I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now, but now that I have a little time (90 minutes give or take by my watch) I thought I'd write this down and throw it out to everyone.
(In advance I apologize if this has already been commented on, but I don't have as much time to read dKos as I used to).
This diary focuses on the question "who makes a better president: a senator or a governor?", and while I'm not going to try to answer that question, I am going to offer my thoughts as to why all of the top contenders this election cycle are sitting senators, while the governor's have failed to make the cut.
This is a diary that could have many subtitles. But at it's core I think (after 2 wonderful glasses of cabernet) it's about how this election is turning - on so many levels - into an absolute repudiation of the Bush years, and the Bush philosophy of governance.
First, I offer this handy little summary:
George W. Bush = former governor
Bill Clinton = former governor
George HW Bush = former VP
Ronald Reagan = former governor
Jimmy Carter = former governor
Gerald Ford = US Rep/VP
Richard Nixon = US Rep/Sen/VP
Lyndon Johnson = US Rep/Sen/VP
John F Kennedy = US Rep/Sen
Over the past 48 years we've had presidents who were former governors for about 1/2 the time. I am not a historian, but as I look at this list I see that during the cold war/civil rights era we had reps/senators who became presidents. As we moved into the end of the cold war and post-cold war we had presidents who were former governors.
I think it's significant that in this current election cycle, we see that the front-runners are all senators, not governors. (For those who consider Huckabee a serious contender I will grant you that he hasn't withdrawn, but to my eyes the handwriting is on the wall...)
Why is this? What does it mean? For years on talk radio, which prior to the advent of the internet and blogs provided the bulk of my information and perspective, I had heard that governors had the executive experience required to be president. That senators didn't have real experience. They just debated legislation (and by extension the ideas and philosophy behind that legislation).
But with George W Bush we see the ultimate in presidential power grabbing. He described himself as the decider. Regardless of polls, of public opinion, of what experts - be they from the military, the scientific community, established think-tanks, or whatever - it was only the will of the elected president that mattered. And he alone (unless you wanted to hold him responsible and accountable for his actions) was the one responsible and in charge.
That's the kind of thing a governor has experience at. Making decisions. Being bold, decisive, resolute (remember that buzzword??)
But why now are the leading presidential candidates in both parties this cycle senators, not governors?
The US Senate is called the world's most deliberative body. I can't help but think that
after 8 years of "follow me off a cliff no matter what" leadership that the entire country, even the 30% die-hard conservatives, are ready to have intelligent discussions about serious issues. Let's stop the bumper-sticker approach to crafting policy. Let's bring serious people together to discuss serious issues and arrive at workable, practical, solutions that will allow the county to move forward again.
More than anything in this entire democratic process we are seeking a return TO the democratic process. And I think that we are reaching out to senators to help us return to that process.
I had a discussion with a fellow professor last week. Without knowing it we both voted for the same candidate in the primary (whom we voted for is irrelevant to this diary, so I'm leaving that out). We had an extended discussion in which we agreed that of the top 3 candidates, McCain, Obama, Clinton, there was not one that we would be embarrassed to call president.
Furthermore, regardless of who wins we agreed that while one candidate may not completely mesh with our political ideology, we felt that all of the candidates would be able to help restore the process of democracy that has made our country what it is.
So while we will work hard to elect our candidates of choice I think that collectively, as a nation, we have already come together and decided it's time to return to the democratic process that has served us so well over the last 200 years. We have chosen to put forth candidates who, by there very nature, are used to discussing ideas (and further it should be noted that McCain is of the old school where they did this, not the new batch of young senators who grew up with Grover Norquist as their guide).
There will be those who disagree and will want to point out vote after vote, and instance after instance in which one of the top 3 did not live up to this ideal. And while there are always exceptions I ask you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What I see is actually more promising and gives more cause for greater hope than I've had in years.
I wonder what you think...