• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a presidential candidate make up for a complete lack of political experience?

Can a presidential candidate make up for a complete lack of political experience?

  • Total voters
    16
Anagram

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,215
Reaction score
5,858
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm asking this mainly because of the recent presidential speculation about Ben Carson, but this could also apply to other potential candidates whose names have been bounced around that have never held political office. Even if a candidate is a well spoken, intelligent, and successful individual whose policies you almost completely agree with, is that enough to make up for the lack of ever holding any sort of political office or working for the government on any level. Can that candidate be better than those who, although you might agree with them a little less, have extensive executive and/or legislative experience. Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
 
Can they? Sure. Would it take an incredibly exceptional person? You betcha.
 
Experience might not be necessary, but some kind of appropriate training is. I wouldn't want a lawmaker who isn't well versed in the law. I wouldn't want an executive who doesn't know how their constitutional powers actually work.
 
Anagram said:
I'm asking this mainly because of the recent presidential speculation about Ben Carson, but this could also apply to other potential candidates whose names have been bounced around that have never held political office. Even if a candidate is a well spoken, intelligent, and successful individual whose policies you almost completely agree with, is that enough to make up for the lack of ever holding any sort of political office or working for the government on any level. Can that candidate be better than those who, although you might agree with them a little less, have extensive executive and/or legislative experience. Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
Click to expand...

The job of President is well supported by bureaucratic structures and hopefully first line Persons with some experience. But the job is at least as complex and difficult as that of a brain surgeon. Do I really have to ask the question?
 
Redress said:
Can they? Sure. Would it take an incredibly exceptional person? You betcha.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of Obama? Or was it the man that got us into Vietnam after showing his prowess in the Bay of Pigs? ;)
 
joG said:
Are you thinking of Obama?
Click to expand...

Obama held political office before he became president.

Or was it the man that got us into Vietnam after showing his prowess in the Bay of Pigs? ;)
Click to expand...

While alot of the fault for us getting into Vietnam is Kennedy's, we were there before him, and the war did not really start till he was dead.
 
joG said:
Are you thinking of Obama? Or was it the man that got us into Vietnam after showing his prowess in the Bay of Pigs? ;)
Click to expand...

A simple question about Carson's lack of experience got to post #6 before the dump on Obama and JFK contest started..

Being governor of Texas sure BUSHwhacked this Nation into a war of deceit and lies because junior couldn't control chickenhawk Cheney .
 
NIMBY said:
A simple question about Carson's lack of experience got to post #6 before the dump on Obama and JFK contest started..

Being governor of Texas sure BUSHwhacked this Nation into a war of deceit and lies because junior couldn't control chickenhawk Cheney .
Click to expand...

Well then you have your answer. There might be a Man or woman of little experience that can handle the Presidency. And the risk of finding that person by tail and error costs trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. To elect a person of little experience seems to me quite irresponsible.
 
Anagram said:
Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
Click to expand...

Can they? Sure.

Is it likely will they? Probably not.

I would have to be absolutely blown away by the message and ability to articulate how said message could get implimented of a candidate, while likely having to be largely underwhelmed by the other candidate for it to ever happen.

I don't want a guy who has never worked on vehicles to be my mechanic, no matter how knowledgable they sound about cars. I don't want a guy who has never performed surgery before to be my surgeon, no matter how knowledgable of anatomy he may be. And I generally don't want a person being my top governmental executive and commander in chief if he's got no experience engaging in issues of foreign or domestic policy.
 
well, I don't believe political experience is necessary for our chief executive... some form of leadership experience, however, is.

in fact, I find it preferable that our chief executive has little or no political experience, as I am of the opinion that having ample political experience is tantamount to saying " I have an abundance of corruption in my past"

I do believe, however, that an executive with little or no political experience should have a politically savvy chief of staff .. or at least savvy advisers.
how to wade through the murky paths of the cess pool of politics is something the chief executive should be advised on.. if he already knows his way, it just means he's at home in the cess pool, and i don't consider that to be a positive.

as far as this this type of "experience" is concerned, i have no problem with Ben Carson as President..... i have other reason why i wouldn't vote for him and would find myself opposing him.. but lack of political experience is not one of them... it's actually a positive in my book.
 
Can a presidential candidate make up for a complete lack of political experience?

I think it is possible, but they would have to be very talented and knowledgeable. A Sal Khan or Elon Musk would have a much shorter learning curve than a Ben Carson. Carson has the raw talent but I think him being the 2016 President of the United States would be like him doing surgery as a first year university freshman instead of ten yrs later as a recent graduate from medical school. Ideally, you want the graduate with the knowledge plus minimum ten yrs experience. We are talking the President of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
I'm asking this mainly because of the recent presidential speculation about Ben Carson, but this could also apply to other potential candidates whose names have been bounced around that have never held political office. Even if a candidate is a well spoken, intelligent, and successful individual whose policies you almost completely agree with, is that enough to make up for the lack of ever holding any sort of political office or working for the government on any level. Can that candidate be better than those who, although you might agree with them a little less, have extensive executive and/or legislative experience. Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
Click to expand...
Not really, but it is possible. We've seen symbolism triumph over substance in more than one election.
 
