Qualifying Qualification

Qualifying Qualification
September 11, 2008

Zach Sheinberg

I skipped posting an article last week in order to take the time to digest the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.) as the running mate of Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain (R-Az.). And because I got caught up making 700 bags of popcorn in order for Shucked Popcorn to sponsor Fashion Week. The choice of Palin fully contradicted my thoughts about McCain's VP selection process discussed in the August 21 piece, "VP a VIP?"

Palin caught me by surprise.

I followed with interest the 2006 gubernatorial race in Alaska when Palin defeated former Governor, and also former Senator, Frank Murkowski (R-Ak.) in the Republican primary and then went on to defeat former Governor Tony Knowles (D-Ak.) in the general election. With her opponent mired in allegations of ethical violations (highlighted by the appointment of his daughter, then State Representative Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.), to the U. S. Senate seat he vacated to become Governor), Palin campaigned against Murkowski and the Alaska Republican establishment on a platform of reform. And won.

Why Governor Sarah Palin?

In Governor Palin, Senator McCain saw three attractive traits. Anti-establishment, and anti-Washington, reformer. Social conservative. And female.

Anti-Establishment Reformer

Senator McCain loves Governor Palin’s image as an anti-establishment reformer. In that regard, Palin helps reinforce Senator McCain's desired message of change and maverick image.

Palin seems to be the lone beacon of hope in the Alaska Republican Party. Senator Ted Stevens is facing felony charges. Representative Don Young is being investigated. Although the recent revelation of Palin's potential involvement in the firing of her ex-brother-in-law from his position as an Alaska state trooper may impugn her reformer credentials. Or voters may simply forget about it.

Social Conservative

Social conservatives love the strongly pro-life, lifetime NRA member Palin. In picking a social conservative or moderate running mate, Senator McCain faced a dilemma. Pick a social conservative and alienate the moderate center of the electorate who will decide the election. Or pick a moderate who will disaffect the social conservatives and keep them at home on Election Day. McCain opted for the former, likely on the grounds that energizing the conservative base was a precondition to making the race competitive in November.

In addition, McCain probably calculated that he could cultivate his own maverick image to win moderate votes on Election Day, even with a socially conservative running mate. But if he picked a moderate like former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.), a pro-choice moderate, or Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), a pro-choice Iraq hawk, or Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Mn.), the conservative right would have abandoned him en masse and permanently.

And a Female

After Senator Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, polls showed Hillary Clinton supporters uncertain about supporting the Democratic nominee. The McCain campaign saw an opportunity, more than likely a mirage, to steal these female voters.

Senator McCain's choice of a woman reeked of opportunism. And false opportunism at that. Unquestionably, some Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) supporters are aggrieved about Senator Clinton losing the Democratic nomination. They feel that the time for a woman to win the Presidency appeared and then was wrongfully snatched away. But not for just any woman. For Hillary Clinton.

Some Senator Clinton supporters will vote for Senator McCain in November. That is a certainty. Some because of ideology. Others because of a dislike for Senator Obama. But only a very small minority, if any at all, because Senator McCain picked a woman as his running mate. It is insulting even to consider the idea that Hillary Clinton supporters are so one-dimensional.

Also bear in mind that the vast majority of voters who vote in a primary are strong party loyalists. Sure, they may have been strong supporters of a female candidate, but they were strong supporters of a female Democratic candidate. How many women want a woman Vice President or President so badly that they are willing to vote for a female candidate that is pro-life? This is not to pigeonhole women as always pro-choice, but they overwhelming are so.

Palin’s Experience

Since announcement of the Palin pick, the media has thoroughly discussed the Alaska Governor's lack of experience, namely her mere twenty-one months as Alaska's Governor and her previous experience as Mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, a town of less than 10,000 people.

Let me provide some background on Alaska. Alaska is the largest state by land area in the United States. Yet less than 700,000 people live there. Alaska would rank as the 17th largest city in the United States. Approximately 70% of Alaska residents are white and another 16% are Native American (all from Wikipedia). Alaska does not have a state sales or income tax to pay for state government expenditures. State revenues come from taxation of the oil and gas industries and from the federal government.

Defining "Qualified"

Given the media hype about Palin’s lack of experience, is Governor Sarah Palin qualified to be the Vice President of the United States (and in extension the President of the United States)? Or more pragmatically, are you as a voter comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin being the President of the United States?

What qualifies a person for the Presidency? Can any person really ever be qualified to serve as President of the United States? To make decisions that affect people's lives every single day? To send young soldiers into battle knowing some will die? To know how far to push a nation seeking nuclear weapons like Iran in order to protect the United States? To cut one social program and its beneficiaries in favor of another and its beneficiaries?

The American Presidency is a tremendous responsibility that wears on its officeholders. Just look at pictures of Bill Clinton running for President in 1992 next to those of the former President upon leaving office. Same for George W. Bush. Can you imagine calling parents of a dead soldier? Especially one killed in a war you know is unpopular? Or ordering a missile attack in Afghanistan that you are certain will kill innocent civilians? Or cutting health benefits for veterans to trim the budget? Or by reading about your personal and professional indiscretions in the paper every single day? Getting embarrassed on television constantly? Probably working 18-hour days for 4 years, including weekends?

On a related note, this often makes me wonder how much additional stress and wear a 72-year-old President can take.

