February 9, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
[As you may have noticed, while I'm teaching Sports Law, the blogging has had to be cut back to something more like once a week than once a day. But there may be occasional exceptions. This is one.]
Progressives and Conservatives Take Note: Palin's Going Populist
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sarah Palin had some things to say at the President Reagan Tribute the other day that deserve more attention and reflection than they've received so far -- by those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently.
New York's Boss Tweed used to say, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." It ought to be a motivator to your active participation in the caucuses and primaries of your party of choice.
In my case, it causes me to think carefully about the least worst candidates of both major political parties. One will win. If it's not going to be my favorite, I can at least hope, and work to ensure, that both of the nominees are competent enough to function as President.
To remove any possible question in your mind, Sarah Palin is not now my first choice among the possible Republican nominees. Most of her positions I disagree with, many I find uninformed, and -- as many conservatives also believe -- I don't think she now has what it takes to function effectively as President.
But I hope it is true that I have never been one to dismiss entirely all of anyone's views with ad hominem comments. I find life more interesting and rewarding when I look for agreements with, and new ideas from, those individuals my acquaintances and colleagues may be rejecting out of hand.
And so it was that when I heard a quote from Sarah Palin the other day I made a mental note to try to track down the source sometime. It wasn't easy to find, but I came upon it this morning.
It was from a talk she gave at a dinner tribute to President Reagan at the Reagan Ranch Center museum in Santa Barbara, Friday evening [Feb. 4, 2011], sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (unaffiliated with the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley). Jeff Zeleny, "Palin Keeps Position Clear and Intentions Vague," The Caucus/New York Times, February 5, 2011. (The date marks the occasion of what would have been Reagan's 100th birthday.) And see, Jeff Zeny, "Palin, Rallying Base, Paints Dark Picture of Obama’s Policies," February 6, 2011, p. A19.
Her speech contained much with which I would disagree, expressions I would not have used, and conclusions that I might think don't logically follow. But that does not surprise me, and should not surprise you.
What did surprise me was what she said with which I totally agree.
By way of introduction, background and glossary, here are my definitions of some relevant terms:
Words like "socialism," "communism" and "fascism" are seldom used anymore in their original, technical, literal sense. They are swear words, words of derision carelessly thrown at anything one does not like.
That's too bad.
"From each according to ability; to each according to need" [Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875)] -- "communism" -- can be applied to professional sports' revenue-sharing schemes designed to keep the teams more or less competitive, and the games more interesting. It also applies to the "negative income tax" proposals of conservative economist Milton Friedman and conservative President Richard Nixon.
"Socialism" -- government owned and operated enterprises, such as the Interstate Highway system, public schools, libraries and parks (among other things) -- also works pretty well for us.
"Capitalism" -- free private enterprise, the marketplace -- rewards the successful entrepreneur (sometimes, as with a Bill Gates, overwhelmingly so), and leaves those who fail to the bankruptcy courts, with nothing but the opportunity to start all over again.
What do you call a system of joint government-corporate partnerships -- "heads I win, tails you lose;" "If I make a profit I get to keep it; if I have big losses the taxpayers will give me a bailout"? Subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, tariffs, bailouts, price supports are often just rewards for major campaign contributions. Those who remember World War II will identify government by interlocking relationships between corporate and government interests as what we then called "fascism." (If the government owns and operates an automobile manufacturing company that's "socialism"; if it provides a private, for-profit car company a "bailout," that's "fascism.")
Enough of the definitions.
The point is, I am a fan of both capitalism and socialism -- as I have defined both, above. I am not a fan of fascism.
More significant for purposes of this blog entry, it turns out that Sarah Palin is not a fan of fascism either. So on that proposition we agree.
Here is what she had to say -- in words very close to what I was writing about yesterday in "Super Boosters' Super Bowl; Champions' Wins Can Be Taxpayers' Losses; Lessons for Iowa," February 8, 2011, and numerous prior Web pages, newspaper columns, and blog entries.
This is not an economic policy. . . . It is the road to ruin. It’s crony capitalism, too, on steroids. The corporatist agenda — big government, big business collaboration, with powerful friends in DC who can afford to hire the lobbyists to grease the wheels of government in their favor for these investments.
