The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    quinn esq's picture

    Obama Trumped... By A Pair Of Two's?

    By quinn esq on Thu, 07/31/2008 - 5:00pm |
    There's something irritating me, so I might as well scratch. It's the arguments - apparently felt to be trump cards by some - that Obama is too young & inexperienced to be President. I agree we should look closely at what the candidates have accomplished, their judgment, character, etc. Fine. But the idea that their age & their CV - IN THEMSELVES - trumps other factors? Naw. Not workin' for me. And worse, no EVIDENCE. In fact, the evidence says these arguments carry as much weight as "he's too tall." 

    Evidence? Well, I get out some. You know, outside the Lower 48. And I highly recommend it. Oh, I know, America is different. More important. And you don't want some young pup with no track record being the Commander-In-Chief, finger on the button, last best hope for humankind, etc. But if I may, let me (gently) suggest there are still things to be learned from the experience of others. Because it still just IS the case that the leaders of other nations are equally important to THEIR citizens. So, herewith, some evidence, just from a couple of nations I know.

    As a baseline, Barack Obama would be 47 if he won the Presidency. And his resume just IS damned thin - some community work, some university, State politics, then the Senate. So if those are your two metrics for the Presidency, then either McCain or HRC wins. Hillary would be 61 as President, and definitely has more experience. McCain would be a shoo-in on these grounds. Hell, he'd make it as Head of the UN, Pope, you name it. But why not let's get outdoors on this fine day and take a look around.

    There's a beautiful tropical island in the North Atlantic, home to 60 million heavily-accented citizens, most with bad teeth. The United Kingdom. Their leader from 1997-2007 was Tony Blair, who was 43 when he became PM. His resume was appalling. He'd done nothing but be an opposition MP since he was 30, which meant he administered nothing, didn't even really write any legislation. Before that, all he had was a degree from Oxford, some work as a lawyer, and marginal involvement with the local politics of Hackney, a poor Inner City London Borough. But he won 3 majorities, and in terms of performing the functions of leader - running a huge office, directing a government, working with multiple constituencies, making military decisions - agree or disagree on specifics, he absolutely, without question, showed he was up to the job.

    His successor is Gordon Brown, who took over at age 56 - a full 13 years older than Blair had been. Brown has a PhD, taught university, was a journalist & editor, then had a 10 year term in Cabinet in charge of Britain's economy, where he did remarkably well. He began his family late and lost one child while having a second child born with CF, even overcame being blinded in one eye at age 16 - this is real life experience. So if we use age, government experience or extra-political track record, Brown should have been the BETTER choice. Except... Blair won 3 terms, while Brown is likely to be deposed soon, as he sits 20% behind the Conservatives. Brown is politically tone-deaf, has no ability to inspire, dithers then shifts abruptly, is stubborn & inflexible. When you poll Britain today - even AFTER Iraq - majorities prefer Blair over Brown. (Which is hard for me to say, given that Brown is Scottish, ok?)

    Who's gonna be Britain's next PM? David Cameron for the Conservatives, age 41, likely against David Miliband for Labour, age 43. Both only MP's for 7 years, with only Miliband having experience in Cabinet. Neither previously did anything outside of think tanks (Miliband successfully) or media communications (Cameron not so successfully). Both went to Oxford and did well, both come from fairly well-known families, Miliband the son of Ralph Miliband the scholar, while Cameron came from wealthy financiers. Neither are beloved, both are preferred to Brown. In sum... if you're worried about Obama's youth and experience ON THEIR OWN, you should be terrified for Britain. But if you find you can't sleep for tossing and turning, just remember - BROWN was the disaster. (Still can't sleep? Play Brown's speeches while counting sheep. Watch the sheep go to sleep.)

    Canada. SAME story. As a nation, admittedly, Canada only has 33 million people - so officially, it's no Superpower. But. It's your largest neighbour & trading partner, and has endless amounts of oil. More importantly - as the constitutional scholar Rt Said Fred once rightly said - "Canadians are too sexy for their shirts, too sexy for their continent, too sexy for...." In short, Canadians rock. Bottomline in Canuckland? Stephen Harper, the Conservative, became PM in 2006, when he was 46. He'd never done ANYTHING outside think tanks or as an opposition MP & wheeler-dealer. He leads a minority government, is an immensely smart politician, albeit one fixated on control, and he's regarded as personally cold. Nonetheless, his government has been fairly competent, he is tough-minded, and there are no doubts about his ability to manage the job, the pressure or the far-flung arms of government.

    Harper's predecessor was Paul Martin, in many ways, an exact equivalent to Gordon Brown. He was very bright, had extensive experience across issues as well as both the public & private sectors, and was then Cabinet's very successful finance minister for 10 years, before becoming PM. He became PM aged 64 - that is, 18 years older than Harper was. But Martin lasted less than 3 years before his crushing defeat. His speaking style was abysmal, his political smarts non-existent, he loved minutiae and got torn from pillar to post, and it is difficult to find anyone who feels he was a good leader. Again the Obama question. Who "should" have been the better PM? The ultra-experienced, 64 year old Martin. Who DID better with what he had to work with? Harper, the 46 year old think tank twerp who had no experience in or life outside of politics. (And I say that while loathing him, and having liked Martin.)

    We can all argue the virtues of experience vs the vigour of youth. Frankly, most scholars have pinpointed the age of 49.5 as the optimum age - energetic, wise, flashing wit, nice pants. (Though it IS expected they'll raise that age to 50 sometime next year.) What's the right mix of experience, the right track record? Damned if I know. Personally, I think too much time spent in universities should be a disqualification. An MBA should rule you out of all civic life, and into the line for summary execution. Ditto for work in marketing, any time spent in communications or the media in fact, as well as - obviously - even a passing knowledge of American Idol. Frankly, I want farmer-scholars, good left-handed pitchers, Hunter S. Thompson's ashes, or Mothers of 7. Mostly, Mothers of 7, I think.

    What I DO know is that anyone arguing that there's some sort of grand empirical basis for their positions - i.e. EVIDENCE - is puffing out their blow-hole. Obama MAY be a character-free chameleon, all talk, too right-wing, a damaged messianic soul or an incompetent administrator. Those things are worth thinking about, debating. And yeah, it's worth learning what candidates have done with their lives, seeing what can be discerned of their character. But this simplistic use of age or experience in serious politics - the use of these as though they were TRUMPS, rather than just providing some fragments of INSIGHT - well, you got a pair of 2's, kid. See ya.

    Footnote. Yeah, Bush was young. But Putin was only 47 when he became President. Bill Clinton was 46, and had never worked in Washington. Even in the land of our experience-loving Spanish friend, their last two PM's have been... 43 when they took office. Maybe Ted Stevens could visit & help out.