Governors make better presidents. U.S. senators don’t do so well in the highest political office, most of the time.

This theory can work for conservatives and Republicans. Their hero is Ronald Reagan. As governor of California, Reagan learned to deal with Democrats and function as an executive. As president, he went on to cut taxes, peacefully derailed the Soviet communist empire and renewed a sense of hope in the country after the 1970s.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was never a governor. Yet his military command in World War II gave him a good substitute background for the presidency. He went on to lead a peaceful but effective effort to restrain communism.

Richard Nixon illustrates the other side of the theory. A member of the House, then the Senate, then vice president, he never really ran anything. In those duties, he didn’t have to work so hard to learn to cooperate with opponents. He had times of strategic brilliance in foreign policy. Yet a term or two as a governor might have helped correct some of the weaknesses in his personal relationships that contributed to Watergate.

This governors-do-better theory can work for liberals and Democrats too.

Franklin Roosevelt was governor of New York state and was in the executive branch as an assistant secretary of the Navy in World War I. His outstanding political record of success, from a liberal and Democratic Party perspective, speaks for itself. He expanded the federal government by leaps and bounds, in the name of ending the Depression. Then he managed a remarkable team of leaders, such as Eisenhower, George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur, to help the Allies win World War II.

Bill Clinton, the Arkansas governor, was the first Democrat since Roosevelt to win two terms. He provided some short-term political success for the Democrats, often befuddling a Republican majority in Congress. Long-term, he hurt the Democrats with his sexual immorality and lack of personal discipline.

Senators don’t do so well for the Democrats either. John Kennedy messed up the Bay of Pigs operation. He handled the Cuban missile crisis well, but he and Lyndon Johnson, another former senator, tried to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam. Johnson raised expectations of hope about ending poverty, but the Great Society, built on some wrongheaded utopian notions, led to disillusionment in the 1970s.

So why governors, not senators? Senators don’t have to balance budgets or call up the National Guard or figure out how to respond to hurricanes, snowstorms, floods and forest fires.

Governors have to work with the legislative branch, often with the other party having a majority in one or both houses. They have to make hard decisions, with ideological and philosophical issues at stake, yet with pretty immediate impact on the lives of real people. They have to balance ideology and practicality. This underscores the difference between the executive and legislative branches of government.

In the doctrine of Christ’s kingdom, we can find some more clues to the difference between a governor and senator.

William Symington’s Messiah the Prince identifies several key character qualities that Christ shows us and reveals as a standard for civil government. For example, Christ’s near relationship with His people is more important on the job for a governor than a senator, though each is elected statewide. A governor, just by the nature of the office, stays closer to home and works on practical problems in the state, such as road repairs and the administration of state prisons. A senator goes to Washington, D.C., to represent the state and nation in Congress.

Christ’s power includes a capacity to get something accomplished. That is a more natural part of a governor’s job, while a senator can major in advocacy and speech making.

There are exceptions to this pattern. Jimmy Carter was in over his head in the presidency, though he had been governor of Georgia.

Harry Truman was a senator and vice president and became so unpopular as president (1945–1953) that he decided not to run for another term in 1952. But historians, left and right, have come to look more favorably on him than he was perceived when he finished his last term. The same pattern will develop with the current president, George W. Bush, the former governor of Texas.

He’s unpopular now, but history will tell a different story—of a man who revitalized the understanding of the importance of faith in the public marketplace of ideas. He did not do it as well as he might have. He didn’t follow through enough. He was not articulate enough about it. But he did it, and no one before him tackled the subject so forthrightly and boldly.

History also is likely to give a different perspective about the war in Iraq, more favorable to Bush than the current polls indicate; but that is another debate.

Put this theory into the 2008 campaign, and John McCain comes out ahead of Barack Obama. McCain has been a senator, yes, but military command sometimes offers a good substitute for preparation to be commander-in-chief.

Much earlier in history the first president, George Washington, set the standard for the office, based on his military background. Some other strong presidents followed that example. Andrew Jackson was quite a general before he became president. Theodore Roosevelt led the famous charge up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War before he became governor of New York, then president. Historians rank him high on the list of strong presidents. Yet not every good general became a good president.

Ultimately, questions of character and leadership produce the quality in a president. The qualities of Christ as king can grow in us in any position, maybe more in menial. Those qualities also serve public servants well in all three branches of government—legislative, executive and judicial.

There is no sure-fire formula for preparation for the presidency. But, much of the time, the executive branch seems to produce better results than the legislative branch.

—Russ Pulliam

Russ Pulliam is a contributing editor to the Witness. He is a ruling elder in the Second (Indianapolis, Ind.) RPC.