In the interest of certain special interests, the government invests our money in technologies, in industries that venture capitalists tell us ‘no, those are nonstarters.’ but they’ll provide lucrative returns for favored corporate interests with major stakes in these areas. . . .
This collusion, this isn’t competition. It’s crony capitalism and it stifles our economy. It stifles the free market . . .. Government makes it increasingly impossible for anyone but cronies to get ahead. . . .
And ["the little guy"] that’s who is left out in the cold today. Big business, big labor, big finance — they have seats at the table. The little guy doesn’t. But we’re the ones left holding the tab. We’re paying the bill. This is not the way it’s supposed to be. This is not the way that it must be. American exceptionalism is not exceptionally big government with a command and control industrial policy. . . .
History has proven again and again when government picks the winners and losers, we are stuck with the losers. And we the taxpayers subsidize the failures. . . .
Do we still believe in . . . free-market capitalism?
Or do we surrender to big government and a corporatism agenda?. . .
We must be as motivated and optimistic as our parents and our grandparents were, many of whom started off with nothing and yet they were able to build a fulfilled life by the sweat of their brow. . . .
They didn’t demand bailouts.
Text of Governor Palin's Keynote Address: Tribute to President Reagan, Feb. 4, 2011.
So why are these excerpts from this transcript of her talk of vital importance to what I described, above, as "those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently"?
Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004), posits the thesis that the big business wing of the conservatives (those who advocate and practice what I have defined, above, as "fascism") have managed to bring along millions of voters, willing to vote against their own best interests (the funding of social programs and regulations designed to protect them), by talking about (while doing little or nothing about) "God, guns and gays" (opposition to abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and handgun control).
This has been accomplished, in part, by attacking "big government" and "taxation" while remaining eerily silent about the very linkage that big business has with that "big government," and the cash transfers it receives from the taxpayers who pay that "taxation."
So the big business, big money, funders of the conservative coalition should be (and probably are already, as they watch the events in Cairo unfold) a trifle concerned about Palin's turn toward an anti-fascism populism.
Similarly, the Palin-haters -- and progressives concerned about the rest of what she says, and might do in office -- should be wary of the consequences that might flow from a Palin-as-Populist campaign. It wouldn't take that much to expand the Tea Party's appeal to those who ought to have been a solid part of the Democratic Party's base (e.g., the poor, working poor, working class) -- and were, until the Party turned its back on them in its own search for corporate dollars.
It's something to think about.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
September 9, 2008, 8:00 a.m.; September 13, 2008, 5:00 p.m.
Maria Houser Conzemius, Deepak Chopra, and Molly Ivins
Our local PUMA ("Party Unity My A**"), popular and often insightful Press-Citizen blogger, has announced today why she is leaving the Democratic Party: the Party's failure to bestow its nominations for either president or vice president on Senator Hillary Clinton. Maria Houser Conzemius, "Why I've left the Democrats," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2008.
By September 13 the Press-Citizen had received enough response to the column to devote an entire page to columns and letters of rebuttal -- linked at the bottom of this blog entry.
She is expressing a frustration, and taking action on the basis of it, that many Democrats and Republicans have felt over the years with regard to one disappointment or another.
There is a progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- sometimes called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- the members of which feel a great deal of frustration with "the corporate wing of the Democratic Party." These are the folks who feel the Party has turned its back on its natural constituencies of poor, working poor, working class, and lower middle class -- and ask their Party's leaders, "So, how's that working for you?" Because their abandonment has happened to coincide with a good many lost elections, when in the progressives' view, had the Party stood by them it could have won virtually every position in the country from court house to White House. They feel they are being taken for granted, that the Party leadership believes it can ignore them because they have nowhere else to go.
But the reality is that they really don't have anywhere else to go -- except to third parties.
How to reconcile their dilemma? The late Molly Ivins advised disaffected progressives, when Ralph Nader was running: (1) determine how close the Democratic Party-Republican Party race is in your state; (2) if it's close, vote Democratic; (3) if not (either way) vote for Ralph.
Isn't this another case where the PUMAs can "have it all"? Rather than not voting at all, or voting for McCain-Palin, why not apply the Ivins' rule?
