Speaking at the national NRA convention recently, Mitt Romney made a curious boast. "I am running for president because I have the experience and the vision to lead us in a different direction," he said. Later in the same speech, Romney added, "I am running for president because I have the experience and vision to get us out of this mess."
Of all the qualifications to emphasize, "experience" seems like an odd characteristic for Romney to brag about. Whether or not the presumptive Republican nominee offers a compelling "vision" remains to be seen -- at this point, he tends to stick to vague generalities, as part of a deliberate strategy -- but experience is a quantifiable quality.
And it doesn't appear to be Romney's strong point.
In fact, I counted up the years of experience in public office or active-duty military service for all of the recent major-party nominees, and discovered something interesting: Romney has less experience in public service than any modern presidential candidate. Here's a chart (click for a bigger version) I put together on the subject:
Click for a bigger version.
To clarify a few details that may not be obvious in the image, purple reflects active-duty military service; red reflects a role as a state executive (governor, lieutenant governor, or state attorney general); green reflects serving as a mayor; gray reflects serving in a state legislature; light blue reflects serving in the U.S. Congress; orange reflects serving in a presidential Cabinet or in a cabinet-level position (H.W. Bush led the CIA, for example); and dark blue reflects serving as either president or vice president.
Also, for the purpose of this examination, I only counted experience that the candidates had at the time of their election. So with Barry Goldwater, for example, he'd been in the U.S. Senate for 12 years when he won the Republican presidential nomination in 1964, though after his defeat, he served additional terms in the chamber. Only the service at the time of the presidential race is included in this analysis.
And using this metric, Romney has only four years under his belt. He served one term as the governor of Massachusetts -- and that's it. This makes Romney the least experienced major-party presidential nominee since Republican Wendell Wilkie lost to FDR in 1940. If Romney wins, he'll be the least experienced president since Woodrow Wilson, who won exactly 100 years ago, despite only having been governor of New Jersey for two years before his national campaign.
It's worth pausing to consider whether this matters.
By my count, if elected, Romney would be the third least-experienced president in American history, trailing every chief executive except Wilson and Grover Cleveland, who was mayor of Buffalo for one year and the governor of New York for two years before getting elected president 128 years ago. Every other president had served more than four years in the military and/or public office at the time of their election.
For Romney, this may be considered a selling point. Though he hasn't really been pressed on his lack of experience thus far, it's easy to imagine the former one-term governor arguing that his limited resume, at least in public service, makes him an "outsider." Since voters have been conditioned to look askance at "professional politicians," Romney's limited governmental background may well be perceived as a plus.
That, however, raises the question of why politics is the only profession in which inexperience is something to brag about. When passengers get on airplane, do they think, "I really hope this pilot is a rookie"? When patients go the hospital, do they say to themselves, "I prefer to see physician who hasn't practiced medicine for very long"?
This at least seems worthy of some larger discussion. Romney has less experience in public service than any major-party presidential nominee in 72 years. When evaluating the candidates in 2012, it's not unreasonable to think this should be in the mix.
Leave a Comment:
People look at politicians poorly because the politicians in office do such a bad job.
The problem is that without that back door politiking, deal-making, and comprimise that only seasoned politicians can do well-- it's impossible to get anything important or vital done in a washington, it's a shame that it has to be like that. It's a shame that there's no Mr. Smith coming to Washington to do what's right, but for now, if you want your interests being met you need a professional politician.
Look at (what should be a dissillusioned) Tea Party who voted for the party of jobs and less taxes, only to have them not do any work on jobs for over a year and now start to flirt with raising taxes on (a large percent of the Tea Party) middle class and elderly... because you need more than idealogy in Washington.
That's why term limits is such a bad idea. You get the inexperienced 'representatives of the people' pounced on by corporations/ALEC who write their legislation for them.
ALEC has been our unelected government for years apparently. Note Chuck Grassley yesterday swearing greater allegiance to them than to a corporation (Coca Cola) that is a big employer in his state.
On the whole, I agree that term limits are a bad idea. Experience is usually a good thing. But, on the other hand, imagine a third term for Ronald Reagan. Unlike like a third term for GBW, I think that could have happened.
You have 'purple' listed for state legislature experience. I think you mean grey.
