Conventional wisdom has already taken something of a beating in our presidential campaign, and we're still more than two months from Iowa and New Hampshire.
Perhaps foremost among such repudiations has been the idea that governors (and ex-governors) have the advantage when seeking the White House. That assumption flowed from the fact that four of the five presidents who served between 1977 and 2009 had been governors, and that a governor has been the nominee of at least one of our two major parties in every contest since 1976, except for 2008.
But unless Jeb Bush's campaign experiences a miraculous resurrection, that won't happen this time around.
That gubernatorial failure is most remarkable in the crowded GOP field--a lot of smart money was being put just a few months ago on Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, with even former Texas Gov. Rick Perry given a shot. Both New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were also rising Republican stars not that long ago but have already been relegated to the debate undercards.
On the Democratic side, the assumption was that former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley would likely be Hillary Clinton's most serious rival, rather than a 74-year-old socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union.
The belief that governors make better presidential candidates was based on the assumption that they had actually run something and demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle on behalf of bipartisan reform. Amid complaints of gridlock in Washington, experienced, "can do" governors were presumably the ticket.
Apparently no longer: The most remarkable thing about Walker and Perry, both of whom have already quit, and Kasich and Bush, both of whom are on life-support, is that their impressive records back home didn't get them anywhere on the national stage.
Some of this failure was obviously self-inflicted.
Christie's embrace of Barack Obama following Hurricane Sandy in the closing days of the 2012 campaign might have helped him win re-election the next year in New Jersey but probably doomed him forever with conservatives nationwide.
Kasich's record and bipartisan appeal in the crucial swing state of Ohio suggested promise, until he made the mistake of deciding to run against the GOP's conservative base. That dubious advice probably came from campaign consultant John Weaver, who was also adviser to the last failed GOP candidate to try such a strategy, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman. The lesson, according to New Hampshire Union Leader columnist Grant Bosse, is that "you never go full Huntsman."
You can't win the GOP nomination by sucking up to the liberal media. To the contrary, the more you are praised in such quarters, the lower you likely fall (like Huntsman and now Kasich); the more you are attacked, the higher you go (like Marco Rubio and Ben Carson), at least in the eyes of those who matter, which are Republican voters.
Campaign mistakes aside, however, it might be reasonable to conclude that a troubling shift has occurred in American politics wherein actual accomplishments or experience in government more broadly no longer matter much. A proven "track record" might even be something of a liability, providing a paper trail that can be distorted or selectively attacked by opponents.
Good governors work with the other party in state legislatures to pass needed legislation, handle the administrative duties associated with running bureaucracies, and make the kind of difficult decisions involving tradeoffs necessary to balance budgets. One would think that such experience would still be effective preparation for the duties associated with the presidency.
But the truth is that it isn't, because the best prepared and experienced candidates aren't necessarily the best campaigners. And it is the best campaigners, in a dumbed-down political process in an increasingly dumbed-down political culture that makes politics a form of entertainment, who win the presidency.
Which is also why those governors with the impressive records are now either gone or barely hanging on, and the GOP field essentially consists of three novices who've never held public office (Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina) and three first-term senators (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul).
And also why the office they are running for is currently held by a man who probably had the thinnest resume of any presidential nominee in our nation's history.
The hunch is that many of our most accomplished and skilled political leaders don't want to subject themselves to the degrading spectacle that our presidential campaigns have become (think Colin Powell and the late Fred Thompson on that score), and that those who actually take the plunge don't stand much of a chance unless they can get high marks in the made-for-television department.
Campaigning and governing are different things. The qualities necessary to win the presidency are increasingly delinked from, perhaps even inimical to, those necessary to be a good president.
So maybe we should think about reforming a presidential selection process which rewards those who deliver good debate one-liners but have never served on a city council or managed a lemonade stand.
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 11/16/2015