If you're an angry Hillary Clinton supporter who lives in a state that's "too close to call" vote Democrat. If the polls indicate either McCain or Obama are going to win in a walk, by a wide margin, write in Senator Hillary Clinton for president.
Wouldn't that be a more effective way to make your point? You'd actually get to vote for Hillary -- at least in some states, making your point, and your frustration, much more specific and clear than by not voting, or voting for McCain. But you'd also avoid turning the country over to the right wing, anti-feminist ideology and programs, the continuation of the Bush Administration, represented by the McCain-Palin ticket.
This is gratuitous advice, I recognize. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But I can relate to Maria's frustration and just think there may be more effective -- and less destructive -- ways for her and other PUMAs to vent it.
Deepak Chopra is a controversial guy. I don't want to take responsibility for all he's ever said and written any more than I'd endorse everything ever said by a visiting minister in my church. But I've always been more interested in judging ideas on the basis of their content than on the basis of their source. And I thought his take on the significance of the differences between Palin and Obama -- not unrelated to Maria's column -- worth excerpting this morning.
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. . . . Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. . . .
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. . . . Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Deepak Chopra, "Obama and the Palin Effect," The Huffington Post, September 4, 2008.
For a view that is, while not identical, certainly not inconsistent with that of Chopra, see George Lakoff, "The Palin Choice: The Reality of the Political Mind," Tikkun Magazine, September 4, 2008.
I'm not saying Chopra's "right" -- after all, how could you ever "prove" or "disprove" such an hypothesis to the satisfaction of the scientific community? I'm just saying I found it something worth reflecting upon this morning as I continue to try to make sense of this year's presidential election.
The September 13th Response
Lisa Krotz, "Palin comes at too much of a price," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("Conzemius quotes a pro-Hillary blogger saying she looks forward to a day when the Democratic party is 'willing to nominate and support female candidates.' Was she asleep during all of 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was running on the democratic ticket for vice president? If Conzemius chooses to vote against Obama for political, ideological and issues-based reasons, that is certainly her prerogative. But voting against . . . what appear to be her own self-interests serves little purpose.").
Lenore Holte, Brenda Pearson, Amy Correia, Dixie and Phil Ecklund, Kathy Gloer, Linda Louko, Niki Neems and Tricia Zebrowski, "Making life fair for women everywhere," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("McCain's choice of Plain as a running mate appears to us to be less a commitment to the political future of women and more a diversionary tactic to try: To appeal to disillusioned Clinton supporters, To appease rightwing social conservatives; and To distract the electorate from the fact that he has an abysmal record in supporting causes important to women.").
Chris Owen, "Don't judge just in terms of party," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Leroy Powell, "Obama campaign is falling apart," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Holly Hart, "PUMAS should be voting Green," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Jean Justice, "Cut off your nose to spite your face," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Gary Gussin, "Column must have been satire," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Amy Dobrian, "Columnist insults Clinton's legacy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Dale Bingham, "Conzemius is a traitor to Dems," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
And Maria's response:
Maria Houser Conzemius, "Conzemius responds to her critics," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("The battle strategy of voting for McCain/Palin is not a game to us PUMAs; it's war. We've had enough. We're not stepping aside anymore. We're not going to the back of the bus anymore.").
# # #
September 4, 2008, 9:40 a.m., 12:30, 6:15 p.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update" is now embodied in, and being updated as, a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present; although the original blog entry (July 19-August 9) has not been removed,"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9. Both remain among "most popular."
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Ted, TED, Michelle and City Owned Hotels," August 26, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Jails: 'Overcrowding' Not the Issue," August 21, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Palin by Comparison
I like Sarah Palin.
No, I don't mean what I now understand to be her positions regarding tax cuts and federal deficits, energy policy, abortion (valuing the life of a fetus over the life of a mother), teaching creationism in the schools, utilization of earmarks, guns, global warming, gay marriage and civil unions, relying on abstinence as a birth control method in reducing teen pregnancy -- among others. I suspect were we to spend an evening "vetting" each others' positions on issues we'd find relatively little we agree on. (I've said the same, and more, about Governor Mike Huckabee. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part II. Candidates/Governor Mike Huckabee. I really like Mike Huckabee, and his opening last evening was another demonstration of one of the reasons why.)
