One of the primary themes of this 2008 Presidential campaign has been experience. Namely, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have made the claim that Barack Obama does not have enough experience to be the President of the United States. The problem with this argument is that it’s pretty vague. The Presidency is a job unlike any other, so the only real experience for the big chair is actually being President. In that sense, both Obama and McCain are unqualified for office.
Given this vague definition, it seems like a worthwhile exercise to determine what, exactly, gives someone the proper experience to run for President. In that respect, it doesn’t seem like enough to just look at all past Presidents–after all, some Presidents have been absolute disasters. So in order to determine the experience required for the Presidency, it’s not enough to look at all Presidents. We need to look at the best Presidents, examine the experience that they had, and use that to determine what experience we should be looking for in a candidate. Once we have that, only then can we compare which of the candidates has the best experience to be President.
Methodology for Determining the Five Best Presidents
So our first step is, how do we determine the best Presidents? To this end, rather than put forth my own biases, I decided to be objective and use presidential ranking surveys of both historians and the general public. In that way, we can arrive at a consensus pick of the five best Presidents, based on historical knowledge and the opinion of the voters. For ranking of Presidents by historians, I pulled data from this table. Here, I used three surveys: the C-Span 1999 Survey, the Siena College 2002 Survey, and the Wall Street Journal 2005 Survey. I chose these because they were the most recent, skipping only the Wall Street Journal 2000 Survey so as not to use the same source twice.
In addition to the Historian surveys, I also used the data from this C-Span Viewer Survey from 1999, to get the opinions of laypeople who are politically minded, and this 2007 Gallup Poll of the general public ranking the greatness of Presidents. To arrive at a definitive top five, I merely added the Presidential rankings of each surveys top ten together. In the case of the Gallup poll, where the numbers only went to 20, I gave each President not mentioned a rank of 21. (You can read the raw spreadsheet data here.)
Using this method, I arrived at this “consensus pick” for the Top Five Presidents:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
While I don’t agree with this particular ranking, given the method I used this is probably the best consensus of a top five. It’s weighted in favor of historians, but still has input from the voting public.
Comparison of Top Five Presidents to Current Candidates
Now that I had my top five, I took a look at each of these Presidents in turn to determine what positions and background they had held prior to becoming President. I then compared those positions and background to come up with the most common experiences between them, thus arriving at the proper experience for a successful presidency. I then compared those experiences to that of Barack Obama and John McCain to determine whether they both had that experience.
The Age Issue
Before beginning that analysis, though, it’s worth mentioning that one of the reasons that this experience issue is highlighted is because of the age difference between the candidates. Obama is 47, and McCain will be 72 later this month. Interestingly enough, this actually puts Obama closer in age to the five most successful presidents. The average age of all five presidents is 52, with Teddy Roosevelt the youngest at 42, and Jefferson the oldest at 58. Thus, Barack Obama is actually within the age range of the most successful Presidents. McCain, by contrast, is two decades older than this average age. Clearly, then, it is not merely age that makes experience.
So then, what experiences did all five of the best Presidents have in common? Here they are:
1. All five of the best Presidents were state legislators.
The only job that all five of the best Presidents had in common was that of State Legislator. Both Washington and Jefferson served in Virginia’s House of Burgesses, Lincoln was a representative to the Illinois Legislature, and both Roosevelts were in the New York State Legislature. Apart from the Presidency itself, this is the only office that all five of the best Presidents have in common. In this respect, the edge clearly goes to Obama, who served for seven years in the Illinois State Legislature. John McCain did not serve in any state legislature.
2. All five of the best Presidents married wealthy wives.
One odd thing that all five of the best Presidents have in common is that all of them married wealthy wives. Now, this might just be a quirk, as both Roosevelts and Thomas Jefferson were born into very wealthy and influential families, so it’s not much of a surprise that they married women from rich families. Both Lincoln and Washington, however, married “above their station.” By this standard, then, McCain has more in common with the five best Presidents for marrying heiress Cindy Hensley. Michelle Obama did not come from a wealthy family.
3. All five of the best Presidents had legal training.
Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all passed the bar and served as attorneys at some point in their careers. George Washington was a justice and held court for 14 years. Teddy Roosevelt never practiced law, but did attend law school until he dropped out. Once again, Obama is the best match for this experience–he attended Harvard law school, lectured on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and practiced as an attorney for many years. McCain, by contrast, has no formal legal training.
