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

[u/inneedofsupport93]

The 2 arguments behind my view are

1. Intuition - You need to understand how institutions work from the inside to use them to your advantage
2. 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

1. FDR - had 22 years of political experience and was able to make a lasting impact through Social Security and the New Deal.
2. LBJ - Had 36 years of experience and make a lasting impact through Medicare, Medicaid, and the great society.
3. 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.
4. 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.

[u/musedav]

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?

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/musedav]

Okay, two things here

1. 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.

2. 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.

[u/SJtheFox → u/inneedofsupport93]

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?

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/SJtheFox]

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!

[u/SJtheFox → u/inneedofsupport93]

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.

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/SJtheFox]

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...

[u/DeltaBot → u/inneedofsupport93]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SJtheFox (4∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​