Nor do I mean that I liked "her" speech.
Don't get me wrong. It was a great speech (though I'm not fond of substituting snide attacks on one's opponent for a discussion of the issues). I mean it probably served well the Republican campaign. Matthew Scully, who wrote it, is a master wordsmith. After all he wrote President George W. Bush's first four State of the Union messages, among other political writing over the years. Who better to write the speeches and talking points for "Bush's third term"? I just mean it wasn't "her speech." (For a kind of "truth squad" evaluation of some of the charges see, Jim Kuhnhenn, "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention," Associated Press/Yahoo! News, September 3, 2008, 11:48 p.m. ET.)
That's certainly not a criticism of Governor Palin. Senator Obama is not unfamiliar with the teleprompter. And Senator McCain's constant looking down at notes only draws attention to the fact he's uttering someone else's words as well as significantly impairing his effectiveness as a speaker. Public officials, especially during a campaign sometimes requiring ten appearances a day, can be excused for relying on speech writers. And she, Senator McCain -- indeed the entire Republican Party -- had an enormous amount riding on it being a good performance.
Which it was. Being able to deliver a speech not entirely one's own to a very large crowd -- persuasively, emotionally, and with humor -- is an ability not unrelated to one's effectiveness as president. I thought she really "sold the lines," as we say, and did everything she was called upon to do.
Things had, after all, moved rather rapidly -- for her, the media, and the rest of the nation. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions On Vetting," New York Times, September 1, 2008 ("Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin."). (I have a memory of having read, or heard, somewhere that the Times, challenged by the McCain campaign on this story, is standing by it.)
One of the most knowledgeable and insightful persons to comment about her qualifications is a member of the Alaska legislature -- who also likes her. Mike Doogan, "She's Nice -- but Not Ready," Washington Post, September 3, 2008, p. A15 ("Palin brings some pluses to the campaign. She's a woman. She's young. She's from outside the Beltway. The Christian right likes her. She's comfortable on TV -- she has a degree in journalism -- and is adept at connecting with people on a personal level. And she is very, very competitive. . . . [H]er role in killing the ballyhooed 'Bridge to Nowhere'? Turns out that she was for it before she was against it, and that, well, she kept the money anyway. . . . [T]he state government isn't running all that well: commissioners and key staffers jumping or being pushed. The operating budget growing 10 percent a year. . . . The governor and her aides being investigated by the legislature. You can see why it's not clear she's a competent governor of Alaska, let alone qualified to take over the reins of the national government."). And see, Brian Ross, Joseph Rhee and Len Tepper, "Fired Alaskan Official Says Palin Hasn't Been Truthful; Monegan Says He Was Fired For His Refusal to Fire Governor's Former Brother-In-Law," ABC News, September 4, 2008; Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee, "Another Controversy for Sarah Palin; Former Police Chief Says He Was Fired for Challenging Palin's Campaign Contributors," ABC News, September 3, 2008; Justin Rood, "Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections; Governor Discounted the Findings of Nine Recent USGS Studies," ABC News, August 31, 2008.
So she was coached on the delivery. I suspect that wasn't the first time that has occurred either.
Anticipating the importance of Palin's debut before a national audience, McCain speechwriter Matthew Scully spent days working on the speech, and she rehearsed it repeatedly as McCain aides offered coaching. Before she delivered it, they began an all-out effort to defend her and take the offensive against her critics, mobilizing surrogates to tell her story and accusing journalists of creating a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee."
Here's the link to that Post page-one story, Michael D. Shear, "Palin Comes Out Fighting; GOP Nominates McCain After Running Mate Attacks Obama on Experience," Washington Post, September 4, 2008, p. A1.
And here's the Times' take: "The speech was the first public emergence for Ms. Palin since arriving here Sunday, two days after Mr. McCain named her as his running mate. Ms. Palin has spent her time in a hotel suite with her husband, Todd, and their five children preparing for her speech and the questions on foreign policy, national security and family matters that she will face from the news media when the McCain campaign makes her available to reporters. . . ." Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.
