No Experience Necessary
Change. That’s all we hear about now. In fact, even the most experienced candidates have jumped on the bandwagon, discussing how they would bring about change, despite their past records. The ability to bring about change has become more important than other considerations, such as electability and experience.
Experience. We don’t hear much about that anymore. Candidates have shied away from their claims to experience, leaning instead toward telling us why they can affect change. In terms of choosing a President, it seems that the shorter the resume, the better. This disturbs me deeply.
It is one thing for a candidate to tout his ability to change the current system — usually this is a terrible overestimation of his capacity, but more on that in a moment — but it is quite another for him to be ashamed of the fact that he is experienced in governing or legislating and to shy away from it in order to garner support. It is disgraceful that the long records of many of the candidates have come to mean nothing simply because of the perception among the public that experience and ability to affect change are two mutually exclusive traits, right now the public preferring the latter. Why is this the case?
During the ABC Democratic debate on January 5, John Edwards spoke a bit about change: “Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack, every single time.” Edwards outlined the conflict between experience and change, but his conception of offense and defense is slightly skewed. It is not those representing change who have been attacked in this election by the status quo. In fact, as we’ve noted, all candidates seem to have embraced the idea of change. Rather, those representing change have attacked in Orwellian fashion anyone with a substantive political record, good or bad. In this election, experience is dangerous baggage.
But don’t think for a second that the tendency toward the idea of change is new in this election simply because of the widespread resentment toward the Bush Administration. It’s true that the current state of affairs has made change seem like a good thing, but that seems to be the story at the end of every presidential term. In his victory speech on December 13, 2000, George W. Bush said, “I am optimistic that we can change the tone in Washington, D.C.” On November 4, 1992, Bill Clinton said, “On this day, with high hopes and brave hearts, in massive numbers, the American people have voted to make a new beginning.” In his address at the Republican National Convention in 1980, Ronald Reagan professed, “The time is now … to recapture our destiny.” Going by the language in these speeches, it appears as though a new country is born every election.
Why is this? I refuse to believe that the American people have such a short attention span so as to need different people to enact different changes. I believe candidates appeal to change because of the failed promises of former Presidents. How often do we hear a candidate say that he will “reform Washington” or that he is immune to the corruption of politics? How often are we disappointed when that candidate cannot follow through? The American people pin their hopes on the candidate who represents change simply because the last President didn’t deliver on the massive Washington overhaul that he promised. And so a vicious cycle is created. The American people become addicted to the promise of change, and the Presidential candidates, like street savvy drug dealers, know just when to pull it out of their pockets and offer it to us, whether or not they can deliver on the final shipment. Because of this addiction, we overlook other important factors in a candidate, such as actual plans, the feasibility of policy implementation, and — you guessed it — experience.
However, there is a glimmer of hope. In the ABC debate, Hillary Clinton offered this tidbit:
Making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It is about working hard … I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change. I’m running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies. So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.
Clinton attempts to tie change and experience together, claiming that experience is what allows a candidate to make change. She submits that her political knowledge will help her bring about the change that the other candidates blindly promise. This is like a step down program to ween us off of our addiction. Clinton still dangles change in front of us, but apparently less of it, going by her comments about “false hopes … about what can be delivered.” And no matter what Barack Obama says about how Clinton is “depressing” for saying that his promises can’t be fulfilled, the fact still remains that his promises can’t be fulfilled, not while he is without very specific plans that go beyond minor improvements to healthcare. If he is going to reform the system the way he says he will, he will need an enormous plan, the likes of which we have not seen in many decades, let alone from the junior senator from Illinois who has not even finished his first term.
It bothers me that experience is such a taboo when electing the leader of the free world, while every other job in this country requires some related experience or offers on-site training. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think the oval office is the best place to begin learning the intricacies and realities of the political arena. Change is great, especially when times are hard, but if we get so caught up in the promise of change that we disregard, even shun experience, then we are doing ourselves and our country an incredible disservice.
