« Voters trust good-looking extremists | Main | The intergenerational transmission of IQ »
The experience trap
Around the blogosphere you will see many left-wing writers criticizing Palin for lack of experience. Maybe this criticism is correct, but these commentators are falling into The Trap. Most American voters do not themselves know much detail about foreign affairs and their vision of an experienced leader does not require such knowledge. Was it demanded from Reagan? Doesn't everyone agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew plenty? Rightly or wrongly, many American voters will view Palin's stint as mayor of small town, her background in sports, her role in a beauty contest (yes), her trials raising teenage children, and her decision to stick with her priinciples and have a Downs Syndrome baby as all very valuable and relevant forms of experience. The more the word "experience" is repeated, no matter what the context, the more it will hurt Obama. Palin needs to appear confident and capable on TV and in the debates, but her ticket is not going to lose votes if she cannot properly spell Kyrgyzstan or for that matter place it on a map.
Addendum: Here is early response over at The Clinton Forum.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 29, 2008 at 04:56 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I think the important distinction isn't that the left wing is necessarily criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I think they're pointing out that experience was the main negative of their candidate, and now that negative loses a lot of its bite.
Posted by: KP at Aug 29, 2008 5:01:46 PM
Rightly or Wrongly?
I don't see what's wrong with that. At least, I don't see how it's any more wrong than thinking passing a bluebook exam makes you uniquely qualified to run the free world.
Posted by: MikeDC at Aug 29, 2008 5:04:26 PM
This reminds me of when you said the more iraq was repeated in the 2006 elections the more it would hurt democrats...seriously if you're going to once in awhile discuss politics on a blog try not be so off all the time.
This pick is some strange cross between the selection of Harriet Miers and the decision to have Alan Keyes challenge Obama for the senate.
Posted by: cob at Aug 29, 2008 5:04:37 PM
What do you guys care about experience?
American presidential elections are uniquely about electing a king and queen, or king and vice king, of the Republic.
The unelected executive is going to do all the heavy lifting, or not as the case may be.
Posted by: Michael Webster at Aug 29, 2008 5:10:12 PM
I think that's right to a degree. She needs:
1) To avoid looking like Dan Quayle II. That means she needs to be able to find Georgia (the former SSR, not only the state) on a map and be able to spell "potato".
2) McCain to remain in good health. The big knock on her lack of experience is that any stumble there means a person no one ever heard of is a good shot at becoming president, and then her lack of name recognition -- not really her lack of experience -- will matter.
3) Biden to attack her at the debates, with her being able to take it without seeming similarly like an attack dog. Gender is going to play a role in the interpersonal relationship there.
4) Have her big blemish -- the investigation into the firing of her brother-in-law -- either disappear or look like a women's rights issue.
If those four things happen, she's a boon to the campaign. Not enough to win in November, but definitely a thumb on the scale. If not, she'll sink the McCain ship, as Obama will effectively be able to use her as an example of McCain's poor judgment.
I think she's a high risk choice, but probably the right one given McCain's underdog status.
Posted by: DNL at Aug 29, 2008 5:10:44 PM
I concur. Democrats would do well to avoid the word "experience."
The best "criticism" I've heard so far is Andrew Sullivan tagging her as a Dan Quayle redux. Because the Sarah Palin pick is surprising and new, a lot of people are going to struggle processing it at first (and this includes me). Invoking "Dan Quayle" frames the selection in a familiar and decidedly negative way, a way that will stick.
Anyway, if nothing else, the selection has already done well by blowing everything else off the headlines, not to mention the blogosphere.
Posted by: Trieu at Aug 29, 2008 5:12:32 PM
I think the far larger trap is that it casts a very poor light on the candidate at the top of the Democrats ticket.
Executive experience (i.e. not being a member of the Senate) is far more important to running a government, of which Palin has some. And no one else running has any. She also is in fact a proven reformer, while Barack can only speak about being a reformer. One key test, has he ever done anything that goes against party lines for the common good?
Posted by: lannychiu at Aug 29, 2008 5:16:11 PM
COB (and readers), my earlier claim was that talk of Iraq would help the Republicans in 2008 (not 2006). I'd say that's still an open question, but it's not obviously wrong.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Aug 29, 2008 5:16:23 PM
The one thing that's for sure is that Biden will look like a jerk attacking this woman. If she's smart, she can throw experience back at him, by pulling out all his quotes regarding his support for the Iraq War ("it will be a decades-long commitment"), and refers to how his idea on the break-up of Iraq is generally regarded by Iraqis as a terrible and uninformed idea (not to mention contrary to Obama's position).
Posted by: Bandwagon Smasher at Aug 29, 2008 5:17:59 PM
Strong on the Irrational Voter vibe, are we Tyler?
Posted by: odograph at Aug 29, 2008 5:19:52 PM
Doesn't everyone agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew plenty?
Excuse me, does anyone that they "knew plenty"? They "knew" there was WMDs. They "knew" that we would be greated as liberators. They "knew" that the mission was "accomplished" four years ago....
