- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 2, 2008
Exclusive: Is Gov. Palin Qualified?
I have my own misgivings about both candidates for President, but can we get past the idiotic question of whether or not Gov. Palin is "qualified" to run for Vice President? A short look at the historical record, going all the way back to 1880, demonstrates, irrefutably, that she is, at least by the Democrat Party's standards.
In 1880, the Democrat Party nominated William Hayden English for Vice President to run with Grover Cleveland. The honorable Mr. English had served only two years as a part time legislator in Indiana and a mere eight years as a member of the House of Representatives. But he was apparently considered qualified to hold the office of Vice President by the Democrat Party. That should come as no surprise, of course, since their candidate for President that year, Grover Cleveland, had served less than two years as governor as New York and only four years as mayor of Buffalo and had held no other elective office. So, not only was Gov. Palin more qualified to serve as Vice President than the Democrat Party's nominee in 1880, under the standard that adhered in the Party at the time, she was as qualified to serve as President by that same standard.
In 1892, Adlai Stevenson I (grandfather of the later presidential candidate) was nominated by the Democrat Party to serve as Vice President. When he was nominated, the sum total of his elective experience was four years as a small town district attorney and four years as a member of the United States House of Representatives. He was clearly less qualified than Gov. Palin to serve as Vice President, yet the Democratic Party nominated him and he served in that capacity.
In 1896, the Democrat Party nominated Arthur Sewell of Maine as Vice President to run with William Jennings Bryan. Mr. Sewell, while a successful businessman, had never held elective office. That choice was understandable, of course, because the Democrat nominee for President, Mr. Bryan, was only 36 years old and the only elective office he had held was as a member of the House of Representatives and that for only four years. Not only was the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate in 1892 less qualified than Gov. Palin, so was their Presidential candidate.
That is not altogether surprising, of course, since Democrats have historically been attracted to the new shiny thing. Only the Democrats would nominate a 36-year-old man of no accomplishment on the basis of a really, really good speech at their convention. That impulse apparently survives to this day.
In 1900, the Democrats again nominated Mr. Bryan, by then 40 years old, his having served no more elective time than he had in 1896. They made the same mistake again in 1908, when the sum total of his elective experience was still the mere four years he had served in Congress more than 12 years earlier. The Democrats were not nominating him to be "a heartbeat away from the presidency." They were nominating this man, whose experience and credentials did not approach those of Gov. Palin, to serve as President, apparently untroubled by his plentiful lack of training and experience.
In 1904, the Democrats nominated Alton Parker as their Presidential candidate when he had served only six years as a New York judge and had held no other elective office. At least his Vice Presidential candidate had some relevant experience, having served in the United States Senate. But Mr. Parker was clearly less qualified to serve as Vice President than Gov. Palin and he was the Presidential candidate of the Democrat Party.
In 1908, the Democrat Party again nominated Bryan for President and, for Vice President, John W. Kern, who had served all of four years in the part time legislature of Indiana. So, how did the party of experience and qualifications justify this experiential trifecta? It didn't. In 1908, apparently, experience did not loom large in the minds of Democrats as a qualification for Vice President.
In 1912, the Democrats nominated a Presidential candidate with less experience than Gov. Palin, Woodrow Wilson, who had served less than two years as governor of New Jersey and in no other elective office when he was nominated for President. Not to be inconsistent, the Democrat Party also nominated Thomas R. Marshall for Vice President when he had served only four years as governor as Indiana and had served in no other elective office.
Then, in 1920, the Democrat Party nominated the celebrated Franklin Delano Roosevelt for Vice President, when he had, by that time, served only three years as a part time state senator, apparently believing he had sufficient experience to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. But, of course, he was from a rich family and did go to Harvard. But his experience was so much more modest than that of Gov. Palin that is difficult to understand how Democrats can criticize her qualifications with a straight face. By the time FDR ran for President 12 years later, his only additional experience was less than three years as governor of New York. So, even when he ran for President, his qualifications were not measurably greater than Gov. Palin's are now.
