Which of the following offices best trains Presidents?

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Governor is the only public, chief executive listed - so I picked that one.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I picked a congressman. My reasoning is that I think that, for the most part, they're leaders. But more important than that, they are "in the loop" on many insider goings-on. By virtue of their being part of either one, he/she would have formed alliances and friendships. Association with even distant colleagues in both chambers would tend to give him/her a bit of an edge, in my opinion. Knowing where even rivals stand on issues and why they stand there might prove valuable as well.

They all offer different experiences.

Our first few Presidents were Secretaries of State, from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. The 2nd and 3rd were Vice Presidents. The first was a Lieutenant General (most think Washington was a 4 Star General - he was a 3 Star General but posthumously by Jimmy Carter made a 6 Star General) but also ran some type of College or University, and I think he also served as a Delegate to the Continental Congress.

Not a lot of the earlier Presidents were Governors, except for Thomas Jefferson. There were also a few Military Governors like Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison. A lot of the Presidents served in Congress - not as their highest office before being President, but earlier on in their political careers.

Being a Governor is a lot like being President. They run a state, have a cabinet, work with the upper and lower houses of the state legislature. It does offer experience.

Being in the Senate or Congress, you're dealing with most of the same issues as they deal with in the White House. The only types of Leadership tend to be Committee Chairs, and Minority/Majority Leaders, and Speaker, or Senate President pro tem (the latter is more ceremonial than leadership, although it is 3rd in line in the Presidential line of succession).

Being Vice President is not regarded as a role that helps give experience, because their primary role is to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and to fill in when the President is either inactive or not in that office anymore. Yet, the President gets to decide the role of the Vice President, so that can be a little or a lot.

ttwtt78640 said:

Governor is the only public, chief executive listed - so I picked that one.

Click to expand...

Cool. Same here.

MaggieD said:

I picked a congressman. My reasoning is that I think that, for the most part, they're leaders. But more important than that, they are "in the loop" on many insider goings-on. By virtue of their being part of either one, he/she would have formed alliances and friendships. Association with even distant colleagues in both chambers would tend to give him/her a bit of an edge, in my opinion. Knowing where even rivals stand on issues and why they stand there might prove valuable as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You make a good point.

Just make sure to vote that option.

I said Military....the few Presidents we have had that came solely from a military background ( no other high office experience) have done ok in my book....they have done the least harm , anyways.

MaggieD said:

I picked a congressman. My reasoning is that I think that, for the most part, they're leaders. But more important than that, they are "in the loop" on many insider goings-on. By virtue of their being part of either one, he/she would have formed alliances and friendships. Association with even distant colleagues in both chambers would tend to give him/her a bit of an edge, in my opinion. Knowing where even rivals stand on issues and why they stand there might prove valuable as well.

Click to expand...

weird, what you see as a benefit, I see as a detriment.

s'all good

Thrilla said:

I said Military....the few Presidents we have had that came solely from a military background ( no other high office experience) have done ok in my book....they have done the least harm , anyways.

Click to expand...

Carter was in the Navy before he was a farmer. Just saying. :2razz:

List of presidents by occupation.

List of Presidents of the United States by occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of the above, really.

Being in the Cabinet lets you actually observe the office of the Presidency in action, and the person participates in that administration in a meaningful way. Governors often don't have the same level of responsibility from state to state, so it wouldn't be equal in all states anyway. But, I can't imagine a governor having any real concept of the scale of the Presidency, even if they are from a large state like California. Vice Presidents don't really have much responsibility, as I understand it, though the President can include them in decision making in such a manner that they actually do gain some experience. However, they are not obligated to, by my understanding. Senators who hold certain responsibilities would be better than other Senators, but I think they are still less than Cabinet position of equal lengths.

A Cabinet position often lasts less than 4 years, and Senators often are in office for multiple terms. I think a Senator who had been in the Senate a long time and served on the right committees would have some of the best experience to be had.

It would be nice to have someone who had held more than one of these positions.

All that said: I don't think you can really say "Which one". It depends on their actual experiences in that position. But, If I had to choose, I would say Cabinet.

ttwtt78640 said:

Governor is the only public, chief executive listed - so I picked that one.

Click to expand...

Same for me.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

In order:

1. Vice-President

2a. Governor
2b. Top Military Officer IF country is in war time

3a. Secretary of State
3b. Top Military Office with country not in of war time

4. Senator

5a. Congressman
5b. Other Secretary positions

----------------------------

Here's my reasoning. The top three are there because they're the only ones with DIRECT, specific, 1:1 type ratio experience for the job of the President. The VP is basically functioning with direct on the job training. A governor is basically running a smaller version of the job. I put a military officer up there IF we're in war time, because in that situation the second job of the POTUS, Commander in Chief, is as much if not more important than the portion of "Chief Executive".

