Posted on 01/17/2006 7:26:57 AM PST by SirLinksalot
January 17, 2006
Condi Says She’s Not Running. Believe It.
By Jay Cost
Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that Condoleeza Rice once again said that she is not seeking the presidency. Of course, the fact that she has to consistently deny that she is seeking the presidency indicates that people do not really believe her denials. Perhaps it is because they do not want to believe them. Rice always polls very well among Republican primary voters. And many think that she would be a safe bet in 2008. She is likeable, qualified and capable of securing African-American voters (so the conventional wisdom goes). But Condi keeps saying no, she will not run.
The question: should people believe her?
The answer: definitely. Condoleeza Rice will not seek the presidency in 2008. The reason for this is that the position of Secretary of State is no longer one from which the presidency can reasonably be sought. The fact that Rice took that job – and obviously has no intention of leaving it – indicates that she has no interest in the presidency.
A long time ago, State was almost a prerequisite for the White House. Six of our first fifteen presidents – Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan – served as Secretary of State prior to election to the White House. What is more, there is a long list of presidential candidates who served in the same capacity, either before or (mostly) after their White House run – notably Henry Clay, John Calhoun, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes and Alexander Haig. That office remains one of the preeminent political positions in this country. Of this there is no doubt.
However, it has not been a step to the presidency in 150 years. Zero of our last twenty-seven presidents have been Secretary of State. And the number of secretaries-turned-candidates has also been few and far between. Since Buchanan, only one person, James G. Blaine, has received a presidential nomination after having served as Secretary of State. The rest, like Bryan and Hughes, sought the presidency and lost – and were subsequently honored by a victorious president of their party with the post. This seems counterintuitive. After all, this position has very frequently been filled by individuals of immense talent and intelligence. Why has the American public not made use of this resource? The answer has to do with matters of politics, rather than matters of governance.
First, the number of prominent political positions, i.e. those from which an ambitious politician could stage a presidential campaign, have increased dramatically since the early days of the Republic. Governorships are now much more prominent on a national level. So, also, are seats in the Senate. These positions offer one a better opportunity for the kind of political posturing necessary to secure a major party nomination. Secretaries of State, on the other hand, must always be measured and reserved in their remarks. They are, after all, the nation’s chief diplomats.
Second, it is no coincidence that only three secretaries of State – Van Buren, Buchanan and Blaine – have received a presidential nomination since it was no longer in the hands of a party’s congressional caucus. Between roughly 1828 and 1960, party nominees were chosen largely by state party bosses at nominating conventions. It was unlikely that state bosses were thinking about the nation’s top diplomat when considering whom to nominate. Congressional caucuses, which nominated candidates in the early years of the Republic and which were much more connected to the happenings of the federal government, were more impressed by secretaries of State.
The rise of the political primary as a replacement for the boss-controlled nominating convention has not changed the secretary’s position vis-à-vis the presidency, either. In fact, it has worsened it. The top job at State is, to say the least, a labor-intensive one. The Secretary is required to put in much more time than, say, a governor or a senator, who can safely dedicate lots of time to campaigning. But the Secretary of State is always and exclusively at the service of the President. There is no time for glad-handing at a cookout in Iowa or fishing with the chair of the Manchester, NH Republican Party. There is also no time for the fundraising. Major party presidential nominees are no longer chosen by congressional caucus or by party bosses at a convention. They are now chosen by the people, who require long and expensive campaigns that begin months-to-years prior to the actual date of voting. No Secretary of State has time for that kind of commitment. This is probably why the post has most recently been held by individuals who seem to be at the end of their political careers: Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, George Schultz, etc.
So, while this job used to be one from which candidates would emerge, it is now no longer so. This is important for understanding Condoleeza Rice. If she wanted to be President in 2009, she would not be at State today. She would have secured for herself some other position of political prominence. State is perhaps the only position that is both maximally prominent and minimally effective for attaining the presidency. Why would she be there if she was interested in the White House?
If she is not interested in the presidency, she will not be running for the presidency. People who run for the White House have wanted to be President for a very long time. Nobody is drafted for that position, not anymore and not in the true sense of the word “draft”. Putting aside all the campaign rhetoric about duty or experience to justify candidacies, the bottom line is that people who actually run are people who are hungry for the office and who have worked for a long time to place themselves in a position from which they could attain it. Condi is clearly not such a person.
It is interesting to note, by way of conclusion, that Rice responded to the question about the 2008 race while she was literally on her way out the door to Africa. That should tell you all you need to know. Compare Rice to the other 2008 candidates – McCain, Romney, Allen, Clinton, etc. The latter are today thinking about and preparing for their campaigns. Condoleeza Rice is today thinking about US-Liberian relations. What else do you need to know? Condi will not run in 2008.
