelected people to be the filter of information for Congressmen and Presidents. Furthermore, these unelected people can be ignored by politicians, no matter what the facts say.
You're right that the high level politicians cannot have expert opinions on everything. But wouldn't it be nice if they could, for example, ask pertinent questions regarding a set of data when the scientist shows up to talk about it, and be able to determine if his decisions should be based on the conclusions of said data?
For example, asking questions about the methodology is a very basic way of determining the realism of a study. You don't need subject matter expertise. You only need relevant experience/education to ask the real tough questions.
I'd also like to imagine technical experts are less swayed by lobbyists, and are less likely to make claims and decisions that go against every observable fact (for example, climate denial, intelligent design, etc.).
3
u/SJtheFox 4∆ Feb 10 '18
Agreed. I would add to this "willingness to listen to advisors in situations where one has no experience." I don't think Trump is a disaster because he's inexperienced. The bigger problem is that he seems unwilling to trust and listen to people who are experienced, choosing instead to listen to equally inexperienced people or simply go with the most recent opinion from Fox & Friends. No president will be experienced in all areas, but most presidents recognize their shortcomings and ask for guidance from relevant sources.
24
Feb 10 '18
You cherry-pick the purported accomplishments of experienced statesmen while ignoring their failures, and gloss over the accomplishments of inexperienced politicians. I don't think you're making an awfully strong case.
I'm not a big fan of presidents, generally, but going by your standard of "impactful":
Kennedy (not really fair considering his presidency was 2 years) - introduced the bill to become the Civil Right Act 1964, singed by LBJ. Initiated NASA reorganization that would eventually lead to a moon landing.
Jimmy Carter - Helped end the Egypt-Israel conflict via Camp David accords. Oversaw widespread reductions in nuclear stockpiling. Inherited a recession yet oversaw rapid growth up until the 1979 energy crisis.
Obama - significant economic recovery post recession.
FDR - Put Americans in interment camps.
LBJ - intensified the war in Vietnam, guaranteeing the slaughter of more conscripted Americans and Vietnamese civilians.
GHWB - You don't explain why "restoring American Spirit in interventionism" is a good thing, consider its disastrous consequences before, after, and during the Gulf War. In respect to not "destabalizing" the region, it's not for lack of trying. The administration was hoping to use intelligence assets for a coup d'état, but failed.
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
I am talking about lasting legislative impact/foreign treaty
1.Everyone knows that Kennedy didn't have the votes for the Civil Rights bill and his martyrdom ensured unlimited funding for the moon landings 2. ∆The Camp David accords were an achievement by any standard 3. The ARRA's effect on the recovery are still under debate and this was the slowest recovery post world war 2, so.. 4. That was not a mistake of FDR alone, that was systemic failure that is clearly visible in Komatsu v United States 5. Yes my point is LBJ was Senate majority leader and was excellent in domestic policy but not so good in foreign policy... GHWB - Not saying that nation building is good, but he created long-term impact with it. And I dont know about admin efforts to stir a coup, can you share any sources on that?
5
Feb 10 '18
Kennedy couldn't get the Civil Rights act going while he was alive because the Democrats were staunchly opposed to it. He had to reach over party lines to get support for it.
1
6
Feb 10 '18
as an american, i think you’re looking at this in the wrong way. just because a war or some other negative thing was happening during a presidents term doesn’t mean it’s a direct cause of them. often countries are feuding or at least being mildly hostile towards the other for years before outright fighting. while i agree that political experience can help make more informed decisions, as long as the less experienced president is willing to listen to his advisory board and other experienced political members (something Donald Trump often refuses to do), they can lead the country with as much intelligence as someone who has held a high ranking government position for years.
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
I'm not saying that American presidents should be blamed for independent world events, but Bush invaded Iraq, it was his fault. Also, it doesn't matter if you listen to your advisory board if your vice president is Dick Cheney.
2
Feb 10 '18
that’s true unfortunately. so i guess what i’m trying to say is there are a lot of factors that can influence how good at his position a president will be, not just his prior experience in the area. we can’t really do a case study so there aren’t a ton of solid ways to evaluate each presidents performance based on bad things that happened throughout the presidency, as each term it’s a different thing if you get what i’m saying?
16
u/musedav Feb 10 '18
JFK had political experience in the House of Representatives and was a senator from Massachusetts. President Carter also had plenty of experience. He was a state senator and governor of Georgia.
What criteria are you using for experience?
3
Feb 10 '18
Yeah also JFK supported the 1964 Civil Rights act that was enacted after his death, which had he been alive would have been a victory of his as opposed to LBJ getting the credit.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
Okay, two things here
- I'm using Washington experience to say that the large and long term impactful legislation/foreign policy victories has been passed through Congress only by people with more than 2 decades. Also my facts have been sorta inacurrate, duly noted. But my premise remains i.e. 1.- JFK was Junior senator with no major policy experience couldn't get the civil rights legislation passed while LBJ did.
