A Different Kind of Litmus Test
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Dec 18, 2010 at 1:43pm
Here's a not-so random question: how important should it be for the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee to have spent what will have been the past four years actually holding elected office? Bonus question: actually doing some governing?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
All else being equal -- and it never is -- I would prefer that the Presidential nominee be a woman or man with ample executive experience. In June, I wrote a series of posts -- archived at http://biggovernment.com/author/prahe/page/2/ -- explaining in detail why. The current occupant of the White House is not a man of executive temperament. He would rather play golf or basketball; and, when offered the opportunity, he vacates his office. I like Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, and Chris Christie among others. But I am not sure whom to support, and I do not rule out Sarah Barucuda (though, like many of those who will read this comment, I have my doubts). If I make no mention of Mitt Romney, it is because I do not want a managerial progressive who thinks that, if only he were in charge, he could make Obamacare work.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:11pmNov '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
I say this: not at all. Why do I say that? Because there are plenty of people who have held office who I would not consider voting for. I am with Paul. Give me someone who has experience actually running a large enterprise over someone who has experience governing. And I want someone who can articulate a vision of limited government that isn't simply the antithesis of Obama's big government world view.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:02pmJul '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
No, I think the only critical qualification is for the candidate to have had a reality TV show. Of course, having a chubby daughter on Dancing with the Stars would be gravy.
Oct '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Say what you want, but our eccentric federal system in Switzerland may inform this. Our president is chosen by seniority in rotation among members of the federal council (les sept sages), each of which holds the equivalent of a cabinet portfolio in the U.S. executive branch. Wouldn't it be better to choose a president nominated by the Senate who had previously managed an executive department?
I realise that isn't populist, but how's that populism working out for you?
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
James doesn't ask about having goverend or having held office, he asks about whether they have done those things in the last four years.
That rule, or litmus test, if you will, would have eliminated Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower, not to mention Lincoln, from consideration. I do not think it is relevant- I do, however, believe that some level of true executive experience is a must for modern governance.
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
John Walker: Say what you want, but our eccentric federal system in Switzerland may inform this. Our president is chosen by seniority in rotation among members of the federal council (les sept sages), each of which holds the equivalent of a cabinet portfolio in the U.S. executive branch. Wouldn't it be better to choose a president nominated by the Senate who had previously managed an executive department?
I realise that isn't populist, but how's that populism working out for you? · Dec 18 at 3:06pm
In the early American Republic, up through 1828, we usually chose as President someone who had been Secretary of State. I cannot, however, think of any recent incumbent of that office whom I would want.
Oct '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
I'd like to see someone who had that executive experience. A governor or senior cabinet official. I'd like to say CEO but would a corporate America high-up have any real chance at being elected?
I wouldn't mind seeing someone who held one of the higher command positions in the military, either. There is (or was, I suppose) a precedent for this: Washington, Eisenhower, Grant, Jackson, William H Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Hayes, Garfield, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison all held the rank of General or higher.
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
John Walker: Say what you want, but our eccentric federal system in Switzerland may inform this. Our president is chosen by seniority in rotation among members of the federal council (les sept sages), each of which holds the equivalent of a cabinet portfolio in the U.S. executive branch. Wouldn't it be better to choose a president nominated by the Senate who had previously managed an executive department?
I realise that isn't populist, but how's that populism working out for you?
I think the secret to the Swiss success has been its radical decentralization of power. Each canton is like a separate state.
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Regardless of where they got it, I would like a candidate to have a solid understanding of how government works at its base level. Too often people new to politics rush in with fantasy proclamations based on their complete lack of knowledge ("shovel-ready projects" and "We just have to get the Jews to stop building settlements" at the Presidential level, "We'll take a bunch of money from the Airport" at the local level in San Francisco.)
Much time, sometimes years, is wasted until actual adults explain the history, legality, etc of the fantasy proposal and it eventually disappears, is ruled illegal, or otherwise goes down in flames.
Sadly, it seems to me that just about the time said fantasist is booted from office is about the point where they actually start to have a clue about how things actually work.
