Why do so few presidents come from the cabinet anymore?

[pragmatic liberal]

In the 19th century, especially prior to the Civil War, cabinet experience was nearly essential for winning a presidential nomination. The declined somewhat in the postbellum period, but cabinet members were still prominent contenders for their parties' nomination up until the middle of the 20th century. Both William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, for example, served in the cabinet. Neither, in fact, had any experience in elective office before they were elected president.

Nowadays, however, it's rare that a cabinet member even runs for president. Why is that?

I have a few theories.

1. As the federal government has increased in size and importance, the elective appeal of service in the cabinet has actually decreased. Why? I'd say there are a few components to this, seemingly counter-intuitive phenomenon.

(a) Cabinet-level departments, especially the most prestigious ones -- State, Defense, Justice and the Treasury -- have become so much larger and so much more institutionalized and powerful that the people appointed to head them have to have lengthy experience within those departments or years of service working with them. Nowadays, the State Dept. is usually lead by a career diplomat, the Treasury by someone involved in finance or academia, Justice by someone with experience in the judiciary or the legal system.

At one point, high-ranking cabinet posts tended to go to prominent party leaders, many of them senators or congressmen and many with still-burning presidential ambitions. Nowadays, far fewer sitting senators, congresspersons or governors are picked. When they ARE picked, cabinet service usually caps their career -- they've had to spend decades working with those departments, which means by the team you have someone like a Lloyd Bentsen appointed to the cabinet, their presidential ambitions have long-since passed -- they're simply far too old.

(b) Young ambitious pols can still get appointed to the cabinet, but when they do they frequently are appointed to lower-ranking, lower-profile cabinet departments such as energy, commerce, or labor. For people in these positions, cabinet service can only be a stepping stone to the Senate or a governorship, not a direct path to the presidency.

(c) As the presidency has grown more powerful, the cabinet has become increasingly marginalized as an independent body. In the 19th century, presidents had to appoint leading members of their party -- often intra-party rivals -- to the cabinet. Nowadays, with the president firmly in charge, the cabinet secretaries are less prominent and less likely to be ambitious pols who could undermine their boss.

2. Secondly, I would argue that the 17th amendment and direct election of senators turned the cabinet into a less parliamentary body. Prior to the 17th amendment, senators were elected by their state legislatures. The Senate at that time was much more of a revolving door -- prominent politicians would serve numerous non-consecutive terms and resignations were very frequent. An ambitious pol could resign his Senate seat, serve in the cabinet and be reasonably sure that he could get elected to the Senate again when his service was complete. And, sure enough, the cabinet used to be filled with senators, far more than today.

Popular election of the Senate made this much more difficult. No longer could senators hope to get cozy with their state party and be assured a Senate seat whenever one was available. By fighting for votes in a popular election, they couldn't be assured an easy comeback. From now on, senators would usually serve a full-term and there would be very few non-consecutive terms for senators. Correspondingly, there were many fewer senators serving in the cabinet. And fewer politicians in the cabinet meant fewer presidential contenders.

Those are my theories as to why you don't see cabinet secretaries running for president as much anymore. To be sure, there will probably be some. And certainly cabinet members might well be options for the vice-presidential nomination. But if a cabinet secretary is nominated for president, it'll be unique nowadays.

Any thoughts?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Most of them are experts in their field; very few Cabinet members are likely to try and run for President.

[J. J.]

I have a few theories.

1. As the federal government has increased in size and importance, the elective appeal of service in the cabinet has actually decreased. Why? I'd say there are a few components to this, seemingly counter-intuitive phenomenon.

(a) Cabinet-level departments, especially the most prestigious ones -- State, Defense, Justice and the Treasury -- have become so much larger and so much more institutionalized and powerful that the people appointed to head them have to have lengthy experience within those departments or years of service working with them. Nowadays, the State Dept. is usually lead by a career diplomat, the Treasury by someone involved in finance or academia, Justice by someone with experience in the judiciary or the legal system.

I disagree.  We've seen Cheney and Aspin at Defense, Ashcroft and Thornburgh (before he ran for Senate) at Attorney General, Richardson at Energy, Ridge at Homeland Security, and at cabinet level agencies, GHW Bush at the CIA, Danforth at the UN. Alexander at Education.  One thing we have seen is a cabinet that has grown.  Because there are more cabinet level positions, it becomes more diluted and less prestigious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many presidents went directly from the cabinet to the presidency?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A secretary was an adviser to the president and the cabinet was a body that met to discuss policy formation at the time of Lincoln.  That started changing during FDR tenure.  The now became political managers of a department.

