Posted on 12/31/2014 4:23:04 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
As government’s scope expands, voters see the advantages of a candidate from inside the Beltway.
In 1947, U.S. historian Wilfred E. Binkley took stock of the 13 men who had been president since the end of the Civil War and reached a stark conclusion: Governorship was “a training school for successful presidents.” The seven ex-governors on the list – including both Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin – were far more effective chief executives than the six others.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said pretty much the same thing during the Republican Governors Association meeting last month. “We’re better at it,” Christie told his fellow state leaders. “The American people are done with the experiment of having somebody (as president) who’s never run anything before.” He was preaching to the choir. The list of potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates is dominated by governors. Alongside Christie, there’s John Kasich (Ohio), Scott Walker (Wisconsin), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Mike Pence (Indiana) and Rick Scott (Florida). And don’t forget Florida’s former Gov. Jeb Bush and Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee, who are considering presidential runs as well.
But if you look across our nation’s whole history, it’s hardly clear that former governors make the best presidents. The ranks of governor-turned-presidents include not just the Roosevelts, after all, but also Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge and Jimmy Carter.
Governors’ fates during presidential elections have ebbed and flowed, reflecting shifts in how Americans think about government itself. Before the American Revolution, Colonial governors were appointed by the British crown. Americans in the early republic continued to view them with suspicion: In seven of the original 13 states, governors were elected for just one-year terms.
The job was certainly no steppingstone toward the White House. After George Washington, the next five presidents were vice presidents or secretaries of state when they ran. When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in the 1830s to study its nascent democracy, one politician told him, “The governor counts for absolutely nothing and is only paid $1,200!”
After the Civil War, governors started to come into popular favor. In 1876, both parties nominated a governor for president. Although New York Gov. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, Ohio Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes received the majority in the Electoral College. (It was the Bush v. Gore election of its day.)
For 52 of the next 68 years, the Oval Office was occupied by former governors. State governments in the early 1900s became “laboratories of democracy,” as future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called them, experimenting with workplace safety regulation and a host of other reforms. That made state governors like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson into much more prominent figures, who moved easily onto the national stage.
But after World War II, experience in Washington came into vogue. All of our chief executives from Truman to Ford were former members of Congress, with the notable exception of ex-Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Amid the national security concerns of the Cold War, voters wanted their commander in chief to be someone who knew his way around the federal government.
Writing in 1959, pollster Louis Harris wondered whether an ex-governor could ever win the presidency again. “In a cosmic, atomic, mass-media age, governors have shrunk to … local figures,” Harris wrote.
But the tide would turn again in the 1970s, when the Watergate scandal soured Americans on Washington pols. At the same time the rise of modern conservatism devolved many powers to the states and made “Washington, D.C.” a term of derision and scorn. Starting with Carter in 1976, four of the next five presidents were former governors.
Then came a U.S. senator, Barack Obama, who beat the trend. He defeated a fellow senator (John McCain) the first time around and an ex-governor (Mitt Romney) the next. His party appears likely to select another ex-senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to run in 2016.
So despite all the Republican governors lining up to be the presidential nominee, don’t be surprised if Republicans choose a senator with a national profile – say, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.
The scope of the federal government has greatly expanded during the Obama years, including health care, the National Security Agency and the presidential order on immigration. And the more influence that the federal government exerts on voters, the more they see the advantages of a candidate from inside the Beltway. Like it or not, that makes Congress – not the statehouse – the more likely training school for our next president.
Works for me. I’m okay with Haley Sikh-ing higher office.
Does Chris Christie oppose machine guns? That isn’t his ad, just someone trying to ride his coattails; Christie easily wins the parts of NJ with the most gun owners, while not doing so well in the progressive anti-gun areas.
I see what you did there....
Rep. Scott Garrett in northwestern NJ is great as well; he represents the more “American” part of NJ.
I actually liked the concept of the toilet paper tax because it would be the only way to get any revenue out of a segment of our population; Florio himself was a nightmare.
NJ isn’t far from where CT and MA are, though the high taxes keep it somewhat competitive; even die-hard Dems are tired of watching their hard-earned money go directly to public employees and on to the Democratic Party. NJ is losing Americans and replacing them with foreigners; we’ve had a de facto amnesty here for decades.
Most senators bring nothing to the table except their mouth and lobbyists.
Governors bring a wealth of administrative, management and governing experience. By far, they are best prepared for the job.
I think Reagan would have been great whether he came from the Senate, or the governor’s office.
The man knew what he believed, and knew how to defend and advance his opinions, like Cruz.
Haley isn’t Sikh.
If he was, he'd be shredded on FR for all his liberal tendencies, LOL.
No. I think not.
Watch
The only shredding that takes place v Cruz is very bizarre and is always quickly run off
Not ever for his liberal tendencies. He has none
You think that she is not an actual Christian but is faking it?
Or do you think that she is a Christian who shows respect to her parent’s and the Sikh community, and is not a Sikh herself?
“” She occasionally visits a Sikh temple in honor of her family’s tradition, but she regularly attends a Methodist church. Her new book, Can’t Is Not an Option, explains her conversion to Christianity “”
I think she is a Christian, and many of her own political stands are more in line with traditional Christianity than what the United Methodists officially hold.
Personally, I wouldn’t attend a worship service of a non-Christian sect, even if they were family.
I am of the mind that easterners have less attachment to the principle of non-contradiction on these matters, though I cannot read Gov. Haley’s mind.
Even if she WERE Sikh, that would not, in my mind, disqualify her from anything. I’m all for Mike Lee and Bay Buchanan (mostly).
I will try to get my hands on her conversion story from her book, as you cited an authoritative source.
I like the governor a lot, and I was just trying to have fun with the pun.
An interesting conversion story that I find inspiring, is Bobby Jindal’s.
He was converted from Hinduism by a Southern Baptist in what seems to be a sincere and passionate commitment to Christ, his passion kept him involved and engaged, and he became a Catholic eventually.
That ad was paid for by his campaign. Read the fine print at the bottom.
PENCE appears to be giving it serious thought.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/29/politics/pence-israel-2016-trip/
Glad to see Pence ramping it up. Pence/Cruz or Cruz/Pence sounds good to me.
According to the print, it was paid for by both.
Chris Christie has no problem winning the votes of NJ gun owners; they are not distracted by the smoke & mirrors of the media (or of non-NJ residents on Free Republic).
Indiana legislative leaders are balking at the proposal to let Pence run for POTUS and reelection as Governor
They should let him run for both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.