Dec '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Timely question since I just saw Herman Cain on Greta Van Susteren's On The Record last night. He seems to think that the country is looking for an unconventional candidate. He's very articulate and obviously a competent businessman. He also happens to be a black conservative. So three pluses.
On the other hand. No government or elected experience at all? I'm not sure that's a good thing in and of itself.
There must be a happy medium in there somewhere.
Dec '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Really snarky, (I know, I should talk) but funny. I share similar qualms about the Palin strategy of look-at-me celebrity. (Tweeting?...God help us...I hate tweeting. Leave the Tweeting to The Kardashians.)
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
I'd prefer someone with experience managing and negotiating, but no political history or connections. Frankly, I'm skeptical of anyone with a government background.
Other key qualities include devotion to reducing government, humility, decisiveness, an ability to communicate clearly and inspirationally, and wisdom enough to integrate new knowledge into a solid worldview and historical interest. There are undoubtedly other characteristics I'd include on a wishlist, but those immediately come to mind.
If the person is wise, then crucial insider knowledge can be secured via experienced and trustworthy advisors. We need someone who is reluctant to compromise... someone who is ever cognizant of political corruption and tries to work in spite of that corruption, rather than through it.
Jul '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
My preference would be someone with a mix of executive experience, a successful governorship of at least 5-6 years and a successful business career, a startup would be a plus for me. Large companies aren't necessarily the best place to learn the ins and outs of doing business without a net in this country. Ref: Crony Capitalists. Not necessarily the past four years, but there has to be a track record in public office so that you know what to expect.
Otherwise you might end up with a doofus who rams through a brain dead dismemberment of the health market, like Romney.
Nov '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
I have decided that, barring some exceptionally qualified candidate, I will never vote into the presidency someone who has not served at least two terms as a governor. Congressmen are just so... wily.
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
It's not just Sarah Palin after all. Mike Huckabee has been a pundit-in-waiting as well. And what the heck has Mitt Romney been up to but dancing around and waiting for his turn.
No. I think the only candidate that can beat Obama is a sitting or former governor. I think Americans will listen to someone that has accomplished something -- and I don't think running a corporation will suffice.
May '10
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
I'd like to see someone who either currently held and worked performing the duties of executive office, or who had done that at one time and was currently engaged in actually working for a living.
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Maurilius: Regardless of where they got it, I would like a candidate to have a solid understanding of how government works at its base level. Too often people new to politics rush in with fantasy proclamations based on their complete lack of knowledge ("shovel-ready projects" and "We just have to get the Jews to stop building settlements" at the Presidential level, "We'll take a bunch of money from the Airport" at the local level in San Francisco.)
Much time, sometimes years, is wasted until actual adults explain the history, legality, etc of the fantasy proposal and it eventually disappears, is ruled illegal, or otherwise goes down in flames.
Sadly, it seems to me that just about the time said fantasist is booted from office is about the point where they actually start to have a clue about how things actually work. · Dec 18 at 5:08pm
Couldn't agree more.
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Trace Urdan: It's not just Sarah Palin after all. Mike Huckabee has been a pundit-in-waiting as well. And what the heck has Mitt Romney been up to but dancing around and waiting for his turn.
No. I think the only candidate that can beat Obama is a sitting or former governor. I think Americans will listen to someone that has accomplished something -- and I don't think running a corporation will suffice. · Dec 19 at 2:02am
I've got the same hunch, Trace. There's something lame about the way last cycle's fresh faces have spent their time on the shelf. Not that there's anything disqualifying there, but can anyone pretend that they all don't seem ever so slightly less appealing than they did first time around? Not since Andrew Jackson has a candidate whose party didn't hold the White House win the Presidency on his second run. And Jackson's loss has an asterisk.
Re: A Different Kind of Litmus Test
Paul A. Rahe: If I make no mention of Mitt Romney, it is because I do not want a managerial progressive who thinks that, if only he were in charge, he could make Obamacare work. · Dec 18 at 2:27pm
Edited on Dec 18 at 03:11 pm
Dr. Rahe presents the single most concise, damning, and accurate indictment I have ever read of the case for Governor Romney.