So, Matt opined that Hillary was not qualified to be SoS. I was musing on that comment whilst listening to NPR on my way to work. I wondered, exactly what are the typical SoS credentials?
God Bless Wikipedia, repository of all human knowledge.
So I see that Rice was on the NSC for 6 years total, and an academic foreign policy professor. Powell was of course a career military man -- unusual for this post, I think. Albright worked on the Hill in foreign policy, then academics, then Ambassador to the UN. Christopher was Deputy AG, Deputy SoS, and spent some time in the wilderness as a practicing attorney and man-about-town. James Baker was White House Chief of Staff (twice) and Sec Treas. George Shultz was very unusual -- an economist, Sec Treas, and businessman.
So the pattern I see here is this: the last four State Secretaries were foreign policy specialists; but only two were professional diplomats, whereas two were more military in their backgrounds. Baker and Shultz seemed to have no professional background that was directly relevant to the position, but interestingly, were considered highly successful Secretaries, I think.
As for the Clinton question, I would say she is as qualified as some, less than others. Bear in mind that not long ago she was considered more experienced than the man who is now her boss, and was a credible candidate for the Presidency itself. I would say that the position of First Lady -- and specifically the model she settled into as America's at-large Good Will Ambassador with a brief for women's rights -- was helpful preparatory training, and being a twice-elected senator would put her above most of the other former secretaries in the Washington hierarchy protocols. But she has never had any position with foreign policy as its focus, which is a small concern.
From strictly a good-government perspective, the most concerning thing is that a big part of the job is managerial. The Secretary is in charge of a huge, sprawling department with a jillion employees. Hillary's past, as candidate and as First Lady, does make me worry about her capabilities to run the Department effectively. I suppose she can delegate it to her deputies, but that's my biggest concern. With her sterling international reputation, I think she has the makings of an effective diplomat.
Qualified or not, she's got the job. I'll be very interested to see what she makes of it.
2 comments:
I want to just add a disclaimer that I'm not particularly concerned that she's going to screw anything up, I just was noting that there was literally nothing about her past to prepare her for this.
I think calling her First Lady background as relevant experience is very weak.
But she's smart and capable and enormously motivated and self-assured. That's as likely to pull her through as anything.
I think I'm where Matt is. I think she will do well. I don't buy First Lady as foreign policy experience. To smart, capable, motivated and self-assured, I would add respected internationally. I think she will be very effective.
That said, I think she falls to the bottom of your list of qualifieds. White House Chief of Staff & Sec. Treas. seem to be good qualifications at least for running a Department. Also, I would think more intense exposure to the issues Sec. State deals with than either First Lady or Senator.
Post a Comment