In the U.S. system, cabinet secretary seems to be a terrible step for any national politician’s career. You lose your seat (as opposed to parliamentary systems where you keep it) in a system where incumbency is huge. Then you either labor in relative obscurity for four years, or soak up all the blame for bad things - most credit for good things goes to the president. Obviously Noem is the inspiration for this question, but thinking of Secretary Clinton as the other standout example.
If you’re nearing retirement and want to work in an agency that you’ve championed for years, or looking for a statesmanlike feather in your cap e.g Kerry - sure. If you’re a politician on the local level (e.g. Mayor Pete), the opportunity for national leadership makes sense. But for a current national Senator/Rep that has a lot of career space to run still? I sure as hell wouldn’t touch that at all, it just seems like the worst sort of space to be stuck politically.
So - focused mainly on the last 50 years (post Nixon say, I’m sure there were some deeper in the past) are there success stories I’m missing?
Not that I can think of. For the reasons you mention, ambitious politicians usually don’t take Cabinet appointments, with the possible exception of State. But if someone is very interested in a certain issue, they might think trading a legislative seat for the chance to run the relevant part of the Federal government is a good trade, even if it will only be for four or eight years.
It depends on how you define success. Other than Gerald Ford and Bush Sr. having been VPOTUS, none of the POTUSs since Nixon were previously cabinet level appointees. Of course if you include those two, then there’s either a 25% or 12.5% chance of going on to be POTUS (depending on how you view Ford since he didn’t win an election - or higher if you include Nixon himself as a previous VPOTUS). The sample size is just too small to say much about it if one is going to limit the definition of “success” to becoming president at a later date. Of course if you define success differently, than the odds change accordingly.
I’d count going on to the Senate (or getting elected back into the Senate) a definite success - or going back to the House with high stature/leadership as well. edit: heck let’s throw in becoming a state governor too.
Herbert Hoover was Sec of Commerce before being elected President. His Wiki page doesn’t list any elected position he held other than Pres.
ETA: Ulysses Grant was Sec of War before being elected Pres. Like Hoover (and the other generals who’ve gotten the top office) he didn’t hold any elected office before the Presidency.
Jack Kemp was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and went on to be the 1996 Republican nominee for Vice President. Maybe not “success” but at least his career didn’t stall out completely at the cabinet level.
Exactly. I kind of have the impression that for Senate/Governor level politicians who aren’t really electable, then Cabinet secretary is kind of the crown jewel.
Look at someone like Ted Cruz. He’s lost early in the primaries twice, and he’s been a senator for a long time. The only place left to go is Cabinet secretary or some kind, or God help us, the Supreme Court. I’m sure the majority of the Senate is in the same boat as him- Cabinet secretary is a sort of end-career thing.
So long story short, I think you’re looking at it a bit backward; it’s not often a stepping stone to higher office, but rather a career-capping position for national level politicians who aren’t planning to make a real run for President/VP, or who have tried and failed.
It’s weird. In other countries, a cabinet membership is essentially a prerequisite for be considered for President/Prime Minister. Maybe because in parliamentary systems, where the winner has to be confirmed by parliament, a winning candidate has to award powerful legislators with cabinet posts, or they won’t vote for them. American presidents don’t need that.
Still, there seems to be this American attitude that leading a massive and massively important organ like the State Department or the Treasury somehow gives you less “executive experience” than being a legislator or even a governor. It’s like they think that owning a used car dealership makes you more qualified to be CEO of Ford than being the CFO or COO of Ford. I don’t get it. What’s wrong with going up through the ranks?
I figure that, were I a Senator, I’d spend years saying buck-stops-here stuff to the American people on all sorts of issues: speaking my mind when casting my latest vote on foreign policy in general or military policy in particular — or on health care, or on student loans, or on gun control, or on climate, or on the border, or on the latest Supreme Court nominee, or any one of a hundred other things. Oh, the president said the opposite? What is that to me? I don’t answer to him: I hereby vote to override his veto. Anyone thinking of someday voting for me for president knows where I stand.
Wait, I’m a cabinet secretary who does answer to the president? So it’s my job to deal with one subject, and I carry out the president’s instructions on that one subject or I stop having a job at the end of this sentence? Well, anyone thinking of voting for me knows — where the current president stands, I guess? And knows that I, uh, accepted this job? Must go now: I have an urgent message to relay, from my boss to a Deputy Secretary!
No, they know whether or not you can do the job. They have four years to watch you and see if you’re a good, capable leader. In other, serving in the cabinet lets people know whether or not you’re competent enough to be President - not just what your positions are.
Would they rather get years of seeing if I’m a good and competent Senator or Governor, making my own decisions instead of answering to the president, and also see if they agree with my positions?
A cabinet member makes LOTS of decisions - billion-dollar decisions, sometimes life and death decisions. Far more decisions than a senator ever makes. The fact that they are also subordinate to someone doesn’t make them any less of a leader - unless your definition of “leader” is someone who never follows orders.
At the risk of undercutting my position, I’m not looking for a leader. I’m looking for a follower, in that I want someone who’s going to make the decisions I want them to make.
If their job is being subordinate to the president while relaying his instructions to a Deputy Secretary, that’s not much help to me. If their job is being the decision-maker, it is.