Bobby Jindal Will Never Be President

It was a dud – that’s the consensus on Bobby Jindal’s response to the President’s address. Indeed, the criticism has been heated. He’s been panned by Republicans and Democrats, dismissed by commentators, and even mocked on late-night television. Needless to say, many of his fans – count the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh among them – insist that he shouldn’t be underestimated.

This raises a larger question: can Gov. Jindal move past last Tuesday’s performance and get elected President?

Handicapping the White House race is an American pastime. Even though the Mall has barely been cleaned up from the last inaugural ceremony, people have begun contemplating the next President. And, yes, much ink has already been spilled on Gov. Jindal’s future prospects.

Many have an opinion – yet practically no one has attempted a substantive analysis.

Here on FrumForum.com, I’m pleased to offer a definitive analysis drawing on data going back to the 1960s. Based on this, I come to a clear conclusion: Bobby Jindal will not be elected President in 2012 – or any other time.

Why? The data is clear. Practically no one who offers the minority party response to the Joint Sessions or SOTU addresses achieves high office – or practically any Washington office.

A quick google search suggests this coveted speaking slot, first created in 1966) may be the death of political careers. Consider recent orators. J.C. Watts, Tom Daschle, Xavier Becerra, Steven Largent, Gary Locke, where are you now? (Well, we know where Locke is, but Commerce seems to be a retirement job for forgotten politicians.)

In the last 3 decades, only one speaker has made it to the White House: a young governor who spoke in 1985. But Gov. Clinton didn’t give the sole response. In the early years of the minority party response, several people often weighed in. (In 1985, Democrats offered up a handful of Democratic voters, with the discussion aided by various party luminaries, including Mr. Clinton.) Even ignoring the difference between the 1970s responses (which largely reflected the party hierarchy) and today’s responses (where the party chooses a “star”), more than 80 people have been tapped to speak after the President, and just 2 have eventually succeeded the President.

Hyperbole aside – I don’t think this really is a definitive analysis but it is historically interesting – this raises an interesting question: why is it that the speech after the Speech is usually such a dud?

Here are some reasons:

1. The strategic error. The President spends weeks on the speech. His opponent tries to compensate by delivering a pre-written response. How do you react to a speech you haven’t heard before with prepared text? Answer: poorly. The resulting speeches are thus overly general, filled with cliches, and somewhat flat. Gov. Jindal made this error.

2. The structural problem. The President speaks to Congress; a governor – not part of that governance structure – can’t really respond fittingly. He’s telling Washington what to do while not being in Washington, or wanting to tie the hands of his beltway colleagues. Is it really possible for Gov. Jindal to credibly but vaguely criticize the stimulus and the budget?

3. The tactical error. President Obama, like most Presidents before him, was substantive; Gov. Jindal, like most people responding to the President, talked about himself, attempting to introduce himself to the nation. But that tactic looks inevitably light-weight – particularly now, in the middle of a recession after a sober address on the economy.

4. The ambivalence problem – in this case, Gov. Jindal’s. Was he introducing himself to New Hampshire primary voters? Core Republicans who will donate to his PAC? Middle Americans for November 2012? Or was he really critiquing the President? The young Republican agonized over this; in the end, he couldn’t ultimately decide (and thus the jarring Reaganesque rhetoric, pseudo-presidential tone, and psychobabble).

Unlike several other writers for this blog (including its editor), I’ve never been a White House speechwriter and thus can’t offer up constructive ideas on how to respond to the President after a big Congressional address. Perhaps I’ll make a simpler suggestion: the post-speech speech itself is over-rated and ambitious pols should decline the opportunity.

With that in mind, Gov. Palin had a good week – not in what she did, but what she didn’t. Who says she isn’t smart?