It means that it was considered a more senior position than governor and senator, and one that required prior lower-level government experience.
Near as I can tell, the president’s current secretary had been a congressman, and the previous president tapped Senator Kerry for that job after tapping Senator Clinton for it. So even in this topsy-turvy world where America said “screw it, just make a guy with no government experience the president,” it’s still possible to figure that, yes, it makes sense to have someone prove themselves in a Buck-Stops-Here role before putting them in one of the positions we’re discussing.
A Senator isn’t much of a “buck stops here role” and I doubt you’ll find many people agreeing with you that Hillary got Sec State because she had proven her buckstopping abilities.
Why not?
My perspective is, if you ask a Senator why they voted ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ on a given issue (which, over the years, they do a lot), I figure they look you in the eye and say: “Because I believed it was what’s best for my state, and for this country.” And if you say “but the president disagreed,” the Senator can reply: “I don’t answer to him; it wasn’t his call to make. It was my call to make, and here’s why I made it.”
Oh, that’s your pick for the Supreme Court, Mister President? Here’s my response: no, you made your choice and I’m now standing in front of the TV cameras to say you’re wrong and I hereby vote to reject that nominee; come up with a better one or I’ll do it again. Yes, I know you just vetoed this legislation; that’s why I’m now voting to override your veto, because, hey, who cares what you think?
And so on.
How is that indicative of the Senator’s ability to run the country? To set and implement its domestic and foreign policy?
Because, as a Senator, you vote on domestic policy and you vote on foreign policy. As a cabinet secretary, you do one aspect of policy — and, whenever the president tells you what to do in that one aspect of policy, you do what he says.
If you’re a Senator, you have to take a Buck Stops Here stance on foreign aid and on military policy. And you have to take a Buck Stops Here stance on student loans, and on the medical industry, and on copyrights and patents, and on criminal justice and immigration and — well, pretty much everything, foreign and domestic.
If you’re a cabinet secretary, you do one thing and you do as you’re told.
How is that different than a Congressman?
The “why not” is because you can hide behind coalitions and vote trading. McConnell just demonstrated during the shutdown how Senators can be shielded from actual decision making. How many times have we heard “Senator X voted for the war!” answered with “So did all the other Senators!”.
A “buck stops here” job is one where you alone have final say.
Not much. So put a Congressman’s record up for me to review, and I’ll look at when he voted ‘yes’ and when he voted ‘no’, and with any luck I’ll soon have a good handle on whether I think he’s the kind of guy who makes decisions the way I want, on a broad range of issues, foreign and domestic.
And then tell me someone else was a cabinet secretary. Uh, okay.
I disagree. Look, if a Senator does explain a ‘war’ vote by saying other Senators did that too, I’ll react accordingly. But compared to a cabinet secretary, who, what, explains stuff by saying it was the president’s call and I answer to him? And who never has to explain stuff outside their area, because that other stuff wasn’t their job?
Well, I guess you have a fundamentally different version of “the buck stops here” in your head. You seem to think it just means justifying your decisions. Middle managers have to justify their decisions but the buck doesn’t stop there.
I’m saying that, when a Senator votes ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it’s their call all the way; they have the final say on how they vote, and are often called on to so vote. And if you tell them what anyone in general, or the president in particular, wants? Well, again and again and again, that Senator is still the one who decides.
When a cabinet secretary gets told that the president has made a decision, they snap to and say “well, you know, serve at the pleasure of the president.” It’s not their call all the way, except to the extent of not having that job any more. That’s not, as far as I can tell, the same thing; it’s not, as far as I can tell, even close.
If the president decides to nominate a guy to the Supreme Court, and I’m a Senator who thinks it’s a bad choice, I’ll vote against that nominee — and the next one, and the next one, if that president keeps failing to impress me — because that’s my call to make. If the president nominates a guy to the Supreme Court, and I’m a cabinet secretary, well, then, I’ll — what? No, seriously: what?
Multiply that by thirty. Multiply it by three hundred, by three thousand.
As I was strongly suggesting, there’s many ways for a Senator to duck decisions. You can take a lot of strong stands knowing that yours isn’t a crucial vote.
