Former Governors Make Better Presidents? REALLY?

MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008

It is widely known that people who have served their state as governor make better presidents than those who have not been executives in either state government of commercial business. This is because those people have experience in executive decision-making and administration building, staff leadership, direction and control.  But has this been true? Let’s check it out.

In retrospect, it seems that the effectiveness of presidents really turn on their mastery of "governing skills" rather than any "executive skills".  Being president of the United States is considerably different from being governor of any state or president of any large commercial enterprise, this primarily because the US president has to work so closely with congress to accomplish anything truly significant.  

Let’s look at some of our recent presidents, using those since World War II ended and leaving out Eisenhower because he served neither as governor or state legislator.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Truman and Nixon were senators prior to becoming president. George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford were former members of the House of Representatives.

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton  and George Bush (43) came in as governors.   

The former governors all brought large numbers of their former state staff members with them because those were the people they were familiar working with.  But – that also meant there were many people who had to learn the D. C. procedures. The former congressmen however, all had many surviving relationships with other current congressmen, additionally they were all familiar with preparing issues for presentation to the president so they knew well the type of input they should expect - and demand - from congress. 

All the congressmen, and especially Truman, Johnson and Ford - took over from presidents who died in office or resigned.  They came into office at a time of great national trauma and national crisis. Nonetheless, they were able to immediately govern effectively. These former congressmen all had been well prepared to govern as president from the beginning of their administrations. 

On the other hand, the former governors in this period were unable to perform their duties well during the first two years of their service.  Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George Bush 43, all came into Washington and took office during times of relative peace. Yet the first two years they were in office they floundered. Those were years in which they and the large contingent they brought in from their home states learned the ways of D.C.

If past is to be prologue, then it appears that you wouldn't want to let any former governor move into the presidency, especially during periods of crisis.  Historically, they have not been able to function at the beginning.  Former members of congress, on the other hand, have moved in smoothly and began serving the nation well from the first day.

So, when you ponder who should be selected to run for the presidency, whether for a primary selection or the actual November vote, don't just take my word for it but look back over what has actually happened in the past.  Then we can all make a better choice. 

© John Womack, 2008. All rights reserved.

Auto Bailout?

The rational for letting them go into bankruptcy is that if they can't compete in the free market they deserve to go under. Senator Sessions says no need to subsidize companies that can't operate on their own.

Problems with that: Yes, the companies can and probably should go bankrupt but a lot of their workers will have to go bankrupt too. It is a lot easier for companies to go through that procedure that for individuals. The companies get rid of their pension plans, health care provisions, seniority rules and a lot more. Individuals also get rid of their their pension plans, health care provisions, and seniority also, plus their jobs, income, and houses too.

More problems: It's not just the companies being unable to compete in a free market. And it's not just the case that government IS the problem, as Reagan so impudently proclaimed. He made that statement when the auto industry was "struggling" under CAFE standards. Those laws would probably by now have American cars running 30 to 50 mpg, and probably burning only American-produced gasoline.

There's a lot more. Just remember the Bush tax rewards for buying a gas guzzler for your "business". You could buy a Hummer or a 4-door diesel pickup truck for almost ZERO dollars when you factored in the tax break for buying those vehicles. And while those are only two of the Roadside Bombs the republican party planted in the path of the American automobile free market, you can get the idea.

Sure government can't really run a large auto company, but it can regulate those things. Above all, it can do the ONE MAIN THING those companies themselves never will be able to do - that is to work for the long range good of the American people instead of simply chasing the big profit for the current quarter.

© John Womack, 2008. All rights reserved

Blagojevich and His Prize.

Well, after six long years it appears the hell-hole on Cuba known as Guantanamo may finally be closed down. But now - along comes Blagojevich.

Maybe, just maybe, we could keep it open for a while longer. Blagojevich might be held in solitary confinement there but he would not be alone - at least not in the larger sense. We could fill the whole thing up. There's his predecessor, Ryan. And there's Cunningham too, and William Jefferson. Ted Stevens would probably enjoy the change of climate from Alaska. Gonzales might find the quietness a good place for reflection. Larry Craig wouldn't have to worry about tapping his foot anymore because they both will be shackled.

The U. S. Navy might have to add another wing or two to accommodate the flood of desperadoes. There would have to be room for Kilpatrick, Libby and Foley. Jim Wright and Gingrich could be roommates. Bob Livingston, Bob Ney and Bob Packwood could begin the "Bob wing". Adam Clayton Powell would probably be heard in endless monologues and Charles Keating and Neil Bush could try to finagle their respective ways out of here too. Dan Rostenkowski would make a good counsellor, and Tom DeLay could be the chaplin.

And the rest of the world could watch all this in awe. And envy.

© John Womack, 2008. All rights reserved.

Guilty at Guantanamo?

Five men held at Guantanamo announced they wanted to plead guilty to terrorism and other charges associated with the 9/11 attacks. Really? And on the very day that Obama won the election for the American presidency?

The old weekly magazines, from time to time, used to have cartoons which read: "How Many Things Can You Find Wrong In This Picture?" Remember? Well, it's no cartoon that is taking place at Guantanamo now. It is deadly serious - and not just for any foreigner who might be killed - because what has already happened there will result in the deaths of innumerable American servicemen captured by enemy forces for the next one-hundred years. Sunni and Shiite factions are still fighting each other over events that happened 1400 years ago.

This all smells strongly of Bush. It seem just one more feather for his personal cap, one more draught deeply drawn into his righteously-intoxicated brain cells. One more star to hang in his own texas heaven to hover there forever above crawfordville. Never mind that it could also promote this group of five men into their own "heaven" of martyrdom.

This also makes unimportant that these five men are all probably guilty indeed of some "evil doing". But whatever they might have done pales into unimportance compared with America abandoning its rich heritage of rights and laws, admitting smugly that it was all just a joke. It is the final gift of George Bush to the world that as he swaggers away from the corpse of American Ideals, he returns one last time to defecate and urinate upon the remains before he abandons them to whomever might come along later.

@ John Womack, 2008. All rights reserved.