David Broder defines ‘executive experience’

January 17, 2008

It’s one of those political truisms that everyone seems to know — senators don’t usually win presidential elections. In American history, only two sitting senators — Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy — have ever won the White House, and only five others — Lewis Cass, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Bob Dole, and John Kerry — even got their respective party’s nomination. Governors, Bill Richardson liked to remind us during his campaign, tend to do a lot better.

That is, up until fairly recently. In 2004, three Democratic candidates won primaries — Kerry, Edwards, and Clark — and there wasn’t a governor among them. In 2008, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have been the Dems’ top tier for a year, and once again, no governors. Among the Republicans’ top six candidates, only two are governors. Other governors threw their hat into the ring — Vilsack, Gilmore, Richardson — but didn’t fare well at all.

I suspect people can come up with a variety of explanations for this trend — George W. Bush’s presidency certainly hasn’t helped the notion that the best presidents are former governors — but David Broder seems troubled by the development.

It was … stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience among them.

By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.

In the past, voters have preferred to entrust the White House to those with executive credentials. John Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elevated to the presidency. Since then, the former governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas have dominated the list of successful candidates. All of them stumbled during their tenures in the White House, and only Ronald Reagan left the presidency with his place in the history books seemingly securely enhanced.

But the public remains convinced that the Oval Office is a place for executive talents — which makes the current Democratic field something of an anomaly.

Is the “public” convinced of this, or is David Broder?

Broder has a variety of frustrating quirks, but near the top of the list is his tendency to state his opinion by asserting, without proof or argument, that the “public” and he are of the same mind. He wants a governor to win — he admitted as much in May — and so therefore, naturally, the “public” has the same attitude.

As far as I can tell, given that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all lead hypothetical, general-election match-ups against the entire Republican field, it looks like the “public” isn’t convinced at all that the “Oval Office is a place for executive talents.” Broder’s going to have to try harder to explain why the rest of us are so wrong.

For that matter, as Steve M. explained, Broder seems to have to stretch his definitions quite a bit to help make his predetermined conclusions meet reality. Obviously, Romney and Huckabee were chief executives of their respective states. Giuliani was a mayor, but given his responsibilities, that’s not exactly the same thing.

But it’s the McCain argument that seems excessive. McCain has been a lawmaker in Washington for a quarter-century. To borrow Giuliani’s line, McCain has never run a city, or a state, or a business. But that’s fine, Broder asserts, because he led a Navy squadron.

Obviously, McCain’s heroic military service demands respect. That said, Steve M.’s point certainly rings true: “[S]how of hands: How many of you think a relatively short period of commanding a squadron as a young man 40 years ago means that you are now, in your seventies, ‘accustomed to being in charge of large organizations’?”

It’s almost as if Broder wanted to criticize Dems, praise McCain, and throw in some baseless Reagan adulation, whether the facts warranted it or not.

FWIW

The odds of are basically the same for all the Democrats in the general election. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Gore all have about a 63% chance of winning the general election IF THEY WIN THE NOMINATION

However, Giuliani and McCain have about a 43% chance while Huckabee has a 36% chance. Romney has the worst chance of anyone at 29%.

I am not sure what this has to do with executive experience but it does show that Romney would be the easiest Republican to beat.

  • When I read Broder this morning, aside from the usual post-Broder queasiness and the issues CB points out, I choked on this line:

    only Ronald Reagan [among the former Governors since Kennedy] left the presidency with his place in the history books seemingly securely enhanced

    Now, I have two problems with this.

    1) With regard to the former Governor of Arkansas, which part of the 90s didn’t Broder like, the peace or the prosperity?

    2) If Reagan is “enhanced” it is only because the Republicans have won long enough to start writing the history books or the American people are easily duped by B-grade movie stars. The man was a clueless, shameless, lying crook, better than Nixon only in his apparent charm.

  • I expect you’re right.

    The anti-senator thing I think has more to do with personality aspects that are related to the jobs. Kerry was the picture of a buttoned down, wealthy northeastern, intellectual, elite senator, who spoke in lawyerese. This is typical of senators, but people like Dukakis and Romney also show aspects of this — northeastern businessmen. Hillary and Obama also radiate intellectual — a negative in a president, apparently. The Senate was meant to be composed of an elite, wealthy, intellectual group of people, and so it mostly is. Governors are generally more populist in the way the present themselves, and this is what people respond to, also, in a president.

  • Gee whiz! In the past Americans have preferred their presidents to be Caucasian Men. Surrender Clinton & Obama!

    Like every other cheerleader, Brodie thinks another layer of gold paint will conceal the stench of the cow pat.

  • As near as I can tell from some Googling, McCain’s command of a squadron (VA-174, which trained pilots and maintenance personnel for Atlantic Fleet Light Attack Squadrons) lasted a year at most. He assumed command in July, 1976. It’s hard to see how this experience forty-one years ago has much weight.

  • “On January 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm, Dennis – SGMM said:
    As near as I can tell from some Googling, McCain’s command of a squadron (VA-174, which trained pilots and maintenance personnel for Atlantic Fleet Light Attack Squadrons) lasted a year at most. He assumed command in July, 1976. It’s hard to see how this experience forty-one years ago has much weight.”

    I’m afraid your math is WAY OFF…. Try 31 years, not 41…

  • David Broder admires the corporate culture. So yeah: he adulates those would feed the corporate hydra.

  • It’s almost as if Broder wanted to criticize Dems, praise McCain, and throw in some baseless Reagan adulation, whether the facts warranted it or not.

    But the Dean of the Washington press corps would NEVER do anything like that, could NEVER be so crass…it would NEVER cross his mind.

  • I believe it was never really a consideration with the voters whether one was a governor or a senator when running for office of president. The public would vote for who they considered to be the best leader at the moment regardless of past positions held

    ***Keep in mind CB when including statistical information that Bush was never actually “elected” to office, that when votes were counted Gore won and Kerry won.

    Broder always assumes the public thinks like he thinks. Still trying to prove his credibility

  • What does “Dean Dumbass” say about whether we should get our punditry from people who have been consistently wrong about things or not?

    I’m guessing he could care less.

  • I’m afraid your math is WAY OFF…. Try 31 years, not 41…

    Sure is. I’m so mathematically challenged that I can’t understand how lowering taxes increases revenues.

    That said, McCain’s “executive experience” is still several decades stale. At the heart of it, though, is that command experience in the military rarely translates well as executive experience because a military commander must be obeyed. A military commander does not have to ask, request, cajole or wheedle his or her subordinates to carry out an order. He or she does not need to compromise or convince, just command. That’s why so few Generals have been elected President.

  • Corporate Repugs appear desperate for an easily manipulated “executive,” especially now that Giuliani has faded. Romney may fit the bill.
    Although the quality of “executive” leadership over the last decade or so has been not only laughable, but also a myth, those on the right like Broder make great followers, excusing and lying for their chosen “leaders.”
    Witness the deification of Saint Ronnie, who was a Hollywood joke before he discovered politics; as zeitgeist pointed out “a clueless, shameless, lying crook, better than Nixon only in his apparent charm” and also Ronnie was a great friend to corrupt corporate behavior. They’d hoped for Rudy, now Mitt will have to suffice.

  • ***Keep in mind CB when including statistical information that Bush was never actually “elected” to office, that when votes were counted Gore won and Kerry won.

    It is a pity that people really believe that Kerry won.

    Gore should have won but he made a big mistake soon after Election Day. Gore didn’t ask for a state-wide recount. If he had then he should have won. Since Gore didn’t ask for the state-wide recount then Bush had more votes.

    Unfortunately, the butterfly ballot cost Gore a ton of votes. Kicking people off the rolls cost Gore a lot of votes.

    Nader cost Gore a lot of votes. Lieberman running for re-election cost Gore some votes.

    However, look at the final score. Bush got more votes in Florida than Gore did.

  • neil, that logic strikes me as pretty disingenuous, not to mention morally blindered.

    if i go to the bank and rob the vault, at the moment i escape i “got” more money than the bank does in any moral, legal, equitable or final sense. doesn’t mean it is rightfully mine any more than Bush’s vote advantage in Florida was rightfully his.

  • Actually, John Edwards started a law firm that he and his law partner ran for twenty years, so he does have some level of executive experience.

  • Lets try this again, with enough words to actually make sense:

    if i go to the bank and rob the vault, at the moment i escape i “got” more money than the bank — but not in any moral, legal, equitable or final sense. doesn’t mean the cash is rightfully mine any more than Bush’s vote advantage in Florida was rightfully his.

  • Senators traditionally debate, opine, posture, schmooze with lobbyists, vote.

    Governors, mayors, corporate heads, generals, even university presidents must deal every day with any number of constituents, employees, program heads, often highly disagreeable and competitive folks.

    You could make the argument that Senators recently are in charge of enormously expanded Senatorial staffs and budgets, but they each have a Chief of Staff to handle executive functions, so their traditional role isn’t affected much.

    What has made the difference is that everybody who wants to be Senator or President or anything else beyond a Federal judge must now have TeeVee face time, a telegenic appearance, mastery of the sound bite. That’s ALL they need. Anything else gets in the way of a likable TeeVee appearance.

    To contemporary Americans personal image is the ONLY thing that matters. The old executive-legislative division of labor means nothing. Nor is this confined to government. If Broder were starting out today, instead of holding on to his faded career, he’d be competing with jutting jawed, blond/e hairdos above tanned handsome/beautiful faces and blindingly white capped teeth. That’s all that’s left of journalism.

  • If Broder were starting out today, instead of holding on to his faded career, he’d be competing with jutting jawed, blond/e hairdos above tanned handsome/beautiful faces and blindingly white capped teeth.

    Played by William Hurt, no doubt.
    Broadcast News always was one of my favorite movies.

  • John Gotti, Al Capone and Carlo Gambino all had extensive experience running organizations and acting as powerful authority figures, yet none would b worthy of being a US president.

    Broder’s columns are all about his self-interest as the imaginary king of the Village. My impression about this current topic is that Broder prefers a governor without extensive experience inside the Beltway so the Insiders can show him the ropes and give the new president proper “respect” for the way Beltway Insiders want to do business. A US Senator would know how the game is played and would be detrimental to folks like Broder conducting business as usual.

    A variant of Occam’s Hatchet usually explains a Broder column: the most wildly selfish explanation is usually the most accurate. Call it Broder’s Hatchet if you will.

  • Well Bush was a governor and look what 8 years of “experience” has gotten us. Heck Huey P. Long was a governor and there is no way in hell that man should have ever been president. Experience doesn’t equal judgement – and frankly not all experience is equal.

  • It’s almost as if Broder wanted to criticize Dems, praise McCain, and throw in some baseless Reagan adulation, whether the facts warranted it or not. — CB

    Yeah, well he had a deadline, so there wasn’t much else he could do.

  • I think the reason Americans tend to prefer Governors is more simple and direct. Legislators build up a long record of votes, which invariably includes compromises that one group or another won’t like. It is pretty easy to troll for just the right vote to make a legislator look bad. The connection between governors and legislation is more tenuous so it is far more difficult to nail them to the wall unless they commute the sentence of some criminal who then goes on to murder someone.

    As we all know, negative campaining can be VERY effective.

    • Comments are closed.