The experience issue has become a cornerstone of the Democratic race for the nomination. This weekend when the election was discussed amongst family, it was a major plus for Hillary Clinton that she was more experienced than Barack Obama.
I think experience is important, but I think it is also over-rated and can also be a detriment. In one of the key areas where leadership will be critical, the management of the War on Terror, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton (nor Bill Clinton for that matter) have experience with a such a massive and complex undertaking. I don't think either of them will be able to step in on "day one" and easily manage the situation.
But, as a prerequisite for the presidency, experience is neither a positive nor negative indicator of success. In the past fifty years, three men have taken office who have been extremely experienced but have mixed records as presidents. These include George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson. While Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush has experience as executives of states of varying size, their level of experience as "deciders" does not correlate with their accomplishments or failures as president.
Then, there is Abraham Lincoln, who was not experienced. Yet he is considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, president.
So, what criteria do you use, if not experience? It is obvious that philosophy is a factor and is very important when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. But, both philosophy and experience are trumped by personal style.
For instance, while Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are diametrically opposed philosophically, you have to take Bush's views on the issues much more seriously because he values standing his ground more than he values pragmatism. In Clinton's case, you could take his specific views less seriously because you could count on him to change his mind when it was politically expedient.
Personally, I am nervous about Hillary Clinton's personal style, which is similar to Bill Clinton's, but also a little more stubborn. At this point, I have more confidence that Obama would be less concerned with settling a score or being viewed as wrong as he would be with getting it right. I also think he will learn fast when he gets in office.
One concern I do have about Obama is that he can be flustered, as he was in the debate when both Clinton and Edwards were attacking him. To throw in a 24 reference, Obama is a little more Wayne Palmer than David Palmer, when we need David Palmer. But I would take either Palmer over President Logan, the experienced Washington hand. Plus, Wayne Palmer was tough-minded when it counted. I think Obama would be too.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Why Belichick Should Resign...
For me, the Spygate situation is extremely reminiscent of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton.
I respected Bill Clinton and the shrewd way in which he ran his presidency. He remains a brilliant and calculating politician. I also have seen very few people with such broad knowledge, insatiable curiosity, and the ability to communicate his knowledge and enthusiasm in such a commanding and sharp way.
One of my favorite memories of Bill Clinton came toward the end of his presidency. He sat down with Roger Ebert to discuss movies. Clinton was in his element, expressing a very sincere reverence for film. He mentioned that he thought that Three Kings was the best movie he had seen that year. In these moments, Clinton is both very likable and also someone with whom I was comfortable running the country. His intellect was considerable and he knew how to use it in a practical and pragmatic way. His personality was perfectly designed for the modern presidency.
I was never very impressed with the many scandals that dogged Clinton, but the Monica Lewinsky affair was something else. It not only exposed his own many moral failings, but also his selfishness and arrogance.
The impeachment was a farce and made a mockery of the Constitution. There was a double failing of leadership in this case. The Republicans should have never let themselves become slaves to the pursuit of the President. And while the impeachment was wrong, Clinton should have looked past it and realized that the damage he had done to the country and his party warranted resignation. If he had done so, I believe that Al Gore would now be enjoying his tenth and final year in office as I write.
In the same way, I believe what Bill Belichick has done probably did not effect the outcome of games. The crime of video-taping is both small and small-minded.
Like Clinton, I have been drawn to Belichick accomplishments. I have enjoyed many Patriot games over the years and admired Belichick gritty and smart coaching style. If I were Bob Kraft, I would not fire him for it. But I do think that he should resign.
While the reality of what he has done is relatively small, the perception problem is immense. He has ruined the accomplishments of his players and cheapened the image of the NFL. But like Clinton, he has taken a defensive and arrogant stance toward it all.
Bill Belichick is a great coach and Bill Clinton was a great president, but, paradoxically, they are not great leaders. They lack an understanding of moral character (which does not require that you are perfect or religious, but that you grasp the greater good). Unfortunately, it is these qualities that we seem to lack and I'm not sure any of the candidates possess it. Great leadership is rare and I think that the modern requirements of the political system often discourages truly gifted leaders. I don't our deficit of leadership is unique in history. It would just be an apt time for one to emerge.
I respected Bill Clinton and the shrewd way in which he ran his presidency. He remains a brilliant and calculating politician. I also have seen very few people with such broad knowledge, insatiable curiosity, and the ability to communicate his knowledge and enthusiasm in such a commanding and sharp way.
One of my favorite memories of Bill Clinton came toward the end of his presidency. He sat down with Roger Ebert to discuss movies. Clinton was in his element, expressing a very sincere reverence for film. He mentioned that he thought that Three Kings was the best movie he had seen that year. In these moments, Clinton is both very likable and also someone with whom I was comfortable running the country. His intellect was considerable and he knew how to use it in a practical and pragmatic way. His personality was perfectly designed for the modern presidency.
I was never very impressed with the many scandals that dogged Clinton, but the Monica Lewinsky affair was something else. It not only exposed his own many moral failings, but also his selfishness and arrogance.
The impeachment was a farce and made a mockery of the Constitution. There was a double failing of leadership in this case. The Republicans should have never let themselves become slaves to the pursuit of the President. And while the impeachment was wrong, Clinton should have looked past it and realized that the damage he had done to the country and his party warranted resignation. If he had done so, I believe that Al Gore would now be enjoying his tenth and final year in office as I write.
In the same way, I believe what Bill Belichick has done probably did not effect the outcome of games. The crime of video-taping is both small and small-minded.
Like Clinton, I have been drawn to Belichick accomplishments. I have enjoyed many Patriot games over the years and admired Belichick gritty and smart coaching style. If I were Bob Kraft, I would not fire him for it. But I do think that he should resign.
While the reality of what he has done is relatively small, the perception problem is immense. He has ruined the accomplishments of his players and cheapened the image of the NFL. But like Clinton, he has taken a defensive and arrogant stance toward it all.
Bill Belichick is a great coach and Bill Clinton was a great president, but, paradoxically, they are not great leaders. They lack an understanding of moral character (which does not require that you are perfect or religious, but that you grasp the greater good). Unfortunately, it is these qualities that we seem to lack and I'm not sure any of the candidates possess it. Great leadership is rare and I think that the modern requirements of the political system often discourages truly gifted leaders. I don't our deficit of leadership is unique in history. It would just be an apt time for one to emerge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