People think our divorce rate is so high and get concerned about it, but do people really accurately develop on what a good marriage should be and that they do not. In years past and present, our church’s keep pushing this concept of marriage as till death do you part and in a literal sense there is truth in that statement that people do not realize fully. These concepts of these church’s about marriage are intricately filled with huge flaws as they keep wanting to push the idea as the man as the head of the household and everything the man says is right, even when it leads to destructive patterns. For example, there was a study that was done about prison guards vs. prisoners. They gave the guards basically free reign over the prisoners and than watched what happened. The guards soon reached a point where they were overly abusive over the prisoners to the point where they had to stop the study, because the abuse done to the prisoners was becoming damaging to their mental health. Now that example of that prison study is really a good example of my mothers situation at 4 years old I watched how my mother had questioned my father where he was most of the night. And his answer was to beat her eyes black and blue as he told her that he could what he wanted, since he was the boss and would be telling her what to do. Than the next morning when I questioned my mother why her eyes were the way they were my father’s fast response was I made her pretty now. And that was the life for my mother as that prisoner in that prison and stuck by that false practice of a church’s idea of what a marriage should be. And with these church’s teachings of how a marriage should be causes women and men to think that it should be that way where people get stuck in this trap and cannot get out. And when couples get put into a situation where their choices are removed as to how they want to live their life than nothing but despair will soon follow. And when a couple cannot live as equals again despair will soon follow. And when I hear of what these church’s and what the Republicans want to do, I know it will do nothing but bring despair to people and I would not want to wish that upon anybody. My mother had to put up with too many years of this behavior until she could finally escape her prison sentence and in many ways it was like she was in prison with no escape.
Wrong blog.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about his business experience, not his political experience. Whether that's important or not is a reasonable argument and one that needs to be had, but this seems like a deliberate misunderstanding of what he was trying to say, which is a tactic we should really leave to the GOP, IMO.
There's no question that Romney wants to focus on his business experience, but Steve's point is that it doesn't qualify him for political office. What Romney is doing, however, is to use the word experience to suggest that his qualifies him in a political context. Romney may think he will deal with China as though they are a bank, but they're not. And nor is Congress. A politician's job is not merely to make a profit, and Romney doesn't have much experience with people who have other motives. I doubt he would even dare to argue that "creating jobs" was ever an important consideration to Bain Capital.
Anyone who thinks he/she can run a government like a business is dead wrong. When you're the "boss," people fall in line--or else. The hard part about governing is not creating policy, but getting people to vote for and/or support that policy. That takes political savvy--knowing how to work the Senate and the House, knowing how to compromise and make deals.
The entire Bain Capital story is pretty frightening when you consider applying that to the entire US. Just read an article that looks at the overall Bain philosophy and way of doing business, and I recommend it. Unfortunately Bain represents most conservatives' inability to see beyond 5 p.m. today. This is not what we need.
http://tinyurl.com/7nmfkob
The way I read Steve's comments is that political experience counts toward an ability to govern. Just looking at experience in government to imply an ability to lead is absurd. Yes, Obama has more years as a politician, but what was achieved? In the state, he mostly voted present. As a senator, he mostly ran for president.
Romney, as a Republican governor, had to deal with a Democratic legislature. To get things done, he had to make deals. As a business man, he had to know how to deal. And, to save the Olympics, he had to make deals.
I'm not endorsing Romney. I'm just saying Steve's premise is absurd.
"I'm not endorsing Romney."
Of course you're not. You're just voting present.
That's funny hells littlest angel. And fromnytosc does make a couple of valid points.
No, he really doesn't.
Not really. First and foremost voting present in the IL state senate is a way of voting no. It's denying someone the right to pass a bill. So saying that he voted "mostly present" is being entirely disingenuous, especially when you consider what his objective was. So here you're saying you don't like how Steve was disingenuous about Romney, but your rebuttal is to then be disingenuous about Obama. Secondly most of Obama's votes were not voting "present." Obama cast more than 4,000 votes in the IL state senate w/ roughly 129 of those being "present" votes. That's roughly 3% of the total votes he cast- hardly a majority.
And this is, as well, also disingenuous. I will meet you half way and certainly say that he did not spend a lot of time in the US Senate (2005-2008). He spent roughly as much time in the US Senate as Romney did as governor. Additionally PBO also had to work w/ people of both parties. You are, again, complaining that Romney is getting bad representation while simultaneously giving bad representation to PBO. The insinuation you make is that PBO didn't work w/ both parties "to get things done" and that's not true. You are also implying that he never "had to make deals" which is also not true.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama
If you wanted to make a more valid point you would've just stated that no one can ever truly be prepared to run for POTUS and that it's very arbitrary to state that government service versus private service somehow prepares a person better or worse for office. If this had been your point I would've been in agreement w/ you. Your point, however, seems to be that you want to argue against what you perceive to be a slant against Romney by providing a slant against PBO. And that's just silly.
