John McCormack argues that Rep. Paul Ryan’s vulnerabilities in a presidential election wouldn’t be any worse than the rest of the Republican field. I’ve already given my own reasons for why I think Ryan would have a tough time winning the Republican nomination, which I think still stand after reading McCormack’s piece and a response by Quin Hillyer. But I just wanted to respond specifically to McCormack’s dismissal of the importance of executive experience.
To start, McCormack writes:
There’s truth in this, but it’s also important to emphasize that the way you defeat incumbents is not merely by going after their policies, but by making the case that they are incompetent. The incompetence argument is one that appeals to voters who may disagree with you ideologically. It’s how Rudy Giuliani defeated David Dinkins as mayor in the liberal New York City and how Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter. To take back the White House in 2012, Republicans will have to win over independents who voted for Obama over John McCain. An important part of the anti-Obama message will be: “You took a chance last time on somebody young and inexperienced, and it turns out he’s completely out of his depth.” It’s much easier to make that argument with a candidate who has executive experience.
McCormack also writes:
I’m not putting Ryan on the same pedestal as our nation’s finest president, but Lincoln clearly shows that one doesn’t need to be a CEO or a governor to be a good president.
It’s not even a matter of putting Ryan on the same pedestal. When Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861, the federal government was comprised of five cabinet agencies (State, Treasury, War, Interior and the office of the Attorney General) and it had 36,000 employees, of which 30,000 were postal workers. Today, there are 2.8 million workers in the executive branch. Who knows whether Lincoln would have been able to make the leap from one-term congressman to president and guide the nation through the Civil War if he needed to wrestle such a massive bureaucracy. I’ll leave that hypothetical to others to debate. But the bottom line is that the Lincoln comparison is simply not relevant in today’s context.
As McCormack notes, there are a number of governors who have been bad presidents. But there’s no doubt that in Reagan’s case, for instance, the experience of having managed a large state, grappled with the legislature, dealt with crises, and overcome mistakes, was a huge asset once he became president.
Now, elections are about choices, and should he run, there could be a case made that Ryan’s assets are compelling enough relative to the rest of the field to take a chance on his lack of executive experience. And this is not meant to overlook Ryan’s talents, intelligence, and deep understanding of the nation’s most pressing issue. But I wanted to take issue with McCormack’s casual dismissal of the importance of having an executive background.