Jay Cost, creator of the Horse Race Blog, is a doctoral candidate of political science at the University of Chicago
Actually, the Roman currency had been debased to the point where farmers were forced off their lands and into the cities. The heart of Roman power lay in its landsmen.
Unnecessary wars of conquest had to be fought to acquire gold to pay the legions. Regional governers couldn't control their bureaucracies because their coinage was deemed worthless.
All this, because there was too much money chasing too few goods. And all of it caused because government spent more than it dared tax.
Everything fell apart. The barbarian invasions were a consequence of the fall, not the cause.
That show was perfectly cast. I always liked ole Floyd, the barber.
Praeger has contracted for my first two, and are holding a option on my third. They're based on oral histories I collected for my dissertation, and a lot of follow-up work I've done since.
I read your post with concerned interest.
You don't consider 'W' a win (I assume here you mean President Bush).
Later you state you are willing to support a real leader.
My question is who would you consider a real leader?
One who mixes in with the hip crowd? Who caters to the press by feeding them 'scoops'. Who gets on TV repeatedly and in his shining radiance swoons the US public? Who considers the office of President to be the attainment of unimaginable power.
Or one who states his goals, and accomplishes them? Time, after time. One who considers the office of President to be an unimaginable responsibility that must be given all of his energy to sustain. Who takes the path less traveled (cut taxes?) even though the other path is easier? Who states that his morals, his values, his concern for the US public will not be diminished during his term, and so far has proven it?
Oh, and by implying I'm a fraud by mentioning my students...you're confusing me with Stephen Ambrose, who published lots of books under his own name, all of which were ghostwritten save the first few (two I think, or maybe three). He did the original interviewing, then left the work of writing to others.
That's a fraud.
It would certainly change the ability of the Democratic Party (or should I say Soros-Communist Party) to complain about equal opportunity for all races of Americans.
I just had a haircut by a real life "Floyd". The true barber and barbershop is getting harder and harder to find. I doubt this gent will be with it much longer; I believe he stays open simply out of habit. Between stopping to talk and such it took him 45 minutes to cut my hair and he charged $6.
Trust me, no one would make that mistake.
I'm thinking delusions of grandeur here.
Reagan was a real leader. He clearly defined great goals, and met them. (My favorite Reagan quote: "What is my strategy for defeating the Soviet Union? We win and they lose.")
W is a puppet. He not only has never articulated great goals (what is the war on "terror"? "Terrorism" is a warfighting strategy, not an opponent), but I doubt he could spell the word. When we gave up chasing the Taliban and Osama, turned left, and seized oil fields, I didn't need to be told anything else.
If he'd close the borders, balance the Federal budget, kill Osama, and use tariffs to save the country from the Chinese, then I'd believe he was something substantial. I don't see it happening, and he's had five years to muck things up worse.
Ohh...someone taking a stand on FR!
Ambrose could afford to hire a ghost writer. That's the difference.
Ambraose sold his name. Like Tom Clancy, who wrote his first two books, and nothing since. Neither of them touched pen to paper, but carried on like they were king s**t. Their readers were led to believe the work was theirs. That fraud.
I'm misspelling too much. I'm getting tired. I think it's time to call it a day.
It's been keen.
Tom Clancy and Stephen Ambrose. Both great well-known authors. That's the difference.
Hey, if I'm worth nothing else...
A thread I enter elicits hundreds of replies, instead of the normal, meager twenty or thirty. (I'm on a private, history-based forum which routinely passes 1,000 replies on a thread.)
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip the waitresses.
I haven't had time to read all the responses between the first leg and the last of this thread.
So I will just refer to what I read so far.
I have been in the 'I quit' lane myself, so I make no judgments of you for it, and others would do well to do the same.
Some days I even let my faith drop. (It's not easy telling God, "I quit".) But I realize it is my failure and not God's.
I respectfully ask you questions so that we may both take something from the conversation.
I see way too many ad hominem attacks on these threads. It is like profanity. It is used as a substitute for knowledge.
My real point is, we need you.
I'm thinking bad mushrooms in the ravioli; perhaps intentionally.
You were right; it was all about him.
We're cool, you and I.
Ad hominem attacks just stimulate me. Unfortunately, they often stimulate me to return the same, and damn I hate stooping to that level. It IS funnier, though, hm?
No titles? Oral Histories are collections, so you are an editor, not the author. What about your "follow up work"...original writing or more collections?
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.