4. All five of the best Presidents had successful careers in the private sector.
George Washington spent time in his life as a surveyor and a planter. Thomas Jefferson had a successful law practice and was an inventor. Abraham Lincoln owned both a store and was partner in a prestigious law practice. FDR was a corporate lawyer. Teddy Roosevelt was a rancher and a published author. In terms of experience in the private sector, Barack Obama has served on the boards of corporations, practiced law for a private firm, been a successful published author, and taught law at the University of Chicago. John McCain, by contrast, has not worked in the private sector. He served in the Navy for over two decades, and after his retirement from the Navy went right into politics.
Conclusion
After examining the lives and careers of what appear to be the “consensus pick” for the five best Presidents, it is clear that Barack Obama is not “too inexperienced” to become President. Like these five, Obama has legal training, has served in the state legislature, and has had a successful private sector career. True, he did not marry a wealthy woman, but looking solely at his career it looks as though he shares more experience in common with the most successful Presidents than does his rival, John McCain. Accordingly, this begs the question: who’s the real inexperienced candidate in this election?
[...] everything from politics to religion to film to cooking to language.” The current issue What Kind of Experience Makes a Good President?, an examination of the merits of the Hasbro suit against Facebook’s Scrabble game, why [...]
[...] The issue of experience has dominated the 2008 Presidential campaign. But what kind of experience has historically paved the way for a successful presidency?Continua [...]
I’d submit that this excursion was predicated upon finding an argument for supporting Sen Obama. As such, I’m sure it will sell well with Obama supporters. I suspect it will be unpersuasive to those not already on the Obama bandwagon.
Bains,
What, specifically, is flawed about the argument?
The most important factor in a president mite well be the ability to listen to opposing points of view and decide between them. Lincoln appointed political opponents to his Cabinet. Eisenhower would often set two advisors against each other to argue for and against a position. Kennedy brot in a variety of opposing views during the Cuban missile crisis. On the other hand, administrations filled with cronies and yes-men have been historically disastrous (notably Jackson, Bush II and Grant). Experience seems to be an extraneous argument, as pointed out in the article.
It seems that the best criteron for being remembered as a great president has been the ability to find a successful resolution to a significant crisis. If you have a presidency that never has a major crisis, your legacy is doomed to languor, destined to bore every highschool student forced to suffer through the lecture. Experience with crisis and the ability to execute the office seem to be a pretty good indicator of potential, but that does not always work (Grant, for example). Ranking greatness is based on past performance, but determining expectation is based on the potential to thrive in this leadership role. These are two different standards to investigate, not the same. Perhaps looking at presidents who won their elections by wide popular vote numbers, not electoral ones, due to high expectation from previous experience and relating their popularity to job performance might help point toward clues to determining the better candidate.
I did not say flawed Alex, I said unpersuasive. Unpersuasive because your argument is written from the conclusion back. It reads like someone wanting to prove from the onset, that Sen. Obama’s dearth of legislative and executive experience is irrelevant because he has the right kind of important experience.
Unpersuasive because you start with the premise that Barack Obama would be a good President, and good for the country.
I’ll give you this however, of the top five Presidents on your list ,two were willing to overthrow the existing sovereign to install a radically different form of government. And from all I’ve read from and about Sen. Obama, he seems to fit that mold. Either that, or he is just another typical (Chicago) pol, willing to say and do whatever necessary to maintain supremacy within the fiefdom over which he presides.
bains:
How would you go about such an analysis? Or would you be willing to concede that no such analysis is going to be reasonably free of an ad hominem attack?
Easy. Legislative experience? How long has one spent in local, state, and federal legislative bodies. Executive experience? How long has one held executive positions both private and public. Same with specific issues - how long has one been involved in (shown more than a passing knowledge of) advocacy for, or against, specific domestic and foreign policy. Fairly objective criteria I’d say.
It becomes quite subjective when one tries to assess the quality of listed experience. Clearly McCain has more objectively determined experience, hence it becomes incumbent upon the Obama supporter to negate the objective and elevate the subjective.
Concede? Heck, I’ll go even further: no activity is free of ad hominen attack. Been to a Yankee/Red Sox or Bronco/Raider game recently? I’d suggest caution where one sets the bar for what one considers ad hominem attacks however. A subjective criterion speaks poorly of oneself.
bains,
I actually didn’t start this off from one perspective or the other, but from a real attempt to quantify, not just what experience a president should have, but what experience a GOOD president should have. I would be the first to tell you that the top five presidents I came up with by examining the survey data are not my top five. However, they are apparently judged to be most successful, so that’s what I went with.
Accordingly, I then looked at those five presidents to see what ALL FIVE had in common. It turns out that when you make that comparison, Obama has more relevant experience. Frankly, even though I’m an Obama supporter, I was pretty surprised to learn that Obama fit the profile very well and McCain didn’t come close, in terms of matching the experience common to all five successful presidents.
