Clinton in 2008: "Executives" v. "Legislators" in U.S. Presidential Elections

As we gear up for the party primaries heading into the 2008 elections--the first fully contested Presidential election in recent memory--I'm struck by how many U.S. Senators are jumping into the campaign fray on both sides of the aisle. Especially since all of the buzz surrounds the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton potentially becoming the first female U.S. President, it got me thinking about whether--gender, experience, political issues, and her husband's prior record aside--the U.S. is ready to elect a legislator to its highest executive office.

After all, the executive branch--by definition--is one based on decision-making, accountability, and the ability to execute ... in other words: leadership. On the other hand, the legislative branch--by definition and organizational structure--is one based on consensus-building, politicking, and the ability to legislate ... in other words: compromise.

Would American voters elect a legislator to its highest executive office?

Reviewing all of the Presidential elections since 1900 provides some interesting insights:

• Since 1900, there have been 27 U.S. Presidential elections.


• Of the 27 winners, only 2 were legislators (Warren Harding won the 1920 election as a sitting Senator from Ohio, and John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts). The rest were executives of some sort: 13 sitting Presidents, 3 sitting/former Vice Presidents, 6 sitting/former Governors, and 3 others (William Taft won the 1908 election as the sitting Secretary of War, Herbert Hoover won the 1928 election as the sitting Secretary of Commerce, and Dwight D. Eisenhower won the 1952 election as the sitting Supreme Commander of NATO).
  


• Of the 27 losers (major parties), only 6 were legislators. However, 4 of those 6 losses came in the 11 elections since Kennedy's win in 1960: Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election as a sitting Senator from Arizona, George McGovern lost the 1972 election as a sitting Senator from South Dakota, Bob Dole lost the 1996 election as a former Senator from Kansas, and John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts.
  

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for a legislator to become U.S. President. I would like to believe that the system works so well and American voters are so savvy that they recognize true leadership and always match the best candidate for the job. I've heard theories that focus on the track records of various candidates: executives tend to have records of bold decision-making while legislators have records of waffling and compromise. I've also heard theories related to career cost-benefit analysis: once you've been a Governor, Vice President, or President, there's nowhere else to go so you'll fight like hell to get the job, whereas a legislator (especially a U.S. Senator) could have employment for life so why take the risks of potentially getting a job with a term limit?

As for the recent trend of the major parties running more legislators (in a losing cause), perhaps the advent of television and the Internet since Kennedy's 1960 victory have contributed to Senators being able to command a national following with relatively little effort? I don't know.

However, here's an interesting observation that bodes well for Sen. Clinton: most of the talk surrounding her has focused more on two intangibles (her gender and her husband) than on pure experience, capabilities, or political issues, but the exact same was true of the only 2 legislators to win Presidential elections since 1900. Warren Harding has drawn continual criticism for winning elections based on his "Presidential" looks (he hardly even campaigned for his successful Presidential bid), and John F. Kennedy was more popular for his youth, good looks, and pedigree than for anything else.

Regardless of whether American voters are ready to elect a legislator to the country's top executive post, perhaps history, human nature, and the power of technology will run in favor Sen. Clinton next year? Only time will tell.