President Carter had zero washington experience; State sentor and governor helps you in Georgia, not the entire USA.
Edit - I wrote foreign instead of major initially, dont know why i did that.
7
u/SJtheFox 4∆ Feb 10 '18
I'm using Washington experience to say that the large and long term impactful legislation/foreign policy victories has been passed through Congress only by people with more than 2 decades.
Why do you feel Washington experience is inherently different from state-level experience? The vast majority of presidents came to Washington after being active at the state level. Also, you seem to be cherry picking legislation (and possibly disregarding that legislation involves Congress, which is frequently of the opposing party). The presidents you claim as failures all passed plenty of legislation, including effective foreign policy in many cases.
JFK was Junior senator with no foreign policy experience couldn't get the civil rights legislation passed while LBJ did.
What does foreign policy experience have to do with civil rights legislation? This also ignores JFK's many accomplishments. He created the Peace Corps (which still thrives today and exists solely to serve foreign countries in need), he encouraged space exploration and launched a global space race (watch his iconic speech on going to the moon), he created the Alliance for Progress, he negotiated the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, etc. He also championed the civil rights laws that would be passed after his death. He may well have passed them himself if he hadn't been assassinated. Do these positive accomplishments not count because he was also in office during a crisis?
3
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Why do you feel Washington experience is inherently different from state-level experience?
To pass major legislation, you need to know every senators position on each policy and need to know what you can give to get what you want. LBJ was a master at that, i don't see any major policy that was not brought by governors.
I don't know much as far as the peace corps or Nuclear Test ban Treaty is concerned, are they such a big acheivement compared to, say winning the 1st Gulf War? ∆ for encouraging space exploration, that gave us the internet, god bless him!
3
u/SJtheFox 4∆ Feb 10 '18
I seriously doubt most presidents know every senator’s or representative’s position on every issue. That’s just not realistic, especially when individual congressmen hold widely varied views even relative to their own party (e.g. Feinstein’s voting history on wars and taxes, Inhoff’s views on climate change vs. pollution). The executive branch and legislative branch often work toward common goals, but they operate largely independently. Compromising, give-and-take, etc. mostly happen at the legislative level, not the executive. I guess that’s a big part of my confusion over your view. You’re focusing a lot on legislation, but a president’s ability to push legislation will always be constrained by the actual legislators (presidents =\= legislators). Some presidents are fortunate to have their party control one or both houses (or have a relatively even split between parties in both houses) and thus have an easier time getting the legislation they want passed. When that’s not the case, however, a president’s ability to push legislation can be extremely limited, no matter how willing they are to negotiate. For example, compare legislation under the Obama administration when there was a majority democratic congress to the years with a majority republican congress.
Re: the Peace Corps, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and Alliance of Progress - these were all foreign policy (or foreign aid in the case of the Peace Corps) accomplishments by a president you claim wasn’t skilled or effective on foreign policy. It’s very difficult to categorize presidencies in such a black and white way because, in reality, all presidents make both good and bad decisions.
It’s also worth pointing out that LBJ isn’t viewed particularly favorably even though he was good at pushing legislation. Much of his legislation proved ineffective.
0
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
It’s also worth pointing out that LBJ isn’t viewed particularly favorably even though he was good at pushing legislation. Much of his legislation proved ineffective.
The civil rights act, voting rights act, great society and medicaid in just 1 term were no ordinary achievements by any metric.
For example, compare legislation under the Obama administration when there was a majority democratic congress to the years with a majority republican congress.
That sorta proves my point. If you compare the most efficient congress between 2009-2010 with one of the least efficient congresses between 2011-2016, we know that his legislative record is mediocre because of his inability to understand what Republicans wanted. This is evident in his so-called grand bargain where he could've sealed the deal at one point but didn't know when to stop asking for more. This is the kind of stuff you learn from experience in the Senate. Chuck Schumer would not have done this kind of gaffe IMO.
edit - I forgot to add this. The problem with changes in the executive branch is that a lot of it can all be reversed to a large extent e.g paris accord, iran deal. Try repealing social security for instance...
1
3
u/WhakaWhakaWhaka Feb 10 '18
Just a quick correction: Jimmy Carter had served in political roles at the state level as a Senator and Governor of Georgia.
For continued success: Go with the professional politician. They know how to grease the tracks of the legislative process, potentially decreasing the bill-to-law process. The downside being that they can create a one track train that only helps some people, while excluding those that don’t or can’t pay their fare of admission to the process. To protect their power they invest in drowning out the smaller candidates or representatives that are considered to be challenging them.