The next two are because of very direct experience with important parts of the job. Even outside of War Time, experience in leading men and running the military gives an individual ample experience to be CIC, which is a big thing considering thet percentage of the government tied into military. And I think the experience working with the President, and being so entrined in foreign policy issues which are such a major part of the job, puts the Secretary of State ahead of the other secretaries and makes them a bit more than an individual running a beuacracy.

Senators would be next, simply because in theory they should have had a longer time in than their Representative breathren by the time they're running for office. While not DIRECT experience to the job, it is a related experience that can be helpful in making the transition. Winning state wide election at least shows a reasonable ability to gather support over a large body.

Then finally you have Representatives, who are similar to Senators but simply on a lower scale imho. And the lower secretaries, who I think gain more experience running beaucracies than actual direct Chief Executive type experience in their positions.

Reading and understanding the principles of free enterprise and individual liberty.

Which office best trains future Presidents?

Click to expand...

a world history course, with an emphasis on the history of empires.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I would pick one of your choices, but it's not there. Your brain limits your ability to see things objectively or how others would see them. Interesting.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I voted after i read the responses, but I voted as I would have in the first place.

Apparently, most Americans like the experience offered by a first term since incumbents win pretty often even if they are revealing themselves to be miserable failures.

No examples offered for review.

What's interesting is that, on the day the new President takes office, the world could change due to unforeseen circumstances and whatever credentials he brought to office might be suddenly irrelevant.

Therefore, administrative abilities, team building, access to a good "bench" and decision making are the needed attributes.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Only one of those job descriptions is guaranteed to have executive experience. That job is governor. There are senators who have never held private sector jobs and like McCain, and Pilosi are generally disconnected from reality.

Tothian said:

Pick one, please. And feel free to explain your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I think it has to be governor if one can only pick one. Vice President would be second. Being governor has already provided the candidate for president the experience of governing and hopefully working with the other party to get things accomplished.

But regardless of experience, surrounding a newly elected president with good people, wise, experience people, advisers is and to be able to listen to them is in my view, much more important than an office one held prior to becoming president.

Looks like there is no easy answer. It all depends on the person/background/professional life though. Some have the experience necessary to make informed decisions, some don't. While they all may be very smart and learned, I prefer someone with a business background over lawyer and military personnel.
From the options given, Gov is it for me.

Lovebug said:

Looks like there is no easy answer. It all depends on the person/background/professional life though. Some have the experience necessary to make informed decisions, some don't. While they all may be very smart and learned, I prefer someone with a business background over lawyer and military personnel.
From the options given, Gov is it for me.

Click to expand...

It is good when President and Vice President are a balance of experience.

Economics is my weaker area when studying politics. Social issues and foreign relations interest me more.

The office of Governor is the most comparable to that of President as they are both the head of the Executive branch of government. However, I would add that it would be a plus for a President to have both legislative and executive experience in government as it broadens their view and they know what it feels like to be on the other side of the process.

ttwtt78640 said:

Governor is the only public, chief executive listed - so I picked that one.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

I picked a congressman. My reasoning is that I think that, for the most part, they're leaders. But more important than that, they are "in the loop" on many insider goings-on. By virtue of their being part of either one, he/she would have formed alliances and friendships. Association with even distant colleagues in both chambers would tend to give him/her a bit of an edge, in my opinion. Knowing where even rivals stand on issues and why they stand there might prove valuable as well.

Click to expand...

My initial thought was to pick Governor, but Maggie made some very good points for Congressperson (Rep and/or Sen). There's a difference between being a leader among many and being *the* leader, and each has its pros and cons.

Governor: *The* leader in their state. Very similar function and set-up to the President. Has a hand up in that regard. But, also doesn't deal with foreign policy, and dealings with foreign governments at all are limited to the niceties of trade by choice, not unavoidable crises.

Congressperson: Does have more direct foreign policy experience, and has to contend with these issues often. Also knows how to move a bill through the maze of passing and knows the importance of forging alliances within government. Downside is, except for their own committees, they don't know how to be the top person.

One caveat regarding Congresspeople... Experience is important. Obama would have been a better President, IMO, if he had a couple more terms as a Senator under his belt. He would have learned more of the nuances that would have served him (and us) better. He was too 'green' to make an effective jump to President so soon.

I wish I could have picked both in the poll, Governor and Congressperson.

Interesting that only about 1/2 served in Congress and about 1/2 served as Governor. The fewest number were Cabinet Secretaries followed closely by VP.