Nearly everyone says we live in a new era wherein a person with little experience in public life cannot become president. It is this notion that leads the New York Times to make the regretible decision to endorse John Kerry in the Tuesday primary.

It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001. But that was a different era. Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his resume when Sept. 11 occurred.
...
The primary contest has now come down to two competing arguments. Mr. Kerry's supporters say Mr. Edwards suffers from a gravitas gap. Mr. Edwards's partisans say Mr. Kerry is on the wrong end of a charm chasm. The senator from Massachusetts seems to us to have warmed up a good deal since the campaign began. He can take the edge off his patrician aura, at least in part, by retelling the story of his Vietnam exploits and bringing back loyal blue-collar friends from the service to attest to his virtues as a leader.

Almost everyone who has been watching the Democratic campaign would love to merge Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards into one composite super-candidate, with Mr. Kerry's depth and Mr. Edwards's personal touch with the voters. In the television era, likability is extremely important. But this is a serious business, and Mr. Kerry, the more experienced and knowledgeable candidate, gets our endorsement.

When you deconstruct the experience theory, though, it becomes quite meaningless. Let's look at the NYT treatment of this factor: "Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his resume when Sept. 11 occurred."

Experience, then, is a new requirement post 9/11--because we live in "perilous times." And just how are these times more perilous than during the cold war? Than on 9/10? Or, moreover, than 1860- when Abraham Lincoln was elected president, with all of two years of Senate experience with a few more years in the House?
Moreover, how would experience have prevented 9/11? What is the NYT purporting, when it says Mr. Bush was "not well served by the thinness of his resume" when 9/11 occurred? If the implication is that lives could have been saved had Gore been president, why doesn't the paper come out with a clearer accusation. Further, would a thicker resume have garnered Bush greater support after the war? 100% approval rather than 90%?
The fact is, Bush's level of experience had nothing to do with our being attacked in September of his first term. If anything, his freshness in public life furthered his ability to take in the tragedy in a fairly sympathetic response as the broad citizenship.
What I would call the blunders of post-9/11 America came not because of inexperience, but because of partisan ideology that exploited the terror on voters' minds.
The Iraq war was rushed because, before 9/11, the administration was set to remove Hussein (as was Clinton's policy goal) and create a Democratic foothold in the middle east as soon as possible. The threat of terrorism, then, was used to promote this plan- but it is important to note that it was not visa-versa. It was not Bush's lack of preparation that hastened the war- it was his administration's over-preparation.
Under the NYT's reasoning, though, the threat of terror has changed something; but the notion that 'thing's have changed' actually promotes the so-called Bush Doctrine of offensive pre-emtion. Or am I wrong?
I reckon what I don't understand is this: If these perilous times are the result of the new-ish threat (it was always hiding behind the curtain, folks) of terrorism in the U.S., then how does experience in the old ways and policies help us at all? What does someone who cut his foreign policy teeth during the cold war (Kerry) offer in the way of superior resume?
Apart from the ability to respond to terror, what does the NYT purport that experience adds for the candidate? The article offers nothing, so we're left to venture guesses. The economy? Perhaps experience in D.C. will give us a condidate that knows how to create jobs. Perhaps experience will lead to lower crime rates.
But why use experience as a measure and not the policy positions laid out on both candidates websites? Fact is, plans, and not experience, lead to prosperity.
"Perilous times" and "serious business" propel Kerry into the NYT's favor. That sentiment is certainly in line with several commentators- but it is an empty thought. The times are always perilous, and the business of president is always serious. But the most fundamental point is this: the moment power becomes the exlusive provence of those with excessive public experience, we have lost the soul of our country. Term limits exist for a reason:
The United States is a country of citizen rulers. Unless the Times and proponents of the "experience" requirement are prepared to require a masters degree for public service, I urge them to think of what they are saying.