Currently there is a small scuffle going on concerning political experience. Political experience, I argue, is only useful insofar as it demonstrates political prudence. That is, that it demonstrates a record of leadership and ability to implement political ideas. The ideal candidate for the highest office in the land would have a record of successful governing experience in some type of executive position, a position where choices have to be made.
But if a candidate lacks such a record, should he/she be necessarily disqualified from seeking the highest office in the land? I think the answer is no, and the reason the answer is no is because politics is not, in the first place, about leadership. It is first about ideas, and second about character. Leadership or spiritedness is only a part of someone’s character. Neither of these things, good ideas or good character, necessarily need to have been demonstrated in a similar position to which the candidate aspires. This is especially true if the person does have great political ideas, and the manly attitude necessary to assert them.
In this particular election I don’t think political experience should be a significant issue for either candidate. Talk of experience often serves to distract from the substantive policy differences that ought to be the focus of our conversations, but perhaps both conversations are possible.
2 comments:
I agree with you that I don't think political experience is important, but I disagree that "politics is not about leadership". I think leadership is extremely important.
For example, I'll look at one specific issue. President Bush is pro-life, but he has not been a leader on the issue. President Reagan was more of a leadership-vision President than he was a details guy. He demonstrated strong leadership by talking about the issue of abortion and articulating a vision of a culture of life in America.
I think Gov. Palin has demonstrated extraordinary leadership. Her political story is very inspiring (PTA -> City Counselor -> Mayor -> State Ethics Committee Chairman -> Mayor -> VP Nominee). She doesn't necessarily have a whole lot of experience in Washington, but she has demonstrated the ability to articulate a vision and achieve real results.
I suspect that this minor disagreement is more of semantics than it is of substance (i.e. what does the word "leadership" mean to you?, which I had to answer in a short speech at a conference on leadership two weeks ago).
dave,
I got ya. I didn't mean to say that "politics is not about leadership", but rather that , "politics is not, in the first place, about leadership"
leadership comes secondary to the ideas that will inform the way you lead.
Post a Comment