A Bridge Too Far

As if the presidential campaign hasn't dragged on long enough already, polarizing a divided country and exhausting anyone who cares about more important stuff (like, for instance, the start of the NFL regular season tonight), Sarah Palin's nomination for vice president has flung yet more fuel on the mindless partisan fire. And yet, her sudden elevation to national prominence serves a useful purpose by illustrating something that I'm sure neither party intended or appreciates: In the campaign for the modern presidency, "experience" does not necessarily qualify anyone for the presidency.

Obama supporters, weary after months of defending a presidential candidate with a scant few years in office as a do-nothing senator, are visibly relieved to be able to point fingers at Alaska's new governor and former beauty pageant runner-up and clamor "Well what about her?" If that's the best they've got -- that their opponent's running mate is about as politically green as their presidential candidate -- then the Obama camp is pushing on a string. Nobody who hasn't already made up his or her mind to vote for Obama is going to buy this ridiculous lowest-common-denominator tack.

But rather than wade into the comically vicious argument over whether Barack Obama's experience as a "community organizer" outweighs Sarah Palin's experience as the mayor of a town of fewer than 10,000 residents, I'll simply cut to the chase. No amount of experience can ever prepare any human being to be President of the United States in the year 2009, because the government that president will preside over has grown well beyond the bounds of its founders' intent, or the ability of any one person to direct. No one takes the oath of office and hits the ground running on the first day. At best, they're quick learners who can keep mistakes to a minimum and remember their fallible human nature.

However, you will not hear such prosaic realism from either campaign. Modern politics is plagued by the cherished belief that, in theory, government is almost Jovian in its ability to solve societal problems and make people happy. Almost no one, Republican or Democrat, has the humility to acknowledge that this isn't so. So modern politics is reduced to a maddening, endless squabble over what type and how much government will deliver us to the promised land of civil bliss. George Bush believes that with the proper mix of shock-and-awe firepower and "nation-building," hotbeds of radical Islam can be converted into solid-citizen democracies that love America. Hillary Clinton believes that if she just stays up late enough crunching the numbers, she can keep everyone in America healthy and insured. More ambiguously, Barack Obama seems to believe that he can ordain a new American economy powered by not-yet-existent-but-soon clean energy sources.

Whatever the particular issue, those in power tend to make the same fatal mistake: They wrongly assume that, with just a little more power, they really can cut this or that Gordian knot, and in the process, cement their legacy in the pantheon of great leaders. So they all try to tell average voters they have the "experience" to wield the awesome power the federal government already possesses. And consider the far-reaching extent of that power. The American president has the greatest say in disposing of trillions of tax dollars each year. The American president can enact spending and regulatory policies that throw sand in the gears of the global economy. The American president can launch wars that cost thousands of lives, with or without justification.

So exactly what sort of experience prepares you for the closest any one human can come to playing God? No other role even comes within an order of magnitude of the influence the president exerts. Even prominent senators such as McCain and Biden, who've strode the corridors of power in Washington for decades, are utter pikers compared to whoever occupies the Oval Office. The leap from any previous position to president cannot be measured, in years of "experience" or any other metric. To ascend to the presidency is to go off the charts.

But don't tell that to the professional wonks trying to shape this election, for whom this is largely a pissing contest over who's got more bullet points on his presidential resume. They start with the assumption that government really can cure all our ills, and thus conclude there must be a "right man (or woman)" for the job, and then work backward from that conclusion to arrive, conveniently, at their party's ticket. It is not exactly forbidden to suggest that government is not the answer, but only because you need not forbid an idea that no one holds.