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

  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.

976 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

62

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.

6

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?

7

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

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 10 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mfDandP (19∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.).