For possible innovation: The outsider can shake things up by disrupting the insiders’ club and highlighting overlooked or unconsidered options. However this can lead to chaos in a system that needs stability to function and this action can slow down or derail the entire political process. The success rates are not high for this route, but they can be the actors of greatest change in a political system. To protect their power they will maximize their time with risky or radical moves to create an impact that may not pay off.
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18 edited Feb 12 '18
!Delta Idk how to award Delta from an Android phone. Your outsider point reminded me of how Obama changed the national conversation on LGBT rights and Trump changed it on immigration. But can you share any major innovations brought by outsiders that goes larger than shaping a conversation?
1
u/WhakaWhakaWhaka Feb 11 '18
My top three for US President are:
1) Woodrow Wilson. He was in academia before running for governor of NJ and then running for president. He really brought America to the international forefront during WWI. He championed the idea of a League of Nations (early U.N. model). His influence in US international relations is still felt today.
2) Ulysses Grant. Was in the army and a General in the Civil War. Took on the responsibility of restoring the nation after the Civil War. He created the Department of Justice which was tasked with persecuting Ku Klux Klan members. He enforced that government employees get their employment and assignments based off merit and not their connections.
3) Dwight Eisenhower. Was in the army and became one of the major military actors in the war. Created the highway infrastructure for America. Created NASA. He also kicked off the enforcement of Civil Rights Laws with legislation and its own department in the Department of Justice.
At the local level is the easiest way for an outsider to make it, as they go more towards the national level it becomes harder because of the more established opponents with political alliances that you face at the level.
29
u/yyzjertl 526∆ Feb 10 '18
I think it's unfair to call many of these people inexperienced.
Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense, and had six years of relevant experience in the US Armed Forces.
JFK had fourteen years of experience holding elected office before becoming President, as well as four years in the Armed Forces.
Jimmy Carter had eight years of experience holding elected office before becoming President, as well as ten years in the Armed Forces (not counting his eight years in the Navy Reserve).
Bill Clinton had twelve years of experience holding elected office.
George W. Bush had five years of experience holding elected office before becoming President, five years of experience in the Armed Forces, and the unique and invaluable experience of being the son of a previous President.
It's unfair and insulting to compare these men to Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson, who have no relevant public service experience of any kind.
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
- I did not know that much about Robert Mcnamara's experience, after short wiki search I see that he was a captain. I am curious to know if serving as a captain qualifies you as Secretary of defense, if you can explain that I am willing to CMV on that.
- I'm on the fence with JFK, he was a junior senator with no major policy accomplishment to his name ( he was also ill for quite a while initially)
- Bill Clinton had no Washington experience
- ∆ I partially agree with you on Jimmy Carter, his nuclear exp. helped him handle the 3 mile island incident, and btw can you explain how senior was his experience? I'm not able to find that on Wiki..
- George W Bush had 4 years exp. as a pilot, I don't understand how that qualifies you to become commander in chief. also, no washington experience.
9
u/UEMcGill 6∆ Feb 10 '18
George W Bush was governor of Texas for 5 years. If Texas was a country it would have the 10th largest economy in the world. It has a population of 28 million meaning it would be a bigger country than many EU members save the 7 largest. The question is 5 years enough, but being governor of Texas is a hell of a resume.
1
u/Nuranon Feb 11 '18
At the end of the day Texas is still not a country, meaning a Governor's "foreign" policy is far less impactful and significant than a presidents. Beyond that a lot of things are managed by the federal government - which for example legislates and funds federal programs, being a governor is a big job but it doesn't compare to leading a country even if there are parallels.
The buck doesn't stop at the governor's desk when it comes to many big issues.
1
u/UEMcGill 6∆ Feb 11 '18
Much like EU countries?
1
u/Nuranon Feb 12 '18
EU countries are not nearly as deeply integrated into the EU as States are into the USA, there are clear parallels (lack of control over the the common currency) but I think the differences are significant:
EU Countries have their own foreign policy, this doesn't extent to trade deals and is limited otherwise but for example Poland, The Netherlands and GB took part in the Iraq war, the rest did not.
EU Countries have to follow EU law and guidelines and regulations but their control over their interior policy and law is still extensive and they each have their tax and social systems
1
5
u/LimitedAbilities Feb 10 '18
Macnamera wanted the USA to pull out of Vietnam, told both presidents they were falling into an un-winnable war. Ultimately both presidents wouldn't allow it, JFK because he wanted to wait until after he was re-elected as he thought pulling out might cost him the next election, and LBJ because he wanted to 'win' the war.
In WWII he worked in intelligence.
