Adapted and expanded from an original post at The Wayward Episcopalian.
I'll be voting for Barack Obama, but I've made no secret about my own hesitations regarding the Illinois Senator's resume. That being said, he does have more leadership experience than Governor Palin. She was mayor of a town of less than 7,000 people for six years; he was a member of the state legislature that helped govern the nation's third largest city for seven. Come January, he will have been a member of the US Senate for four years; she a Governor of a state with 1.2 people per square mile for half that. The Republican response is, predictably, that her experience is EXECUTIVE and his (like McCain's) merely legislative. McCain surrogate Carly Fiornia, who was ousted as CEO of Hewlett Packard, has made that argument and insists that anyone who dares disagree with her is sexist:
I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin's experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life.Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.
I wonder, would Fiorina call herself a racist for ignoring Obama's work on ethics reform, death penalty reform, and nuclear proliferation? But I digress. The Republican spinners and conservative bloggers who take their marching orders have widely missed the mark about Palin's inexperience. I can only think of two possible reasons one would argue that executive experience is better than legislative experience, and neither makes sense.
The first is that the President, as head of the "Executive Branch," runs the government - but what's in a name? The President doesn't handle the nuts and bolts of management. He or she's got a Chief of Staff to run the White House and a Cabinet to run the various departments and agencies. Whether we acknowledge it with a Constitutional label or not, the President's legislative role is just as expansive and important as his (or her) management role. The State of the Union address largely sets the legislative agenda. The White House battles with Congress over every law and nomination, sending staffers and Cabinet members to the Hill for negotiations. And when it comes to those nominations, Senators have plenty of "experience" suggesting nominees to the President, so are just as qualified as a Governor to make such decisions. (That's part of what helped me quell me on Obama's inexperience after Biden and Dodd dropped out - the early and enthusiastic primary endorsements of former Majority Leader Daschle and former Majority Whips Kennedy and Durbin suggest he'll be able to navigate Congress. Palin can't claim that.)
Yes, perhaps being Governor does prepare a person for a small part of the Presidency, but not for the whole thing, and the same can be said of the Senate. So let's stop trying to suggest one is better than the other - especially since there are at least 16 American cities with larger populations than Alaska. You could even joke that Joe Biden gained more executive experience running the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committee staffs (as well as his personal staff) than Sarah Palin gained running the village of Wasilla and its 53 employees - a job Palin herself said was "not rocket science," Fiorina's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.
The second argument for executive experience is that four of our last five Presidents were Governors - but this just means Governors make good candidates, not good Presidents. Their resumes may have helped these four men reach the White House, but they didn't necessarily help them do a good job once they were there. Jimmy Carter was, well, Jimmy Carter - God love `im for his heart, but he couldn't negotiate with Congress and he couldn't rally the American people. Ronald Reagan knew how to inspire and helped speed up the end of the Cold War, but also left us with a then-record deficit and was either complicit or negligent in Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton botched health care negotiations with Congress and left office with no major second term achievements. George W. Bush appointed hacks like Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, and Don Rumsfeld, mismanaged Iraq and Katrina, and will leave both the Constitution and America's reputation in tatters. Just what about these four Governors is supposed to fire me up about executive experience? I'm left yearning for the days of SENATOR John F. Kennedy, when responsibility was taken for mistakes (the Bay of Pigs), tax cuts were manageable, and cooler heads prevailed during the most perilous moment in our nation's history, or SENATOR Lyndon Baines Johnson, who (Vietnam aside) made for one heckuva domestic President.
Given Obama's short resume, Democrats shouldn't hammer Palin on her lack of experience - although he has been quick to point out that his campaign has a larger staff and budget than does Wasilla. At the same time, Republicans should drop the experience attacks on Obama and the line about executive experience. When they don't, let's clobber them for the hypocrites they are.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 66 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