Anyway the logic that pointing out Palin's gross lack of experience somehow hurts Obama could only come from someone predisposed to McCain.
Palin is Dan Quayle with a gun. And the gun is not enough to overcome this embarassment.
Posted by: RCinProv at Aug 29, 2008 5:21:12 PM
Tyler,
That's a long list statements of things you belief asserted as fact. What percentages (of likeliness to be true) would you attach to those different beliefs?
Also, do you think you are attempting to propagandize here at all? What's your own meta-awareness/transparency on this topic?
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 29, 2008 5:21:22 PM
More broadly, I see battles of mythologies again in this thread. Anyone care to attempt to be the non-partisan empiricist in good faith?
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 29, 2008 5:24:24 PM
"...but her ticket is not going to lose votes if she cannot properly spell Kyrgyzstan or for that matter place it on a map"
But, it may hurt a ton if people find out she doesn't know what the VP does...
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080829/pl_politico/12969_1
Larry Kudlow of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co.” asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.
Palin replied: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”
Posted by: TheFlamingoKing at Aug 29, 2008 5:26:09 PM
Out of curiosity, what does she bring to the table that Kay Hutchison didn't? I was hearing rumors of Hutchison, but what Palin got that she doesn't?
Posted by: jason voorhees at Aug 29, 2008 5:29:34 PM
Damn you RCinProv. How do you turn these italics off?
Posted by: jason voorhees at Aug 29, 2008 5:30:21 PM
closing italics
Posted by: drea at Aug 29, 2008 5:31:19 PM
"Doesn't everyone agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew plenty? Rightly or wrongly, many American voters will view Palin's stint as mayor of small town, her background in sports, her role in a beauty contest (yes), her trials raising teenage children, and her decision to stick with her priinciples and have a Downs Syndrome baby as all very valuable and relevant forms of experience. The more the word "experience" is repeated, no matter what the context, the more it will hurt Obama."
Relevant forms of experience for what? Does she even have significant opinions on the issues? In about six months, she could be in an important position without having to think critically about, well, much of anything. I too think that the experience argument is employed far too much. Judgment is far more important, but how do we know that she has that? Say what you want about running for president, but it forces you to examine these issues in a way that few other forces in life could. There's no evidence that Palin has done that. You seem to be arguing that she will connect with voters because, whatever her beliefs, she seems like a decent person. There might be something to that, but she's the epitome of a lightweight.
And how does the idea of experience being mentioned hurt Obama?
Posted by: Brian at Aug 29, 2008 5:31:31 PM
One of the odd things about this election seems to be the lack of executive experience in both slots, on both sides.
I wonder if it's partly a consequence of the increased popularity of conspiracy theories in the Internet age. If something goes wrong now, many people assume it's not because the leader was incompetent and messed things up; but because he's diabolically cunning and engaged in an obscure conspiracy.
If so, then experience not only becomes less of a positive factor, it could become a negative factor. To have political, particularly executive, experience means one has been exposed to the shadowy conspiracy groups of Big Business, Lobbyists, Special Interests, the Unions and the Politically Correct.
So, the less experienced a candidate, the better.
However, I think we could take the principle further.
Clearly the conspirators are going to be most interested in influencing the most successful people. So to defeat them, all we need to do is select a candidate with a proven record of failure at everything they've attempted to do. Find the worst failure in America and make him or her President, and all our problems will be over.
Posted by: TheophileEscargot at Aug 29, 2008 5:33:13 PM
RCinProv
Please learn to close your ital toggle.
Posted by: at Aug 29, 2008 5:34:39 PM
There is a difference between criticizing Palin for her lack of experience and criticizing McCain for being a hypocrite for picking someone with a lack of experience after basing his entire campaign on criticizing his opponent for his lack of experience.
Posted by: KipEsquire at Aug 29, 2008 5:48:37 PM
Bush had more executive experience than the candidates and how did that turn out? The choice does say something about the lack of depth in the Republican party though.
Posted by: Lord at Aug 29, 2008 5:51:06 PM
Out of curiosity, what does she bring to the table that Kay Hutchison didn't? I was hearing rumors of Hutchison, but what Palin got that she doesn't?
Although to the extent she has any substance at all, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a fairly standard Republican conservative, she not a strong pro-lifer, and therefore radioactive.
Posted by: matt wilbert at Aug 29, 2008 5:54:36 PM
You're correct, Kip, of course...but you are also making voters' heads hurt.
Posted by: Jason Briggeman at Aug 29, 2008 5:57:17 PM
The experience she lacks it what a candidate gets when in the spot light of the media, with every word they say recorded and played back to them when they show the slightest inconsistency. They must also know how to not answer questions with out refusing to, and how to handle hecklers and a woman must not show emotions and always seem to be in control. Hillary had these skills which is what allowed her to be a viable candidate, but I doubt Palin has developed them in the two years as as a popular Governor of a small state or as serving as mayor of a town the size of my children's high school.
Posted by: joan at Aug 29, 2008 6:12:59 PM