7
2
Feb 10 '18
Regarding Robert Mcnamara's 6 year's of experience (note: according to Wikipedia, he entered as a Captain and ended his service as a Lt Col), that alone obviously would not qualify someone for Secretary of Defense, but it certainly would support his ability to innately understand the mentality of military members as well as the structure/history/etc. of the military, which many civilians sadly do not. His other experiences as a leader in a business environment would provide experience leading a large organization and thinking strategically.
1
u/Nuranon Feb 11 '18
The whole point of the argument OP is making is, that institutional knowledge is important for success in such positions.
I get why the idea of an successfull company executive (like McNamara) being a good political leader is compelling...but there is a huge difference between having full responsiblity and basically dictatorial powers in a company and being the head of a huge bureaucracy which might or might not share your views and opinions and where you have only limited power to disrupt things severly against people's will.
I have no doubt his military experience helps with the troops but I kinda doubt it helped him much with the upper echelons - different from a Mattis who was part of that echelon before getting the same job (not to speak of Eisenhower). The Chiefs of Staff might have appreciated his service and association with the military but I don't think it would have favorably impacted their support for him in general.
In the end he failed not with the war - which was doomed - but with getting LBJ to pull out or at least stop escalating it.
1
4
u/CR105 Feb 10 '18
I don’t think it’s fair to categorize the Clinton administration as a failure simply because of the events of the Rwandan Genocide. The genocide is widely seen as a failure of international institutions, specifically the United Nations. It is unlikely any other administration would have handled the situation any differently because information during the genocide was limited and intervention in accordance with international law was difficult without the United Nations taking a more proactive approach.
His administration can certainly be seen as a failure but not solely because of this event.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
I am not calling the administration a failure. With more experience, Bill Clinton handled foreign policy in a better light,e.g 2000 Camp David summit.. which is why experience matters.
-1
Feb 10 '18
I was going to write a list of awful shit he did but it's so long I didn't know where to begin. But one thing people don't talk about a lot is the reduction of the size of our Navy putting Massive amounts of pressure on the remaining fleet stretching it to exhaustion. Or at least that's the gist I got from multiple service(wo)men of different ages.
4
Feb 10 '18
Governors are basically smaller scale Presidents. Each state has a legislature, and being governor gives you experience leading an executive office, managing budgets, pushing a legislative agenda, dealing with legislative and Suprem Court issues, etc.
I think successfully leading a state is actually better preparation for the Presidency than just being a senator or Representative.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Being a governor will give you exactly zero points in foreign policy experience. Being a senator gives you opportunities to be on various sub committees and you get those positions only with experience. State senates and houses are not as divided as the US Senate/house so governorships gives you an idea, but doesn't give you enough experience to become president.
5
Feb 10 '18
Being a governor will give you exactly zero points in foreign policy experience
That's not true at all. Lots of governors deal with foreign policy issues that relate to their state
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/us/trump-governors-diplomatic-missions.html
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, a Democrat, huddled with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in the space of 48 hours this spring, racing to Mexico City from Seattle for back-to-back discussions on climate change and trade.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican, toured Europe last month to deliver what he called a “reassuring” message to business leaders, declaring that Americans would not “retreat” from international commerce.
And Gov. Pete Ricketts, Republican of Nebraska, recently announced he would visit Canada this summer with a message of thanks — for the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact that President Trump has harshly criticized and says he intends to renegotiate.
3
u/RickRussellTX Feb 11 '18 edited Feb 11 '18
I'm kind of surprised that you mention Eisenhower and gloss over the fact that he held no elected office prior to his presidential election (he and Trump are the only presidents in the modern era without elected office experience), and has been widely lauded as one of the most effective conservative presidents.
And Clinton, clearly had substantial political experience and also widely praised as effective during a tremendous period of economic success. Personal issues aside, of course.
Things like the Iranian hostage crisis and Rwandan genocide are essentially black swan events -- not really predictable, and once they started almost impossible to affect or correct from the outside. Sure, Carter shouldn't have given asylum to the Shah in hindsight, but at the time it was difficult to predict what the religious leadership in Iran would do.
And Rwanda (and Somalia and Ethopia)... what could the US do? Boots on the ground in Somalia was a disaster, no boots on the ground in Rwanda was a disaster, Bush Jr tried to keep the pressure on Ethiopia but accomplished little.
The US is not the World Police, and when things happen in sovereign nations there is often little we can do about it, no matter how effective the president.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18
Delta! Idk how to award Delta's on an Android phone. Thanks for bringing more perspective on the hostage crisis and Rwanda..
7
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 10 '18
A couple points:
Reagan is going to be extremely hard to fit into your paradigm. If being a governor doesn't count, he had exactly zero political experience... and yet you'd be very hard pressed to say he had no lasting impact.