I used to like Bill Clinton, and stopped as a result of his campaign tactics against Senator Obama. The same thing could happen with my reactions to Governor Palin if she keeps up the ad hominum attacks on Obama and continues to avoid issues. Understand, I'd never vote for her, and frankly the thought of her having to walk into the oval office alone scares me a little. But I still like her. She's got spunk. She's articulate (especially when permitted to speak without scripts and coaches). She's attractive. And she's going to be appealing to a lot of voters, I think.
Aside from partisanship, and aside from the chattering classes and policy wonks, the reactions to her are going to turn on folks comfort zone -- as they did for me in my congressional primary race. I always felt those who voted for me, and those who preferred someone else (numbers that, by my count, differed by only six), both saw me accurately. Those who voted for me liked the idea of someone who (at that time only) had a modest measure of celebrity, contacts in Hollywood (some of whom came to the district to help with the campaign), Washington and the financial community in New York that could be drawn upon to help the District (my memory -- often faulty -- is that the Wall Street Journal reported at one point that I had more up front money from contributors, including Republicans, than any other newcomer running for Congress that year). They thought someone like that was just what the district needed. Young professionals, including even some Republicans, were attracted to that. On the other hand, there were slightly more who found that discomforting, something they found it hard to relate to. They preferred someone more like their neighbor down the road. Not incidentally, after the primaries were over, and the general election was held, the person they ended up choosing was a former state legislator, and now our own Iowa Senator, Chuck Grassley.
I think the choice between Palin and Obama is going to be like that. Both will be perceived relatively accurately by voters. Many -- whether it turns out to be "most" will decide who ends up in the White House -- will feel much more comfortable with what they see in Governor Palin. They'll like what I like about her -- and either also like her ideology and policy positions, or be unaware of what they are. Others will be more comfortable with what they see in Obama, what he represents (in every sense), and their attraction to Michelle as well.
The "Experience" Debate is Getting Silly
Senator McCain "told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday that 'Sarah Palin has 24,000 employees in the state government' and was 'responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply.'” Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.
Last evening on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," former Speaker Newt Gingrich was the guest. Stewart noted that some Republicans are arguing that Palin has foreign policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. Gingrich responded that when comparing the executive experience of Palin to that of Obama and Biden "You can't find a single executive decision that either has made in their entire career." To which Stewart responded that the same would have to be said about McCain -- to which Gingrich candidly acknowledged, "That's exactly right." (The exchange occurs at roughly 3:30-4:00 minutes into the interview.)
Similarly, Fred Thompson acknowledged last evening during his speech at the Convention, "Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president." (He went on to say, "but it does reveal character.") It's something the McCain campaign needs to consider.
Senator Joe Biden once said of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency . . . I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!"
The McCain campaign risks a similar attack when it brings every question back to McCain's POW status. ("How many homes does he have? Seven? You forgot to count the 'Hanoi Hilton.'") Military service should be honored; and it's certainly not irrelevant to a president's understanding of war and defense budgets. But it's not even the equivalent of having served as Secretary of Defense, let alone president. Fred Thompson's right; it doesn't qualify someone to be "commander-in-chief," or to deal with the other responsibilities of the U.S. president. In fact, McCain's military service is demeaned by making more of it than is credible.
(For a Palin-favorable to neutral explanation of the job of the Alaska governor, and how the state differs from others, see Kirk Johnson, "The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced in Alaska," New York Times, September 3, 2008.)
I've written at some length about the relevance of "experience" to the responsibilities of a president, what we should mean by "experience" in that context, and how, why and when it can appropriately be used, and with what weight, in comparing the qualifications of candidates for office prior to selecting the one you want to support. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part III. Experience. So I'm not going to repeat all of that here beyond this summary.
