« Candor & Politics: Now Accepting Nominations for the LaFollette Award | Main | Note-spotting »
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Governors versus Congresspersons as Presidential Aspirants
Are we seeing the passing of the Era of Governors-as-Presidents? The era began after Watergate, when distrust of Washington led to the election of a series (4 out of 5) Presidents' having been former governors who ran against the nefarious inside-the-beltway "Washington Establishment."
This pattern was in striking contrast to the years between FDR's death and Ford's loss to Carter, when all five elected Presidents were all federal officials (counting Ike as commander of Allied forces in Europe). Incidentally, the 1945-1976 period was also the period in which the federal code and CFR relentlessly expanded in size. The Great Turnback of grants and regulatory discretion to the states was a product of two former governors -- Reagan and Clinton -- with such notable (or infamous, if you are so inclined) measures as TANF, expansion of section 1115 Medicaid waivers, Lopez/Morrison/Gonzales v Oregon judicial vindication of state power, etc.
But now we have three Senators vying for the White House. Is it the end of an era? Has Bush II finally cured the public of outside-the-Beltway rhetoric? Do voters want a seasoned federal pol after years of incompetence disguised by a folksy twang?
As a certified federalism nut, I face this prospect with misgivings. But perhaps I am overly pessimistic (or, if you are more nationalistically inclined, optimistic). Thoughts?
Posted by Rick Hills on May 14, 2008 at 09:50 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00e55224856a8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Governors versus Congresspersons as Presidential Aspirants:
Comments
While Obama is a current Senator, he's not exactly running a campaign that says "I'm an insider" (and not that most people would). But his campaign message is one of change of the status quo, which is essentially the same message you got from the governors. So to me the impact seems to be limited and that we'll see the governors back in the swing of things in 4 or 8.
Posted by: BC | May 14, 2008 12:03:14 PM
The appeal of govs is not only their outside-the-beltway status but also their experience as chief executive. This enables an argument that they're better suited to be President for a couple reasons.
First is the claim that govs are better suited to be President because their past office suits them for the job more effectively than being a member of a multi-member deliberative body. I am not particularly convinced by this claim, but don't find it completely laughable either. Being a gov is essentially like being a small-scale prez (with some obvious exceptions like being CinC of armed forces); if someone executes their role as gov well, that gives some indication that their governance style (aside from their policy preferences) makes them a good fit at President. One can't make the same assessment about candidates who have served only as congresspeople.
Second is that they simply have clearer data points to which they can gesture when giving some sense of what they have stood for in the past. Governors can individually champion or veto legislative action, and more generally bear personal responsibility for what happens in their state. By contrast, congresspeople have to compromise and trade votes all the time to get along in a multi-member body, and can rarely be held individually responsible for legislation (exceptions, of course, are name-based legislation like McCain-Feingold).
So if we look at post-FDR presidents from the perspective of experience as chief or vice-chief executives rather than Washington insiders or outsiders, there doesn't seem to be as much of a disjuncture after Nixon. Truman was VP; Ike was commander of allied forces (certainly a role closer to executive than legislator); Nixon was CA gov and VP; LBJ was VP; leaving Kennedy as the only prez who was never in such a role.
Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 12:35:24 PM
We also could look at this not as a federalism question, but as a separation-of-powers question. I always saw the popularity of governors as candidates being about bringing executive-branch experience to the job, something most senators do not have--this actually was a Bush talking point in 2004. To the extent people want executive-branch experience, governors' mansions are the only places to look. This is because of a parallel development of the same period: an insistence on someone who has run for, and held, elected office. So being, say, Secretary of State or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--strong executive-branch, foreign-policy, and military experience--no longer is satisfactory, without some elected service. And if the public wants that elected service to be executive, the only place to go is to the states.
Some scholars (it might have been Jay Bybee) have pinned these developments on direct-election of senators, which ended the practice of "rotation," senators leaving to serve in the executive branch, then returning to a Senate seat (appointed by the state legislature) when their executive terms were done.
The demand for governors has somewhat run aground amid criticisms (directed at both Clinton and Bush II) that the presidency is so fundamentally different than a governorship and that both were overwhelmed in trying to "act like the governor of the United States."
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | May 14, 2008 12:49:21 PM
Nixon wasn't California governor--he lost in 1962.
Posted by: Chris | May 14, 2008 12:58:44 PM
Nixon wasn't California governor--he lost in 1962.
Yes, that's right; he wouldn't have said "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" if he'd won.
So I appreciate the correction, but my ultimate point--that all but one post-FDR and pre-Carter presidents had significant experience at the chief executive level (or something similar in Ike's case) remains true b/c of Nixon's time as VP.
Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 1:04:47 PM
Dave,
I think you are gaming the question by including VPs, which especially doesn't take into account how much weaker and irrelevant VPs were in the past. Truman didn't know about the Manhattan Project. Nixon's role in Eisenhower's administration was closer to Laura Bush than to the modern Tricky Dick. LBJ's life as VP was miserable. And you are forgetting Ford, whose brief VP tenure can't count.
Also, Texas governors are practical figureheads as we have discovered to our cost.
Eisenhower as the anti-Governor--just CINC experience--is interesting.
Posted by: Bart | May 14, 2008 3:41:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
