Critics of Condi

Steven Warshawsky of American Thinker recently wrote against the movement to secure the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for Condoleeza Rice. He laid out a number of problems that a Rice nomination and presidency would present, and I think that they are incorrect.

Warshawsky asserted that Condoleeza Rice lacks the executive experience that American voters will expect and that the weighty duties of the Presidency require. One would hope that the American people value experience in government leadership, but I think that the 2000 election of George W. Bush says otherwise. Bush has served in a constitutionally-weak governorship for six years and before that...well, did nothing. Yet he was elected (albeit with a loss of the popular vote) against a man who had spent eight years in the House of Representatives, seven years in the U.S. Senate, and eight years in the Vice Presidency. If the American people placed such a high value on experience, then Bush would have been crushed in 2000.

Moreover, I think that Warshawsky has overrated the importance of executive experience, or even elective experience, in a successful presidency. What matters more is something elegantly described by John Derbyshire:

It seems to me, in fact, that political stupidity is a special kind of stupidity, not well correlated with other kinds. At the very highest levels of intelligence, the correlation may actually be inverse: the more brilliant you are, the dumber your politics. Albert Einstein seems to have thought well of Stalin; Hitlerism got its first mass following in the highly-selective German universities. And think—without smiling, if you can—of the barmy political programs that issued forth, with such confidence, from Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Norman Mailer and other members of the mid-20th-century preposterentsia, as exposed in withering detail in Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals.

The political intelligence described by Derbyshire is a combination of common sense plus courage. Bill Clinton (four years as State Attorney General and eight years as Governor) lacked one or another, and so ignored the Islamofascist threat as it grew in the 1990s. John Kerry (two years as Lieutenant Governor and twenty years as US Senator) viewed terrorism as a nuisance and preferred a more pacifistic foreign policy. Both of these men had vast government experience, but both lacked either a basic grasp of international relations or the courage necessary to turn the power of the United States against our enemies. George W. Bush, a political naif who had rarely travelled abroad, instantly grasped what our enemy was capable of of and what must be done to stop it. Condoleeza Rice seems to be on the same page, and that's why she'd make a better president than anyone other than a Liebermanite Democrat.

Washawsky also stated that Rice lacks a base of support from which to launch a campaign. True, Rice lacks a region to call home, but then against, Howard Dean did very well for several months 'based' from tiny Vermont, population 620,000. As for some sort of cohort group, as Warshawsky suggests, I think that 'hawks' would do nicely. I plan on voting for the most hawkish candidate running, and I suspect that many other Americans might do likewise.

Warshawksy rightfully argues that Rice lacks any substantial domestic policy experience. I couldn't care less, since I'm a one-issue voter, but I think that most American voters will likely be interested in tedious issues like Social Security, health care, and education. This area could be a serious liability for Rice, but I don't think that there are any presidential contenders without problems.

Mitt Romney? Just try getting the evangelical base to show up on election day for a Mormon. Bill Owens? He can't even keep his own state legislature. Bill Frist? It would be dumb after eight years of a Republican White House to run a dull, Washington insider (especially if Democrats are smart and run someone like Phil Bredesen). Jeb Bush? Watch Republican loyalists break in droves, appalled at the image of a dynastic presidency.

Seriously, who else is there? Condoleeza Rice might not be the best candidate, but she appears to be better than anyone else currently under speculation.

Hat tip: Instapundit