What Happened to the Competence Primary?

Jonathan Last argues that Mitt Romney has not been a very effective candidate over his 17 years of office-seeking:

[I] in the 2008 cycle he went 3-16  [win/lose]. Combine that with the rest of his runs and you get a 17-year career average of 5-18.

Fair shot.

Rick Perry certainly has better bragging rights, as the longest-serving governor of Texas. Some might wonder whether what worked for Perry in Texas will work for him nationwide. But let's leave those qualms to the side for the moment and focus on a more fundamental question.

When choosing a candidate for president, it's important not to lose sight of the "for president" part. American history is replete with examples of very attractive candidates who did not cut the mustard in the office. Isn't that the fundamental Republican critique of Barack Obama? Great candidate, bad executive.

Four years ago, Republicans laid great weight on competence. National Review editor Rich Lowry discerned a Republican "competence primary":

Some of [George W.] Bush’s strengths as a political leader, particularly his loyalty and optimism, have proven to have a double edge when it comes to running the government. He has made a few key bad decisions about policy and personnel, compounded them by not reacting quickly enough when things began to go wrong, and failed to create a sense of accountability in his government. He has seemed to have a much stronger sense of ends than means, and neglected the relation between the two.

The upshot is that even Republican primary voters will be looking in 2008 for someone who doesn’t run the government like George W. Bush.

If you were running a competence primary today, how would you rate Rick Perry as a candidate? Some might say: he must be good, look at all those jobs they are creating in Texas. They were creating a lot of jobs in Texas in 1998 too - yet George W. Bush still managed to disappoint as a national leader.

The question you want to ask is: how does the candidate manage?

Does he absorb and process information intelligently? Does he have a good sense for distinguishing truth from flim-flam? Does he surround himself with capable people? Does he demand results and enforce accountability? How does he react to (inevitable) failures?

By these criteria, Romney shows the makings of a successful president. Rick Perry - not so much.