Experience

That's been what the talking heads have been on about today -- does nominee Sarah Palin have the experience to be Vice President and, by extension, President? Does Barack Obama?

In a rational, thoughtful world, this would call for a fairly basic inquiry, one that has been, in my observation of the tee vee today, utterly absent: what kind of experience, and of what duration, is actually required (or at least desirable) to be President?

Everyone's talking about experience, but no one seems to be telling anyone what they mean by it. So, not to sound like a grumpy old man, but let's define our terms, shall we?

The Constitution, of course, sets minimal standards -- at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, a resident for at least 14 years, without any religious test for the office. That's it.

What else do you want to see in a President? Maybe, as the Obama campaign has been arguing (at least until today), it's not experience that matters, but judgment.

Perhaps, we could instead approach it this way: historians tend to identify Lincoln, Washington, FDR, TJ, and TR as the "best" Presidents. If we concede for these purposes that they were indeed among the "best," can we identify what it is that made them great? Was it their experience? Was it something else?

Or, perhaps Daniel and Steven might weigh in with what Political Scientist Stephen Skowronek has had to say about Presidential power that is relevant to this subject (I know, I know, our Presidency course was a year ago, but I like to pretend that the knowledge you gained there will reside with you always. . . .).

Finally, of course, we must make a distinction between what makes a compelling candidate (both to voters AND to the media) and what makes an effective leader or administrator.

UPDATE: Richard Reeves says no one is prepared to be President.

UPDATE II: Millman says some of the best experienced/qualified for POTUS picks have been awful VPs (Cheney), while some of the less experienced have been terrific (Truman). And some of the best qualified have been good (Gore), and some of the less qualified bad (no real example). He thinks Palin a terrific choice, btw -- as long as she promises not to assume the Presidency if the need arises.

Is all of this debate simply fodder for the argument that we should simply abolish the office, one that FDR VP John Nance Garner famously said was "not worth a bucket of warm spit"?