Abraham Lincoln's Political Experience

In recent weeks, I've been noticing a growing number of "hits" on this blog resulting from searches of "Abraham Lincoln political experience" and searches similar to this. Although I did post an "opinion piece" back in January which very briefly mentioned Lincoln's political experience, I thought I'd use this post to discuss it in greater detail.

Abraham Lincoln's political experience began with a loss when he ran for the state legislature of Illinois in 1832. Although he won nearly all of the votes in his own village of New Salem, he lost the overall vote across the district. Later in life, Lincoln loved to point out that it was the only time in his life that he lost an election on a direct vote of the people. He ran again in 1834, was this time the second highest vote getter and obtained a seat in the legislature. He served 4 consecutive terms in the Illinois legislature, eventually rising to become the Whig party leader there. It was in this capacity as a state representative and party leader that Lincoln learned the fundamentals of politics which would later serve him so brilliantly.

Lincoln's national political experience prior to running for and being elected president was limited to a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1846 to 1848. A lot of searches I've been noticing are for "Lincoln U.S. Senate." No, Mr. Lincoln was a Congressman, not a senator. His single term in the House (as a member of the Whig party) was mostly undistinguished. His one shining moment came in January 1848 when he made a powerful speech in Congress criticizing President James K. Polk for leading the nation into an unnecessary war, that being the Mexican War (which had begun in 1846). He challenged President Polk to provide proof of the need for the war, the amount of money spent on it, and the future plans of the administration once the war was over. He also claimed that the president's actions were unconstitutional. Unfortunately for Lincoln, his speech was ignored by the administration, unnoticed by the national press, and angered many of his constituents, who ended up questioning his patriotism. The speech was used against him in future years. After having promised to limit his time in Congress to a single term, Lincoln returned to private law practice in Springfield in 1849.

Lincoln continued to be involved in politics although he did not hold any elective office after his Congressional term until he won the presidency in 1860. After the collapse of the Whig Party in the early 1850's, Lincoln joined the new (at that time) Republican Party and was for a time considered to be a possible vice-presidential candidate in the 1856 election.

It was not until his contest for U.S. Senator in 1858 that Abraham Lincoln truly burst onto the national political stage. The series of debates with his opponent, Stephen Douglas, captured the attention of the nation. At that time, U.S. Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the respective states, and Lincoln eventually lost his bid for the Senate, the more politically experienced Douglas emerging as the winner. But through these brilliant debates, mostly argued over slavery, Lincoln became the towering national figure he was apparently destined to be.

To summarize, Lincoln was a state legislator for 8 years and a U.S. Congressman for 2 years before he was elected president. He didn't have much experience as an office-holder, but he went on to become the country's greatest president. Other men (see John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) had far more experience than he, yet failed miserably in their presidencies. This is why in my opinion, at least, political experience is not a predictor of success or failure of a potential president.

For an outstanding recounting of Lincoln's early political career in the state legislature of Illinois and his term in Congress, the reader can do no better than David Herbert Donald's superb biography, "Lincoln." Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team Of Rivals" focuses more on Lincoln's politics at the national level, but is also quite good. Entire books have been written about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but the classic reference work is Harold Holzer's "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the First Complete Unexpurgated Text" from 1993.

I hope this brief "lesson" about Mr. Lincoln's political experience is helpful. Please feel free to comment.

Does Obama's Lack Of Experience Matter?

Back on January 11, 2008 I published a post about how much discussion occurs during every presidential election cycle about the various candidates' experience or lack thereof. Each candidate positions himself or herself as having the best experience. If the candidate happens to be inexperienced, then the person runs as an "outsider."

I've been laughing recently at the attacks on Barack Obama for his lack of experience. As that rabid bulldog of conservatism (that would be Rush Limbaugh) put it the other day, Obama had only 143 work days of experience in the U.S. senate before he formed a presidential exploration committee. The bull...er...Limbaugh compared this to the 26 years in the Senate served by John McCain along with the years of military service that McCain had as well.

So just because Obama had only 143 days of experience as a senator, does this mean he is not a leader? If my memory serves me well, Abraham Lincoln had just one term, only two years, of experience as a U.S. Congressman. He lost a senate race in 1858 to Stephen Douglas, was involved in failed businesses (just like George W. Bush, by the way), and had very limited time in the Illinois state government. Yet he went on to become a brilliant leader who saw our nation through its greatest crisis.

As I posted back in January, political experience is no predictor of presidential success or failure. Some of our most experienced politicians have been failures as presidents (John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) while some of the least experienced have gone on to greatness.

Don't fall for false arguments!

Does Experience Lead To Presidential Greatness?

In every presidential election cycle, much is made about the "experience" that candidates bring (or do not bring) to the table in order to sway voters. This is especially true during our current election campaign. For the first time in many decades, neither a current U.S. president nor a current U.S. vice-president is running for election to the nation's highest office.

In our current cycle, Hillary Clinton touts her experience as a "doer" in Washington and claims that she had many influences in the Clinton White House. John McCain reminds voters that he is strong in foreign policy experience. And Barack Obama is almost daily compared to Abraham Lincoln because of Obama's same lack of experience in Washington which Lincoln lacked, the implication being that limited experience is good.

Just how much should experience count in the country's decision for president? When Abraham Lincoln ran for President of the United States, his total political experience was limited to a single term in the U.S. Congress, and a handful of terms in the state legislature in Illinois. (for a more detailed recounting of his political experience, click here). He ran for U.S. Senate and was defeated. He was involved in failed businesses (although their failures were not his fault). He was a successful lawyer, but there was nothing in his background to suggest to the nation's electorate that he would go on to become such a towering figure in American history.

Other men who served as U.S. President brought enormous political experience to the White House, but were considered to be ineffective at best during their term or terms in office. A classic example is John Quincy Adams. JQA was by all accounts brilliant. He served as Secretary of State, as foreign minister (ambassador) to Russia and to other countries in Europe. Yet from the beginning of his term in office (after being elected by the House of Representatives), his presidency was a failure. Congress ignored his initiatives, supporters of Andrew Jackson were furious that Adams was chosen by the House over their candidate, and government was more or less paralyzed for four years.

Today's issue of the Albany (New York) Times Union newspaper contains a well-written editorial which addresses this very topic. It starts off talking about a man who was poorly dressed, awkward in appearance, and who had a nearly total lack of political or leadership experience. The man was of course Lincoln. It also describes how John F. Kennedy brought almost no experience to the White House as well, but how his strong and determined leadership forced the Soviet Union to remove its Cuban Missiles. Kennedy also established the Peace Corps, a true example of the good which America can do. It also tells the story of Harry Truman, a former haberdasher, and selected for office by a corrupt political machine. He had no experience, yet was selected to be Vice-President and then ascended to the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died. Truman showed a refreshing honesty and strength of leadership during his presidency. Today, many historians consider Truman to be one of the "near-great" presidents.

I agree with the conclusion of the editorial: experience (or lack thereof) does not mean everything when we select a president. As the editorial states: "...experience is in the final analysis no substitute for vision and character."

What do you think? Feel free to add your comments.