A False Choice

As pundits try to simplify the complexities between presidential candidates, the Democratic primary has been defined as a choice between experience and change. While boiling it down to this level does some disservice to Clinton and Obama (who claim they can provide both), it does generally capture the themes of their campaigns and the underlying appeal of their candidacies.

In looking at presidential candidates, supporters are ultimately drawn to the combination of traits that are the most reassuring and the most inspiring. The candidates who are considered most experienced often provide the former, while those who are considered agents of change (and often less experienced by traditional standards) often provide the latter.

Over the years, we've seen candidates use different criteria to justify their claim of being the choice of "experience". It's definitely more ambiguous than they let on. Due to rapidly changing times, unforeseen events, and the unique job responsibilities of a president, is there honestly any definitive job or experience that could adequately prepare a presidential candidate?

The candidacy of Barack Obama raises the question of what the American people qualify as appropriate experience and how they equate Washington experience with life experience? Is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from a Washington perspective and an eye toward formulating policy? Or is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from the perspective of most Americans and with a better first-hand understanding of the impact government policies have on our lives? Is it some combination of both?

Hillary Clinton claims that she's ready. Because of the role she played in her husband's administration (one that remains unclear) and because of her years in Washington, she is the one candidate who doesn't need "on the job training". Therefore, we should turn over the keys to the White House because, from day one, she is capable of being a competent custodian of the nation's best interests?

Candidates of "experience" have long cluttered the list of presidential aspirants. But what good is past experience if a candidate has bad judgement or an inability to adapt - someone who fails to effectively apply the lessons of the past to respond appropriately to the challenges of today? Sometimes the presidential candidate with the most impressive resume becomes a historic failure, and sometimes the small town lawyer with virtually none of the traditional qualifications becomes "one for the ages". It's a hit or miss process - a roll of the dice.

Less frequent are the presidential candidates who truly inspire - those with a gift for articulating the contents of our hearts and minds, and those with the unique ability to reassure us during hard times, and to elevate us to new heights during good times. During a presidential election, these candidates are much more distinguishable. In a time when campaign speeches are overly mechanical and predictable, their rhetoric transcends the moment.

If you ask any bipartisan group of Americans to name the best presidents of the past 75 or 100 years, you will likely hear the names of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan most frequently. What do these presidents have in common? They served in vastly different times, their domestic and foreign policy achievements range from indistinguishable to historic, and each followed a vastly different path to the White House.

But, ultimately, each provided inspiration to Americans at a crucial time in history - Roosevelt instilled hope in those devastated by the Depression and kept America united throughout the second World War, Kennedy reminded Americans of what we could ultimately achieve if we reached for the stars and inspired a new generation of Americans to service, and Reagan renewed our sense of American optimism and strength that remained dormant for too long. And, it just so happens that each became president after beating a candidate with more traditional Washington experience.

Given his life experience and his unique ability to inspire, only Barack Obama has the potential to reach these levels of greatness. During times of historic divisiveness, we can't settle for anything less. Hillary claims that experience is what enables her to be the only candidate capable of enacting real change. The irony of that claim is that her experience is the one thing preventing her from being an agent of substantive change.

Without doubt, she is a particulary competent and capable candidate. Alongside Democratic majorities in Congress, she would undoubtedly roll back many of the wayward policies of the past eight years and restore a good deal of American credibility around the world. But as we've seen throughout history, very little can be accomplished when America is divided. And as unfair as it may be, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. So while she could be a an agent of change, she lacks the ability to enact the substantive change - the transformational change - that we desperately need.

As Hillary pointed out after her victory in New Hampshire, finding your voice is important. But she didn't mention that that voice does not always have to be your own. Sometimes you find a voice that speaks to your hopes, that inspires, that challenges, and that reminds you you're a part of something bigger than yourself. As history has shown, that voice is seldom the voice of experience. Indeed, a growing number of Americans have found their voice, and it's Barack Obama.