Pence, Petraeus in N.H.: Can a Congressman or General Become President?

It's official: David Petraeus and Mike Pence have entered the world of presidential speculation. Both are headed to New Hampshire.

Pence and Petraeus both downplay talk of a presidential bid, though many people who later become candidates do that early on. But if either one should change his mind, let this be a warning: Recent history is not on your side.

There was a time, not too long ago, when Colin Powell might have had a reasonable shot at the nomination of either major political party. That window has closed on Powell, however. And the hard truth standing in the way of any White House ambitions Petraeus may harbor is that the last military man to make the transition was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 -- 58 years ago (note: Eisenhower was elected president three days prior to Petraeus' birth).

Before then, it was easier. Twelve generals have been elected president, including the first, George Washington. The others: Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and Ike. (Arthur, it should be noted, also served as vice president prior to becoming president.)

In my lifetime, it has been easier for an actor, a peanut farmer, and a community organizer to get elected president than it has been for a professional military man. Part of the reason is simple numbers. In the late 70s, about 80 percent of the members of Congress had military experience. Today, the number is around 10 percent.

The last two soldiers who tried for the White House, Wesley Clark (2004) and Alexander Haig (1988), went nowhere, although Haig's campaign slogan -- "Shake a leg for Haig" -- is memorable to political writers for its sheer goofiness. (Although Haig's description of the Reagan-era deficits as "fiscal flabbery" probably ought to be remembered more.)

For a member of the House of Representatives, the hurdle to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is even higher -- much higher. In recent years, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has flirted with the idea of running, but has never pulled the trigger. And the quixotic campaigns of Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) have seemed to provide only comic relief on the campaign trail. But there's nothing funny about how difficult such a quest is for a House member. Recent scandals underscore history's lesson: It's much more common for a member of Congress to go the Big House than the White House.

This is not for lack of strong candidates. Among those who have run for the presidency directly from the lower house of Congress are John Kasich, Dick Gephardt, John Anderson, Morris Udall, Barbara Jordan, John Ashbrook, and Pete McCloskey. They were serious legislators, all of them. They also didn't get close to their party's nomination.

In fact, only three sitting House members -- Henry Clay (1824), Garfield (1880) and Anderson (1980) -- have managed to make it to the ballot in U.S. general elections. And Garfield was the lone success story. But even this victory comes with asterisk – a couple of them, actually: Garfield had also served as a brigadier general during the Civil War, and at the time he was elected president, he'd already been chosen by the Ohio state legislature to serve in the U.S. Senate.

There are other, somewhat circuitous routes, but they don't always head in the right direction: Gerald R. Ford served in the House as minority leader and was elevated from that position to vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned, and then to president in the crucible of Watergate and Richard Nixon's abdication. But this lifelong House member wasn't able to be elected president even when he had the Oval Office job. And under the category of downward mobility, John Quincy Adams was elected to the U.S. House after having served as president.

Members of the House of Representatives face the problem of being merely one of 435 members, and thus have difficulty rising to the ranks of leadership, gaining national media attention, and creating the national fundraising base that is required for serious presidential candidates. As Nathan Gonzales, a political editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, tells me: "House members have a tough time bridging the stature gap when they're up against governors and senators."

While members of the House and generals have not fared well, Pence and Petraeus would each bring unique strengths to the table. Pence, for example, has many benefits over traditional House "back-benchers": "He's in leadership -- that helps," says Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor and a political analyst for The Cook Political Report. "And he's a leader in the conservative movement -- something that helps because it might be the route to the kind of fundraising base he'd need."

There is no doubt that Pence benefits greatly from his strong conservative bona fides. "Congressman Pence is one of the strongest and most consistent spokesmen for conservative principles today," says Mike Connolly, spokesman for the highly influential and fiscally conservative group The Club for Growth. "Whether or not his name is on the ballot, his ideas need to be in the debate."

Petraeus also has many advantages. For starters, his educational background may serve as a reassuring force for conservatives searching for someone prepared to go toe-to-toe with President Obama. After graduating from West Point, Petraeus earned master's and doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and later served as an assistant professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Petraeus, who authored "the surge" in Iraq that began in 2007, deserves much credit for turning around a war that had grown bloody, unpopular, and expensive. This would presumably win him goodwill from conservatives and independents alike -- and perhaps some liberals as well. Petraeus also benefits from a calm demeanor that is sometimes absent from military leaders with political ambitions.

And, like Pence, he has admirers. In fact, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) recently said of him: "He's a serious guy. . . . He's about the only one out there who could really challenge Obama, who isn't as strong as he was a few months ago. . . . I think he's an independent, and I haven't talked to him about this, but I'd encourage him. . . . I'd be open to it."

It remains to be seen whether either Petraeus or Pence will actually take the plunge. Even if they do, running in 2012 may really be a way of positioning themselves for the future. For Pence, it could be a way of laying the groundwork for a future gubernatorial -- or even another presidential -- campaign. (Note: Testing the waters can sometimes produce surprising results. Garfield never thought he would be elected president when he ran in 1880, either. It was only after a long deadlock between Grant and James G. Blaine caused the delegates to look for a compromise candidate that Garfield was nominated).

While Petraeus and Pence may not like their historical chances, the good news for them is that history was not on Barack Obama's side, either. Prior to 2008, the last sitting senator to win the presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960. Governors, it seemed, had a lock on the office. It remains to be seen whether the trend of electing governors president has waned, whether 2008 was merely an anomaly, or whether the American electorate is willing to return to the sensibilities of an earlier time and consider military officers and members of the House of Representatives for the White House.