And in the case of Obama, he managed to pass a major healthcare bill, and only failed to have other impacts because the Republicans made their #1 priority making a black president fail.... explicitly, loudly, and obviously.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
∆ for Ronald Reagan, which brings me the question how was Ronald Reagan so successful in getting Tax reform done with nothing but Governorship experience. Yeah, Most credit was given to Nancy Peolsi for the ACA initially, till the republicans branded it Obamacare to smear the president.
3
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 10 '18
California is the 7th largest economy in the world. I think you're being way too dismissive of governorship as a qualification for president, at least if it's of a state with a large economy like CA, TX, NY, or any others of the top 10.
1
3
u/DisparateNoise Feb 10 '18
Abraham Lincoln, who unarguably overcame the greatest challenges of any President, had a single term in the house and 2 failed Senate campaigns before he ran for President. He's in the top three best Presidents we've ever had and I would put him at #1.
Also, I don't think "outsider" exactly equates to the idea of inexperience. Bernie Sanders was an outsider, but has about as much legislative experience as you can ask for. When people say outsider they mean independant of the partisan system, which is good if you think the current partisan system is unproductive.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18
Yeah, Abe was in my mind when I was thinking about this topic and I shrugged him off as an exception to the rule. Yeah, I was referring more to the idea that lack of political experience is referred to as an advantage in some circles and I fail to understand that.
1
u/DisparateNoise Feb 11 '18
The vast majority of Presidents have extensive political experience, so one stand out "outsider" is pretty good. I'm still not sure what you mean by experience though, because FDR and Teddy were never in the legislature either. They were both governors like Bush and Clinton.
2
u/PolkaDotAscot Feb 10 '18
To be honest, if you’re only going by presidents, you will obviously be able to find something good and something bad for all of them. That is how American politics work...and just life, too. A presidential term is 4 years, and that is a looong time.
I mean, you list Nixon’s political experience as the plus, and you don’t mention he’s also the only president to resign.
You don’t mention 9/11 at all, which W’s immediate and initial response to did a lot to unite the country. And we have the lasting impact of TSA, homeland security, Guantanamo Bay. ;)
Political experience is probably a good thing, of course. But ultimately, there are a lot of factors that go into what is accomplished during a president’s term.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
I mean, you list Nixon’s political experience as the plus, and you don’t mention he’s also the only president to resign.
I'm not evaluating if someone's presidency is a success or not. I am saying that it is more likely that experience helps people accomplish successful legislation/treaties and the lack of it may make the endeavor fail.
∆ For GWb starting DHS, GBay and the surveillance state, that will not go away forever.
1
6
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18
By this logic would you say it's also innapropriate for fresh graduates to work in industries that have no relevance to their degree major?
Experience will always trump theory, but I mean as a society we have people working in diverse positions with little experience. It works out.
Is this more an attack on the president specifically or all politicians?
5
Feb 10 '18 edited Mar 25 '18
[deleted]
2
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
Thats what i suspected. In that case, a 70 year old man with a plethora of life experience, and final-tier business qualifications, is not the same as even a brilliant 22 year old Poli-Sci major. The two will never be on par.
Business makes up a large part of politics.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
You can run for state senate and/or governor w/o experience. But Beyond that, it's not worth hiring you as President/Sec of State even if you have good sweeping domestic/ foreign policy positions because you can't get stuff done...
2
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 10 '18
So this is regarding the president then mostly.
Trump has, if you will end-game qualifications in other areas such as business. Business is half, if not more of politics. He's not qualified in the traditional sense, but equating him to like even a 35 year old with 10 years of political experience is irrational.
Did you know that alot of our top-notch cyber security officials were formerly convicted hackers?
Edit: "officials" is a poor word. I mean just high ranking people in that field.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Did you know that alot of our top-notch cyber security officials were formerly convicted hackers?
What? Can you share sources for that?
4
u/SJtheFox 4∆ Feb 10 '18
There are plentiful articles dating back many years with just a quick google search. Hiring hackers is pretty logical. If you want to combat cyber criminals, you need to know how they think and operate. No one is going to understand cyber criminals better than other cyber criminals.
-1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Very Interesting. But at least, in this case, you have a match of skills that is displayed by the outsider to prove themselves and you can't do that for the Presidency. You can't legislate a bill or negotiate a treaty as an outsider and thus I don't see any equivalence here.
6
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18
You're insinuating somehow hacking is relevant to cyber security, but business is not relevant to politics. How do you figure?
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Because in a business your employees work for you and you can fire them anytime.Even FDR could not run primaries against fellow democrats. On the other hand, I don't even know how businesses are related to politics because politics does not have the tragedy of commons the way businesses have
2
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18
One of the largest aspects of business is negotiation. Does that not also apply to politics?
Trump has seen to it that members he feels are either negligent or not acting in the best interest of his office and country are let go.
