Precedents of senatorial presidents

OPINION:

While the Democrats’ presidential nominee is still unknown, one thing is: They will choose a senator.

Therefore, regardless of who wins or how, this election will make history. That’s because with Mr. McCain’s nomination already assured, 2008 will be the first time two senators square-off for the presidency. This political novelty highlights the historical rarity of senators heading a ticket at all — much less winning the presidency.

However, comparing the current contenders with the nation’s two previous “senatorial presidents” reveals important future implications.

The record of senators seeking the White House over the last century is bleak. Assigning nominees to their last elected office, incumbent presidents, vice presidents, governors and even political novices have all fared better than sitting senators. Incumbent presidents have won 13 elections — as have governors — vice presidents have won six, and political novices (William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower) have won three.

Sitting senators have only won twice — John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Warren G. Harding in 1920. About the only senatorial bright spot is the fact they have fared better than their colleagues across the Capitol — no House member won the presidency in the last century. Such limited success helps explain why they are rarely nominated by either party. From 1908 to 2004, senators have received only six of the two parties’ 50 total nominations — being nominated just 12 percent, and winning just 4 percent, of the time.

Such uniqueness makes for an illuminating comparison between today’s aspirants and the two previously successful senators. Both Harding and Kennedy had short Senate careers — Kennedy serving just over one term and Harding only one (forgoing senatorial re-election was an agonizing decision).

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama resemble both in this regard, with Mr. McCain the outlier by a long shot — in fact, Mr. McCain (in his fourth term) has served in the Senate longer than any two of these other four senators combined.

Neither Harding nor Kennedy was a Senate leader in a formal sense. The same applies to the three now seeking the presidency None has been a member of his or her party’s elected leadership and only Mr. McCain has even served as chairman of a Senate committee.

Harding and Kennedy also had similarities once in office. Both are inaccurately associated with events simply because of their proximity to them.

Kennedy brought to office an invigorating youthfulness that seemed to capture his generation’s own at his Inauguration — “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” He is remembered as embodying his bold and expansive “New Frontier” program. However, it is often forgotten that few of these plans were enacted during his presidency — rather being left to Johnson after his 1964 election.

Harding came into office from the opposite perspective. In the aftermath of World War I, the world — and America in particular — sought a return to the pre-War world. Harding aimed toward this, promising in his Inaugural address “the resumption of our onward, normal ways.” In contrast to major initiatives, Harding is best remembered for his administration’s scandals, though there is no evidence he knew about or condoned them, and they did not come to light until after his death.

Finally, Harding and Kennedy were fatefully similar in their mortality in office — both dying in the third year of their presidency.

So what does this comparison tell us? Several things. First, senators’ lack of success in seeking the White House strongly argues for neither nominee to pick a senatorial running mate. Doing so simply would be tempting electoral fate.

A governor as running mate not only avoids this, it also dilutes the Washington-centric nature — no little irony in the current anti-Washington political climate — both tickets’ tops will bring.

Each nominee’s lack of executive experience also underscores a governor’s compensating effect. Despite having just left the Senate, neither Harding nor Kennedy fared particularly well with Congress. Their own lack of executive experience likely contributed to the modest achievements of both Harding and Kennedy’s administrations.

Yet both saw their vice presidents assume office and then go onto to win the presidency in their own right.

Vice presidents’ importance has substantially increased over the years — particularly in recent administrations. It is likely the next administration’s could have a still greater role. Therefore having one with executive experience to take some responsibility would only aid a senatorial president and the administration’s workings.

At the same time, Harding and Kennedy’s experience cautions us to hold our expectations in check as to how much (or how fast) a senator-turned-president can achieve in office. Either of today’s nominees will be as quickly reminded, as their successful senatorial predecessors were, that Congress is a co-equal branch of government.

Undoubtedly this presidential election has much to offer history because of the nominees. It is important to recognize history has much insight to offer for this election and 2009’s new administration.

J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget 2001-2004 and as a congressional staff member 1987-2000.