Does Ex Ante Experience Predict Presidential Success?

While it’s a statement against partisan interest in the 2016 elections, longtime readers will know that I’m dubious that “experience” tells us much of anything about whether or not a president will be successful. Julia Azari looks at the issue more systematically and reaches a similar conclusion:

There’s a slight correlation between years of experience and a worse ranking. It’s hardly a clear trend, but it’s not a ringing endorsement for the importance of political experience, either.3

So does having lots of national governing experience make you bad at being president? Here’s where the “correlation doesn’t equal causation” warning comes in. Lots of things could be driving the relationship between the kind of politicians that get elected and their success as president. Parties could gravitate toward more experienced politicians when the coalition has been in power awhile and is starting to fray. Also, two of the experienced-but-terrible presidents, John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, became president through succession (they weren’t elected). And for presidents who took office at times of crisis, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, it might have been an advantage to be unencumbered by political baggage.

The absence of a strong connection between experience and success also suggests that the experience gained in other government positions, especially Congress, may not cultivate the qualities that are necessary for presidential leadership. James Buchanan, who had a whopping 26 years of government experience before he was president from 1857 to 1861, is an instructive example. Scholars have concluded that he lacked the moral courage to lead the nation as tensions between North and South increased. More governing experience, to the best of our knowledge, does not increase moral courage.

The fact that Buchanan has one of the most impressive cvs of any president ever and Lincoln one of the thinnest should give us pause when putting too much weight on political experience, and looking at presidents as a whole doesn’t change it much (although, of course, what constitutes a successful presidency is itself an inexorably contested question.)

The biggest reason to oppose Donald Trump is the political coalition he heads. And he would probably be worse and possibly far worse than a generic Republican because of his temperament, his judgment, and utter contempt for basic norms, his explicit race-baiting. But I don’t think “experience” per se is the issue.