For Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the move from the Senate to the secretary of state’s office might seem like a natural progression, offering a higher profile and perhaps even positioning him for a future presidential bid.
However, despite potential personal motivations for the switch, history shows that the Cabinet is not a stepping stone to the White House, with many presidential hopefuls seeing their careers stall after taking on such roles.
At first glance, the idea of holding the position of Secretary of State may appear to provide a path to the presidency, given that some of America’s most iconic figures, like Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, once held the position.
Presidential ambitions often clash with the limited visibility of Cabinet positions
But that was in the early years of the republic, and the last president to have served as Secretary of State before assuming the presidency was James Buchanan, just before the Civil War.
Cabinet positions, and particularly the role of Secretary of State, do not necessarily serve as a launchpad for presidential aspirations. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee in 2016, had far more recognition from her roles as First Lady and senator than from her tenure at the State Department.
Her predecessor as Secretary of State, James Blaine, ran for president in 1884 but lost. In fact, Cabinet members have historically struggled to parlay their experience into successful presidential campaigns.
Cabinet positions as a whole do not tend to raise individuals to the highest office. Since Buchanan, only two men — William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover — have made the leap from Cabinet member to president, and both served only one term. The trend is even more pronounced when it comes to vice presidential picks; in the last 84 years, only two Cabinet members have been selected as running mates.
Why do Cabinet members face such difficulty in advancing to the presidency? One reason is that there are fewer Cabinet members compared to other high-profile political roles, like governors and senators, who have a broader platform to launch their presidential ambitions.
Another key factor is the dominance of vice presidents in the nomination process. Since 1948, ten sitting or former vice presidents have secured their party’s nomination for president, while only five vice presidents had done so before that.
This shift has left Cabinet members at a disadvantage since their campaigns often rely on the success of the president they served under, while vice presidents can capitalize on the “reflected glory” of the office. Cabinet members also face the challenge of not receiving full credit for their accomplishments, as most of the credit goes to the president. If the president is unpopular, this only further hinders their chances.
Additionally, Cabinet members are limited in their ability to take independent stances on various issues, unlike governors and senators, who can create their own political identity and challenge the president if necessary. Without a compelling issue to rally behind, they can easily be sidelined in the presidential race.
Rather than advancing a career, a Cabinet position often marks its peak. Even prominent figures like John Kerry, who served as a presidential nominee, have used Cabinet appointments to close out their political careers while remaining influential.
At 53, Rubio is still young with a presidential run behind him, and his acceptance of the secretary of state position may reflect his forward-thinking ambitions. However, history suggests that a Cabinet post might very well signal the end of a political career rather than a new beginning.
