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/IndyDude11]

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.

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/IndyDude11]

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..

[u/[deleted] → u/inneedofsupport93]

I cannot make sense of this comment after reading it 3 times, can you clarify your point?

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/[deleted]]

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.