Anagram said:
I'm asking this mainly because of the recent presidential speculation about Ben Carson, but this could also apply to other potential candidates whose names have been bounced around that have never held political office. Even if a candidate is a well spoken, intelligent, and successful individual whose policies you almost completely agree with, is that enough to make up for the lack of ever holding any sort of political office or working for the government on any level. Can that candidate be better than those who, although you might agree with them a little less, have extensive executive and/or legislative experience. Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
Click to expand...


I would say yes, it all depends on whom one surrounds himself with. Eisenhower had no political experience whatsoever, although he was a 5 star general. What he did was first surround himself with good people and then reach across the aisle to the other party to make friends with them. He met with LBJ, then the Democratic majority leader in the senate three times a week in the white to discuss how IKE could get his agenda through congress. In my opinion, IKE has been the best president in my lifetime and he had no political experience whatsoever when it comes to holding political office.

It all depends on the individual. We have had presidents who whole life was nothing but politics and some have been bummers.
 
Perotista said:
I would say yes, it all depends on whom one surrounds himself with. Eisenhower had no political experience whatsoever, although he was a 5 star general. What he did was first surround himself with good people and then reach across the aisle to the other party to make friends with them. He met with LBJ, then the Democratic majority leader in the senate three times a week in the white to discuss how IKE could get his agenda through congress. In my opinion, IKE has been the best president in my lifetime and he had no political experience whatsoever when it comes to holding political office.

It all depends on the individual. We have had presidents who whole life was nothing but politics and some have been bummers.
Click to expand...

Ike's experience as a 5 star was the ultimate political experience.
 
Anagram said:
I'm asking this mainly because of the recent presidential speculation about Ben Carson, but this could also apply to other potential candidates whose names have been bounced around that have never held political office. Even if a candidate is a well spoken, intelligent, and successful individual whose policies you almost completely agree with, is that enough to make up for the lack of ever holding any sort of political office or working for the government on any level. Can that candidate be better than those who, although you might agree with them a little less, have extensive executive and/or legislative experience. Can this candidate overcome what I assume would be a large learning curve that other candidates would not have?
Click to expand...
Given sufficient talent, of course. Especially in political circles, calls for experience almost exclusively translate as baseless seniority. This should have no place in a democracy.
 
NoC_T said:
Given sufficient talent, of course. Especially in political circles, calls for experience almost exclusively translate as baseless seniority. This should have no place in a democracy.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In presidential politics, I don't see people calling out candidates experience for people who have served only one or two terms as governor or senator. There's not a push to have the 30 year reps run. It's only where you get much less than that where people call for experience. They generally don't want someone to hold the most powerful office in the world when they have never done anything like it before.
 
I voted yes with the caveat he has the intelligence to do so.
 
Anagram said:
I disagree. In presidential politics, I don't see people calling out candidates experience for people who have served only one or two terms as governor or senator. There's not a push to have the 30 year reps run. It's only where you get much less than that where people call for experience. They generally don't want someone to hold the most powerful office in the world when they have never done anything like it before.
Click to expand...
Sure, misconceptions are commonplace. Now look to a historical record of characters whose protracted tenures did nothing to offset ineptitude. Or to others whose lack of 'experience' in no way diminished their achievements. Is blind repetition sufficient to confer expertise? To what extent do we assume that great leaders owe their brilliance to cronyism, partiality or the relative poverty of their opponents?

Those faculties that distinguish the notables from the also-rans are always those that couldn't be inculcated by longevity. Rather, they are those expressions we might call vision, creativity, strategic knack, social intelligence, communication and intuition that owe little, if anything to repositories of knowledge that in any case couldn't be completely lost on anyone who is eligible to run for higher office.

Of course, the average electorate remains ignorant of such distinctions. To the advantage of the aforementioned lightweights.
 
Redress said:
Obama held political office before he became president.



While alot of the fault for us getting into Vietnam is Kennedy's, we were there before him, and the war did not really start till he was dead.
Click to expand...


Obama held political office? That's your litmus test?

By that logic Palin was more qualified than Obama as she'd been in political office longer.
 
DB20 said:
Obama held political office? That's your litmus test?
Click to expand...

Yes, political experience in office qualifies as political experience.

By that logic Palin was more qualified than Obama as she'd been in political office longer.
Click to expand...

Where exactly did I say it was the only qualification, or even the most important? Please point out where I said that. If I didn't say that, then your whole point kinda falls apart.
 
DB20 said:
Obama held political office? That's your litmus test?
Click to expand...

Strawman. Redress's post wasn't anything to do with a "litmus test". It was to do with the topic of this thread, which was asking about people COMPLETELY LACKING in political experience. A poster suggested "Obama" as an example, and Redress...accurately...pointed out that Obama would not fall into the category talked about in the OP because he had held political office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom