My friend and and former colleague S.T. Karnick has a good piece in NRO this week, in which he discusses the benefits either party would gain by nominating a governor—and the less-than-stellar track record, at least in the last couple decades, of senators in presidential elections.
Governors are proven executives, problem-solvers and consensus-builders. Plus, as Karnick notes, “They don’t have a voting record on important and controversial national issues. Senators, by contrast, don’t have the individual political-administrative accomplishments to which to point, have records dotted with controversial and polarizing votes, and typically have made a lot of enemies on the national level.”
One factor that could begin to reverse this trend is the growing importance of national security. In the first half of the Cold War (1948-1968), Americans elected precisely zero governors: Truman had been vice president and senator (and president, of course), Eisenhower had been a general, Kennedy had been a senator, Johnson had been vice president and senator (and president, of course), Nixon had been vice president and senator.
One reason for the upper chamber’s upper hand in the middle chapters of the 20th century is the Cold War. Senators grapple with national security issues (although they seldom solve them). As Karnick observes, they are forced to take positions on controversial issues. These include treaties, war and peace, and other affairs of state. Governors don’t have to do this.
But as America got used to the Cold War ebb and flow—and as D.C. insiders like Johnson and Nixon proved that it was time to give an outsider a chance—the country grew more comfortable with turning the reins over to governors. Thus began a new era of dominance by governors—Carter, Reagan (in Bush 41, the American people were voting for a third Reagan term, a victory lap), Clinton and Bush 43. Among those they defeated were Senators Mondale, Dole, Gore and Kerry—Mondale and Gore having the added weight (as in millstone around their necks) of serving as vice president.
If the trend holds, the Democrats could face a problem, as Karnick explains. But national security is in ascent, Americans are uncertain about the course and trajectory of the war on terror, and the American people are dissatisfied with how Bush 43, a governor, has handled the Iraq war. That could mean that the pendulum of presidential power will swing back to senators.
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here
