Ability vs. Experience

I thought it might be a good idea to write down some of the reasons I'm voting for Obama in this year's election, so I can start referring family members, friends, and neighbors to my blog instead of spending several more hours engaging in heated debates or discussions with people I love. For my first installment, I think it would be best to analyze the difference between "ability" and "experience" in order to address the popular concern that Obama lacks McCain's experience.

First, "experience" doesn't necessarily translate into "ability." Our country has been fortunate to have some amazing, transformational leaders (e.g. Abraham Lincoln), who had very little political experience prior to taking office. Rather than focusing solely on experience, it sometimes helps to look at a particular candidate's actual talents and abilities.

Obama was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review (the first Black in the history of the school) and is on the verge of becoming the 3rd youngest president in the history of the country, despite overwhelming odds against him (how many people honestly thought Obama had a chance to be the Democratic nominee, let alone the president, even two years ago?). Unlike Obama, McCain was a miserable student who was best known for taking risks and graduating in the bottom 1% in his class at Annopolis (No. 894 out of 899 to be precise). McCain has also proven to be a failure as a campaigner over the past 10 years, beginning with his unsuccesful bid to receive the Republican nomination against one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history, George W. Bush.

I'm not saying that school achievements necessarily dictate a person's entire life, or that campaign success translates into effective political leadership, but when it comes to someone's ability to run a country, it certainly raises a red flag when a candidate was only 5 people away from graduating last out of a class of 899 students, or when that same candidate has proven to be incapable of running a credible, organized campaign. Ultimately, Obama is winning a lot of independent and conservative votes because he appears to be smarter, more talented, and better tempered than McCain. In fact, many view Obama as a potentially transformative political figure. Obama's perceived "ability" is thus trumping McCain's "experience" in the minds of many voters, including conservatives like George W. Bush's former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. I thought Powell's explanation for his support of Obama aptly described the reasons why so many people, including conservatives, have openly supported Obama's candidacy.

Second, McCain's 25 years of experience can't save him from his VP nomination. Unlike the concerns about Obama's lack of experience, the concerns about Palin actually involve her mental fitness or intellectual sophistication. What good are McCain's 25 years of experience if he can't be trusted to select a competent vice president? I realize this might offend a lot of people, but be honest, do you really want a vice president (and potentially a president), who has to be shielded from the media because she can't be trusted to answer questions about her political views and her record as Alaska's governor?

Third, I think Obama is smart enough and cares enough about his historical legacy that he won't become the liberal socialist that many are portraying him to be. All presidents tend to move toward the center, particularly those who, unlike George W. Bush, like ideas and welcome opposing viewpoints (see, for example, Team of Rivals, a fine book about Abraham Lincoln, which analyzes how Lincoln brought together advisers who often strongly disagreed with him). McCain, on the other hand, has a legacy of taking unsafe risks (whether it be wrecking air planes in the military or nominating a vice presidential candidate that scares 75% of Americans). McCain himself touts himself as a "maverick." I would think that 25 years of experience in Congress would teach you that acting like a maverick (and even being proud of it) isn't the best way to keep people's confidence, let alone run a government and protect a country.

So, ultimately, I am willing to take a chance on someone who might turn out to be an incredible president as opposed to playing it "safe" with someone who hasn't proven to be incredible even after 25 years in office and, in some ways, someone who has proven to lack well-tempered judgment. At this critical time in our country's history, I don't think we can afford to play it safe with a self-proclaimed maverick. I think it's safer to "bet it all on Black."