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.