Executive experience not always useful

Mark Mikowski, North Las Vegas

Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008 | 2:05 a.m.

Much has been made lately — by right-leaning political pundits, as well as letter to the editor writers — of the lack of “executive” experience on the part of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The people who make this argument then claim that Sarah Palin, who has been both a small-town mayor and governor of Alaska, somehow trumps the Democratic candidates in the experience department. One need only look at history to see that the level of “executive” experience has had a mixed record when it comes to whether a president’s administration is successful.

Whether one agreed with his politics, Lyndon B. Johnson was inarguably one of the most effective presidents in this country’s history. Despite the fact that he had experience as only a representative and senator, and therefore in the eyes of those who sing the song of “executive” experience was totally unqualified to be president, Johnson was somehow able to pass legislation such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and many other important pieces of legislation.

LBJ accomplished what he did because no one knew the arcane rules of Congress better than he did. Johnson was also able to reach across the aisle, sometimes literally, as when he had to “buttonhole” a legislator of the opposition party to get his point across.

In complete contrast, we have had the administration of George W. Bush, who we were told had the requisite “executive” experience when he ran for president in 2000. His supporters pointed out his time spent as a corporate chief executive as well as governor of Texas.

How has that “executive” experience worked out for the past eight years?