I previously wrote about situations where the opposition party opposes a policy just because theya re in the opposition but don't have any alternatives. There are also situations where the president's party will support something that is against their ideology but want to give the president a victory. I
will point to two examples:
-Medicare Part D: Republicans voted for this under President Bush. This is good
policy, but goes against the limited government ideology of Republicans.
If Obama had proposed this, it would have been called socialism and
received not one Republican vote.
-Drone Strikes (especially against Americans): Democrats are staying mostly quite
while Obama does something that clearly violates civil liberties. These
are bomb strikes away from the field of battle (unless increasing the
field of battle to the point of meaninglessness). If this is okay, how
is Guantanamo Bay illegal? If a Republican were doing this, there is no
way Democrats would be silent.
In both cases, victories for the President (and therefore the party) are more important than
sticking to ideology. Medicare Part D was popular, even though it wasn’t
paid for. And drone strikes make Obama and Democrats look tough on
foreign policy.
The same is true in reverse. What is important is not whether Healthcare
reform was good policy (which Cato, Romney, and Gingrich all thought it
was), but whether Healthcare will give Obama a victory.
I should give Republicans some credit though. While their opposition on things
like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have been stupid and just done to
oppose Obama for the sake of it, they haven’t opposed the drone strikes.
They are happy to let Obama take some credit here, maybe only because
they can say they were right all along.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Great Modern Presidents? No.
On some professional-ish blog somewhere, the author took a poll of the best (and worst) president since FDR. So I figured I would give my two cents here. Basically, I don't think there have been any great presidents since FDR. You won't be surprised to know that I won't consider any Republicans great, since by and large they want less services and smaller government. And of the Democrats, I don't think any were very good. But let's go through the list.
Truman: To be sure, my knowledge is a little limited here. I watched the American Experience documentary but I haven't read the McCullough book. And it seems most Truman-lovers have read the McCullough book. So maybe there is something I am missing. And maybe the American Experience movie was biased or gave a bad impression.
But I just don't see a lot to be excited about. Among his first acts was to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. He could have first shown their power by dropping on a military target or somewhere underpopulated. Instead, he chose to massacre (or allowed his military leaders to choose to massacre) tens of thousands of people.
Further, his prosecution of the Korean War lead to thousands more American deaths than necessary. Now, maybe he received bad advice from MacArthur and the CIA. But it still seems obvious that China would in fact intervene if the UN proceeded north of the 38th parallel. And they did and we almost lost the war because of it.
On the domestic front, he was anti-union at almost every turn. And although his Marshall Plan is seen as a major success, it came at the cost of starting the Red Scare. And in so doing, Truman started an effort to ruin the lives of people just because they held an economic belief in communism. So much for freedom of speech and thought.
Dwight Eisenhower: He might be the best of the bunch. In his 8 years, there isn't anything too exciting. The interstate highway system, though supportive of cars over public transportation, was probably smart for its time and in a country as big as America. He also enforced school desegregation and implemented integration of the military. His foreign policy isn't great (especially with the CIA if you believe Legacy of Ashes) but it wasn't terrible. Overall, a competent and not too conservative president. In fact, maybe it was better to have a pause on the New Deal programs than further expansion (which might have led to a knee-jerk reversal).
John F. Kennedy: He only had three years (1961-1963) but there isn't much good to say. His foreign policies were a disaster: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis (not as bad as it could have been, but JFK and RFK come off looking like amateurs), Vietnam, etc. Peace Corps however is a positive. What else is there?
Lyndon Johnson: I like the ideas of Great Society, though it didn't seem to have a lasting impact. Maybe the policies weren't well thought out. But more likely, Vietnam pulled needed resources away. And nothing was worse for America since World War II - maybe in our history - than Vietnam. Over 50,000 Americans died and a million or more Vietnamese. The bombing campaigns were brutal and disgusting. Just truly appalling.
Richard Nixon: Maybe the worst of the bunch. He had no respect for the rule of law and blatantly abused his office (Watergate; Daniel Ellsburg). He continued the Vietnam War despite a campaign promise to end it "with dignity". His detente with China is laudable. But his anti-communist policies in Chile et al were despicable.
Gerald Ford: I don't actually know what to say about Ford. All I really know about his presidency is that he pardoned Nixon. I don't have strong feelings about that decision, but I certainly don't love it.
Jimmy Carter: Egypt / Israel peace deal was a success and thanks to his hard work. However, his work on the Iranian hostage crisis was ineffective. And he didn't give Americans confidence during the energy crisis. Overall, not a great presidency.
I will say though that his work since being president has been truly a marvel. His efforts on curable and preventable diseases in developing countries has been amazing. I think he has been a good, though controversial voice on Israel / Palestine; I don't know if I agree with all he has said, but I think he is raising some strong points. I don't know if Bill Clinton acknowledges this, but I bet he is using Carter as an example for post-president activity.
Ronald Reagan: On domestic programs, he was heartless. His rhetoric about welfare moms driving Cadillacs set us back decades in the fight to improve the lives of low income families. He gutted so many social programs and justified it by talking about government waste. His line that government is the problem has lead to the current conservative climate that actually believes such nonsense without qualification.
On foreign policy, he wasn't much better. Many give him credit for ending the Cold War - by spending so much on military that the Soviet Union could not keep up, but tried, and eventually collapsed. Maybe he could have accomplished the same thing by spending as much on social programs. It is also possible that the Soviet Union was on its way with or without our military deficit-spending (in other words, Gorbachev ended the Cold War, not Reagan). His decisions to trade arms for hostages in Iran, despite saying he wasn't, was despicable. And he continued policies to fight any and all "leftist groups" even by supporting worse right-wing groups.
So overall, I would say Regan was a disaster.
George H.W. Bush: He made the right decision in the Gulf War (not to go on to Baghdad). Some say his calm (and inactivity) during the fall of the Soviet Union was just what was needed. He raised taxes when we needed it. And some argue that he put us on the road to economic recovery but didn't see the electoral benefits. Not a bad presidency. But nothing great to be proud of.
Bill Clinton: He passed welfare reform, so blaming the poor could now be a bipartisan issue. He continued America's trend of not getting involved to stop genocides - this time in Rwanda. His serious personal problems led to an impeachment. On the bright side there was Bosnia, where we did finally get involved in a genocide (better late than never). And we had a very strong economy and budget surpluses - though how much of that was due to Clinton is unclear. There isn't a lot to love, and a few things to hate.
Like Carter, his post-president life has been much better. His work on AIDS and energy seems to be paying great dividends.
George W. Bush: He turned budget surpluses into budget deficits (but has avoided blame). Much of this is due to his unfunded tax cuts. He pushed us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He opened Guantanamo Bay as well as worse "black site" international prisons. He pushed for illegal NSA surveillance of Americans. He took his eyes off of the War in Afghanistan, which is why we are still fighting it. He condoned torture, including in the form of waterboarding. (As bad as this is, the current crop of Republican contenders don't have Bush's moderate streak, meaning its hard to imagine a Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind, the first of which was unfunded and the second I don't love but could have been much worse.)
Barack Obama: He let Congress pass pretty good health care legislation (which he didn't defend and is now unpopular). He was successful at passing an updated nuclear treaty with Russia. He also let Congress pass decent, though not strong enough, financial reform. However, we have a terrible economy, in part because he took his eyes off of it and focused instead on long term budget deficits. He has expanded drone strikes, including killing of Americans without due process. And he hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay.
Conclusion: It is difficult to be completely objective. I go easy on Republican presidents that were competent but made little major changes. However, I am obviously very tough on Democratic presidents - holding them to the liberal ideal.
In fact, if I were to be as objective as possible, I might see that Carter and Obama, and George H.W. Bush and Eisenhower, were all relatively effective and did not make the world much worse. Truman (Atomic Bomb, Communism, Korea), Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (domestic policy, oppressive right-wing governments), Clinton (welfare reform, Rwanda), and George W. Bush (torture, deficits, Iraq) all did things that either were terrible domestic policy or needlessly killed tens of thousands of people in foreign countries.
So none of these presidents did enough to be considered great. If I had to pick a best, I might go with Eisenhower. If I had to pick the worst, it would be Nixon - though he has some people right on his heels: Johnson and Reagan.
Putting aside objectivity, I will say that despite my lukewarm feelings on all presidents, I am willing to let my infant son wear shirts with Democratic presidents - even ones I don't think were terribly effective. But there is no way I would put him in a onesie with a Republican on it. Well, maybe Eisenhower. Maybe.
Also, I will continue this thread looking further back. I have plans to read more about FDR, Jackson, and Wilson. I imagine I will also eventually get to Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson at some point after that. So far, the only presidents I would consider great are Lincoln and Washington (though I need to remind myself about Washington). Somehow, I think I am too critical to think highly of anyone else. We'll see though.
Update: I didn't mention civil rights under LBJ. Including that only changes my opinion slightly. I give way more credit to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., SNCC, SCLC, and all the other groups that really made it happen by bringing attention to the issue. But I do concede that LBJ did his best to get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, where a different president might not have tried or might not have been successful. But Vietnam is such a huge disaster that it looms over everything else.
Truman: To be sure, my knowledge is a little limited here. I watched the American Experience documentary but I haven't read the McCullough book. And it seems most Truman-lovers have read the McCullough book. So maybe there is something I am missing. And maybe the American Experience movie was biased or gave a bad impression.
But I just don't see a lot to be excited about. Among his first acts was to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. He could have first shown their power by dropping on a military target or somewhere underpopulated. Instead, he chose to massacre (or allowed his military leaders to choose to massacre) tens of thousands of people.
Further, his prosecution of the Korean War lead to thousands more American deaths than necessary. Now, maybe he received bad advice from MacArthur and the CIA. But it still seems obvious that China would in fact intervene if the UN proceeded north of the 38th parallel. And they did and we almost lost the war because of it.
On the domestic front, he was anti-union at almost every turn. And although his Marshall Plan is seen as a major success, it came at the cost of starting the Red Scare. And in so doing, Truman started an effort to ruin the lives of people just because they held an economic belief in communism. So much for freedom of speech and thought.
Dwight Eisenhower: He might be the best of the bunch. In his 8 years, there isn't anything too exciting. The interstate highway system, though supportive of cars over public transportation, was probably smart for its time and in a country as big as America. He also enforced school desegregation and implemented integration of the military. His foreign policy isn't great (especially with the CIA if you believe Legacy of Ashes) but it wasn't terrible. Overall, a competent and not too conservative president. In fact, maybe it was better to have a pause on the New Deal programs than further expansion (which might have led to a knee-jerk reversal).
John F. Kennedy: He only had three years (1961-1963) but there isn't much good to say. His foreign policies were a disaster: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis (not as bad as it could have been, but JFK and RFK come off looking like amateurs), Vietnam, etc. Peace Corps however is a positive. What else is there?
Lyndon Johnson: I like the ideas of Great Society, though it didn't seem to have a lasting impact. Maybe the policies weren't well thought out. But more likely, Vietnam pulled needed resources away. And nothing was worse for America since World War II - maybe in our history - than Vietnam. Over 50,000 Americans died and a million or more Vietnamese. The bombing campaigns were brutal and disgusting. Just truly appalling.
Richard Nixon: Maybe the worst of the bunch. He had no respect for the rule of law and blatantly abused his office (Watergate; Daniel Ellsburg). He continued the Vietnam War despite a campaign promise to end it "with dignity". His detente with China is laudable. But his anti-communist policies in Chile et al were despicable.
Gerald Ford: I don't actually know what to say about Ford. All I really know about his presidency is that he pardoned Nixon. I don't have strong feelings about that decision, but I certainly don't love it.
Jimmy Carter: Egypt / Israel peace deal was a success and thanks to his hard work. However, his work on the Iranian hostage crisis was ineffective. And he didn't give Americans confidence during the energy crisis. Overall, not a great presidency.
I will say though that his work since being president has been truly a marvel. His efforts on curable and preventable diseases in developing countries has been amazing. I think he has been a good, though controversial voice on Israel / Palestine; I don't know if I agree with all he has said, but I think he is raising some strong points. I don't know if Bill Clinton acknowledges this, but I bet he is using Carter as an example for post-president activity.
Ronald Reagan: On domestic programs, he was heartless. His rhetoric about welfare moms driving Cadillacs set us back decades in the fight to improve the lives of low income families. He gutted so many social programs and justified it by talking about government waste. His line that government is the problem has lead to the current conservative climate that actually believes such nonsense without qualification.
On foreign policy, he wasn't much better. Many give him credit for ending the Cold War - by spending so much on military that the Soviet Union could not keep up, but tried, and eventually collapsed. Maybe he could have accomplished the same thing by spending as much on social programs. It is also possible that the Soviet Union was on its way with or without our military deficit-spending (in other words, Gorbachev ended the Cold War, not Reagan). His decisions to trade arms for hostages in Iran, despite saying he wasn't, was despicable. And he continued policies to fight any and all "leftist groups" even by supporting worse right-wing groups.
So overall, I would say Regan was a disaster.
George H.W. Bush: He made the right decision in the Gulf War (not to go on to Baghdad). Some say his calm (and inactivity) during the fall of the Soviet Union was just what was needed. He raised taxes when we needed it. And some argue that he put us on the road to economic recovery but didn't see the electoral benefits. Not a bad presidency. But nothing great to be proud of.
Bill Clinton: He passed welfare reform, so blaming the poor could now be a bipartisan issue. He continued America's trend of not getting involved to stop genocides - this time in Rwanda. His serious personal problems led to an impeachment. On the bright side there was Bosnia, where we did finally get involved in a genocide (better late than never). And we had a very strong economy and budget surpluses - though how much of that was due to Clinton is unclear. There isn't a lot to love, and a few things to hate.
Like Carter, his post-president life has been much better. His work on AIDS and energy seems to be paying great dividends.
George W. Bush: He turned budget surpluses into budget deficits (but has avoided blame). Much of this is due to his unfunded tax cuts. He pushed us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He opened Guantanamo Bay as well as worse "black site" international prisons. He pushed for illegal NSA surveillance of Americans. He took his eyes off of the War in Afghanistan, which is why we are still fighting it. He condoned torture, including in the form of waterboarding. (As bad as this is, the current crop of Republican contenders don't have Bush's moderate streak, meaning its hard to imagine a Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind, the first of which was unfunded and the second I don't love but could have been much worse.)
Barack Obama: He let Congress pass pretty good health care legislation (which he didn't defend and is now unpopular). He was successful at passing an updated nuclear treaty with Russia. He also let Congress pass decent, though not strong enough, financial reform. However, we have a terrible economy, in part because he took his eyes off of it and focused instead on long term budget deficits. He has expanded drone strikes, including killing of Americans without due process. And he hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay.
Conclusion: It is difficult to be completely objective. I go easy on Republican presidents that were competent but made little major changes. However, I am obviously very tough on Democratic presidents - holding them to the liberal ideal.
In fact, if I were to be as objective as possible, I might see that Carter and Obama, and George H.W. Bush and Eisenhower, were all relatively effective and did not make the world much worse. Truman (Atomic Bomb, Communism, Korea), Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (domestic policy, oppressive right-wing governments), Clinton (welfare reform, Rwanda), and George W. Bush (torture, deficits, Iraq) all did things that either were terrible domestic policy or needlessly killed tens of thousands of people in foreign countries.
So none of these presidents did enough to be considered great. If I had to pick a best, I might go with Eisenhower. If I had to pick the worst, it would be Nixon - though he has some people right on his heels: Johnson and Reagan.
Putting aside objectivity, I will say that despite my lukewarm feelings on all presidents, I am willing to let my infant son wear shirts with Democratic presidents - even ones I don't think were terribly effective. But there is no way I would put him in a onesie with a Republican on it. Well, maybe Eisenhower. Maybe.
Also, I will continue this thread looking further back. I have plans to read more about FDR, Jackson, and Wilson. I imagine I will also eventually get to Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson at some point after that. So far, the only presidents I would consider great are Lincoln and Washington (though I need to remind myself about Washington). Somehow, I think I am too critical to think highly of anyone else. We'll see though.
Update: I didn't mention civil rights under LBJ. Including that only changes my opinion slightly. I give way more credit to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., SNCC, SCLC, and all the other groups that really made it happen by bringing attention to the issue. But I do concede that LBJ did his best to get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, where a different president might not have tried or might not have been successful. But Vietnam is such a huge disaster that it looms over everything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)