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
The Buchanan, Tancredo, Keyes et al. for President supporters on FR amaze me. Throw money at a candidate who will garner less than 5% of the vote and flame everyone else at FR for not passing 100% conservative purity tests...with "conservatism" being defined as cult-like devotion to the candidate.
We're willling to support a real leader, who won't trample the Constitution (which was all the Second Revolution was about, really). In the meantime, I'll sit back and watch the show.
I for one, hope that she gets nominated.
In our house, we're backing Alan Keyes, again.
In a round about way you're backing Hillary.
I agree with you. The fringe has always been with us. What comforts me these days is the fact that the Left has it's fringe, too, but theirs has taken over the Dem asylum.
If and that's a BIG IF she changed her mind and ran I would vote for her in a heartbeat. But I don't think she wants to run at all. She has a ringside seat as to what its like being president and I think it leaves a lousy taste in her mouth. She sees the hell Bush goes thru with the democrats even though we still have the majority in Congress. I think she would prefer doing what she really likes from now on.
Frankly, I don't think a Hillay Presidency will make any difference.
Except for one thing: when W comes on TV to read a script (badly), I usually shut it off with a shake of my head. When Hillary comes on TV, I shut it off to retain my previous meal.
But as for the actual effects on my life? Will my rights increase instead of decrease? Will my taxes go down? Will someone finally hunt down and kill Osama? Will we finally confront China and stop selling out the country? Will we treat the War on Terror as a real war and seal the borders?
No, to all of those, regardless of who's in the White House. Nuts to all of them.
Mike Pence.
Please read my #15. I don't expect much.
W is STILL no Reagan.
It won't make any difference.
Is there any point at which she has said she will not accept the #2 slot on the ticket?
There are lots of good congresspeople, but I've little contact with them. My Congressman is a Duke University Communist who's safely gerrymandered into his district, and as for Libby Dole and that corporate puppet Hayes...'nuff said. I quit.
"In our house, we're backing Alan Keyes, again."
In other words, you're not interested in EVER winning. ;-)
And you're still a whiny, narcissistic weenie.
I've offered this on FR several times in the past, I'll try one more time:
Primaries are where you get to work for and vote your conscience, the General Election is where you vote against the sob's on the left. It's really not a difficult thing to comprehend.
Just did. Thanks for the reference.
Those who keep bringing up her name and hoping she will run are the same ones who hoped in 00 that Colin Powell would run, and then, after his poor SoS stint, were glad he didn't.
Dr. Rice is good at her job. But we have little or no idea of her political philosophy.
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.