If the chart went even further back in time, we'd see a very--almost magnificently--inexperienced presidential candidate in Abraham Lincoln. His only military experience was in the Illinois state militia during the Black Hawk War (a few months in 1832) and his political experience was just a single term in the House of Representatives (two years). That's a pretty thin CV even compared to Romney, but then Romney is in no danger of being dubbed 'Honest Mitt'.
Actually Abe Lincoln served from 1834-42 in the Illinois House as well.
I notice that Reagan and WBush are also somewhat lower than others. Perhaps "being from outside the beltway", and that Romneys' experience is in business rather than politics will play to his advantage? Say, with respect to a Republican base?
Those supporting the GOP, with the exception of the very wealthy are blindly volunteering to join the rest of us who will be disenfranchised by the plutocrats. They must have a vivid imagination to think they will not be discarded when no longer considered useful. I hope blind faith somehow feeds them when their job is gone.
Maybe that's what it will take - the disenfranchising of the sheeple. However, there are quite a few reports that show those in "red states" leech on "blue state" money! Of course that gets into the whole facts, reality, & individualism argument that the sheeple refuse to acknowledge.
Steve, you forgot to include how many years he's been running for any political office (successfully or not). That counts for something, don't it?
and fwiw, maybe he was referring to his business experience, though in these economic times I think it awfully foolish for him to draw unnecessary attention to his corporate raider days...
To play devil's advocate somewhat, pilot and surgeon positions that require specific skills. You could probably say the same thing about a welder or a carpenter.
In contrast, at least to some extent, the presidency is more like a management position. There is a higher level of creativity and people-dealing involved. Decisions are much less cut-and-dried. Risk-taking is more likely of a manager (you don't really want your pilot taking a risk when you are on board).
Sometimes, when you are hiring a manager, you might choose someone with less experience because they are more likely to "think outside the box," and not rely on the same solutions that would yield the same results. A lesser-experienced manager might also bring energy to the position that would encourage people to follow him.
That being said, I don't see Romney as offering any new or creative solutions, and I don't see him as being especially energetic. He wants to go back to the same policies that led this country into the worst recession in generations. So, as I see it, Romney's biggest problem not his lack of experience but his lack of creativity and his overall blandness.
I agree that Romney doesn't seem to be bringing anything new. I would've liked Buddy Roemer to win the Republican nomination because then he at least would've brought something new to the table.
Huntsmen/Roemer 2016
if there's a GOP left.
Now that would've been an actual ticket.
sadly that's why it never happen, at lease on the right side anyways.
Oh how you enjoyed the sunny weekend? think we hit 70 for the first time since last year in April.
I know. I have all the windows to my apartment open. I am thinking about going to the market in a bit, but I'm not sure I want to get money out of the ATM. It's awesome weather though.
Wayyyy better than the rain we had a few days ago ;-)
If it helps any, Mouzer, we've had two days above 100F so far. Yesterday hit 105F and broke the previous record for the day by 6F.
How's your weather feel when you think about that?
"Business Experience" is irrelevant. The government is NOT a business, and the President is NOT a CEO.
Besides, Romney's "business experience" is very narrow, indeed. Bain Capital was not so much a business as a Mafia style racket, where "busting out" companies was their modus operandi.
Eisenhower came to the job after running perhaps the largest and most complicated "Company" history; juggling prima donnas(FDR, Monty, Winnie, et al) on his "Board of Directors", and turning a million farm boys into a fighting machine.
Then he walked into the White House, and realized his former job was a cake walk.
To be fair our current POTUS is tied for 26th out of 28 - 3rd/4th from the bottom experience wise. It's Romney last, GW 2nd AND 3rd lowest, then Obama tied with GW on his second term. I sometimes question the major party's candidates. It seems that have a plethora of highly qualified Senators, Representatives, Governors, etc, with tons of experience in various positions and years and they sometimes pick "junior" members of that pool to be their candidate. Until the Presidential campaign of 2008 began very few people outside Illinois knew much (or anything) about Obama - at least speaking for the average voter.
I think it's because more junior people have short voting records, which translates into less faux-controversy and less real controversy. It's sad.
If you go by that graph, it appears that the American people don't especially value "experience," at least as defined in the graph.
In the 13 previous elections, on only three occasions was the winner the person with more experience. (In 1988, Dukakis and Bush had equal numbers of years.)
Now subtract the ones where the incumbent won. In open elections, it's very nearly 100% in favor of the least experienced.