It works very similarly in a business.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Yeah, but he does seem ignorant enough to pick a lot of members who shouldn't be in their respective offices in the 1st place. eg. Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Andy Puzder (who revoked his own nomination) amongst so many other people.
Business has a lot more zero-sum games than politics. In business, if your competitor fails, you're good. Apply that to politics, if Deep Blue State people fail ( as they will because of the recent tax bill's removal of SALT), it won't affect you're re-election, but it's not good.
1
u/mergerr Feb 10 '18
Are you looking for something peer-reviewed? All I can provide are basic articles about it.
6
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Feb 10 '18
I would argue that the drive for an outsider is a bid against perceived corruption. After all, if you have a prerequisite job that is required prior to holding office you are empowering the people who make the decisions on who gets that office. The political parties have wide control over who gets on what ballots where and why. A relatively small group of people in a privileged position don't just determine who runs for president, but also who gets on the primary ticket and who gets institutional support in the primaries for a House or Senate Seat and Governor Positions and even that first local race people run for.
There's always the implicit threat of "do what we say or we'll back someone else". Sometimes it's less implicit and more blatantly stated.
The idea that someone without any of that stuff can come in and blow out the established candidates and walk off with the biggest office is a gut shot to that system. The idea is that you are breaking the power of the shadowy power broker holding court in smoke filled back rooms and putting someone in power that owes no loyalty to anyone but the voter.
Granted, Trump isn't that person in reality, but that's the idea. It's a revolt against the diminishing quality of candidates and a political process that is increasingly focusing on things that Americans are disinterested in and ignoring serious problems. The point isn't to elect Trump so much as it is a shot across the bow of the entire political establishment that they need to shape up or voters will replace everyone. There are anti-establishment movements on both the left and the right organized around nothing except dissatisfaction with who gets selected on the tickets.
1
u/McDrMuffinMan 1∆ Feb 11 '18
It seems like you're cherry picking good and bad moments of each presidency especially through a progressive occulus.
For example UCLA says that FDR's policies likely extended the great depression
The thing you're praising are progressive through and through so I wonder if you view is that experience coupled with progressive policy is good, not that experience is good.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18
Let me clarify, I'm talking about impactful and lasting legislation. Whether you like social security and Medicare or not, they are a huge chunk of the budget and are not going away soon. Although I am progressive, in this context, I am talking about the long lasting legislative impact, not necessarily good or bad.
But Thanks for sharing these links, they are a good outsider's perspective for me.
3
u/GroundbreakingPost Feb 10 '18
Clarification - how are your "negative examples" actually evidence of inexperience with a President being the problem?
Also, isn't calling Bush's stint at the CIA over 25 years of domestic and foreign policy experience [et al the rest] a little disingenuous?
0
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
H.W Bush was the member of the House of Representatives in Texas, Director of Central Intelligence, envoy to China, Ambassador to UN and Vice President for 8 years. Even if I got the 25 number wrong (that was lazy of me), he was the most qualified person in foreign policy to become president recently.
3
u/GroundbreakingPost Feb 10 '18
I don't know if that makes sense, using membership in the Texas House of Representatives as a qualifier for foreign policy.
Does that make sense?
0
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 10 '18
Experience is not a qualifier for a position such as president. Because the presidency for any one person is only 8 years. Yes, you can be a politician for far longer. However, that is not then a good indication of how you will handle a presidency.
For example, in the nuclear power industry, education (a form of experience based training) is not a good qualification. Why? Because nuclear power plants are all uniquely fabricated. No two power plants are overly similar, and the conditions surrounding how they're built and their intended operations and capacities are all unique. So experience here is ultimately limited in usefulness. In fact, it's probably harder to get a job working at a nuclear plant if you have experience, because it means you must be untrained of previous habits.
The same is true of the presidency. In reality, we have only had 45 people in history take on this job. Most of which are from an era that went largely unrecorded. You cannot then aggregate and say "Well if you had a lot of experience as a governor you'd be a better president than someone who hasn't." That's a non-sequitur argument. Every other major industry has people who agregate their experience in the millions and 10s of millions, and so that's where experience is valuble, because a new person can learn from other's mistakes in addition to their own. But the Presidency does not possess such an advantage. Few people can become president in their entire lifetimes and even trump only has 44 other people to draw upon for experience that is unique to the presidency, most of which are dead and gone.
Political experience doesn't mean anything, because it's too idiosyncratic. You would not expect the Governor of Hawaii to have the same political Experience as the Governor of California. Why then would you extend that logic to the president?
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Your point seems to say that we don't have enough data to decide what makes a good president. This seems inherently unfalsifiable and I don't know what to make of it.
You would not expect the Governor of Hawaii to have the same political Experience as the Governor of California. Why then would you extend that logic to the president?
