Since when was "experience" a requirement for the Presidency?

Question

What experience did George Washington have?

Answer 1

I have come to the conclusion that in todays society,anybody that can get to be President is too crooked to be President.

They have sold their soul to all the special interest groups and they will not look out for the best interests of the people but rather what is best for the ones who make the contributions.

We are in deep trouble in this country and i do not believe that human help will solve our problems. If help is to come it will have to come from above.

Answer 2

Washington had the experience of being the wealthiest land owner in Virginia due to inheritance from his older half brother. Additionally Washington was a very successful grower of hemp (he stated he smoked the female leaves in his pipe in his diary, marijuana) He was also the largest distiller of whisky in the new United States. And finally he was admired for his stature as well as defeating the British in the War of Independence. Washington had also been a surveyor and laid out new lands to the west to be settled. But Washington began his US military career with a great lie. He showed up before Congress in te uniform of a British major and claimed he did not want to lead the Colonial army. Washington had never been a British major. He had been a Captain in the British Colonial forces. He wanted a British regular commission. But he did not speak and read French, a requirement in receiving surrenders. In fact Washington had previously caused an international incident inotvhing a French surrender during the French and Indian War.

As to following presidents they gained their experience serving as Governors, Senators and Generals. The real quesation should be what president has ever been elected lacking experience? I can't think of any.

Answer 3

I think a person should have some basic political experience before stepping into the highest office in the country but I wouldn't say you need 20+ years - Kennedy didn't have that and he was a great President. It's also important that the candidate have political acumen and that is not something you really can learn - you either have it or you don't. I think plenty of younger politicians would make very good Presidents even if they aren't as seasoned as some that have been around longer. In fact, I feel that the younger ones aren't as jaded by the game, and yes politics is a high stakes game no matter how you look at it, and that is a distinct advantage in their favor.

Answer 4

Since right-wingers need an excuse that can't be found in a person's character, to not vote for someone.
The more politicial experience a person has, the more webs they are tangled in, that have been spun by lobbyists.

They'll either do what they feel is in the best interest of America, or they won't. A person can get that kind of experience their whole life long.

Answer 5

In almost anything experience is a key thing to have, although it is not the lone factor.

Having work experience in most jobs is much more valuable than having education. If you know how to do a job & do it well it doesn't matter how you became good at it.

Now, when it comes to any political office I believe experience helps but it is not as important as what
a candidate believes, what they are proposing for policies, etc.

I would not vote for any of the Democrat candidates becuase they all want huge tax increases, they want to grow government & make it more intrusive in our lives, they want to ruin our healthcare system by getting government more involved while at the same time increasing the costs dramatically and decreasing actual care, they do not have any solid proposals for immigration control or keeping our country safe, they are anti-capitalists and don't understand the importance & constitutionality of states' rights.

The bottom line you should look at how a candidate has performed in the past and how they are proposing to lead in the future.

Answer 6

Experience became necessary in a president since our country became so large & our problems so complicated. George Washington was a general and very experienced for his place & time. Bush's experience however, was to fail at every business he had a hand in, so what did you expect?

Answer 7

It's far from unique to this election and tehre is no requirement.

However, it is generally desireable. People make the same calculus when making hiring decisions for a fry cook.

That said, the last time it was a big deal in a Presidential election, Kennedy presented himself as an agent of change and Nixon as the voice of experience in 1960. That time change won out.

Answer 8

General of the Continental Army. Fought the Brits, & unfied the nation to meet a common goal. I'd say that about qualified him.

Not to mention the fact that, Washington was not really expected to do much. The country was still working out how this democracy thing was supposed to work. American had just undergone its second revolution in under 20 years, and many still feared a strong central government. America didn't have many expections of Washington beyond keeping us One nation.

Answer 9

It has been a contention since forever, but it really doesn't matter. There are many presidents who didn't have experience that were good and many who have had experience that were bad.
Eisenhower was a very good President - no political experience (although he had military experience, obviously)
Carter was governor/senator - bad president.

Answer 10

It has always been a major consideration. Washington's experience as the leader of our army was his experience. He had also been a general in the British army. A very experienced man in leadership.