In 1924 Charles W. Bryan was nominated by the Democrats as Vice President when all he had done was to serve as mayor of Lincoln, Nebraska for two years and had served less than two years as governor of the state. He was second to their nominee for President, of course, one John W. Davis, whose total political experience was comprised of a two-year stint in the United States House of Representatives and as an ambassador for two years. He was also a notable racist, opposing women's suffrage and anti-lynching legislation. Apparently untroubled by his racism, the Democrat Party thought he was fully qualified to serve as President which is why it gave him the nomination. His final case as a lawyer, by the way, was to argue against Brown v. Board of Education before the United States Supreme Court. And this is the party whose withering condescension with respect to Gov. Palin has been so deafening?
In 1940, FDR nominated Henry Wallace for Vice President when he had held no elective office whatsoever. He had held the office of Secretary of Agriculture for seven years. So at the time of our greatest peril (before the present age), the Democrat Party did not think it important that Vice Presidential candidates have elective experience. And this, from the party's closest thing to a deity, at least until the current election season.
Then, of course, in 1972, the Democrats nominated Sargent Shriver for Vice President when he, too, had held no elective office. He had been an ambassador to France for two years (hardly tough duty), and had run the Peace Corp, both the result of nepotism. So, apparently, experience is not a pre-condition to nomination for Vice President (or, for that matter, President) by the Democrat Party.
If it were, it would never have nominated Jimmy Carter for President in 1976 when he had served only one term as governor of, at that time, a state of marginal influence and one term (four years) as a part time legislator of that state. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter is the best argument I can think of as to why experience might be a good thing in a nominee for President. His disastrous tenure demonstrated that the new shiny thing, that one completely bereft of experience, the one the Democrats seem perennially to become entranced by, is not a good prospect for President.
And then, of course, there is Geraldine Ferraro, who appears to have grown significantly since her race for Vice President. When the Democrats nominated her for Vice President in 1984, she had served less than six years in the House of Representatives, significantly less experience than Gov. Palin has for the same office.
We need not mention the ever vapid John Edwards whose undistinguished five years in the United States Senate did not trouble the Democratic Party when it nominated him for Vice President.
Based on the Democrat Party's 120-year precedent, Sarah Palin is not only supremely qualified to run for Vice President, she is more qualified than at least six (including Bryan's three runs) of its nominees for President.
But, of course, she is not running for President after having served only two terms as a part-time legislator and less than three years in the U.S. Senate without any significant legislation to show for it. That would be Sen. Obama, who presumed to start running before even a year had passed since taking office as a Senator and has been largely absent since then.On the other hand, shall we start comparing the experience of every single Republican candidate for president and all but three of the Democrat candidates over the last 120 years to that of Obama?
I didn't think so.
Can we now put aside the absurd canard that Gov. Palin is unqualified to run for Vice President of the United States?
The Vice Presidential candidate has traditionally been someone with sufficient experience to support the President, not someone the party would otherwise nominate for President. With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, not one Vice Presidential candidate in the last 120 years has been someone either party would have nominated for the presidency.
Predictably, the New York Times has been in full-throated hysteria since the Palin nomination was announced. It has written and published some of the most vicious attacks on a national candidate in memory. "Shrill" has become its trademark over the last several years. That, and an abysmal ignorance of the historical record. But its hateful excoriation of Gov. Palin exceeds even its high level of partisanship.
But perhaps the Times got it right once. It wrote: "Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?...Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens?...Where is it written that governors and mayors...are too local, too provincial?...Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy...What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen...Why shouldn't a little known woman have the same opportunity to grow?"
I quite agree. If only the Times had written that in 2008 rather than in 1984.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor John W. Howard is a lawyer, specializing in corporate and business litigation who also founded a non-profit, public interest law firm specializing in First, Second and Tenth Amendment issues. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