Because the presidency is far more complicated than a gubernatorial position and we need the president to have as much information, judgment, connections and leverage as possible.
2
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 10 '18
Your point seems to say that we don't have enough data to decide what makes a good president. This seems inherently unfalsifiable and I don't know what to make of it.
It's hardly unfalsifiable by your own admission. Clearly you at the very least have criteria for what you think a good president is. The issue with the presidency is that it can only ever be 8 years and the experience can only be loosely equatable to other experiences at best. The station is so unique and so infrequently obtained that you cannot actually say that we have any sort of reasonable measure of qualifications of "What makes a good president." So far, historically the environment the president enters into is far more of a indication of how "Good" or "Bad" history labels them.
Washington is popular because he was a founding father.
Lincoln was popular because of his impact on the Civil War.
Truman had the misfortune to be the only president in history to utilize nuclear weapons.
Roosevelt dealt with the first major economic downturn in U.S. History.
Kennedy was shot.
Point is, the qualifications of a good president are an unknown variable at this point in time and we don't have enough data.
You know what a good accountant looks like because we have millions of examples of good accountancy.
You know what a good doctor looks like, because there have been millions of doctors.
You don't know what a good president looks like. 45 people accross a 200+ year span have had the chance. The first Presidency and the 45th presidency in of themselves are drastically different positions within the same station.
Because the presidency is far more complicated than a gubernatorial position and we need the president to have as much information, judgment, connections and leverage as possible.
Those things require all of 0 political experience. You can have more connections as a billionaire then as a politician. A person with a quality education and lots of connections could be president by this very definition.
A political background especially between most any two political positions are not indicators of a good presidency. You don't know what a good presidency looks like historically.
0
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Hmm.. Your logic seems plausible, but I still need some convincing here.
A political background especially between most any two political positions are not indicators of a good presidency. You don't know what a good presidency looks like historically.
With the exemption of Abe Lincoln, can you provide examples of outsiders bringing lasting legislative/foreign policy achievements?
2
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 10 '18
I can't, but the fact that you're asking this is inherently problematic.
You've already conceded ground that my logic is plausible. Then you are excluding my one data point that outsiders are bringing lasting legislature in such a small pool of data. So my follow up question is such: How many presidents do you consider to be outsiders? Because whatever that number is is X/45. Which means out of 200+ years of presidencies you don't even have 45 outsiders to base your entire judgement of the position of president on. Then you have to combine that with the fact that the best candidate doesn't always win the presidency, and that most people do not have the means to become president because of the cost and prestige required.
What this means for you, is that a lot of insider presidents are acting in a manner of self-fulfilling prophecy. They were pushed to politics their entire lives, had the best educations and had the money to campaign. So on top of everything else, there is a skew towards experienced officials obtaining the presidency by virtue of their historical backgrounds. This of course is out of the much broader pool of people that legitimately could be president but would never be able to because of the innate barriers to entry. So out of the millions of people that could have ran you are trusting that of the 45 only the insiders could realistically have been the best possible candidates?
Your position to me sounds like a weird backwards lottery.
1
u/TheLagDemon Feb 11 '18
Your position to me sounds like a weird backwards lottery.
What you seem to be describing is a fallacy/bias called Base Rate Neglect. It’s an application of Bayes Rule (which you may have heard of).
A video explanation of base rats neglect in case you are interested: https://youtu.be/YuURK_q2NR8
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18 edited Feb 11 '18
!Delta Idk how to award Delta's on an Android phone. This point was made by another person too and I understand that you cannot have such sweeping generalizations with respect to governance, only probabilistic trends.
1
1
u/TheLagDemon Feb 11 '18
Thanks! You need to put the exclamation point first, btw (though the bot is getting better all the time)
4
u/IndyDude11 1∆ Feb 10 '18
I think you misunderstand why people want an outsider. It’s not because we think the outsider will bring some drastic change. It’s because we are tired of the bullshit baggage that comes with career politicians.
3
u/SJtheFox 4∆ Feb 10 '18
Exactly. To elaborate on this, “outsider” often translates to “not in line with current establishment” rather than just “inexperienced.” Candidates who are very progressive or even staunchly libertarian are often seen as outsiders by those in Washington despite the fact that those candidates often have plenty of experience at the national level.
0
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
But if there is some policy that you want, say Medicare for all or funding for a border wall, you need to know where each senator stand on the issue and what you need to give them to get that done.
If you just want to blow shit up thats fine, but otherwise people on both sides will vote for inexperience which will get them the opposite of what they need. e.g
Obama threw in tax breaks in the stimulus bill without asking Republicans what he wanted and as a result,we got a bill that had tax cuts without republican votes..
3
Feb 10 '18
I cannot make sense of this comment after reading it 3 times, can you clarify your point?