I do not think that "experience," however defined, is necessarily the most important quality to weigh in picking a candidate. I think raw intelligence, a liberal arts education from a good, though not necessarily most prestigious and expensive school (that is, at least a smattering of knowledge about a wide range of subjects), world travel (if observant and open to new experiences), the capacity of "a quick study" (that is, while knowing one's limitations, the ability to quickly pick up enough understanding of a new subject to ask the most appropriate questions of those who are more knowledgeable), a judicious mind (that is, the ability to base decisions on data and science rather than ideology, and to hold judgments in abeyance without knee-jerk conclusions until having heard all sides), a genuine liking for people and the capacity for empathy and understanding of their lives and challenges, and at least a dollop of "common sense-wisdom-judgment." Of course a basic honesty, commitment to transparency in government, ethical and moral sense -- and since the president is, above all else, the nation's personnel director, an ability to judge people, and to choose those who will make the president look good because they are better than the president, rather than because, by comparison, the president is clearly better than them.
So I can imagine someone with virtually no "experience" in the sense we talk about it nonetheless not only being "qualified" to be president, but being more qualified than someone with superior "experience." Vice President Dick Cheney may be one of the best examples from among many. After all he had an understanding of White House operations as a result of having served as President Ford's White House Chief of Staff, he had the legislative experience, and knowledge of the Congress, from six terms in the House and his service as minority Whip, his experience with the federal executive branch included having served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense (which also provided him some understanding and "experience" with regard to national defense), and his experience at administration/management of large institutions included, in addition to Secretary of Defense, having served as CEO of Halliburton. Notwithstanding all of that "experience," I suspect that there are some Republicans, as well as the Democrats, who would find him lacking on the other qualities just enumerated.
If one is to consider the "experience to be president," "passing the commander-in-chief" test, ability to handle that "3:00 a.m. phone call," what's most relevant, in my view, is a breadth of experience. What city, county and state government are like -- especially in their relations with the federal. The various branches of federal government -- cabinet departments, independent administrative agencies, the judiciary, the Senate and House, and the White House. Foreign relations experience (as distinguished from foreign policy experience, as Secretary of State (or other high position in the Department), UN ambassador, work with the World Bank or other international organization, or ambassador to any country, work on negotiating treaties, and so forth. An understanding of the military that comes, not just from service (which is also of value), but from having been National Security Adviser, Secretary of Defense (or other high position in the Department), Director of the CIA, and so forth. Finally (or perhaps first), is managerial/administrative experience. Not the experience of overseeing a senator's office staff, or McCain's time as a squadron commander, or any other administrative position that's pretty "hands-on," where you know and work directly with those you are supervising. But the experience of leading, of administering, an institution with thousands of employees, and tens of thousands of other stakeholders, where you simply out of necessity must use means other than personal contact with everyone (such as CEO of a major corporation, one of our nation's largest universities, or hospitals, governor of a state, mayor of a big city -- as well as federal cabinet, or even sub-cabinet, positions).
Measured by these standards none of the senators prominent in this year's primaries, and ultimately selected -- Senators McCain, Obama, Biden and Clinton -- can offer any "experience" other than legislative, and that, for three of them, limited to the U.S. Senate. (Ironically, Senator Obama can claim the most, by these standards, because he has gained some insight into state-federal relations by having served in a state legislature as well as the Senate.) All of which raises the question (the question, not the irrefutable answer) of the extent to which even this very limited (in terms of breadth) "stovepipe" experience is an example of the difference between "twenty-five years' experience, and one year's experience twenty-five times."
And I might add, by these standards, Governor Palin trumps them all -- including, as Speaker Gingrich conceded last evening -- her own presidential running mate, John McCain. However small the town, however few people live in Alaska, however short the time she's served as mayor and governor, she does have "experience" that none of the four senators do.
Does that mean I think she's the most qualified to be president? Absolutely not. The notion of her having to move into the oval office sometime in 2009 frightens me. I would feel much more comfortable with Senator Biden having to assume that role -- notwithstanding the fact he's never been a mayor or a governor.
So who else might McCain have picked? Until yesterday the thought never crossed my mind (I'm embarrassed to confess, since I should have thought of it), but I'm suddenly encountering more and more people who are now asking me, "Don't you think Dr. Condoleezza Rice would have been a more sensible choice?" The only downside I see to that idea would be her ties to the Bush Administration. Aside from that I think she'd be dynamite. Can you imagine the contrast between her and Governor Palin going toe-to-toe with Biden over foreign policy?
Well, we're off and running. Exactly two months from today we'll find out what this multi-billion-dollar campaign has produced.
# # #
