Pete Du Pont: Senators Make Bad Presidents ... Kerry Would Be No Exception

Pete Du Pont, in the WSJ (Aug. 12, 2004):

My senior senator, Joe Biden of Delaware, gave a hometown speech earlier this year about U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. It was a thoughtful presentation, but it included a criticism of the election of former governors to the presidency because they had no foreign-policy experience and thus were insensitive and less capable regarding foreign policy and international concerns. Senators who've served on the Foreign Relations Committee, he implied, would do much better.

But Mr. Biden has it backwards. Of the 17 presidents of the 20th century, from Teddy Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, eight had been executives before coming to the White House (seven governors and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower), and seven had served in Congress but lacked executive experience. (William Taft and Herbert Hoover held only appointive offices before becoming president.) The current book "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," compiled by The Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society (and available from the OpinionJournal bookstore), asked 78 scholars to rate all our presidents. Among the 20th-century presidents, five of those with executive experience--Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ike, Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson--ranked as great or near great. Among the seven with legislative experience, only Harry S. Truman made the cut. On average, 20th-century presidents who had been governors (plus Eisenhower) scored 3.51 on a five-point scale; the others who had served in the House or Senate, 2.81.

Which leads to the conclusion that America is usually better off with a president who has had executive experience before reaching the White House. Presidents have to lead, set a course, and come to conclusions. Senators can, with furrowed brow, be very concerned, vote this way and that to show their concern, and hope to gain the votes of the citizens expressing the concerns. But once in the White House, men of concern, consensus and compromise are much less likely to provide the leadership the country needs than men of principle, resolve, and the executive experience to make decisions.

And that is the problem with Sen. John Kerry as a potential president. He looks concerned, no doubt is concerned, with everyone's point of view. As senator he votes one day for trade agreements like Nafta, and later on opposes them. He can vote for funding the war in Iraq before he votes against it. He can be worried about France and Germany, and base America's foreign policy upon their agreement so as not to raise their concerns.

There is no question that Mr. Kerry is a liberal's liberal. National Journal rated his 2003 Senate voting record as the most liberal of all 100 senators--more liberal than even Ted Kennedy. He is against the death penalty (except for terrorists), and he says he personally opposes abortion, as a political matter he supports it fully and opposes the confirmation of judicial nominees who are not pro-abortion. He says he opposes same-sex marriage, but voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. He is opposed to any form of school choice....

Mr. Kerry's vision becomes no clearer when he looks ahead to future challenges. In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow. Mr. Kerry is very concerned about Social Security, so what would he do to solve the problem? Reduce benefits? No. Raise the retirement age? No. Raise taxes? No. Impose means testing? No. Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced? No again. On the most significant economic challenge of the coming decades, John Kerry has no vision, no goal, no response at all--not a good sign for a prospective leader of the United States.