Experience of Previous Presidential Candidates

Aside from actually serving as President, what experiences could possibly prepare an individual for the office? Below are highlights of the resumes of recent Presidential candidates. As you peruse them, ask yourself if any of these professional experiences qualify these men to sit in the Oval Office.

2008
Barack Obama: Member of US Senate from Illinois (2005 – Present); Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Homeland Security and Senate Administration Committee, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee; Illinois State Senator; community organizer in Chicago; University of Chicago Law School professor; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (2000); lawyer.

John McCain: Member of US Senate from Arizona (1987 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (former Chairman), Armed Services Committee, Indian Affairs Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; Captain, US Navy; Vietnam POW.

2004
John Kerry: Member of US Senate from Massachusetts (1985 – Present); Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, Finance Committee, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts; Massachusetts District Attorney; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1972); Lieutenant, US Navy; lawyer.

2000
Al Gore: Vice President of the United States; Member of US Senate from Tennessee (1985 – 1993); Senate Government Affairs Committee, Rules and Administration Committee, Armed Services Committee; Member of US House of Representatives; House Energy and Commerce Committee, Science and Technology Committee, Intelligence Committee; candidate for Democratic Nomination for President, 1988; journalist in Vietnam; son of former Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee.

George W. Bush: Governor of Texas (1995 – 2001); part owner of Texas Rangers; oil industry executive; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1978).

1996
Bob Dole: Member of US Senate (1969 – 1996); Senate Majority Leader; Senate Minority Leader; Senate Finance Committee, Agriculture Committee; Chairman of Republican National Committee; Republican Nominee for Vice President (1976); Member of US House of Representatives (1961 – 1969); Russell County, Kansas Attorney; Member of Kansas House of Representatives; Second Lieutenant, US Army; lawyer.

1992
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas (1979 – 1981, 1983 – 1993); Arkansas Attorney General; unsuccessful candidate for US House of Representatives (1974); lawyer.

1988
Michael Dukakis: Governor of Massachusetts (1975 – 1979, 1983 – 1991); Member of Massachusetts House of Representatives; lawyer.

George H. W. Bush: Vice President (1981 – 1989); Candidate for President (1980); Director of Central Intelligence Agency; US Ambassador to United Nations; Chief of US Liaison Office to China; Member of US House of Representatives; unsuccessful candidate for US Senate (1964, 1970); oil industry executive; Lieutenant, US Navy.

All of the candidates for President listed above have political experience, some state office, others federal office. But is the experience of previous political service valuable for the Oval Office? Or necessary?

Experience Threshold

I would argue that an experience threshold exists for qualification to be the President of the United States. And I propose that any thoughtful, intelligent, diligent, strong and seasoned professional can meet that threshold. These are obviously very ambiguous terms. They are purposely ambiguous.

Former President Dwight Eisenhower led the US Armed Forces in World War II (and later NATO forces). He had no experience in traditional politics, but was he qualified to be President?

Before the 1952 elections, both the Democratic and Republicans Parties attempted to woo Eisenhower to their party’s nomination (he ultimately sought and won the Republican nomination). But without traditional elective office experience, I wonder whether in the 1952 Presidential Election, Adlai Stevenson (D-Il.), then the Governor of Illinois and the 1952 Democratic Presidential nominee, tried the “unqualified” argument against the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. If he did, would the American voters have agreed? Could General Eisenhower have successfully led the battle in World War II to defeat the Japanese, Italians and the Nazis, but not manage the United States Government? The question is not meant to be leading.

This analysis seems to make judgment and other qualitative characteristics more important to qualification that experience, whether previous elected office or otherwise. Although I do believe that serving in elective office provides experience in dealing with government bureaucracy, certainly an important skill for a President to have.

I believe that no definite formula exists to determine whether an individual is qualified to be President of the United States. Not the 21-month Governor of Alaska or the first term Senator from Illinois. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer who served one term in the US House of Representatives from 1847 – 1849, more than 10 years before winning the White House. I would be surprised if Lincoln’s opponents in the 1860 Presidential Election, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Southern Democrat, and then Vice President, John Breckenridge and Constitutional Union Party Nominee, and former House of Representatives Speaker, John Bell, did not use the “unqualified” card against Lincoln. Despite his lack of qualification, Lincoln proved himself quite capable and worthy of the Presidency.

With respect to defining obscenity, former Justice Potter Stewart remarked, “I know it when I see it.” I think voters know when they see a candidate who is qualified. As President, the candidate may turn out to be an utter disaster, but not for lack of qualification. Maybe qualification is not even directly related to quality of performance once in office.

Is Sarah Palin Qualified?

Based on my above narrative, I am unsure whether Sarah Palin is qualified. I would not say outright that she is qualified to be President of the United States. But neither would I immediately declare her unqualified. I do not want to demur on the issue, so I will say that given my knowledge of the Alaska Governor and her career, and what I have read and seen on TV, I believe that she is more unqualified than qualified. But I would have said the same of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (this comparison is not at all meant to equate the two).

We can speculate endlessly about whether Palin is qualified. Yet as I mentioned, her qualification may be irrelevant. Sure, she may be unqualified. Or underqualified. But if there is really no experience that can qualify an individual for the job of President of the United States, maybe even including the Presidency itself, the only way to know whether someone is fit for the office is to give that person the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So until Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, or Senator John McCain of Arizona or Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sets a hand down on the Holy Bible held by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and swears to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, we will not know whether that person is qualified to hold the highest office in the land.