Tropophilia

[A preface: We try to mostly steer clear of addressing politics directly here at Tropophilia.  While our personal convictions certainly influence our writing, we don't want our blog to come across as advocating a particular party or candidate.  That said, we can't ignore the exciting political season we're in.  So, from time to time, you can expect to see us walk the fine line of talking about politics without talking about politics.]

As if the 2008 campaign for the Presidency wasn’t already a first in many other ways, the New York Times pointed out another unique aspect of the race this week:

None of the remaining contenders — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain — has ever been elected to an executive position, having spent the entirety of their political careers — short careers, in the case of both Democrats — in the legislative arena. One of them will become only the third sitting senator in history to ascend to the nation’s highest office, and he (or she) will do so without ever having bent a legislature to his (or her) will or having signed even a local ordinance into law.

It has apparently been exactly 100 years since such a situation last presented itself.  But, while the rarity of the circumstances is indeed notable, what does this really mean?  How significant is it that the next “decider” to occupy the White House will be, well, a n00b*?

If anything, I think this at least demonstrates a shift in what the American people are looking and asking for in a leader.  Many nominees from the past have claimed experience in making decisions, and have promoted their skill in essentially being the one who moves the pieces around the board.  They tout their agency.  Other nominees who have little-to-no executive experience obviously can’t make the same claims, so they promote themselves as the idea people.  They stress their thoughtfulness and insight rather than their assertiveness or boldness.  Each type of nominee has its merits, for sure.  But one can hardly keep from concluding that, given the performance of a very decisive administration for the past eight years, the American people have narrowed the field to three candidates who perhaps can provide a more thoughtful one.

The Times blog post also mentions that first-time executives may, historically, be the more successful Presidents in terms of their relationship with Congress.  With the exception of Ronald Reagan, governors-turned-President had difficult if not disastrous legislative experiences.  Former Senators who found their way to the Oval Office, however, were much more adept at negotiating and pushing their bills through.  As the post puts it: “The record, at least in modern times, suggests that, when it comes to working the levers of government, legislative experience may actually be more relevant than having run a state.”

So we have a military hero with vast legislative experience.  We have a relatively new Senator with not just Washington insider experience, but also considerable White House insider experience.  And we have a oratorically and intellectually gifted Senator who not only embraces but promotes his inexperience as an attribute.  If anything, the choice in this election will be about which combination of experience and change we want in a President.

In my humble opinion, it seems a little strange to promote vast experience and also promise to embody change.  How can you promise to change the rules of the game that you claim to be so good at?  I think that’s part of the reason Clinton finds herself in a tight spot, and why people have this idea that they can’t trust her.  She wants to be able to claim both, but her two remaining opponents are able to cut her down the middle.

For his part, McCain has taken the route of claiming experience, of which he has plenty, but he has also tied himself very closely to the current administration.  Democrat or Republican, you can’t deny that that’s not the brightest of ideas.  McCain is going to have to pony up enough of a change message to distance himself from George W. Bush, or he’ll be handing the election to the Democrats no matter how long they bicker over the choice of their nominee.

Finally, Obama has his own unique challenges.  He’s without a doubt the candidate who has fully embraced the message of change, but as much as this election is about hopes and dreams, it’s also about concrete problems.  Obama can’t abandon his high rhetoric and his idealism, but he’s also going to have to show that, if elected, he’ll have a concrete plan of action.  If you can’t claim experience as either an insider or a decider, you have to give voters the confidence that you can become both.

Whatever happens, it’s gonna be a hell of a race.

* - n00b [n]: 1) a gamer term for one who lacks experience in a certain field

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user redjar.