Judgement Vs. Experience

Afraid that Hillary's "35 years of Experience" is really a strength?

Presidential Biographer Robert Dalleck writes today in The New York Daily News.

Obama's lack of experience shouldn't be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time.

First, some context. When Kennedy ran for President, he had already served in the U.S. House and the Senate for 13 years (into the start of a second Senate term) and had traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In the Second World War, he had commanded a P.T. boat - and emerged a hero. He had written a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on political courage.

Put that alongside Obama's record of public service: seven years in the Illinois State Senate, half a term in the U.S. Senate and assorted other positions of debatable relevance to the presidency.

But all of Kennedy's knowledge and experience, especially in matters of war and peace, did not insulate him from the blunder at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, which initially undermined his standing as a foreign policy leader. There, Kennedy simply exercised bad judgment; it strains credibility to believe that he would have made the right decision if only he had spent one more term in the Senate.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy relied more on his own judgment - overriding many gray-haired military men - and the most dangerous moment in Cold War history was resolved with far better results for the nation.

A look at other Presidents underlines the lesson. In the four years before the Civil War, James Buchanan [the only man between 'W' and GT12's Award as 'Worst President Ever] led the nation. He had held so many high offices over the years that he was known as "Mr. Government." It didn't help him or the country a jot.

Buchanan failed to head off the bloodshed that would soon engulf the country, and he is now remembered as one of, if not the worst, President in our history.

Inexperienced Abraham Lincoln was, happily, another story.

Woodrow Wilson had an impressive record before entering the Oval Office; history has not been kind to his legacy - or to his decision to enter the "war to end all wars."

Herbert Hoover, one of the most experienced public figures ever to get to the White House, demonstrated dreadful judgment in believing that the Depression would resolve itself with minimal government intervention.

By contrast, Franklin Roosevelt judged traditional strategies for ending the economic downturn inadequate, and instead gave the country a New Deal - a slew of federally sponsored programs including the SEC, the FDIC, Social Security and a minimum wage - that continue to make the country more humane and more just.

In foreign affairs as well, FDR sensed when to depart from conventional wisdom. In 1941, after Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, Roosevelt's military chiefs, fearful that the Nazis would roll over the Soviets the way they had conquered Western Europe, advised against providing lend-lease aid to Russia. Roosevelt wisely concluded that the Soviets would hold out and provided needed supplies.

No, experience is not irrelevant - but it's no guarantee of anything either. And when judgment and experience clash, judgment is the decisive presidential virtue.