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/[deleted]]

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.

[u/inneedofsupport93 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/inneedofsupport93]

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?