I can't believe that talk radio has already switched the discussion from the last election to the next election, which I remind them is four years away. Please do not talk incessantly about it until then. Please! While you are at it, you can also drop the Michael Jackson and courtroom play-by-play. Enough already.
That being said, in the next election and with no VP running for the top slot, what position better qualifies an individual to be President, the U.S. Senator or the State Governnor? One knows the mysterious insider ways and incantations of the federal government, while the other has actually had to manage people and programs albeit on a smaller scale. I am not thinking of any individual per se, but just the general job description of one who holds a particular office. Do they have what it takes to be POTUS? Perhaps in addition to these two, are there other occupations or career paths that make one "presidential". I think Truman was a haberdasher (that's a hat salesman for you 21st-century-types), Washington was a surveyor in addition to a general, and of course Reagan was an actor. They did it. Maybe there's something bigger than career and experience that leads one down the presidential road?
I'd say a Governor is usually the better training for POTUS. An executive (in business and in government) has training in managing time and resources and guiding subordinates to greater tasks, and I think that is the mindframe of a good Presidential executive. I heard a good sound-bite difference between Governors and Senators (or executives and legislators): The former have convictions while the latter have positions. That is, the nature of the senatorial job allows one to have positions that can be compromised, but the nature of an executive is to discharge duties to get results; that requires uncompromising tenacity.
This reminds me of one of the recorded online lectures here at ISI's website. Peter Augustine Lawler gave a fascinating lecture on the different models of presidents . . . the populist leader and the administrator. A Wilson or a Reagan are those that define moral goals for a nation and kind of rally to a purpose or cause. A George H. W. Bush or a John Adams are those that preserve an existing legacy by deemphasizing rhetoric and emphasizing political professionalism, or in FDR's phrase "enlightened administration".
By the way, does anyone here download the ISI online lectures? They're a real treasure trove.
Yes, I download and listen to many of the online lectures when I do not know what to do with my time. It puts my time to good use, and it is not as taxing as reading a book especially if you want a break from academic studies.
