[From the desk of Riley]:
Since much of the criticism of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama centers around his lack of experience, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the value of experience (bear with me in this short history lesson or gloss over the italics).
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served in Congress from 1962 to 1969 as a representative from Illinois (he served on the Joint Economic Committee, the Committee on Science and Aeronautics, and the Government Operations Committee, as well as the Subcommittees on Military and Foreign Operations). Rumsfeld served in the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Nixon. In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States’ Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. He was promoted to Secretary of Defense under transition President Ford.
Vice President Dick Cheney served as Rumsfeld’s assistant in the Office of Economic Opportunity in the Nixon administration and was brought to the Department of Defense, under Ford, as Rumsfeld’s Chief of Staff. In 1978, Cheney was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming; he was reelected five times, eventually becoming House Minority Whip. Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, a position he held for all but two months of Bush’s term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions.
Now, regardless of how you feel about their ideologies, there is no question that both men are strong patriots who devoted much of their lives to serving our country. However, there is also no legitimate question that together (along with other very experienced people, like Paul Wolfowitz, for instance) they involved the U.S. in a war based on bad intelligence (I won’t make judgments about the acquisition, retention, or use of the bad intelligence, you can research that yourself, if you like). Similarly, there is no real question that early management of the war, under Rumsfeld’s ultimate direction, was very poor (consider, for instance, the early decisions to disband the Iraqi army and the lack of policing to help prevent looting and rioting after the Bath regime was deposed). These were ENORMOUS mistakes in judgment, especially from men boasting such impressive resumes.
Why do I bring this all up? It is my opinion that people like Rumsfeld and Cheney became hyper-focused on two good objectives: 1) deposing Saddam and 2) introducing democracy to the Middle East (through Iraq). The result of this “tunnel-vision” was that they failed to consider alternatives to their plan–alternatives provided, among others, by Colin Powell (read about the Powell Doctrine). The objectives may have been good, but the plan was poor. They had no clear exit strategy because they refused to consider any alternative to their theory that we would “be greeted as liberators.” For evidence of this, see this transcript of Tim Russert interviewing Dick Cheney on Meet the Press in March, 2003. Russert directly asks what would happen if we were not greeted as liberators and Cheney refuses to discuss the possibility, in part saying, “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”
Now I know you’re wondering what this all has to do with Barack Obama, and I appreciate that you’ve read this far. Here’s the point I’m trying to make: what really counts, on the job, is sound judgment. Don’t get me wrong; experience is important. But it is not nearly as important as sound judgment. Experience can come from the person making the judgment or from an advisor. The judgment, however, is what actually shapes the situation. In order to consistently make good judgment calls, you need to surround yourself with opposing opinions (based on experience) and be open to multiple solutions. There is no other way.
I trust the judgment of Barack Obama based on his previous voting records, his history of reaching across the aisle in the IL state senate since 1996, and his speeches on the campaign trail. In addition, I trust the judgment of John McCain because he has a LONG history of independent thought and of reaching across the aisle to work with the other party (consider his work with one of the more liberal Democrats, WI Senator Russ Feingold, in the “McCain-Feingold” Act of 2002, which imposes limits on campaign financing). The fact that McCain has more Washington experience than Obama may or may not be of much importance (you need to figure that out for yourself), but a more important question asks which candidate is most capable of the sound judgment required of a U.S. President. All the experience in the world won’t matter if it leads to a poor decision; and when the experience serves to harden the President against considering opposing views (as in the case of Rumsfeld, et al), it even negatively affects the quality of the decision.
Well, I know this was a lot to read and a lot to think about, so thank you for doing so. I have tried to present my case as thoroughly and as objectively as possible in the time I have chosen to devote to this post (far too much time, considering my schedule this week). If you’re a hardened Republican voter, I’m sure this will have no bearing on your decision to vote Republican in November. Likewise, if you’re a hardened Democrat, this will not likely affect your decision in the general election. But for anybody on the fence about whether to support Hillary vs. Obama or McCain vs. Obama, maybe this can help you make a more informed decision, keeping in mind the importance of judgment over experience.
I welcome and encourage comments. You may do so anonymously, if you wish (e.g. use a bogus name and e-mail address).
Note: Just so my political allegiances are clear, I’m currently a left-leaning registered independent. If it comes down to Obama vs. McCain, I will have a difficult decision (currently I am supporting Obama, but that very well could change). If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I will be voting for McCain barring some unforeseen circumstance (e.g. a tree falls on my car as I drive to the voting booth or McCain suddenly unveils himself as the anti-Christ, equally likely scenarios, in my judgment).
judgment can be subjective or objective, depending on the person and/or circumstances involved. having Washington experience, sometimes known as the “good old boy syndrome”, means perhaps when needing the help of the senate or congress to get things done, this would be easier and more timely. knowing who and how to persuade is paramount in running a large corporation- or- the good old US of A. change can be a good thing, but an antagonistic going against the grain attitude can be as effective as running into a brick wall.
Ken
May 8th, 2008
Well, judgment is judgment. What it is based on can be objective or subjective, to be sure. And you certainly make a good point about the benefit of experience. I wasn’t trying to say experience was unimportant. But knowing how to get things done in Washington is not, itself, a good thing if what you’re trying to get done isn’t. That’s why I said judgment was more important. The first thing to look at is whether the candidate is capable of weighing the options and making the right decision. In a race where the candidates share so much in common, it’s that much more important. As for “an antagonistic going against the grain attitude” being “as effective as running into a brick wall,” you’re probably right. But I don’t think that’s a good description of Obama’s position. Yeah, he’s definitely making a call for change, and I’m sure some people in Washington scoff at the very idea that it’s possible, but I don’t think antagonistic is a good word to describe it. I think a better word is “collaborative” to describe how Obama wants the leadership of this country to change.
Riley
May 13th, 2008
Also, let me quickly explain what I meant by “In a race where the candidates share so much in common, it’s that much more important.” Look at the race between Hillary and Obama. To all but the minutest scrutiny of the issues, they are the same candidate. But when it comes to making a call, I think Hillary is going to approach the issue from a leftist perspective, drawing her advice from other lefties and more or less ignoring the advice on the right. I think Obama (like McCain), on the other hand, is much more likely to genuinely consider, and even seek out, advice that counters his own views.
And thanks for the comment, by the way. It is appreciated.
Riley
May 13th, 2008
Remind me again why you skipped the Political Science degree for a Masters in Safety??
Caroline's Nana
June 2nd, 2008
What would I have done with it? I don’t have the social skills to be a politician (nor the desire), and I think I’d be too frustrated with the process to last long. Hell, I’m frustrated with the process as it is!
Riley
June 4th, 2008