Here’s an interesting bit of food for thought:
Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln.
So much for that campaign tactic…
This is a “powerful” example because Buchanan was arguably the worst president in the history of the US, while Lincoln was among the best, but I have a feeling that one can find many examples of the opposite nature, when experience proves an asset.
Or, rather, human history is rich enough to provide examples to support any point of view, but none of those can absolutely predict how it’s going to play out in the future.
Me, if the only criterion was experience, I would always pick the one who has it over the one who doesn’t. But there are certainly many more criteria in addition to that…
Agreed. I think experience does count, which is why we have a minimum age for our elected officials. But this primary season has been, in large part, an argument over how much it should count, and it’s important to remind people that, as you say, there are other criteria that make up a good president. I’d say vision, drive, and the ability to persuade others are at least as important as the number of years one has on the resume…