Why is military experience any more important than being a business executive? Being a CEO of a large corporation is probably equivalent to being a General or Admiral.
That being said, being a vulture capitalist at a firm the size of McBain isn't worth much imho.
His stint at the SLC Olympics seems impressive until one realizes that one of the major factors in rescuing the Games was his ability to get Federal money. Of course, he now campaigns against government assistance for such things!
It's important because the President is also Commander-in-Chief. And no, being a CEO doesn't equate, because most corporations don't send their employees off to kill and die... unless it's Blackwater (or whatever it's called now).
For presidential candidates like Eisenhower or Grant, I agree with your point. GWB's time in the Air National Guard does not equate, though. So, not surprisingly, it's important to look at the details of the experience. This graph is interesting as a starting point.
For decades, Republicans have trained their base to loathe political experience, except the political experience that brags about trying to shrink government so that you can drown it in a bathtub. "Government can't do anything right; vote for me and I'll prove it." So what Romney is saying will slide down smooth to the people most prone to believe what people like Romney say...
which segues into a larger point, that far too many of us (especially on the right) have a Animal-Farm-Sheep-Four-Legs-Good-Two-Legs-Bad mentality. Like following any sport, you pick your "team," and by default whatever your team has to do or say to win is OK, because otherwise you're not supporting the team, you're a fair-weathered fan, your ability to see right from wrong and say "winning isn't worth this" makes you an a-hole. Two words: Michael Vick. And you see it in politics too. The thing I write so often - that a Republican's claims don't have to be proven, they just have to be made and that makes them truth - that's not just me assuming I'm clever. I really do believe that. The base will chow down on any pile of sh*t their leaders tell them is good old American home-cooking and ask for seconds. They picked their team, and now they want to win.
You'd think people would learn, yes? Siiighs
Playing up to the Lobbies & special interests has been the focal point of Romney campaign. Though it might be said that most of those occupying Congressional chairs are afflicted with the same malady.
That is why we stand where we are today as a nation & country.
Unfortunately treated more or less like cattle we have been driven without a whine from us, in directions the self serving masters of our destiny wanted us to. The past decade plus has been like a bad dream.
Time to wake up ,take notice and give a serious thought to what mind set is needed at this hour to guide our destiny.
Steve, the problem with your article is that, there is an assumption that "being in office" actually gives one "experience" - exhibit A) George W. Bush - the worst President in over 237 years of this nations history!
Zora, much as I hate to say anything good about Shrub: the competition for "worst ever" is pretty fierce, and even there Shrub is a loser. Compare him, for instance, to James Buchanan. Or even Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover (another, by the way, who was famous for having made a fortune in finance.)
Thanks for the reminder DC, I forgot about that Buchanan character. So maybe I should "worst President in my life so far".
De nada, ZR. I occasionally have to remind myself that, for instance, much as LBJ was an <expletive> <expletive> who killed too many of my high-school classmates (and there but for ...), he and Nixon had some redeeming qualities too.
I just hope that we continue to talk about Mr. Romney's experience. How much and what experience he posses to do better than Pres. Obama. He often claims that he misspoke or that he was misunderstood. If ever elected, we don't want him saying "Oh I was talking about my business experience".
Please address the "republican War room" They say they have no war on women or Class warfare. All their terms. Now they have the Label the Obama War Room. This is over the top. Any comments
A lot of Democrats have been using the "war on women" phrase. You will see that term used by the Democrats more and more as the election nears. They are both over the top if you are keeping score that way.
Maybe "war" isn't the best word, but what would you call all of the legislation recently passed by various states that eliminate or severly restrict women's rights regarding choice, contraception, reproduction, equal pay, and whatever else? Seriously, what is their point in all of these efforts?
No agrument on the legislation KJ, just pointing out to rand that both sides use silly, "over the top" words and phrases...and we all know it's just for political reasons. It IS election time. Must demonize the other side.
Interesting that of the seven candidates with the most government experience, all but one (Johnson in '64, which was something of an aberration), lost their elections.
Amazing how the anointed parties and the media have already decided what choice we the people have for president. Why didn't you include Ron Paul and Gingrich? You know what they say about it's not being over til the "stout" person sings. Bet you appreciate my comment being PC. LOL
Because Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren't going to win.
And, to think people think Obama has experience! Give me a break! He was a community organizer. Ha ha if you need to give him credit for that, it shows to me you don't set your standards too high. And, look what we got! Keep the change. I believe this president has taken us to a place where my grandkids are financially in trouble from his actions!
