- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 68,960
- Reaction score
- 22,530
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From The Globe and Mail
Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?
Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.
But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?
It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.
The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.
COMMENT:-
It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".
What does it seem like to you?
Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?
Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.
But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?
It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.
The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.
COMMENT:-
It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".
What does it seem like to you?
