Obama's Experience Problem

-- By AdamCarlis - 29 Feb 2008

Introduction

Assuming he is the nominee, Obama will face amplified concerns about his experience. Given his thin resume, relative youth, and race, it will be difficult for him to assuage voters' anxiety regarding his readiness to govern, costing him potentially decisive votes.

The Liability of Inexperience

In this election, being viewed as inexperienced is a handicap. Because of the perceived inexperience and subsequent failures of the Bush administration, concerns about national security, and our crumbling economy, the public wants a president who can step into the office ready to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, general election voters cite "inexperienced" as the word that best describes him. This characterization could lead many American’s who might have otherwise supported Obama's candidacy to vote for the more tested candidate, particularly if the current economic and political instability continues.

Barriers to Overcoming the Criticism

Unlike McCain, Obama is poorly positioned to convincingly argue that he has sufficient experience to lead. First, his resume is not sufficiently robust to withstand attack. Second, Obama's age and race do not fit the stereotype of an experienced politician. Finally, his adversary is an archetypal presidential candidate prepared to capitalize on this issue.

Inexperience

Obama cannot credibly claim the experience mantle in the general election. Instead, McCain? 's lengthy Congressional record, popular military service, and nine additional months on the attack, will allow him to further entrench questions about Obama's readiness to lead. Moreover, the perception of McCain? as a "maverick" allows him to be seen as experienced without being portrayed as a Washington insider or party crony. Therefore, he is well-positioned to capitalize on the uncertainty created by volatile circumstances without the usual baggage accompanying such attacks.

Just as the Republicans turned John Kerry into a waffling opportunist, they will exploit the public perception of Obama's unpreparedness. Obama’s relatively thin resume (3 years in the Senate, 8 in state government, and 15 as a community organizer, attorney, and academic) provides the little bit of truth necessary to make the charge stick and the Republican machine will provide the rest. The fact that Obama would neither be the youngest man elected president nor the least "experienced" – regardless of how the word is defined – will be lost in a chorus of "Do you want him answering the phone at 3a.m.?"

Since a head to head experience battle favors McCain? , Obama’s best hope is to mitigate the damage of McCain? 's attacks by shifting focus and deemphasizing the issue. Thus far, Obama, perhaps "masquing treason," has tried to shift the argument from "experience" to "judgment." However, this tactic does not change public's perception of his experience; it only mitigates its importance. If the long campaign forces the issue, even Obama's best defense, a comparison to Lincoln, acknowledges his inexperience, perhaps costing him votes.

Age

When the 60 and over crowd was at Woodstock, Obama was eight years old. It is not easy to convince people old enough to be your parent that you are ready to lead the country (especially when standing next to their older brother). Nevertheless, the issue's ability to entrench the perception of Obama as inexperienced is balanced by voter hesitancy to elect a 72 year old. In fact, Obama's surgical use of "half century of service," while perhaps cementing the idea that age equals experience, has, at least, forced McCain? to deemphasize age as much as he emphasizes his own experience. "Old" is the word voters most associate with McCain? and so he will have to find a way to focus on experience without looking his age, possibly reducing the potency of his attacks.

Race

With embarrassingly few African Americans in government and backlash against affirmative action engrained into the psyche of white America, it is harder to picture an experienced black man than an experienced white man. Intelligent and well-spoken maybe, but, experienced, likely not. Therefore, at least subconsciously, Obama’s race both facilitates believing that he is inexperienced and makes it harder for him to convince voters that he is ready to lead.

Additionally, "experience" provides cover for people unwilling to vote for an African American to cast a vote for McCain. While most people voting based on race wouldn't support Obama's policies, some Democrats and Independents are searching for a socially acceptable reason to justify their anti-Obama vote. Whether they are the elderly white voters highlighted by the Times (including my own grandmother, a life-long Democrat, who remarked, after being pressed on her criticisms of Obama, that "we’re just not ready for a black president"), or the “Bradley Effect” voters, saying one thing and voting another, the experience issue can be used to justify an otherwise discriminatory vote. Without the cover of experience, these voters would not support Obama, but using experience to justify their otherwise discriminatory vote adds fuel to the inexperience argument.

While Obama's race alone may not spontaneously raise mainstream concerns about experience, by making it harder for white voters to picture Obama as ready to do the job and adding voices to the chorus questioning his experience, race makes the experience argument stick.

Conclusion

It is possible for Obama to turn the age issue against McCain? and even convincingly argue that good judgment trumps experience. However, on race, to borrow from Gandhi, Obama is the change he wants to see in the world. As a result, it will be next to impossible for him to convince some voters that he is ready and capable until he does it and does it well. Until then, Obama will be waging an uphill battle to cast off the shroud of inexperience. In what is likely to be a close race, this could cost him the election.

