Well, I share HalfSigma's enthusiasm for Romney. My ideology is more technocratic than conservative or liberal. Valuing "conservatism" over technocratic competence is a lot like valuing "communism" over technocratic competence -it's stupid.
I'm coming to the belief that a President probably should be a top tier empirical macroeconomist, and then beyond that get good successive administrative experience culminating in being governor of a large population state. For example, Prime Minister Singh of India fits the bill pretty closely. Economic management is the fundamental competence for state leadership, it seems to me.
Until folks like Hubbard and Mankiw can be pushed to run for Governorships, A JD cum laude, MBA Bates Scholar from Harvard Law School represents a significant up-ratchet in technocratic competence for the Republicans and for presidential candidates generally.
What do you think of governing Massachusetts as preparation for the presidency? Is it simply on too small a scale compared to California/Texas?
ReplyDeleteTGGP,
ReplyDeleteI think a high competency should be shown when governing a smaller population state. My rule of thumb is one should competently manage something 1 order of magnitude smaller than the organization one gets promoted to run. But that would severely restrict the American presidential pool to about 4 states.
Since I think Mass is about a two order of magnitude jump, such a superpromotion should only be promoted if the governing was truly outstanding. I don't think Romney fits that, but I wouldn't prefer Schwarzennegar (ineligible anyways) or Perry for the Republican nomination.
Huntsman has in some ways a near perfect presidential resume (outstanding record as governor, real foreign policy experience as Ambassador to China) -I'd like a Romney-Huntsman ticket although I understand the unlikelihood of two Mormons on the Republican ticket.
Hopefully Anonymous