Who's Prepared to Govern?

ow that the field has narrowed in this year's presidential primaries, it appears most likely that a two-term Vice President with prior experience in Congress will face off in November against either a two-term governor of a large state or a candidate with extensive experience in the Senate. Which background provides the best preparation for forming an administration capable of managing the federal government?

For government executives who dedicate their professional careers to public service, this is no small question. Which major candidate has had the best on-the-job training to lead from the Oval Office? Do the records of past presidents offer any clues?

As luck would have it, noted presidential scholar Fred I. Greenstein of Princeton University addresses that question in his book, The Presidential Difference, which is to be released in April. Greenstein examines the leadership styles and accomplishments of the 11 presidents who served during the final two-thirds of the 20th century. Four came to the job as former governors and five as vice presidents who had served in Congress. Of the remaining two, one came to the White House directly from the Senate and the other rose to power on the strength of his record as a senior Army general.

Greenstein rates the modern presidents on a half-dozen attributes ranging from "cognitive style" to "emotional intelligence." But the trait that seems to get the least attention during the campaign process, he said in an interview with Government Executive, is managerial skill. "Organizational capacity is the ignored underbelly of the presidency," he says.

When asked to rate the organizational prowess of each of the former presidents analyzed in his book, Greenstein issued the following grades:

Supporters of Texas Gov. George W. Bush will be relieved that big-state governors Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York) and Ronald Reagan (California) received safely passing B minuses. So too did John F. Kennedy, whose career most closely mirrors that of Arizona Sen. John McCain. Backers of Vice President Al Gore will probably claim boasting rights because higher grades were awarded to three former veeps: Gerald Ford (a surprise A minus), Harry Truman (B plus), and George Bush, the senior (a straight B).

But there are warning signs for all three camps. Greenstein gives low grades for "organizational capacity" to former governors Jimmy Carter (a grudging C) and Bill Clinton (an outright F). And Kennedy was chided for being "too free-wheeling and ad hoc" in his approach to key decisions. Nor did every former vice president shine. Richard Nixon squeaked out with a grade of B minus, mainly for "trying so hard," and Lyndon B. Johnson was left dangling between a C minus and a D.

The President best prepared to manage the government, in Greenstein's view, had no prior experience in elective office but instead had run a monumentally successful military campaign. Dwight Eisenhower stands "head and shoulders above all the others," the presidential scholar says. "No other chief executive has entered the White House with his organizational experience, and none has put comparable effort into structuring his presidency."

Greenstein, who not surprisingly gave Ike an A plus, credits him with several White House innovations, including the appointment of a chief of staff, the establishment of a congressional relations office and the creation of the post of national security assistant to the President. "He actually gave a campaign speech in 1952 saying we needed a better-organized national security process," Greenstein marvels.

Ford wins plaudits for emulating Eisenhower's national security decision-making apparatus and extending it into the realm of economic policy-making. He built "a very strong staff structure capable of fleshing out issues and options throughout the whole federal establishment," Greenstein says.

Truman receives kudos for "working very closely with the civil servants of the old Bureau of the Budget" to bring about the "quiet revolution" in which a procedure was established for reviewing spending requests to ensure their consistency with the President's program. Truman's managerial skills weren't honed in Washington, Greenstein notes, but in Missouri where he was "a county administrator who managed to get roads and buildings built."

Interest in managerial detail and reliance upon career civil servants, however, are not the traits that get politicians elected to high office. Of Reagan, Greenstein says, "there is no evidence that he was interested in organization at all." But Reagan, for the most part, was able to surround himself with competent people and his administration scored a number of substantial achievements, Greenstein adds.

The presidents who've fared worst in Greenstein's estimation are those who've tried to be their own chiefs of staff or have played aides off against one another, rather than building cohesive teams. From that perspective, what's most telling is not the office a candidate has previously held, but how well he structured and utilized his supporting staff resources.

Dick Kirschten is a contributing editor for National Journal.