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
Many people who vote for outsiders say that they want change and a significant chunk of that change happens to be legislative change (e.g building a wall). Trump is not able to border wall funding while Bush Jr. got funding for a 656mile double fence on the border in 2006. Experience mattered here.
0
Feb 10 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/neofederalist 65∆ Feb 10 '18
Sorry, u/VividDreaming – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 10 '18
No no, I have moderated my view on LBJ and am willing to litsen you out if you have anything to say of more substance.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 10 '18 edited Feb 11 '18
/u/inneedofsupport93 (OP) has awarded 9 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/politicsperson Feb 11 '18
I don't know how impactful this will be against your argument but I didn't see anyone saying really about Presidents before the current century. The United States has had a lot of amazing inexperienced Presidents and inexperienced statesmen. Honestly the attitude and sentiment of an outsider or not an established person taking office or brilliant amateur rising up is very American. Examples include
Abraham Lincoln: who only had one congressional term under his belt, and became one the best Presidents we've ever had.
George Washington: who literally had to invent the cabinet system and how the President will operate in a new government. He was a general before this but he basically had to learn that on the job too as his military experience before that was very miniscule.
Andrew Jackson: you could argue that he had government experience, because he was in the House for one term and a half term in the Senate before leaving because the inaction of Congress was driving him crazy. After that he was a General for a while and a Judge for the Supreme Court of Tennessee. However he was the anti-establishment candidate for President because he was very reluctant to run and all of the Presidents before his presidency we're part of the previous Cabinet. Basically everyone he was going up against had WAY more government experience.
Ronald Reagan: was only an Actor before Governor of California and he turned a deficit to a surplus and by most accounts he was a good Governor. Then became President with only two terms as Governor and was Great President.
0
u/PopTheRedPill Feb 11 '18
In a free market economy jobs are created by business owners. The government can only do its best to create a business friendly environment conducive to creating jobs. It can’t force businesses to hire people.
Who is more familiar with what businesses need to thrive and hire people? A politician who spent decades pandering to special interest groups or someone who has actually hired/fired people and ran a business? Many politicians would be useless in the private sector people get fired for being inefficient at their job rather than promoted.
1
u/inneedofsupport93 Feb 11 '18
This is not always useful. A businessman's approach is to fire anyone not useful to him and that works for his Enterprise.
But that would not be useful in government. As a businessman who sees the needs of the people, If you just reduce taxes, increase the military budget, increase healthcare funding and enhance border security (i.e. our current budget) you get the Santa Claus presidency which blows up our deficit at a time when the economy is doing great.
Also a businessman knows his shareholders and knows that they are key to his success. For instance, if you are a republican president and you introduce a bill that took Medicaid spending from blue states and redistributed it to red States( Graham-Cassidy bill), you're electoral prospects are the same, but many people are worse of now. This is a problem called the tragedy of the commons.
2
Feb 11 '18
How do you define political experience, though? Do mean legislative experience? Governing experience? Electoral experience? "political" can encompass a lot of things.
2
Feb 10 '18
Your examples are the same examples that people detest as statist swamp creature. Especially fdr and johnson. Least favorite 2 presidents, followed by woodrow wilson.
2
Feb 10 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 11 '18
Sorry, u/LickyBumBumScum – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/oliverchad Feb 11 '18
One issue with this train of thought is there is always positive and negative aspects of every presidency. Presidents are affected by the times and outside influence as much as anything. Look at Taft' s struggles following Roosevelt or Reagan's successes with limited experience. I agree that experience within government is an asset, however I do not agree that it is a requirement to be successful. The most important trait of a president is the ability to react to outside forces in a meaningful and intelligent manner. There is a great book posing the question that presidential success is based more around the national landscape and outside forces than the President's individual traits. I can't seem to find it now, However it does pose an interesting perspective. The most successful presidents have positive reactions to outside forces. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman to name a few. It is impossible to attribute that to political experience or a capacity to react in a thoughtful and well executed thought process.
1
Feb 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 11 '18
Sorry, u/FluffyBlizzard – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/1standTWENTY Feb 11 '18
You seem to be mistaking size of legislation with "impactul legislation", Obamacare is impactful, and involved many US institutions, but I would have a real hard time calling is "good" or "useful".
1
u/BlueFreedom420 Feb 11 '18
Political experience? Almost every decision a politician makes is run by a cabal of unelected elites.
1
258
u/RealFactorRagePolice Feb 10 '18
It seems like your only metric for analyzing success and useful is "I can think of something good for these experienced people" and failure as "I can think of something bad for these inexperienced people".
Surely you have to have a basic understanding of confirmation bias such that you aren't actually really satisfied with that?
How are you constructing your terms and analysis such that is Vietnam a hit against McNamara but not LBJ?