Nathaniel

Shockey

Read Nathaniel's bio and previous columns here

September 4, 2008

New Faces are Good, But We Need to Get Serious About Experience

Many of us have complained for years that our political system doesn’t give anyone who isn’t filthy rich a chance to be nominated. South Park writers eloquently described the 2004 election as a choice between a “Giant Douche” and a “Turd Sandwich”.

And then we have a year like 2008, featuring a widely unknown Republican vice-presidential candidate with nowhere near the experience level we’re used to, and a Democratic presidential candidate with even less. Neither is a billionaire, nor is married to someone with her own ketchup brand. One is a hunter/mother-of-five-turned-governor, and another is an author/community-organizer-turned-senator.

It’s definitely different than what we’re used to. But is it a good difference?

I’d say it is.  

It has been disheartening to see the lackluster presidential candidates we continually seem to be churning out. The simple fact that two people as politically green as Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have made their way onto a presidential ticket is a big step in a fresh new direction – not necessarily the “right” direction, but there are definitely good things about it.

In the same way that our country has taken a giant step by nominating both a woman and an African American, we have simultaneously proven our willingness to nominate two candidates who are even further outside the box than they look.

But I’ll leave it to others to celebrate American progress. Because after we finish patting ourselves in the back, we have to decide who is the better candidate, which is the better ticket.

We have to ask ourselves how much we sacrificed by going politically green. I haven’t heard people make this point enough, so I’m going to reiterate.

The Republicans actually have their experience in the right order. John McCain, who has extensive experience as a leader, a soldier, a senator and simply as an older person, is running for president. Palin, the one with significantly less experience, is his VP. If it were the other way around, then the incessant questioning of Palin’s alleged inexperience would be more legitimate.

Obama, the man running for president, has been a senator for three years, two of which he has spent campaigning for president. Before that, he was a community organizer. I’m going to repeat that. He has spent one year as senator during which he was not running for president. That is his political experience. He has never run a business. He defends his leadership/business experience by saying he’s run a political campaign that spends tens of millions of dollars per month. How, in the name of reason, does this qualify him for president?

But let’s just say that somehow it does qualify him.

He questioned Palin’s experience. She’s running for vice president. And she’s a governor with actual accomplishments! Palin has, by definition, governed. She has successfully handled a budget of billions of dollars, and governed 700,000 people. That is the sort of thing a president does, and the sort of thing Obama has never had to do, much less on that sort of scale. For the Obama camp to keep questioning Palin’s level of experience ranks with the most absurd, hypocritical, nonsensical and just plain stupid criticisms I’ve ever heard.

So not only does the balance of experience actually make sense on the Republican ticket, but the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket is significantly more qualified to govern than the presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket.

If there is one thing we have to ask ourselves beyond who agrees with us on various issues, it is this. Who has experience?

Most restaurants don’t hire servers without previous experience. Retail stores don’t hire managers without proven managerial experience. No business would ever select a CFO who doesn’t have proven success handling large quantities of money. You wouldn’t hire a veterinarian who didn’t have extensive experience working with animals. Experience matters, from plumber to a combat leader. Why? Because we’re trusting others with money we’ve earned in order to make our lives better, and we want to be sure it’s being handled responsibly.

Don’t forget that the U.S. government is on the receiving end of more of your earned income than anyone else. I can only assume I’m not alone in saying that as someone who doesn’t really like giving away thousands every year, I don’t have any use for a president who’s spent one effective year on the U.S. Senate and before that spent several years as a lawyer and a community organizer.

We should all be encouraged that America is expanding its proverbial box to include candidates of different color, gender, income levels and even experience levels. But if we are seriously considering electing a president who questions the qualifications of someone who is not only more qualified, but running for a measly-in-comparison position of power, we’re not thinking outside the box. We’re just plain not thinking.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS132. Request permission to publish here.