The ‘experience’ issue
Next to JFK, Obama’s a newbie - but that’s beside the point
By ROBERT DALLEK
nydailynews.com
Ever since Edward Kennedy threw his support behind Sen. Barack Obama, there has been no shortage of comparisons between the junior senator from Illinois and the young President who inspired a generation.
As one who has spent many years studying JFK, let me make this much clear: When it comes to experience, Obama is no John Kennedy. (Indeed, when distilled into the crudest terms, Obama is no Dan Quayle - who was famously branded “no Jack Kennedy”; as of 1988, Quayle had spent more than a decade on the national stage.)
But here’s the much bigger question: What does it matter? An examination of Kennedy’s own record - and of the broader sweep of history - leads us to this critical conclusion: Obama’s lack of experience shouldn’t be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time.
First, some context. When Kennedy ran for President, he had already served in the U.S. House and the Senate for 13 years (into the start of a second Senate term) and had traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In the Second World War, he had commanded a P.T. boat - and emerged a hero. He had written a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on political courage.
Put that alongside Obama’s record of public service: seven years in the Illinois State Senate, half a term in the U.S. Senate and assorted other positions of debatable relevance to the presidency.
But all of Kennedy’s knowledge and experience, especially in matters of war and peace, did not insulate him from the blunder at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, which initially undermined his standing as a foreign policy leader. There, Kennedy simply exercised bad judgment; it strains credibility to believe that he would have made the right decision if only he had spent one more term in the Senate. (more…)
