Should Presidential Candidates Require Government Experience? A Deep Dive

The question of whether presidential candidates should require some experience in government has been a recurring debate in the United States. This article explores the pros and cons of such a requirement, focusing on the experiences of notable presidents and the implications of requiring or prohibiting political experience.

The Case Against Required Political Experience

Some argue that a constitutional amendment requiring political experience from presidential candidates could stifle innovation and dynamism in the office of the presidency. President Donald Trump, for instance, exemplifies how success can be achieved without extensive political experience. Trump's approach to governance was marked by a pragmatic, business-oriented mindset grounded in his contract-driven ethics. This perspective challenges the notion that political experience is a must-have trait for a successful president.

Skill Versus Experience: Competence Over Resume

While some level of experience in government can be beneficial for presidential decision-making, it should not be a strict requirement. The primary focus should be on the candidate's competence and an verifiable, demonstrable likelihood of success. Requiring at least a relevant master's degree from an accredited university may be a reasonable standard. However, it is essential to avoid the potential for only political elites running for the presidency, which goes against the democratic principles on which the nation was founded.

Consider the examples of some of the best presidents in U.S. history: Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. These presidents collectively bring a diverse array of backgrounds and experiences to the office. Each brought unique perspectives to their presidencies, suggesting that a broad range of individuals can effectively lead the nation without extensive government experience.

The Need for Public Experience

Moderation is key when it comes to public experience requirements. While a certain amount of public service or relevant experience can help in making informed decisions, the process of setting specific requirements can be complex. Factors such as minimum age, national citizenship, and residency are reasonable and straightforward requirements. However, specifying a certain amount of government experience before disqualification is more challenging. How much experience is required? What form should it take?

Experience vs. Intelligence and Qualification

Experience alone does not guarantee intelligence or qualification for the presidency. Take the example of the current President, with 47 years of experience in politics, yet unable to articulate a coherent thought without assistance. Experience should not be conflated with competence or intelligence. The focus should be on ensuring that candidates have the skills, knowledge, and readiness to lead effectively.

Moreover, the idea of limiting a person's potential for greatness based on their political experience is contrary to the spirit of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution was designed to allow any individual, regardless of background, to serve in the highest office if they meet the core requirements of age, citizenship, and residency.

Conclusion

While government experience can be valuable, it is not an absolute requirement for a successful presidency. The focus should instead be on competence and preparation demonstrated through relevant academic or professional background. Balancing this with the practical benefits of experience in government could lead to a more nuanced and effective approach to presidential qualification.