Given that the official GOP mantra since at least the Reagan Era has been "Government isn't the solution, government isn't the problem," it's hardly surprising that there's such a significant gap between the Republicans and Democrats on the value in previous experience in Washington.
This becomes epitomized in a candidate like Trump, who hasn't held an elected or public office in his life, and therefore asserts that qualifies him to run the nation like he's run his business (which isn't all that great a track record, even if that were a reasonable goal). It also explains why the Governors in the race tout not being a national politician, and the Senators frame themselves as maverick outsiders.
It also fits in the previous races:
– Romney — governor and businessman
– McCain — yeah, Senator, but a "maverick" (and a military record)
– Bush — governor and businessman (and asserted military record)
– Bush, Sr. — Washington insider, but VP to Reagan and a military record (and still only a single-term president)
– Reagan — governor and pundit
Thus Cruz apparently not caring that nobody in Washington likes him, because he doesn't see that of value. Thus Rubio plays as a Florida guy and has to run from his DC record on immigration.
And thus the regular party mantra about trying to impose term limits in Washington (though that most often comes from outside the folk actually sitting in Washington).
(And, yes, Obama fits into this model as well, as does arguably B Clinton and Carter and JFK; Johnson, like Bush, was profoundly a Washington insider, but both came into power in an era when being the VP was seen as a serious advantage.)
On the other hand, Clinton's biggest weakness as a candidate (not as a potential president) is her lengthy experience in Washington, as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. Even if she were a paragon in every fashion, having a track record (and having operated in a political environment, where mutual satisfaction and compromise are the only way to get what you feel is an important thing) puts a dozen targets on her, all of which the GOP (and the Sanders campaign) are happy to fire at.
Look, I get it — we can all point at the problems in the federal government, and with professional politicians. I can understand that frustration. But the idea that someone who doesn't know how Washington works (and doesn't work) is going to come in and fix everything effectively, or that running a nation is just like running a company, or that bluster and big ideas without any real idea of how to implement them is actual effective leadership … is kind of zany. And profoundly unhelpful to actually solving anything.
Partisan divide grows over value of Washington experience
With the first 2016 nomination contests at hand, a new survey underscores the extent to which Republicans have come to place less value on a presidential candidate’s prior experience in office – especially experience as a Washington official.
