Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Next Republican Nominee: What Attributes Should We Seek?
It has become more or less conventional wisdom that former governors make better presidents than former legislators. There is some logic to that view: a governor has had to oversee the administration of government agencies, to learn the art of give-and-take with a legislative body, and to sell new policies to an electorate that may be either uninformed or opposed. All other things being equal, the argument makes sense.
But, given that we’re dealing with real life human beings, all other things are never equal. Recent history neither proves nor disproves the conventional wisdom.
Governors can be very successful: Ronald Reagan and FDR (though I hate many of his policies) were highly successful presidents, one helping steer the country through our biggest war and another overseeing a huge turn-around in the economy while playing the lead role in terminating the Soviet empire. Whatever we may think about Bill Clinton as a man (to me, he is not a decent human being), he had what most would consider a generally successful presidency (no big wars, decent economy). It’s also important to remember that the Republican Congress dragged him back to the middle.
But governors can be failures (or less than stellar): Exhibit A is Jimmy Carter. His record as governor did not translate into anything approaching success. George W. Bush’s presidency was, from my perspective, more positive than negative, but hardly a rousing success (though, in contrast to Clinton, he is one of the most decent men to hold the office).
Legislators can be successful: The most effective legislator president since FDR was Harry Truman. He was a liberal on fiscal issues, but his legislative experience did not prevent him from making good decisions, especially on national security issues. It’s difficult to render a final judgment on the Kennedy presidency, but it’s hard to make a case that he failed. Lyndon Johnson’s political career died on the rocky shore of Vietnam: but he knew how to wheel-and-deal with Congress (and his Great Society programs went through Congress with support from both parties). Gerald Ford’s presidency was not a success, but a second term would have told us a lot more about him.
Legislators can be epic failures: Barack Obama (on everything).
Those with mixed backgrounds can go either way. Eisenhower was neither a governor nor legislator; but in leading the allied war effort in Europe, he was required to develop and employ delicate political skills and a broad range of administrative expertise (see, e.g., the Normandy Invasion). I rate him as a successful president. Bush I was a congressman, but then filled a variety of positions in which he had to run or assist in running organizations. His presidency was a mixed bag: success in the Gulf War, but no great shakes on domestic issues. Nixon was a Senator and then VP for eight years. He was a skilled politician but his reputation remains sullied by the Watergate affair. From this I conclude that being a governor is positive, but hardly assures success.
Likewise, being a legislator does not mean a failed presidency. If we go back in history, we can see one leader (Abraham Lincoln) with no executive experience whatsoever before becoming a great president. He didn’t serve as governor; his government background was solely legislative (mostly in a state legislature). Yet most would rate him as a great leader, one of our two or three greatest presidents. My conclusion from all this is that the experience of a candidate is important. Some executive experience is good. A purely legislative background is not quite so good, but can be helpful if the candidate learns from the experience. Thus, I believe it’s extremely important to look at a range of attributes.
Here are some that I think are important:
- Is the candidate animated by genuine conservative principles?
- Does the candidate have the talent to make deals on significant issues, without compromising those principles beyond recognition?
- On the other hand, is the candidate an inflexible ideologue? [I think there’s a big difference between a leader who is animated by sound principles and one who is ideologically inflexible. The principled leader is willing to consider a range of options within the parameters of his principles; the ideologue tends to see one, and only one, solution to all problems—and the idea of compromise is alien to him. Obama is the classic example of ideologue as president].
- Can the candidate convince 51 percent the country that he or she should lead the nation?
- Once elected, can the candidate convince the public to support policies based on his principles?
- Does the candidate accept the idea that the presidency is not an imperial office?
- Does the candidate love America, its Constitution, and its people?
I’m interested in what others believe should be on the list of attributes for our next candidate. Thoughts?
Published in General
You could? Have you asked the media whether they would help with that campaign?
I share some of the Reticulator’s skepticism. How could I not–Reticulator, Florida, Reticulator!
All that to one side, we agree about what is needful, it’s who can get it that’s the problem. I do not have an answer or a favorite. I have a deep distrust of people who are not stone cold professional politicians. There is a lot of hate & fear a politician learns to swallow…
Regardez the most unhappy demographics in this country right now- Millennials with $250k in college debt, the working class and even the upper middle class.
Rubio and Fiorina are possibly the only candidates who could explain what needs to be done to get the burdens off those backs because they truly clawed their way up to the top of the pole.
Obama was subsidized every step of the way.
I’m looking forward to hearing them make their case. We’ll see whether a weathered skepticism or your can-do attitude is rather more accurate.
This is what has always made it work here. I’m not willing to abandon this dream.
Well, you have to stand up for yourself & your principles. I’m pleased to see it & hope for the best-
Attributes that make a good candidate and attributes that make a good president are not always the same thing.
Rubio appealing to the TMZ set might be a deciding factor in an election (I say this sadly). Thankfully he is more than that.
I want a President that recognizes that structural changes need to be made to halt/reverse the growth of government, rather than tinker around the edges policy proposals.
Laws/amendments that curtail the regulatory state are a great place to start.
Rubio’ proposal that any regulations’ cost must be offset by removal of existing regulations with an equivalent cost is a great idea. Also the REINS Act, which requires congressional approval for any regulation above a particular cost threshold. And a small minority of Congress (say 1/4 of either chamber) should have the ability to insist on an up or down vote for any regulation.
Those are powerful structural changes. Ted Cruz’s proposal to effectively abolish the IRS by scrapping the tax code is another good one.
Others include a BBA, or term limits for congress.
I want some one who can analyze information and then make a decision without dithering this way and that. And then stand by the decision. If it was good, great. But it was wanting, to admit it, correct it, and move on.
An adult….