Experience

A bit odd for me to write on this after I delivered a speech to about 250 people about the exact opposite principle (different circumstances however). With the upcoming U.S. Presidential Elections, I think we need to lock down on one particularly important issues that is in no way an issue in terms of how we perceive it to be now.

This issue is Experience. I can probably cite off at least 25 different times I've heard a talk show host, newspaper, or report talk about how there is a huge difference between years of experience in politics. My view on this plain and simple it doesn't matter. Period.

Some of our best presidents were inexperienced.
FDR, Reagan, Kennedy, Jackson, and more were all great leaders, but each had relatively limited political exposure. This is by far a virtue, not something to be challenged. Honestly, the less time an individual has been exposed to politics it seems they are less likely to be able to adapt to the current situations. Instead they turn to old policies or refuse to change on their current policy. I believe the best line that fits here is one by Robin Williams - "Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, usually for the same reasons."
Now before you start to jump on the point, I realize there is a need for experience in Washington, which is where the overly massive amounts cabinet members fall into place. Those individuals can bring their experience, their understanding to the table, but the President can then interpret the ideas in new ways that fit the current status of the country.

This is why I get tired of hearing the experience card, because experience does NOT equal a good president, in fact some of the WORST presidents have had the most experience, need we look further than Nixon? It seems the more exposure to Washington a candidate has, the more unilateral their decision making comes. But this is expected, as is true in most politicians, you start forming alliances and have backings of multiple individuals or businesses.

But finally, this is the one that bugs me and where i must name names. Now I don't feel the candidates is any worse off than their opponent, I'm strictly speaking from an objective standpoint. Now for the dirty, Hillary Clinton. There i said it. This has been my biggest peev of her campaign, her belief that because her husband was President does not give her experience. She was never in the hot seat to make a decision of her own, in all likelihood she probably wasn't even near Bill Clinton during some of the most critical moments. Just because she was close to the Presidency doesn't mean she knows what it is like, or how to handle it. In short, proximity does NOT yield ability. I may have watched my father play golf for years, but just because I was there doesn't mean I know how to play. Until you are there in the seat of power, YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE. Only Incumbents have the benefit of experience. I'm sorry to any Hillary fans I may have offended, but really NONE of the current candidates carry proper experience. They may have exposure, but they do not know what it is like to be president.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •