Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016

A year and a half ago, I was reading Paul Johnson's Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties and I was struck by this claim:

"Eisenhower was the most successful twentieth-century president."


You would never have heard anything like this from the mainstream media, from most college professors, or from very many people in Hollywood. On the contrary, all day long it is Kennedy, Kennedy, and Kennedy. This is because John F. Kennedy (35th U.S. president 1961-1963) had that glamorous, GQ image some people think is such an important leadership quality. By contrast, Eisenhower came across as old, bald, and boring. It didn't help that he was a Republican.

Kennedy stood up for civil rights reform, that is, he gave emotional speeches supporting it. It matters not that Kennedy failed to get a significant civil rights bill passed through Congress; surely he would have succeeded in another attempt had he not been gunned down in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Maybe... or maybe not... We will never know.

Eisenhower, in the judgement of many historians, was aloof about the need for civil rights reform. Eisenhower sent an airborne division into Little Rock, Arkansas, to forcibly desegregate a school there, or rather, make sure the officials complied with a court order to do so. He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. He did it to show states couldn't defy federal courts, right?

Paul Johnson's claim about Eisenhower being the most successful twentieth-century president got me interested in researching this old, bald, boring, aloof, old president, a little further. Then, last summer, I picked up a new, hardback biography entitled Eisenhower In War And Peace by Jean Edward Smith. The book offered a new, fresh take on the 34th president. It sought to debunk fabrications and distortions about him. Among the revisions was new evidence, not new, but ignored by most researchers. This evidence shows Eisenhower to have been a very active and effective president in combating race discrimination. Here are the facts:

*Eisenhower desegregated the armed forces. The previous president, Harry Truman, gave the order and gets the credit. However, until Eisenhower was elected the order was ignored by the military. Eisenhower made sure they complied with the order and held them accountable.


*Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, John Harlan, and William Brennan to the U.S. Supreme Court: all fierce activists for civil rights reform. Many Eisenhower appointees to the justice department were of the same ilk and would play a pivotal role in the civil rights fights of the 50's and 60's.


The book uncovers many more nuggets of reality that dispel the unfair notion that Eisenhower was aloof on civil rights. Part of the reason not much of it has come to light until now is because Eisenhower, unlike some other presidents, did not get on a soapbox and blab all day long about his accomplishments. Instead, he worked behind the scenes to do what he wanted and allowed other people to reap the credit.

Johnson's and Smith's work raised the stature of President Eisenhower in my ranking of U.S. presidents. Then a month ago, I found myself thumbing through a reference work of essays on the American presidents. When I got to the essay on Eisenhower, the first paragraph stopped me dead in my tracks! I read it over and over to let the meaning sink into the recesses of my understanding. It had me thinking about the very qualities that make a presidency successful. I then realized why such qualities are sorely lacking in the current White House. Here is the text of the paragraph from the book The American Presidency: The Authoritative Reference (Editors Alan Brinkley an Davis Dyer):

"The Eisenhower Presidency [34th U.S. president 1953 - 1961] was one of the most unusual in modern American history. Both Eisenhower himself and many of his top aides had no previous experience in public office. Even more atypical, he and they had spent most of their adult lives rising to the the top in other fields of endeavor, most notably the military, business, law, and education. In no other twentieth-century presidential administration did the professional politician enjoy less prestige and influence. Despite, or perhaps because of, those circumstances, Eisenhower's presidency was highly competitive, effective, and successful, the most so of any presidency since World War II."


-David L. Stebenne

Ohio State University

Here Is The Rundown of Eisenhower's Other Presidential Successes:

*expansion of Social Security coverage to the self-employed and to the domestically employed
*construction of the interstate highway system, funded not by the deficit, but by a fuel tax
*construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which greatly improved trade between the U.S. and Canada
*the end of the Korean War (a campaign promise, fulfilled within months of taking office)
*stopping Communist China from attacking Taiwan, without using nuclear weapons
*stopping a war between Britain, Israel, and France vs. Egypt over Suez
*allowing Senator Joe McCarthy enough political rope to hang himself by bating him into a fight with the military
*curbs on union power
*cuts in federal spending which led to a balanced federal budget
*expansion of the U2 surveillance plane program, which later allowed us to discover nuclear-tipped, Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba, and pointed at Florida
*telling the Soviet Union to go take a hike when they gave us an ultimatum to evacuate ALL of Berlin (an ultimatum, which was given again to Kennedy, who meekly abandoned East Berlin, which was soon walled-off from the world)

The second item on the list above, construction of the interstate highway system, had a greater transformative impact on the daily life of the American people than any other single domestic reform of all time. It provided many "shovel-ready" jobs that helped the economy rebound from a brief recession, and paved the golden age of the American auto industry. 

Have another look at some of the other items. Do you notice that many of them have to do with advancing American interests abroad without getting into costly wars? Some of them have to do with ending wars, or using American might to prevent other countries from attacking each other. America back then was functioning like a superpower, in a respectable way. Ask yourself, based on recent events in the Middle East, "Is America still respected as a superpower?" This is a timely question.

Now, have another look at the paragraph from The American Presidency: The Authoritative Reference. You may notice that some of the bold words have to do with business and other private-sector leaders running the country instead of professional politicians. The difference between business leaders and professional politicians is not just a difference in life-occupation, it is also a difference in character. This point was given clarity to me recently, when my ears caught a segment from Neal Boortz's radio show.

Boortz explained the difference between a businessman and a politician in these ways: 

*one is sought for their job; the other seeks their job

*one invests their capital, and their ability to stay in power is based on results; the other invests the capital of taxpayers and blames other entities for failures

*one is hired by people who run the industry; the other is hired by anyone who shows up to cast a vote

*one is qualified based on credentials, experience, and job 
performance; the other is qualified by age, citizenship, and friends who are willing to promote their candidacy by making promises to an electorate, some of whom are barely literate

Dear Reader,

In thinking about the qualities needed in your next favorite candidate for the presidency in 2016, certain principles should come to mind. Some may be obvious: devotion to constitutional principles, love of country, fiscal responsibility, and an America-first foreign policy. 

Other qualities may be more subtle, but equally important. Not the least of these is a results-based decision making compass. Competence builds this compass. Accomplishment bolsters it. Wisdom guides it through the fog of everyday life. More than most, President Eisenhower embodied this style of leadership. It is a style sorely lacking and badly needed today in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Patriot Thought

5 comments:

  1. Jason,

    Excellent stuff! I really dig these articles. One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, can we call Justice Warren and Brennan accomplishments from a conservative point of view? If they were good on civil rights (which is huge), they were not good on much else. Their support for civil rights has to be balanced with their disregard for the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chris, great long term perspective on Suez! Some of that I hadn't thought of before.

    On Warren and Brennan, you are correct that they were disasters from a conservative/constitutional perspective. But in this piece, I show them to be part of Ike's conscious effort to advance civil rights. Recognition of his civil rights accomplishments is long overdue. Only now are we seeing recent (responsible)historians like Jean Edward Smith take on the distortions and fabrications of Stephen Ambrose. Ambrose did great harm to Ike's civil rights record, in the many books he wrote about him. Ambrose claimed to have had an interview with Ike, in which Ike told him he wished Brown vs. Board never happened. Smith points out that no evidence of said interview ever took place and no one has corroborated it. Ambrose always painted Ike as aloof or uncaring on civil rights. The real record shows otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. Do you know if Ike ever expressed regret for some of the decisions of the Warren/Brennan court?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent question. I don't know. He kept his reservations to himself mostly. For example, he was never impressed with Kennedy, but backed him to the hilt in the Cuban crises. JFK relied on Ike for advice through some of that. Ike disliked criticizing people in public.

    ReplyDelete

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.