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
Are you pro-life? If so, do you accept the Randian/self-interest/pro-abortion plank in their platform?
It's what keeps me out of the Libertarian movement.
Actually, FR did support the reelection of George Bush but that's not my point.
Some of the discontented said they have dropped out, it was all over in 1865, etc. So, if that is really the way you discontents feel then you would find other entertainment.
But, as we both know, that's not it. You're like flies buzzing around a cowpie. You're not part of it but you want to smell the action.
While we may agree, your tag is still unpronounceable.
See ya.
I have a right to speak, according to the First Amendment, and a right to post on FR, if I follow the rules.
If FR exists only to cheerlead the Republican Party, then it's declined a long, long way since the old days.
It's going to be another Bob Dole year. Condi Rice was our only hopeful candidate with enough "star" power to knock out Hillary. I'm going to throw away my TV....I won't be able to stand watching her on it every day!
No one has challenged your right to speak although speaking here is up to the folks who own this website. That is true for all of us.
FR is doing just fine. There are still plenty of discontents buzzing around but there are a lot more good conservatives with common sense and that's what keeps it healthy.
I'll let you in on a secret: Guiliani would destroy Hillary. She's lost her far-left base because of her support for the invasion of Iraq, and that just enough for a loss in the general election.
Common sense means W is the Second Coming. Errr...no.
Oh, and "discontent" means "someone dares to disagree with me."
In an open forum, you mean to say "opposing viewpoint." Stop letting emotion get in the way of your rhetoric, and pay attention to the terms you pick up from other people. Some day, it may make a difference.
It's been a blast. I've got to go teach class. There are mushy young minds to mold and all...
I agree the system sucks and doesn't reflect many of our ideals, but good people disengaging is what allowed it to degenerate. It may be an uphill battle to nudge it back into the true mainsteram, but it's a battle that needs good people to engage in.
I think that is what many are doing. They will no longer vote for any big government, socialist puppet no matter what party letter they have tattooed on their arse.
I think Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) will be the next US President.
Yes she said it yesterday that accepting the VP slot is the same thing. She's not running for President or VP.
It will never happen. Bush is too loyal to Cheney and Cheney will not leave until the end of the term. Condi is not going to run and that's that. But the media and Dick Morris can keep pushing it and look like fools. I personally think she has her eye on Football or teaching.
Condi is at risk of winning the Presidency as an involuntary write-in candidate.
Actually, I think she's more likely to turn up as a Vice Presidential candidate. And as VP candidate, she'd ensure the victory of just about any Presidential candidate. She can protest 'til the cows come home, but when the leading Republican Presidential candidate goes to her and says "We need you," don't be too surprised if she says "Yes".
I looked at the issue of abortion as outside the jurisdiction of the Federal government. I think that short of a constitutional amendment one way or the other, it ought to be left to each state to decide.
Thank you for your reply.
Since I have to deal with the NC Libertarian Party, hard-core pro-abortionists who support infanticide in the name of "self-interest."
Murder to serve selfishness.
It's wrong on any level.
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.