It's in the chart dude. Federal and State legislature experience. More so than Romney, in fact, and that's not counting his almost 4 years of experience actually being the President.
But no, you carry on denying basic facts.
ReservoirAngel, see my post above (#10) - on the graph above President Obama only beat out 2 candidates, Romney and GW. He was the third least experienced before he took the office. As I stated above, before his campaign the vast majority of average voters never even heard of Obama outside Illinois.
Obama has managed the country for almost 4 years. He has not involved us in another war or caused an economic collapse. The economy and stock market are returning to normal. Obama came to the office with a huge multifaceted crisis. Mitt has managed an equity firm that produces no products or creates any jobs. The firm he helped create was for the sole purpose of making money which has little to do with government. He has also managed the state of Massachusetts. Neither of Mitt's jobs involved work on fixing a crisis, let alone a multifaceted crisis.
That's all good and fine Mike, but this post was about experience before the candidate became/ran for President. Going by your standard, before President Obama became President, you could say the same things your are mentioning above about Romney. Obama had very little managment experience - community organizer maybe - , he produced no products or created any jobs and I don't believe he worked on any crisis. I am only saying this as this post states - the lack of experience when they were running for the office.
A community organizer has a different management skill set than a person in business. A private business requires a management that makes decisions and hands them down to the lower employees. A community organizer has to bring people together, not by authority, but by "people" skills which require managing different personalities. It takes less skill to hand down decisions by authority.
I would also challenge the assertion that someone with business experience is better qualified to manage the country. GWB managed two businesses. 'Nuff said.
Yes business is different than government, and again to be fair, Romney has managed in both. Being a Governor is an executive office just like the Presidency. A lot of Presidents were Governors - GW, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.
But to be fair as you say, government is not a business and cannot/should not be run like one.
Yes...yes Mike. AND Romney ran both - a business and a government (a state). So....he has experience running both. 'Nuff said.
That is very true. GWB had an MBA and nearly destroyed the economy and left us with a structural deficit which the Republicans, with their "No New Tax" pledge to Grover Norquist, cannot provide a realistic approach to solving without inflicting more suffering on the poor and increasing the number of poor as the middle class declines. Why have they given Norquist so much power? They are supposed to be loyal to the constitution and the people - not just one particular person and special interest.
wasn`t he also a Governor Texas?
goes to show you all this executive and business experience means nothing. as look at the economy under ex governors and business people. with a few exceptions. smiling (Clinton).
LOL but than again Clinton was only a Governor and not a businessmen maybe that's why he was better then the rest as he didnt have that to hinter him.
No agrument there Dave and Pilotshark. Just responding to the original post about the amount of experience candidates had before they ran for the Presidency. Just as my original post (#10) I am somewhat puzzled by the two major parties sometimes when they nominate a candidate from their vast pools of highly qualified and seasoned people and pick junior and/or relative unkown members to be their chosen one. IMO Romney - this time around for the Republicans - and Obama - back in 2008 - could not be the most experienced candidates they could find. There has/had to be other factors.
<i>For Romney, this may be considered a selling point.</i>
It may, and those of us on the left should be concerned.
Using Steve's chart (i.e. his definitions), in the post-Watergate era the less experienced candidate has won every election.
That's pretty disturbing. Let's hope that as a nation, we will base our decision in November on the quality of experience, as we did three years ago.
I find it interesting that in every race since 1976, the person with the least experience won.
So this might be really good news for Mitt.
Go West, Young Religion: Mormonism on Exhibit
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...
This is a really good read:
Under the Banner of Heaven
By Jon Krakauer
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Ba...
Hey Friends! Take a closer look at your graph. In EACH and every presidential election since Watergate, the American electorate has chosen the candidate with the LESSER experience (as defined by your measures here), with the only exception being 1988 when they selected Bush Sr. over Dukakis when the two candidates were TIED. So this may actually prove to be an advantage to Romney ......
The only advantages that Romney have are: he is fronting for the Koch Brothers' Syndicate and is hoping to cash-in on the Voter Suppression laws provided by the Koch Brothers' Syndicate and ALEC. Other than these two things, Romney has nothing!
I keep maintaining that Romney only wants the title of President of the United States and the pomp that comes with the job. He will serve as puppet for the Koch Brothers' Syndicate and ALEC. With him at the helm of this government and the clutch of the Koch Brothers' and ALEC in our U.S. Congress, our U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 60% of our state executive offices and a large percentage of their statehouses, this country will go to Hell in a Hand Basket!