I think that there are times when too much emphasis is placed on experience. Reagan's strength was not in his experience, it was in his leadership abilities - ones which I suspect he possessed long before he was ever put in charge of leading anything. Experience helps, but it is not the end-all of leadership ability.
There are plenty of people who are very experienced, and yet very poor leaders. Carter had much more experience than Reagan. Both were Governors, but only one was a Navy Lieutenant and a two-term senator, not to mention already had four years in the White House.) The other was an actor. And guess what, the less experienced actor won the election, mainly because people liked him more than the more experienced guy, primarily because of his charisma and excellent ability to deliver a speech - both which would be invaluable assets during his presidency. And, with the exception of a few black marks, he is generally considered to have been an effective leader. Imagine that.
Last edited by Motorboat Cruiser : 08-08-2008 at 12:11 PM.
|