The central debate in the Democratic primary campaign to date has been one of “experience” (Clinton) versus ”hope” (Obama).  Or ”action” versus “words.”  Or, as Obama put it, it’s a matter of judgment.  (Whether or not you accept this formulation — which I don’t — is another story.)  This debate, though, begs two important questions: (1) what is the true role of the president; and (2) which is more important in that role, vision or experience?  Judgment or action?

The role of the president is defined by the Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 2.  The president is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces.  Subject to certain limitations, he or she has the power to make treaties, to nominate ambassadors and justices of the Supreme Court, and to make legislative recommendations to Congress.  The president shall also take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.  That’s about it, as far as the Constitution is concerned.  Most of the powers of the federal government are reserved to Congress, such as the power to collect taxes, to borrow money, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, to raise and support the armed forces, and, most importantly, to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” 

The job of the president is not, as Obama pointed out in a recent debate, to manage the day-to-day operations of the federal government.  The president is not a COO, nor should he or she be a micromanager.  Rather, the president sets the vision for the nation, proposes a legislative agenda to achieve that vision, and directs the Cabinet secretaries in the leadership of their respective offices.  

Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk, no doubt.  She has an incredibly detailed knowledge of public policy, and the conventional wisdom is that she has been an effective congressional representative of her adopted home state of New York.  In other words, she has acquitted herself well to the role of a United States Senator.  What she has not demonstrated, in my mind, is that she has any capacity to be an effective president.  Simply knowing the intricate details of health care policy, or social security, or Medicare, does not qualify one to be president, nor is it any indicator that one will perform well in office.  

An effective president must be inspiring.  Think of Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan.  He or she must have vision, wisdom and good judgment.  He or she must be a leader, someone who can rally not just one party but the entire country behind a common cause.  The president sets the tone for the nation and serves as a role model, as a representative of who were are as Americans and of what we represent.  The president of the United States is the leader of the free world, with vast influence beyond our borders. 

On those grounds, it’s hard not to see how Obama stands head and shoulders above his chief rival.  In fact, the very criticism that Clinton levels against him – that he speaks of hope and vision but is a man of no action – is (despite the falsity of the accusation) an almost tacit admission that Obama is possessed of the very qualities necessary in a president, and generally speaking, in a leader. Isn’t hope and vision something we want in a president?  Faced with a choice of two candidates, one with vision and a big-picture view of the world, and the other with a mastery of nitty-gritty policy details, do we not want the one who can lead and inspire?  Who can – regardless of whether you think he can succeed – at least make the effort to bridge the partisan divide and bring our country together?  That, of course, is for the voters decide, but I think it’s wise before casting ballots to understand what the role of the president really is.  

The president does not legislate, so why would we elect a Legislator-in-Chief?