How should an aspiring candidate for President of the United
States go about attaining that esteemed office?—an office whose occupant was
regularly referred to as “the leader of the free world” when part of that world
was behind an iron curtain. Mitt Romney spent six years of his life campaigning
for the job only to lose it to an incumbent whose record on “pocket-book
issues: was mixed at best. Perhaps it is possible to want something too much.
Fortunately, a more substantive alternative
is also possible.
Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State.
As Hillary Clinton was nearing the end of her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Bloomberg, who was nearing the end of his own mayoralty in New York City, encouraged her to run for his office. Being every bit “New York,” the New York Times refers to the option as “trading international diplomacy for municipal management on the grandest scale.” In case anyone misses my sarcasm here, I should add that being mayor of New York City is not merely executive experience on a grand scale. Being chief executive of The City could be comparable to being governor of some states. Accordingly, becoming mayor of the city that never sleeps could give the former legislator and chief diplomat significant experience as a chief executive. Ironically, the latter could be most essential to the presidency.
Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State.
As Hillary Clinton was nearing the end of her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Bloomberg, who was nearing the end of his own mayoralty in New York City, encouraged her to run for his office. Being every bit “New York,” the New York Times refers to the option as “trading international diplomacy for municipal management on the grandest scale.” In case anyone misses my sarcasm here, I should add that being mayor of New York City is not merely executive experience on a grand scale. Being chief executive of The City could be comparable to being governor of some states. Accordingly, becoming mayor of the city that never sleeps could give the former legislator and chief diplomat significant experience as a chief executive. Ironically, the latter could be most essential to the presidency.
Alternatively, were Hillary Clinton really intent at the
time on running for presidency, political consultants might have been
whispering in her other ear, “you need to
get up to New Hampshire and over to Iowa.” However, early and regular
visits to those states do not, as the case of Mitt Romney suggests, necessarily
translate into winning come election day. This is not to say that a third
alternative, such as taking a well-deserved break—maybe
writing a book—might not be preferable to being mayor of New York City.
Nevertheless, in the choice between never-ending campaigning and governing, it
would be nice to think that the American people would reward substance over
excess eagerness. The people have not exactly demanded of a president that he
(or she) be a senior statesman when it comes to governmental experience. John
Adams had been U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (besides having had a hand in
the writing of the U.S. Constitution) before being elected president. Thomas Jefferson
had been the U.S. Secretary of State (besides having had a hand in, well…you
know). Had he lived, James Hamilton might have been president after having
served as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Experience can even be ex post facto, as when President Taft
joined the U.S. Supreme Court after serving
as president.
From the perspective of having several substantive
governmental offices, an occupant of the office of U.S. president can have both
wisdom and perspective. That is, such a person would be more likely to discern
instinctively the forest from those particular trees that demand too much
attention. Such a person would be more oriented to the system as a whole, as
President Jackson was when he opposed funding the Second National Bank of the U.S.
even as he opposed South Carolina’s nullification act (by which the state
legislature could invalidate U.S. laws detrimental to the state’s interest).
That is to say, the president was oriented to protecting what he saw as a
balance in the federal system. His perspective was systemic and thus not primarily partisan
or even bureaucratic in nature.
To be sure, putting someone in the office who might be
suspected of sporting a suitable countenance is ultimately up to the American
people—whether we value it enough. Lest it be pointed out that few candidates
could be found, it is also up to the candidates themselves—whether they are
willing to substitute more governmental experience for the seemingly endless parade
of chicken dinners. To those candidates, I would say: focus on the knitting and
the campaigning will take care of itself; focus on the campaigning, however,
and the sweater could slowly unravel from all the waving and handshakes. In
short: have faith that investing in governing now will pay off later. This
could mean trusting in the judgment of the American electorate, or being a leader (hence gaining leadership
experience!) by providing a higher example of real presidential material. Of
course, the people may not be wise or virtuous enough of character to grasp
such leadership, in which case the republic itself will decline even in spite
of the suitable candidates.
Source:
Michael Barbaro, “Clinton for Mayor in ’13?Bloomberg Asked Her to Consider Succeeding Him,” The New York Times, December 4, 2012.

No comments:
Post a Comment