In all honesty, though, I do consider McCain’s complete lack of experience in the private sector to be a significant drawback in evaluating his qualifications for the presidency. I don’t think that having a president who has worked for the federal government his entire life is a healthy thing.
Again Alex, I find your argument unpersuasive.
No you chose what to look at. And even then, you are forced upon a limb to make the comparisons.
You compare absolute age without noting the difference in life expecentancy between 1780 and 1980.
You talk about experience in “State Legislator” without noting that Washington represented the Virginia provincial legislature before the Declaration of Independence was even written. Similarly, Jefferson served as both State Legislator and Governor before the US Constitution was penned.
You use the nebulas, “3. All five of the best Presidents had legal training.” to tuck Washington and Teddy into your criteria. Again, Washington served as Justice of Fairfax prior to 1776. Further, as a former principal of an engineering firm, I have had legal training.
And marrying a heiress, that’s just silly.
I’ll give you experience in the private sector as an important criterion, and agree that I am somewhat dissatisfied with McCain’s dearth here. But to argue that Obama’s community activism, his occasional role as lecturer at UofChi Law school, or his authorship of two books (both while he was an elected representative is significant private sector experience, well, I find that laughable.
Not surprisingly, your conclusion is that Obama has the experience you find relevant. Please note, I’m not arguing for McCain, just that I find your case Obama, wholly unpersuasive.
I also note that you choose which polls to use to find your consensus top five Presidents. Why not use your own choices? Why use C-Span’s viewer poll instead of the 2007 Rasmussen Reports poll, or the 2006 Quinnipiac University poll, or the 2005 Washington College poll? Have you listened to C-Span’s Washington Journal recently? 30% of the callers (viewers) are clearly uninformed (granted - based upon the quality of their on-air comment/question).
These are rhetorical questions, stated with the aim to show that the criteria you have used are of your choosing.
bains,
In terms of objectively assessing “relevant experience” with regards to the “best presidents” you are absolutely right. There needs to be a more comprehensive study that doesn’t play to one person’s bias in order to make a more proper determination.
The way I read Alex’s article is that this is exactly the point he makes - perhaps whether he knows it or not. McCain is presumed to be more “experienced” and his supporters are bolstering this claim. However they fail to define and qualify that experience. I give Alex kudos for being the first that I know of to actually make the attempt, regardless of the outcome. It is the method that is important.
I’d be interested to see what happens with Biden and Palin picks… Since the big argument now is who is nmost likely to be ready to succeed in the event of an untimely death of a president.
I would also say that although interesting… the above named “picks” were from a different era, culture, and for 2 of the 5, they hardly had time to have any other experience to prepare them for the presidency…
Seems to me that the likelihood of finding a decent comparison will be pretty difficult… unless the comparisons are tainted by personal bias!
I would submit that it is almost impossible to account for the heart, soul, and integrity of a man (or woman) and when a truly selfless and worthy candidate arises, it will most likely be a surprise to most everyone… Sorry to doubt the likelihood of this argument holding up, but I really doubt that the above argument will hold up in real life!
[...] last week that showed he was in the middle of a long list of good Presidents in that category. What Kind of Experience Makes a Good President? | Heretical Ideas Magazine According to a C-span poll, these are considered the top 5 Presidents in our history: 1. Abraham [...]
[...] http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/08/what-kind-of-experience-makes-a-good-president/ [...]
[...] A list of Obama’s MANY accomplishments that qualify him to be President What Kind of Experience Makes a Good President? | Heretical Ideas Magazine The first link I found that looked helpful said that Obama had a simillar type of experience to [...]
This article puts forth good points, and backs it up with facts that are little known, but are historically correct. It also causes one to ponder upon who would make the better president based upon this criteria and definition of experience. I commend you for a well written article and hope that you continue to write pieces such as this to continue to give fresh looks at the current Presidential election.
More information on the lack of correlation between experience and performance can be found here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
Very interesting article. I’d be really interested to see a broader examination as well, such as what experience did the five WORST Presidents have, and what is the average “experience” of our past Presidents.
And if you take the top 5 listed, what makes them all DIFFERENT from our other past Presidents? For instance, if let’s say half (or a third, or however many it is) of all past Presidents were lawyers, then having experience practicing law doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the right type of experience. It just means so many past Presidents were lawyers that it’s more likely the top 5 would have that experience as well.
At the same time, if some of the worst Presidents in history had experience in virtually only the Armed Forces and politics, then that would make the argument against McCain even stronger. It’s an interesting look at our candidates, but I think it doesn’t go far enough to make its results very conclusive.