The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
Posts: 3,272
|
|
« on: December 02, 2014, 02:13:43 AM » |
|
Experience, in my belief, is executive leadership, familiarity with the issues, and matching the mood of the times.
Ronald Reagan, at the time of his 1980 election, would be my gold standard. He not only had first hand with the issues, dating back to 1964, but he additionally served as a major state governor. He became an experienced executive by the time he left the California governorship, and combined with his mastery of the issues, he managed to dominate the country politically in the 1980s. If an issue in the 1980s wasn't dealt with, it was frankly because Reagan didn't care about it or didn't believe in dealing with it on a federal level.
Bill Clinton comes in second after Reagan. Arkansas governor for (a combined) 12 years, fit the neoliberal 1990s, and managed to achieve a good deal. His understanding of the mood of the 1990s was invaluable. Another President might have tried to push it too far one way or the other. His centrism allowed him to ride the 1990s.
George W. Bush had considerable executive experience but had only a passing familiarity with the issues facing the United States. Consequently, Bush had a far less successful presidency than Bill Clinton. A lot of executive experience, but little familiarity with the issues. One might say had he had Reagan's grasp of major issues or Clinton's intellect, he would have avoided many of the issues, like Iraq.
|