The presidential debate is getting bogged down in a petty dispute over which candidate has enough “experience” to run the country, which in reality obscures the most important point of this election–what direction will the person elected actually take on any number of key policy questions? The same issues dominate the argument over whether the revolving door between state insurance departments and the industry being regulated should be slammed shut.

The other day, I ran a post from Steve Piontek, editor of NU's life and health insurance weekly, about how shameless regulators have become in negotiating lucrative gigs in the business while they are still regulating it. Steve called for a two-year ban on any insurance industry employment for any of its regulators.

Some who responded to that post brought up the same, old argument about how you need someone who completely understands the industry to regulate it. I frankly think that's a bunch of hooey, just as I believe the entire “experience” debate in the presidential race is a smokescreen to steer voter attention away from what matters most–what the candidates will actually DO once in office.

Mr. Piontek's ire was raised when yet another former president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Alabama's Walter Bell, gave his notice to join Swiss Re America Holding Corp. Prior to becoming a regulator, Mr. Bell had worked for a life insurance firm. (Click here for that story.)

Sure enough, the revolving door remained in full swing, as last week Alabama announced the appointment of yet another former industry executive as its new commissioner–Jim L. Ridling, a past president and CEO of Southern Guaranty Insurance Company. (Click here for that story.)

Here we go again.

Now, you could argue that Mr. Bell did an outstanding job as insurance commissioner–good enough to rise to the top at the NAIC, while also leaving his mark on the international regulatory scene. So, why worry about whether he used to work in the business, and then left to return to the business? He sure seems to know what he's doing.

So what's the problem? One reason this industry's image is so poor is that having insurance company officials rotating in and out of office as insurance commissioners makes it appear that regulators are more on the side of insurers than consumers.

The commissioner's role is to protect the public–from carriers going out of business, from leaving gaps in coverage or entire markets, and from abusing consumers. Having a former industry official in charge is about as comforting to consumers as it is for players to have a former owner running The Show as baseball's commissioner.

The same specious arguments are clouding the really important issues in the race for the White House. The accompanying cartoon, appearing on the Bartblog, sums up the view of those who believe Sen. Obama from Illinois is not qualified to be president because of an alleged lack of “experience.” His time in the Senate and as a community organizer are not only dismissed out of hand by his Republican critics, but shamefully ridiculed.

Frankly, I don't care if Obama was a high school principal. What I want to know is where he is going to lead the country.

Will the more “experienced” McCain-Palin administration guarantee universal health insurance? Will they get us out of Iraq as quickly as Obama would? Would they defend a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices? Would they insist on creationism being taught in science classes?

Would they take global warming seriously? Would they vigorously pursue alternative energy sources? Would they be multilateral in foreign affairs? What kind of Supreme Court judges would they pick? Would they maintain the separation between church and state, or push for prayer in the schools? Would they stand solidly behind Constitutional liberties, or toss the rule of law aside in the “war” against terrorism?

You get the picture.

In any case, the whole contention that the President somehow “runs” the government is bogus, anyway. In the one of the few times I saw eye to eye with President George W. Bush, he described his role as being “The Decider.”

A President picks cabinet officers to run their respective departments and key agencies, who present him with options and (hopefully) sound reasons to choose one over the others, with the risks involved and the odds of success and failure clearly laid out. Once the President makes the decision on what policy to execute, the executive branch goes into action.

The same goes for the White House, which is run by a crackerjack, ramrod chief of staff, not the President himself.

The same could be said for the insurance commissioner. They have a professional staff at their disposal to present them with options, risks and rewards. They make decisions based on the available information, in the best interests of the consumers they are sworn to protect.

I'm not saying an insurance commissioner should be willfully ignorant of how the business they regulate works, but to say they must come from the industry to know what they are doing is nonsense.

“Experience” is overrated, period. We had the most “experienced” team in history helping President Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and company had an incredible resume in running an administration. But what good did their “experience” do this country these past eight years?

The same logic applies to an insurance commissioner appointment. One way or the other, the foxes should not be put in charge of running the hen house, then let out to hunt the hens at a later date, no matter how “experienced” they are with hens!

What do you folks think?

Special Reports /

Is Experience More Important Than Leadership?

Related Stories

Recommended For You