Have Americans ever elected a president who had never before held elective office?
Yes. Three of them, in fact.
Were they elected as "outsiders?" That is, as candidates who were outside of the existing political system, and would bring in new ideas to reform and re-energize a government that had become unresponsive to the needs of its citizens?
No. All three already had first-hand experience with government's inner workings. By virtue of their experience, they were a part of the existing governing system.
America is deep into its quadrennial quest for national leadership. One--and likely only one--thing is clear:
The electorate is having fun flirting with candidates who are "outsiders."
What makes a candidate an outsider? Public feelings seem to indicate that a candidate who has held no prior elective office is an outsider.
By that definition, we have three outsiders, all Republicans: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.
But there are a couple of U.S. Senators who could make a good case for being called an outsider for other reasons: Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Republican Ted Cruz.
Sanders is known as a blunt-talking, tangle-haired, rumpled old Jewish Democratic Socialist, which is a boat-load of qualifications for being a one-of-a-kind presidential candidate. That sounds like an outsider, doesn't it?
And how about Ted Cruz? Also an elected Senator, he stresses that he is outside of the corrupt environment of Washington, D.C., and he is willing to shut down the national government to prove just how far outside he stands. Like Sanders, although for different reasons, Cruz seems to march all alone in the presidential political parade.
But let us go along with a simple definition for a complex thing -- an outsider is a candidate who has never before been elected to public office. In that case, we are left with just the three as outsiders: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson. Ms. Fiorina has made an electoral attempt before (to be a U.S. Senator from California), but we won't count that against her since she lost the election.
These three have significant voter appeal -- more than half of Republican primary voters seem inclined to vote for one of them.
In other words -- Yes, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson could become the next President of the United States.
Who has done this before? Who, with no prior experience as an elected office-holder, ran for the office of President of the United States, won and served?
From most recent to the first, they were Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover and Ulysses Grant. George Washington, the first president, is not among this group because he was a member of colonial Virginia's House of Burgesses.
All three presidents who had no previous elected experience nevertheless had already distinguished themselves with remarkable careers in public service.
Eisenhower, first elected in 1952, was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during the Second
World War; in 1951 he assumed command of the new NATO forces. Those
were elite-level positions involving all manner of close encounters with
the highest levels of government in many nations. Eisenhower did
not become president as a candidate outside of the mainstream of
American government. He knew government from the inside out.
Herbert Hoover, elected in 1928, had been Secretary of Commerce for two prior presidential Administrations. Before that, he was head of the U.S. Food Administration during World War I. Again, plenty of experience with national government.
First elected in 1868, U.S. Grant was President Lincoln's hand-picked commander of all Union armies from early in 1864. He coordinated closely with Lincoln to bring victory to the United States in the Civil War with the Confederacy. As 1864 was a presidential election year, Lincoln's choice of Grant had overt political aspects, especially since Lincoln's opponent was George McClellan, former commanding general of the Army of the Potomac.
The presidency is a very demanding and complex job. It requires constant pulling of numerous levers of governmental power, and incessant cajoling of the 535 U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. As president, Barack Obama's limited prior-elected experience has often been cited as a reason for his difficult (to say the least) relations with Congress, especially the Republican part of Congress. If there is truth in that assertion -- and there is probably some -- then elected experience ought to have some bearing on choices to be made for the 2016 presidential election.
Carson, Trump and Fiorina have no prior public service experience. They have all accomplished noteworthy careers in their chosen fields, but nothing in those careers can be offered as background in knowing what it takes to make government work. So, that's a grand total of zero years of elected experience.
By contrast, President Obama's "limited" experience in elected office amounted to a half-dozen years in the Illinois Senate, and then another almost four years in the U.S. Senate.
Is it possible that Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson or Donald Trump could be elected as president and carry out the duties of the office?
Yes. But it would be a presidency unlike any that the nation has ever seen before. Any of them would have to first go through a crash course in learning the ways of governing. Having the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet starting the job with any activity that involves the word "crash" sounds risky, doesn't it?
At the moment, it is up to Republican primary voters to decide how much risk to take. Depending on voting results and events, this subject might never come up again.
On the other hand, flirting can be fun. Sometimes it ends up in a meaningful relationship.
As the saying goes, "We shall see. . ."
2 comments:
1. Insider or outsider? The issue is experienced politicians and their rhetoric during times of terrorist attacks. This blog is a good first attempt to judge politicians in terms of experience and whether that experience comes from being an insider or an outsider. A terrorist act is to create fear and division and backlash with that fear to convince Muslims that the world despises them and their religion.
2. Provoking simple demagogic reactions by politicians, furthermore. plays into the hands of terrorists by helping their recruiting. At the same time politicians responding to the fear of its victims are paradoxically overlooking that as much defense comes from liberal values of tolerance and the rule of law as it does come from (the necessity of) military force. This is the political experience that a democracy provides its politicians and in turn gives its citizens the best type of security. Patient difficult and perhaps long-term political and military planning and action are required. Demonizing Muslim citizens, or Syrian, and immigrants in general, by candidates would indicate extreme inexperience. A characteristic of that inexperience is to offering simple demagogic solutions that build and exploit citizen’s fears. On many levels common sense is going out the door: It is hard to see how we could withstand the costs of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. Patient coalition building of Arab and allies is succeeding as former enemies and potential sympathizers are now seeing the light in fighting radicalism. Muslims the most victimized by terrorism. It is refreshing to see that the Republicans think they have a problem.
--The Indexer
It is not hard to understand why the American Public has reached a point of disgust with a political system that has wallowed in a quagmire of finger pointing and inaction for the past several years. Americans want their government leaders to act as leaders not spoiled brats playing a game of "he said, she said". It is understandable why many Americans are saying enough is enough and expressing a view that we need someone from the outside to come in and take control. But what qualifies this outsider to run the most powerful country in the world. Is being an outsider all that matters? Don't we need to listen to what the candidates are proposing? If the current polls are accurate it appears that substance, knowledge skill, capability, and facts are of little or no importance as long as the candidate is an "outsider".
"Oh No Mr. Bill…Ahhhhhhh"
Post a Comment