The former Indiana governor’s decision is understandable, but unfortunate.
Earlier this month, I made the case that Mitch Daniels should run for the Senate seat opening up as a result of incumbent Republican Mike Braun’s decision to run for governor of Indiana. Daniels has not only a sterling record as Indiana governor to boast of but also an impressive tenure as president of Purdue University over the past decade, one that required him to act correctly and forcefully on relevant issues — free speech, coronavirus, the threat from China — despite his being ostensibly out of politics during this period. In both positions, he had demonstrated a modest yet confident character, successfully achieving his aims while evincing a rare aversion to the spotlight. A Senate increasingly attracting toadies, showboaters, and other unserious people — while losing others of good character — could benefit from adding someone like Daniels.
Unfortunately, one significant individual disagrees — the aforementioned Mitch Daniels.
This morning, he announced to Politico, “It’s just not the job for me, not the town for me, and not the life” he wants for himself “at this point.” The statement is full of mature considerations about politics and his role in it. He gives “full credit and respect” to the Senate “and those serving in it.” He endorses what he calls the “citizen-servant approach to public life.” He stresses his belief that “politics and government are worthy pursuits, which men and women of good will should undertake if they can, not as a life’s work or an end in itself, but to try to ensure that the important realms of society — the private economy, our voluntary associations, local communities and neighborhoods, and especially families can all flourish.”
But he ultimately decided that he would not be “well-suited to legislative office” as someone accustomed to executive positions and “action jobs,” especially an office in which seniority would play so prominent a role. And he would have little of that, despite his own relatively advanced age. Moreover, in his recent “field trip” (his words) to D.C., which involved meetings with many current senators, he saw nothing that altered his view of his suitability for the position.
Longtime Daniels admirers (such as myself) might forever be haunted by the counterfactual of a Daniels Senate tenure (assuming a win), which he dared to outline to Politico:
Had I chosen to compete, given my age, I would have done so on an explicitly one-term basis. I would have returned any unspent campaign funds to their donors, closed any political accounts, and devoted six years to causes I think critical to the long-term safety and prosperity of our country. These issues include saving the safety net programs, so that we can keep promises we have made to older and vulnerable Americans and avoid a terrible national crisis of confidence and betrayal; in so doing, to avoid crushing our economy and today’s younger citizens with the unpayable debts we are on course to leave them; to confront firmly the aggression of a would-be superpower who holds in contempt the values of personal freedom and individual dignity central to our national success and our view of a just society; to secure our borders without depriving the nation of the talent and energy that grateful immigrants can bring.
And I would have tried to work on these matters in a way that might soften the harshness and personal vitriol that has infected our public square, rendering it not only repulsive to millions of Americans, but also less capable of effective action to meet our threats and seize our opportunities.
In turning down a run for Senate, Daniels mused that he might be able to “find ways to contribute that do not involve holding elective office” but also approached the possibility of finding no such outlet with equanimity. After all, “there is so much more to life.” He added, “people obsessed with politics or driven by personal ambition sometimes have difficulty understanding those who are neither.” But I understand Daniels’s logic quite well. Urging him to run, I noted that he had precisely the kind of virtues in short supply in our politics today, but that would, paradoxically, incline him to refrain from reentering politics. It seems unlikely that the spurious campaign the Club for Growth and others waged to keep him from running for Senate fazed him. Last week, he said, “I’m not the least bit worried, honestly, about losing an election. I’m worried about winning it and regretting it for six years,” Even so, Daniels’s decision not to run for Senate is a victory for the forces who would make our politics worse for their own benefit.
I cannot begrudge a man his choices, particularly when made with his characteristic thoughtfulness. However, I can’t help but to think that, even if he himself won’t regret bowing out, the country will. While the Mitch Danielses of the world will seriously reflect on whether to enter politics and decide against it, the opportunists in public life will make no such considerations. They will instead do or say or think whatever is necessary for their own self-advancement. This paradoxical asymmetry will benefit some — indeed, it already has — but will continue to make us all worse off. The ranks of the shameless in our politics will grow while the reserves of the honest will diminish. That is not a promising trajectory if it continues unabated.
As for Daniels: There are occasions when duty and patriotism ought to compel good men to do what they otherwise might not. I look forward to whatever he does next, even if it’s just a well-deserved retirement. But I wonder if he has just declined an opportunity to do something great for his country.