This reason is, I believe, to be the key reason.  Look at 9-11.  Who was Bush talking to?  The Secretary of Defense or Transportation?  A former four star general who was in cabinet?  No, the VP, who was basically part of the White House Staff, and the National Security Adviser.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

It disagree with this point as well, but with the reasoning, not the result.  Often times the main issue in state legislators' elections was who the candidate was supporting for Senate, i.e., vote for Republican Joe and he'll vote for James G. Blaine.  It wasn't necessarily any more secure.

Direct election, however, gave a Senate candidate a chance to build his own direct electoral base, something a cabinet post could never do.  This gave the Senator a chance to show electoral strength, directly.  That isn't something to be lightly tossed away.

[pragmatic liberal]

I have a few theories.

1. As the federal government has increased in size and importance, the elective appeal of service in the cabinet has actually decreased. Why? I'd say there are a few components to this, seemingly counter-intuitive phenomenon.

(a) Cabinet-level departments, especially the most prestigious ones -- State, Defense, Justice and the Treasury -- have become so much larger and so much more institutionalized and powerful that the people appointed to head them have to have lengthy experience within those departments or years of service working with them. Nowadays, the State Dept. is usually lead by a career diplomat, the Treasury by someone involved in finance or academia, Justice by someone with experience in the judiciary or the legal system.

I disagree.  We've seen Cheney and Aspin at Defense, Ashcroft and Thornburgh (before he ran for Senate) at Attorney General, Richardson at Energy, Ridge at Homeland Security, and at cabinet level agencies, GHW Bush at the CIA, Danforth at the UN. Alexander at Education.  One thing we have seen is a cabinet that has grown.  Because there are more cabinet level positions, it becomes more diluted and less prestigious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many presidents went directly from the cabinet to the presidency?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A secretary was an adviser to the president and the cabinet was a body that met to discuss policy formation at the time of Lincoln.  That started changing during FDR tenure.  The now became political managers of a department.

This reason is, I believe, to be the key reason.  Look at 9-11.  Who was Bush talking to?  The Secretary of Defense or Transportation?  A former four star general who was in cabinet?  No, the VP, who was basically part of the White House Staff, and the National Security Adviser.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

It disagree with this point as well, but with the reasoning, not the result.  Often times the main issue in state legislators' elections was who the candidate was supporting for Senate, i.e., vote for Republican Joe and he'll vote for James G. Blaine.  It wasn't necessarily any more secure.

Direct election, however, gave a Senate candidate a chance to build his own direct electoral base, something a cabinet post could never do.  This gave the Senator a chance to show electoral strength, directly.  That isn't something to be lightly tossed away.

Aspin, Cheney and the rest prove my point -- pols with presidential ambitions don't wind up serving in high-level cabinet posts. Now, some of them (like Cheney) still get to the vice presidency, but few go directly to the presidency.

And plenty of presidents went directly from the cabinet to the presidency: Hoover and Taft, but also figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams went directly; Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan also served in the cabinet, although Van Buren served as vice president before becoming president and Buchanan served as ambassador to Britain before becoming president.

Also, several cabinet members made spirited runs for the presidency even if they failed to win the nomination or the election, such as William McAdoo (1924).

As for the Senate prior to the 17th, I think my point about it being a revolving door stands. Look up senate tenures in the 19th century -- prominent senators would serve for frequent nonconsecutive terms, interrupted not only by the state legislature passing to the opposition but by cabinet tenures and various appointments.

[J. J.]

Aspin, Cheney and the rest prove my point -- pols with presidential ambitions don't wind up serving in high-level cabinet posts. Now, some of them (like Cheney) still get to the vice presidency, but few go directly to the presidency.

Cheney was preparing to run in 1996.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know if I would call that "plenty," so basically you have Taft and Hoover that moved directly from the Cabinet to the presidency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As did GHW Bush in 1980, Haig and Kemp in 1988.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who is the longest serving Senator of all time?  Byrd.  Actually, the nineteen top twenty longest serving senators were all elected after the 17th Amendment was adopted.  http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Longest_Serving_Senators.htm
That isn't exactly a revolving door.

Would you care cite some examples of those who won, went into the cabinet, and returned?