- I think this might be moving in a better direction than your last paper. I think part of the danger with your topic is making it seem as if candidates are conspiring to put forth a racist argument. Obviously that's not only an inelegant summary of your point, but, well, not a summary of your point, since you make clear that you don't think any of this is (probably) some sort of evil master plan to play the race card. In any case, what I'm trying to say is that I think your paper rests on safer ground when it looks at what the voters are hearing, not what the candidates are trying to make the voters hear. Do other people agree?

Also, interesting sidenote: Clinton's "ready on day one" spiel? Allegedly stolen from McCain? 's website. -Amanda

• I really appreciate it, Amanda ... what do you think of the new draft? -- AdamCarlis 26 Feb 2008

• I agree with Amanda, that you're focusing on "what the voters are hearing, not what the candidates are trying to make the voters hear." I also agree that arguing that folks are "conspiring to put forth a racist argument" comes dangerously close to mind reading. We law students lack the psychological sophistication to find subliminal mens rea, even in words spoken by politicians. We can only read the rhetoric that folks put forth, i.e. "what the voters are hearing," and take it at its word. -- AndrewGradman - 22 Mar 2008

[Adam, be patient for my sake -- I'll keep editing this critique because it forces me to re-evaluate my own writing -- I know I'm making all the same mistakes I claim that you do. -andrew]

It looks like you think 1) that one of Obama's weaknesses is that "inexperience" is an epithet, and 2) that it's hard for Obama to refute that epithet; but it also looks like you want to patch up Obama's weaknesses. It's okay to blend editorial and journalism in one document, but it looks like you're trying to hide that you're doing so:

• Although you SHOW that you have certain opinions (e.g. vote for Obama (implied)/certain people who don't are evil (stated)) you never TELL us this.
• Although you SHOW that you use "inexperience" to mean two different things (how most people arrive at calling Obama "inexperienced", versus how you do), you never TELL us this.
• Although you distinguish between inexperience as a datum, a thing seen and attested to, versus "inexperience" as a synonym for "QED," i.e. appearing after a list of things relevant to experiences that we take for granted (e.g. citing a poll in which General Election call Obama "inexperienced," versus listing "experiences" McCain has that Obama lacks), you never tell us which is which.
• Although you present both "objective" facts and "subjective" beliefs, you never defend a mechanism for distinguishing between the two.
  • examples: Given his thin resume/being viewed as inexperienced is a handicap/voters' anxiety regarding his readiness to govern/Because of the perceived inexperience and subsequent failures of the Bush administration ... the public wants/general election voters cite "inexperienced" as the word that best describes him/Obama is poorly positioned to [convince Americans that he has sufficient relevant experience, because 1. his resume has few experiences, 2. outside the resume, he doesn't remind people of an "experienced politician", 3. the media remind us of these facts/opinions]
• You seem to be saying that when the public calls Obama "inexperienced," their reasoning is hopelessly subjective, i.e. unaccountable, i.e. vulnerable to abuse, i.e. mingled with race. But in posing as value-neutral, you miss the chance to "objectively" characterize Obama's experience level as appropriate to the presidency.
  • You might tell us: why aren't you put off by Obama's lack of experience? Why do we consider what McCain has "experience"? If Clinton has experience, and it's so different from McCain's, why can't Obama be experienced in a way different from McCain's as well? In other words: take one step back and tell us why can't we defend Obama's on experience grounds to those who criticize him on experience grounds.
    • I suspect it's because all our information comes from identical outlets, so we can only account for our disagreements as differences in subjective preferences. Perhaps you could open up a wedge in which to redefine Obama, if you can characterize those outlets as biased or wrong. (Acknowledged: you do criticize the media and McCain's tactics.) But question-begging enters here too, because you are claiming to see bias that others can't. I suppose you'd want to portray yourself as somehow detached, which is hard to do, since you're clearly defending Obama.

It will always end in question-begging, because you're trying to characterize people who cite inexperience for not voting for Obama, by comparing them to people who are voting for Obama despite his inexperience; and yet the pro-Obama person you identify is yourself. Your essay is like a follow-up question to that poll of general-election voters: "What word do you think people who openly characterize Obama as "inexperienced" would use if they weren't afraid to be called racists?" I agree with you that a large proportion of people who answered "inexperienced" to the first question would probably answer "black" to the second. But I wouldn't call that racism: you and I both just did it.
-- AndrewGradman - 21 Mar 2008

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamCarlis