Herbert Hoover
There are three types of Presidents. The first type is the President who once held a prior elected position. That includes those who were elected as Congressmen, US Senators, and Governors. Then there are those Presidents who were once in the military, but did not hold an elected position at one time. Included in that category are George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The third category of Presidents is Herbert Hoover. Hoover did not hold any elected government experience nor did he serve in the military. His highest position in government was his role as Secretary of Commerce. In the time before Hoover’s election in 1928 and in the time after his defeat in 1932, Presidents have come from either a military or elected background or both. It seems as if the sign on the White House reads, “Outsiders Need Not Apply”. Why do believe that is the case?
Politics Matters 
I agree and disagree with this because yeah you should have experience when your running for president because you are the one representing the whole country and hearing what everyone is saying to make our country better. I don’t see how not having experience does not qualify you for the job, I’m sure their ought many people out there that could be an awesome president without having any experience they just don’t choose to because of fear and the lack of money to have advertisements.When someone gets their job how do they get it? if they have no previous experiece but they end up being the manager or somewhere big in the company. How does that happen? But i do understand where having experience comes from i just feel like that’s a plus.
I think that this is the case and it is very odd that he got elected as president. Most people look at experience when electing their president. The fact that he did not serve for our country nor had any government experience yet still got elected for president shocks me.
I think that it is common that our Presidents have mostly served in the military or prior elected position for a couple reasons. First, I think that either of those 2 routes allow a candidate to fall back on their record. If they served in the military they can talk about their leadership experience, the knowledge of foreign affiiars, deployments, accountabillity and responsibility of personnel and equipment, and rigorous training that he/she has attended. I think that many people believe that it is hard to be the Commander in Chief if you have never served in the US military. In terms of an elected official the background is there to show that he/she has run an election before, that they can debate, that he/she fought for their constituents, etc. Lastly, I think that people choose military or prior elected officials based on the idea of someone starting out from the “bottom and working their way to the top.” Having someone serve in the military, everyone pretty much starts as the lowest member of the toem pole at some point in time. People like to see success stories of working their way to the top. In terms of politics, it’s the same way. If someone started out on the school board and worked their way to city council to congress to President, it makes people feel more of a connection to that President. because they get a sense that anyone can work their way to the top. They feel they can relate.
Most people think that candidate for president has to be a very strong person with experience in politics. So it makes sense that they would pick someone with military background or someone who has been in politics for a while. When we need to pick someone for a leader we want to make sure that they can handle their job.
In order to be preaident I feel as if you need to show your love and devotion for this country. Serving in the military is an excellent way to do so. I almost feel like it should be a requirment. The president should also be experienced with at least running something if he is going to be the face of this country. On the other hand, I like how its almost like anyone can be president when looking at president Hoover.
I believe it’s like that because we see nominees from political or military background as already having leadership experience. For a president, the people need to have nominees that they can envision in office before they can vote for them. Having a president with that kind of experience gives people a sense of security.
It’s obvious that people with military or other political history are preferred in office. Military experience can benefit the defense aspect because they have first hand experience in that field. Especially if it is a high ranking officer. But a president has to be opened minded in all aspects.
This is a very usual situation. Most people would prefer someone with experience. He had neither. He never was associated with government positions in his life or anything. This makes no sense to me.
I disagree with the outsider experience. I believe president should be in part of military and government positions. An outsider might be elected but he cannot ever fully understand the occupation of government as the way a person in military did.
I believe this is the saying because an average joe could not run the country. To run the country, a president needs to have friends and people that will help him out in congress. Also, a president should have military experience if he is to hold the power to declare war.
I also agree and disagree with that statement that the president should come from military background. For one, the candidate doesn’t have to be IN the military to know how it works if there ever was a war. there are many people who are knowledgeable about our military not because they were a part of it, but because they studied and learned it. but, i also think a president with military experience would be a very good thing. should there be a war, that president will know exactly how to handle it.
Politics is a system just like any other, functioning among our capitalist society. the power lies with those in charge and the only way to gain leadership is through gaining power, the great catch 22 of politics.
We saw this on display in our second class video, even though the younger candidate Booker was clearly a better alternative to Sharp James we saw the money, power, and pull of the incumbent at work in remaining in office. It took jail time to finally take the man down. This si only one example of the huge hurdles that remain for any man or woman willing to try and topple an incumbent in political office.
I think that the reason that outsiders with no previous elected position or military experience might not be considered for President is due to the fact that they have no history to view. If a Presidential candidate does not have any government or military history, then its hard to say how they have performed in the past and predict how they will perform in the future as president. By being able to see people political or military past, such people have an advantage of being able to prove that they may be positive presidential candidates.
I believe that Presidents have come from either a military or elected background or both in recent history because the voters consider those backgrounds to be relevant experience for the position. It’s similar to a company wanting to hire someone not only with a college education but with prior experience as well. Also, for someone with an elected background, voters tend to think that if other people thought he was worthy of a position then perhaps we ought to pay a little more attention than we would to Mr. Joe Businessman. It’s no doubt that Americans hold in high regard anyone who serves in the military and since the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces someone with a military background is perceived as having a personal understanding of what that might entail.
Its pretty odd that he was elected without military background. But military background is an important for a president because they get a inside view of how the military works. Also its hard to see what they have accomplished that makes them worthy to run the country
I think that the president should have lots of experience of working in the government before becoming president. Maybe not so much serving in the military but at least some sort of experience and the more experience the better. I don’t think a person can be capable of running a country if they have no clue what they are doing. So I agree that not just any person can be a candidate for president.