Does a Future President Need Past Experience in Government?
Would we want our local hospital to hire a school principal to be the new head of the ER department? Clearly, we wouldn’t trust our life to people with no expertise in the field on which we depend. Yet many Americans seem willing to trust the health of our democracy and our lives in a dangerous world to presidential candidates with no expertise in government. Indeed, a third of Republicans in a 2022 poll actually prefer someone as president who had no political experience. A nearly equivalent percentage (31%) of U.S. adults in a 2016 poll said that “longtime experience in Washington” would be a liability for a candidate running for our nation’s highest office.
In a 2021 poll of historians asked to rank past presidents, the top five in order were Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. All five had served as governors, in Congress and/or had very high level military experience, which included working with politicians in Washington, D.C., before being elected. The same is true for the next five (Truman, Jefferson, Kennedy, Reagan, Obama) and nearly every other president in America history.
Clearly, just having high-level government experience is no guarantee of being a good president. But it can help. James Madison, our fourth president, had served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress. He helped organize and played a major role in the Constitutional Convention. He served in the House of Representatives in Washington’s Administration and as Secretary of State under Jefferson. As president, he presided over the successful War of 1812. In this “second war for American independence” he adhered strictly to Constitutional principles, such as avoiding the dangerous accrual of executive power or suspending Constitutional protections. Victory in that war led to the “Era of Good Feelings,” marked by a minimum of politically partisan fighting.
As a modern example, George H.W. Bush served in the House of Representatives, as UN Ambassador, CIA Director and Vice-President before being elected President in 1988. His experience proved crucial in shepherding the reunification of Germany, the end of the Cold War and quickly assembling an international coalition to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Such experience provides a deep understanding of Congress, the presidency, international relations, and for those who were governors or senior military officials, lessons in managing very large government organizations. It is also a “school for statesmen/women” by providing a solid understanding of the Constitution and American history.
In our “government is the problem” era, it’s understandable when the lack of government experience is viewed by many voters – and candidates – as an attractive electoral selling point. The assumption that someone can fix a large complex organization when they have no experience with it - the “kick butt, innovative outsider” - is attractive yet we don’t want it most other fields.
In the first Republican Party Presidential Primary Debate there were four governors, one Senator, a former Vice-President and a tech entrepreneur. Vivek Ramaswamy, with no experience in government, was viewed by many as the “winner.” Yet his understanding of the government he hopes to lead is concerning. For example, he’s proposed a Constitutional amendment requiring anyone between the ages of 18 and 24 to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote, unless they have served in the military or as a first responder. Ramaswamy thus ignores the 26th amendment which grants the right to vote to every citizen who reaches 18 and imposes an arbitrary age range with no evidence for it. He assumes older people know more about civics, yet Ramaswamy, who is 38, has himself displayed a lack of civic knowledge. In the debate, he said that “[T]he U.S. Constitution, it is the strongest guarantor of freedom in human history. That is what won us the American Revolution.” Yet the Constitution was not drafted until 1787, four years after the Treaty of Paris ending the war.
Work in the private sector can be, of course, a welcome part of a presidential candidate’s portfolio. But it does not necessarily provide background in several of the capabilities historians used in their rankings. Experience in working with Congress, international relations, pursuing equal justice for all Americans, crisis leadership, moral authority and a solid understanding of American history and the Constitution should also be expected.
The Constitution sets only three eligibility requirements for a president. She/he must be at least 35, a natural born citizen, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. Since the health of our democracy is at stake, we should also judge a candidate’s experience in and/or with government and understanding of the Constitution. The recent publication by the New York Times of their 2024 Executive Power Survey is worth reviewing to gauge the extent to which current candidates for president understand the Constitution and the extent of president power.
These are demanding qualifications, but leading in a democracy is not easy. The fidelity of some Americans for candidates who are media celebrities, misunderstand the government they wish to lead and demonstrate an ignorance of or antipathy to Constitutional restrictions is as unwise as it is dangerous.
Photo Credit: dalatindiva@pixabay.com