Cabinet Secretaries are given direction but there’s still plenty of decisions that aren’t run through the President.
There are plenty of people in Washington right now who would like to run through the President.
During the Iran/Contra hearings, there was a hand-lettered sign in the committee hearing room that read, “The buck doesn’t even slow down here.”
Well, okay. But how many ways are there for a cabinet secretary to duck stuff?
I meant what I’d said: sure, lemme grant for the sake of argument that a Senator can maybe duck a decision on the latest Supreme Court nominee, and maybe the next one, and maybe the next one; he keeps getting put on the spot, being asked to weigh in by picking a side and making a stand, but maaaybe he weasels out of it. What does the cabinet secretary do? Does he get put on the spot? Does he get asked to weigh in? Does he even have to try to weasel?
Next week maybe there’s a focus on the economy, with votes running the gamut from unemployment and the auto industry to farm subsidies and bank regulation. Maybe this or that Senator finds a way to duck out instead of taking a stand when the time comes to cast votes; I don’t know. What about the cabinet secretary? Does he even need to duck? Does he ever?
Week after that, a military topic is voted on — you know, after the president makes his opinion known. Does a given Senator have to declare one way or another? Let’s say ‘probably, but maybe he can avoid it’. Does the cabinet secretary have to find a way to avoid making his opinions known? Or is it pretty much his job to not broadcast his opinions on the matter?
I think being a Cabinet secretary would be an excellent qualification for being President, since you get to see up close what the job involves, and you have important responsibilities. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be considered as good a credential as being Vice-President, as far as actually doing the job. But I think parties are justifiably reluctant to nominate anyone who doesn’t have experience* running for *high public office.
The reason I think it rarely happens in this country is that, although some Cabinet members do resign from elected office to take the job, most are career civil servants and not politicians. My impression is that in countries with more parliamentary type systems, any politician who is considered a party leader and potential future candidate for the top job will be given a spot in the Cabinet, which isn’t how it works here. Also, in countries like Britain, a politician doesn’t have to choose between serving in the Cabinet and giving up their seat in Parliament.
Oh, is Ron Paul running again?
It seems to me that there are two different ways that prior office are relevant. On the one hand, how well someone did in such a job can be an indicator of how they’ll be as President. A cabinet position is less relevant here, because they’re subordinate to the President, and so how well they do is dependent on the President, not just their own merits (though you can still make some judgement as to how well they implement the President’s desired policies).
On the other hand, though, just holding a position can be a qualification in itself. It’s on-the-job training. Doing a lesser job prepares a candidate to do a greater job. And here, cabinet experience is very relevant.
It’s a curious thing. I think it may have to do with the kinds of appointees Presidents name?
Early on in the history of the republic, it certainly happened a few times. Both James Madison & James Monroe had been Secretaries of State.
More recently, Herbert Hoover had been Secretary of Commerce, but had not won another elected office before becoming President. He had a difficult time in the White House for reasons that probably have little to do with that.
About twenty years ago, Elizabeth “Liddy” Dole tried to run for President after having held several appointed positions; but the party lined up behind G. W. Bush very quickly, & she pulled out in late 1999 before any of the primaries. She later served in the US Senate.
I hardly think Cabinet Secretaries should always be penciled in as unimportant Yes-men. For example:
While a track record of campaigning for public office may be desirable, there are many jobs that I would regard as worthier experience than U.S. Senator. Does anyone doubt that Dwight D. Eisenhower’s experience as Supreme Commander made him eminently qualified? I might even suppose that a successful billionaire businessman might be qualified. (Of course I mean an intelligent real billionaire, not a childish fraudster who maintained his Daddy’s wealth by laundering money for the Russian mob.)
That’s a great quote, but the last sentence takes it a step too far: sure, friends can be honest with you; even when, as here, “you” equals “The President”.
But that’s what does all the work in your example: she let him know she thought he was wrong, which isn’t a thing you need to be a cabinet secretary to do; why, that’s even a thing that a Senator can do! Of course, a Senator can let him know that and cast vote after vote after vote to that effect — explaining, at each step, hey, I’m not just being honest, here; anybody can do that; I’m also doing this along with that plus the other thing because, again, he’s Wrong Wrong Wrong.