Since the Constitution doesn't require it...

...can somebody tell me why many Americans feel that a US president must have experience?

And what should this "experience" entail?

Being an elected official?

So being a US Senator or House member for X number of years is sufficient enough to prepare one for the presidency? Oh, I get it... you have to spend plenty of time lining your pockets from interest groups/lobbyists or writing pork-laden bills in order to lead the country, no?

Or what about being a governor or mayor? Those are executive positions, unlike the legislative positions of congress. Except, you don't have to deal with foreign nations, per se, unless it's Chinatown or Little Italy, etc.

Or what about being a CEO of a multi-national firm? They deal with foreign economies. But it's been a long time since we've had a business executive for a president. Maybe Bill Gates should run?

Or how about just living in the White House as First Lady or First Daughter or First Son? They witness a lot, right? Heck, I thought I knew everything about driving just by watching my mother in the car for years.

I know that the Constitution doesn't require the candidate to be "intelligent," either, but that's a reasonable expectation for the leader of the free world (except when we elected the current president), unlike this "experience" matter, which is quite difficult to pin down to specifics.

Do we really need another "experienced" POLITICIAN as president... or do we want a leader with fresh ideas and a visionary approach who is wise enough to listen to the intelligent counsel of advisers who will have EXPERIENCE in all of the important issues?

 

I'd like an outline of what exactly Hillary's 35 years of experience is. Being a first lady? Being on the governing board of Walmart? Guiliani's with crime and Dubhai? Romney's with the shadey negotiations to get the Olympic's for Utah? McCain with changing his views suddenly before Bush's last election?

I'd rather vote for an honest inexperienced politician myself. Perhaps they'd do things differently not knowing which palms they had to grease, or who's lobbyists they would have to give more credence and accessibility.

 

Executive experience as in not being rolled over by your burecracy.

Experience to say no to expenditure, to see pressure groups with suspicion.

 

Who running currently has demonstrated this sort of experience.

 

What you really need is someone that can find common ground between two arguing groups. Actually it's congress that mostly runs the country, the president should just be there to cast the undecided vote when the House and Senate don't agree. The problem is that Bush is trying to push his own agenda and thereby dividing the country and world, whereas Bill Clinton was better at settling arguments as opposed to starting them.

What we need is someone with experience at working well with others and is not swayed by special interest groups.

 

Bill wasn't all that great at anything, if you really look at what he accomplished. He was actually more a republican than a democrat. He caved to everything Gingrich and company threw at him, and in many cases got right on board. Like NAFTA. Was that unifying or did it simply set us up to accept republican rule without question?

 

I'm not saying that Clinton was the greatest president, I know he was swayed by special interest groups, I'm just saying that I preferred him as a mediator over Bush.

 

The Constitution doesn't grant a lot of things people think they have a right to...

 

Good Question Gardner. The current administration has failed these measures.

 

Politicians should have the least to benefit from their decisions.

 

Prevailing belief is that the president must have a lot of good solid political connections in government, business, the military, and especially congress.


Even a true genius will likely be ineffective without all those connections. Jimmy Carter, for instance, was extremely well-educated and intelligent- hell, he was a nuclear physicist. Yet he's usually regarded as ineffective as a president. I think a lot of that is exaggerated, but for now that's the prevailing expectation, I think.

 

Because a U.S. president without “experience” is dangerous to elect (nor would they be considered for candidacy); the candidates that’ve made it as far as they have [in the past to the current] have experience to aid them. America’s system is based on the “election” and has to gain the country’s majority-approval (citizens are looking upon this factor acutely), while other countries may entail a system of “lineage”; in cases such as those, the destined parties are very exposed to the system, in all facets, and at a very early age, since it is their destiny. The same can’t be said for America, our system is based upon the individual eligible enough to hold the position, and this is a freedom that we’ve decided for ourselves, in liberation from Europe’s before 1776.

That their “feet are wet”, and are able to tackle controversial situations and dilemmas. On-the-job training that qualifies to benefit the position at-hand. Situational awareness because they’ve “been there” and “done that”, things that only being “familiar with” cannot compensate for.

