Executive Experience: Who Has It?

Posted by ikabod Crane on 02.29.2008

Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama (order was determined alphabetically) all have varying degrees of legislative experience, but who has the best executive résumé?

The three remaining viable presidential candidates are sitting members in the United State Senate. Clearly from a legislative point of view, John McCain has the most experience given his 2 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and is serving his fourth term in the U.S. Senate. Hillary Clinton's legislative career is shorter as she was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. Barack Obama is serving his first term in the U.S. Senate and was elected in 2004. He also spent 7 years as a state senator in Illinois.

Legislative experience was used against John Kerry in 2004 in part because the minutiae of parliamentary procedures might cause any Senator or Representative to vote for a bill in committee, against the amended bill on the floor, and then maybe to vote for the bill again after the compromise version reaches the floor of the senate or house without the objectionable amendment. From the outside, this looks like a person without conviction, but if the bill fit a legislator's philosophy of government, but had an added poison pill of an amendment added and then removed the votes of yes, no and yes may be perfectly in keeping with a person of integrity. Do not get me wrong, integrity is often lacking on Capitol Hill but sometimes the torturous process of crafting legislation is easily exploited by sound byte driven politics.

U.S. Voters Prefer Executive Experience in a President

I make this statement based upon history. The last President with no clear line of executive experience as either a governor or vice president was John F. Kennedy. LBJ was Kennedy's Vice President, Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, Ford was Nixon's Vice President, Carter was governor of Georgia, Reagan was governor of California, George H. W. Bush was Reagan's Vice President, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, and George W. Bush was governor of Texas. 3 Senators making up the pool of potential presidents is indeed odd. It is important to ask who has the most of this coveted executive experience.

Captain, First Lady or Community Organizer?

John McCain's executive experience is found in his naval career where he reached the rank of Captain. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of the United States for 8 years and was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years. Barack Obama served as a community organizer in New York and Chicago between 1983 and 1988. These are all real executive experience in my mind, but none applies to the presidency in the straightforward way that being a governor or vice president does. Military leadership requires taking advice and gathering information from those ranked below an officer, giving leadership to those below and then also passing on pertinent information and advice to commanding officers. Having been First Lady means Hillary had a first hand look at the good and bad of Bill Clinton's executive experiences. Also, any chief executive leads a team of experts ranging from cabinet members to press secretaries and yes to spouses. Barack Obama's community organizing means he had to see the big picture of what problems faced the community, generate support among the community to confront that problem and then place people in the right spot to use their skills and energy to effect change.

Leadership Styles?

John McCain's military background and feisty personality may mean he runs the executive branch with a military style of organization. McCain would likely have clearly demarcated duties for his underlings and may expect them to carry out those duties in a color inside of the lines manner. This may raise efficiency with the potential side effect of stifling creativity and cross pollination of ideas and expertise. Then again, the U.S. Senate is a collegial body, and this experience may keep McCain from running the nation as though it is his ship and he is the Admiral.

Hillary Clinton clearly has a major league grasp of policy details and legislative processes. This could make her very effective so long as she avoids micromanaging. Her criticism of Obama's messy desk in an earlier debate may hint that she likes organization and details. That is a strength if an overarching vision is offered that provides a framework in which small legislative steps and victories can be placed. If no vision is offered, those small steps may look like ambiguous and dull minutiae. To this point Hillary's campaign has lacked an overarching, consistent message or vision. If elected, the rumors of Jimmy Carter scheduling the White House tennis courts may be reborn in a Hillary-centric failure to delegate.

Barack Obama's community organizer background means he is likely to delegate tasks to the staff member he deems best fit for the given task. Obama's campaign organization gives a clue to his leadership style. He has managed to identify excited people and put them to work in pursuit of a common goal. At present, Obama has out fundraised and out organized Hillary Clinton despite Hillary and Bill having been through two national campaigns and having the 2001-2005 Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe on board. To out organize and out fundraise the Clintons with McAuliffe means Obama's organization has outdone people with far greater starting knowledge of how to run a national campaign and people who know who likely Democratic volunteers and donors are. This is indeed impressive management of a team. Such a management style works well if a strong and dedicated team is assembled. Obama's campaign is evidence that he has recently assembled and given direction to a strong team.

The Winner Is?

The job of President is too big to be done well by a micromanager or aspiring dictator. On the other hand when presidents give too much sway to their staff, abuses of power and major mistakes can and do occur. It seems that a President needs to have good judgment, character, an active mind that allows the President to quickly asses if his or her appointed expert needs replacing, and the ability to put the right person in the right spot. President Bush seems to have failed on the active mind end of things and has seen FEMA, No Child Left Behind, Iraq and Afghanistan all suffer from a lax approach to details. President Jimmy Carter saw the executive branch paralyzed by a lack of vision and a lack of delegating responsibilities.

I think all 3 remaining viable candidates all have a good chance of being better than Carter or W. Obama having been head of the Harvard Law Review suggest that he is much more mentally active than George W. Bush (who does have an MBA from Harvard, but likely achieved his Ivy League degrees through networking as much as through intellect). Obama likely has the best executive experience for offering a vision and managing a team of talented people. McCain and Clinton each offer compelling cases that their executive experience suggests a strong attention to detail. Each is unlikely to let details handcuff their presidency as it did Carter's. My inconclusive conclusion is that the nation needs a new vision and needs executive follow through. That means that each has their strengths, but Obama's ability to lead a campaign that has out flanked a team with far more campaign experience and knowledge of the Democratic party tells me he may have the best executive experience of the three.