ken zirkel

So Mark Warner has chosen not to run for the presidency in 2008. I have to say, I’m disappointed. The last two Democratic Presidents have been Southern governors, and I don’t think that’s a co-incidence. In fact, every President since 1976 has been a governor. I think the governorship is better preparation for the presidency than, say, the Senate. I remember reading George F. Will once that the Senate tends to make people long-winded and overly concerned with procedure and process, and thus makes people, well, boring. On the other hand, the governor’s mansion is more analagous to the Presidency, being a chief executive leadership position.

I don’t actually know much about Warner’s policies, but I don’t think it matters quite that much. Democrats tend to lead less by force of personality and more by consensus, by checking facts, consulting experts, and trying to make the best decision. Republicans like Reagan and Bush basically set an ideology and tone, and everybody knows where they stand on everything because individual policy decisions are not debated or discussed, they are decided according to a rigid ideological stance. Voters seem to prefer that, for some reason.

Anyhow, I bet the outcome would be more or less the same as if any Democrat were elected. Certain people — Bruce Babbitt, Bill Bradley, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt, maybe — would probably get important positions in the executive branch, and they would be given a reasonable amount of latitude in deciding policy for their agencies. The EPA, HUD, FEMA, etc would be run by people with some degree of experience in these areas, not by political hacks. I don’t expect it would be a golden age, by any means, but we’d have a functioning, respectable government again.

It does seem to be a pretty sad sign when that’s the best I’m hoping for, though.