How the GOP can win on vision and experience in 2016

Republicans have the luxury of choice in the 2016 election, an advantage which Democrats appear ready to deny themselves — from necessity or otherwise.

So far, only Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have officially entered the GOP sweepstakes, but several current and former governors are expected to join in the fun soon. Several — Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Perry — are already campaigning in everything but name. Others — like Rick Snyder, Mike Pence, John Kasich, and perhaps Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez — may consider jumping in, too.

The Republican Party has a wealth of experience emerging from its ranks, and it's no great surprise that supporters of the current and former governors want to emphasize it. Republicans have blamed the follies and failures of the Obama administration in large part on his lack of executive experience. The bungled launch of ObamaCare will get sharp attention on this point, but also the lack of organizational control at the Department of Veterans Affairs, among other bureaucratic flops. It also opens up a key line of attack if Democrats continue with their coronation of Hillary Clinton, as her only executive experience came at the State Department, itself bedeviled by failures and bad management.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

That would put the three Republican hopefuls from the Senate on the defensive. None of the three — Rubio, Cruz, or Paul — have completed their first term in the upper chamber. Still, all three will surely argue that the times in which we live and the perspective of their unique life journeys negate the experience question, and that voters should judge them on their vision and their passion.

Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for George W. Bush's 2004 re-election effort, agrees — at least to the extent that he thinks the qualifications debate is overblown. Americans don't want to compare resumes, Dowd argues, but want a reason to believe. "Most Americans aren't looking for a resume, or a job history, per se," Dowd wrote this week for ABC News. They're hungry for the kind of leadership that "speak to their hopes and dreams, who can lay out a forward-looking vision domestically and internationally, and who can define a strategy to get us there as a country together by bridging divides." After that, voters just need to know that the candidate "has the authenticity, competence, and trustworthiness that actually prove out they can do this."

Dowd is correct in that vision and agenda should occupy a meaningful role in presidential selection. He's less persuasive on the idea that we sometimes do better to choose those who lack in the experience of actually implementing both. History recalls John F. Kennedy kindly because of his tragic assassination and the space program, but his inexperience and lack of follow-through resulted in the Bay of Pigs disaster, followed closely by the Cuban missile crisis and the erection of the Berlin Wall. Nikita Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure early and took a much more aggressive stance than he probably would have with Richard Nixon. The result was nearly a nuclear war on our doorstep, avoided by the deft diplomacy that Kennedy took — after becoming a quick study on foreign policy out of necessity.

Eight years of Barack Obama make it clear that talking about vision and agenda isn't enough, no matter how sincere or passionate the candidate might be. America needs an experienced leader.

Democrats will surely argue that Hillary Clinton is that person — that her long resume and family history make her the most qualified candidate to lead the nation. Don't buy it.

Clinton served eight years in the U.S. Senate, with no particular distinction or accomplishment. Following that was four years running the State Department in a period that produced a failed state in Libya through American action, a reset button with Russia that produced a depantsing of the U.S. in eastern Europe, and no balancing accomplishments in trade or the expansion of liberty. Clinton had ample time to project a vision and agenda and then take steps to turn them into reality — and in both roles, she failed.

Experience matters. Voters want a candidate who will put together the whole package: a vision and an agenda that excites and motivates them, and a proven track record of success in implementing both. In 2008 and 2012, neither party offered that to voters, and the results speak for themselves. With the plethora of talent in their ranks and the curious lack of ambition coming from similarly situated Democrats, Republicans and voters across the spectrum should demand a candidate who checks all the boxes.