Having held a position for x-amount of time is a handsome attribute to anyone’s stack [hoping to run], it takes a candidate out of that “familiar with” zone to whatever degree their years and predicament call upon. You’d be surprised at the number of past presidents that have this in their resume, and today’s 3-leading candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain) have this.

Your description does these positions no justice, try again.

Having been a governor is respectable as well, especially if it’s California, Florida and New York, wherever the economy and/or population ranks highest—i.e. sounds laughable, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Arnold Schwarzenegger is a future candidate, he and his wife have attended caucuses/primaries, and he’s been taking notes. His history as a leader in the health-industry [after bodybuilding and in conjunction with acting] helps his resume. His next move would be to run for Senate. If that happens, candidacy is probable.

Mayor? Only if it’s a major city does it “hold weight”. This was Rudy Guiliani’s biggest asset, especially being it during 9/11… but this election-period, it was his concentration on Florida, lack of debate-skill [against Romney esp.], and $1 mil/week budget that ruined his candidacy. People lost confidence in his vision, and was behind McCain and Romney during the Florida Repub primaries because of this.

This is included in Romney’s resume, he’s the richest candidate [this election] and has the strongest mind in business [out of]. It can work for and against him… “for” in that funding and management will in no doubt be one of his strong points to his sense as a Republican (he’ll have no problems acquainting with the Secretaries of the armed forces), but “against” in that perceptions of greed will surface to accommodate lavishness. This was the case for John Edwards—though poverty was his initial issue (and the issue that his last speech imposes to Clinton and Obama to “withhold”), there was no justice to observing his lifestyle when taking into account a past involvement in a Wall Street hedge fund, mansion outside Chapel Hill, and questionable spending practices (i.e. $400 haircut).

It’s better to have this attribute after presidency. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore left office, both were at a shortage of finances, almost to the point of debt (Bill’s paycheck was $200,000/yr., not a whole lot). To make up for this, Bill immediately began to write best-selling novels, and continues to conduct speeches, which has raked-in millions for the Clintons. Al Gore became richer, thanks to his entrepreneurial ventures and stock-options, which brings his net-worth well past $100 mil. This ease of financial mind [for both Bill and Al] has caused themselves to become active in politics again, this time from the sidelines.

Not only witness, but participate. For the Bush-family, both George Jr. and Sr. have forced Jr.’s daughters to “clean their act”, by looking into the issues that plague the economy and voicing their thoughts (this makes up for past acts, i.e. drunken-stupors) to shift the evolution of their years, though I see no chance of it “soaking in” to them. When Bill was first inaugurated, one of the first things he pointed out was that the media dismiss his daughter almost completely, as she maintained studies in school behind bullet-proof glass. Though it was hardly an initiative, she anyways went on to travel across continents and brainstorm foreign disaster that received the attention of worldwide media, beyond Bill’s wishes (i.e. African crisis, ‘90s). As far as Hillary, she was always politically-intensive with a history in law and knack for speech/debate (school leader), so her familiarity with Bill’s position has been patent since his governorship.

Bad analogy.

A candidate can be both intelligent and have experience at the same time, but these aren’t the only visible factors, since they have little to entail about their behavior. Any persons in a position of power need much more than that, and the left-out portion can be summed-up in the word “backbone”. It kills a leader if they aren’t familiar with how to utilize their assets, or if they haven’t been in enough predicament to create mobilization methods that keep a nation in the safe-zone.

My hope is in that any of our country’s future leaders are able to exhibit all-of-the-above, plus more.

 

thanks to all in the hip community for not flaming gravity, although the answer is obvious, his question nonetheless is a good one. ITs obvious cuz although its not law, wouldn't you want a doctor to treat you who has many years of experience rather than someone out of med school? A lawyer who has handled many cases like yours rather than someone fresh out of law school? A football coach who actually played football rather than someone trying out a new career? LoL

And I used that quote from sun lion cuz (to me) it sums up the answer pretty concretely!