Presidential Preference Question
- BuckyRea
- Mugwump53
- BuckyRea
- Mugwump53
-
Brian Tubbs
-
Brian Tubbs
- BuckyRea
-
Brian Tubbs
- steph60
-
Brian Tubbs
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» BuckyRea - Re: Which President...?
Great question! I assume there's some Methuselah-like lifespan attached to anyone inaugurated into the office (altho that would make election to the presidency a bit more hotly contested) and that the long-lived chaps continue to learn about current events and what does and doesn't work in foreign policy. If that's the case, I think I'd go with Jack Kennedy. I'll also assume we can hand out some random drug screens and keep him off the wacky till the crisis is over. But JFK had a couple of key qualities that our current situations ask for.First, he knew how to respond to a crisis in proportion to its menace. Secondly, he had a firm grasp of the international situation (no "learning curve" such as four of our last five presidents have required). Third, he worked well with Congress, consulted their leadership, and could build bipartisan support. Fourth, he picked an attorney-general with a working knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Fifth, he knew how to work under the table with necessary bastards (altho there's still some speculation that that's what got Kennedy killed, so obviously there's a downside to playing footsie with gutter-types).
But most importantly, he understood the salesmanship and symbolism involved in the job he held. He could talk about human rights without looking like a script reader--he seemed to believe and understand what he was talking about and he seemed to act in accordance with those principles.
Like all presidents since, well, since himself, he had handlers and spin doctors to help him appear to embody the best of the American message. But Kennedy himself also knew and effectively managed that theatrical part of the job. He sold the American dream to needed allies overseas without looking too much like that's what he was trying to do. He had the gravitas to communicate the moral imperatives that his generation faced without overselling the point or coming across as naive, as Wilson ultimately did.
What you wouldn't want is a Wilson or Jefferson, someone who thinks he knows everything and only imperfectly applies his own ethical standards when it's convenient. Nor do I think you'd want a Washington (sorry, Brian) or a Cleveland - these were process-oriented pols who tried to stay above the fray. The times call for someone who speaks in broad themes and moral imperatives rather than a details man who can juggle a lot of balls. The times call for someone who is willing to get his hands a little muddy and take sides, which is not a style of leadership that many have taken in the presidency.
Most of all, you don't want a Nixon/L.Johnson/Polk/Jackson type who would apply military solutions and raw force when it makes more sense to apply subtler solutions or let others do our shooting for us. Flexibility and vision are a rare combination--most people find them mutually contradictory. But I think that's the calling of whoever happens to be leading us right now.
If he could get a better handle on military policy, James Madison could be a good anachronism for us to call on for guidance. He too understood the core of the US's strength is the message that the American example sends out to oppressed people around the world. And he was one of the best spy-master presidents we've had.
Teddy, for all his bluster and Big Stickism, also combined practicality, strategic thinking, and moral certitude. I'd sure love to hear his reaction to Ken Lay and Enron.
-- posted by BuckyRea
» Mugwump53 - Re: Re: Which President...?
In response to message posted by BuckyRea:A great question, and a great answer from Bucky!
John Kennedy, as he proved with the Cuban Missle Crisis, might be a very good person at the helm just now. Of course, that is forgetting that Kennedy was somewhat responsible for bringing on the Cuban Missle Crisis in the first place. But still, his handling of it was masterful in almost every regard.
Although I quickly saw Bucky's point when she mentioned Kennedy, my first thought was somewhat different. For many of the same reasons Bucky gave, I immediately thought of Harry Truman.
As he proved in a number of crisis situations (Berlin Airlift, Greece, Korea, and the "Containment" policy) Truman knew how to give an appropriately strong response without creating escalation. He used the military as a political response without getting overly agressive (as Bucky pointed out a Jackson/Polk/Johnson/Nixon type might). He had a clear picture of the world situation and explored all possible alternatives before choosing a course of action.
Another good one might be John Adams, as he proved during the French crisis of the X-Y-Z Affair.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» BuckyRea - Disagree with Adams
Old Braintree didn't know squat about public relations. And remember that right in the middle of the Quasi-War he declared there was a crisis and then up and took a month-long vacation back to Boston, utterly cutting himself off from Washington, DC. At least Crawford has cell phones! In his earlier years Adams was the sort of workaholic that a crisis demands, but I honestly think he arrived at the presidency just a few years past his prime.I do agree Harry's a better model for crisis management than Kennedy and is probably more representative of the American genius than Kennedy. Plus he was a bourbon man while Kennedy strikes me as an effete gin-and-tonic type. But the PR value of panache and sex appeal in what is necessarily a cooperative war with a lot of unsteady allies should not be underestimated.
I was not aware of Kennedy's role in initiating the Cuban missile crisis. I'd always thought of it as Castro and the Russians' doing. I'll run thru your articles and see if I can find something there.
-- posted by BuckyRea
» Mugwump53 - Re: Disagree with Adams
In response to message posted by BuckyRea:I am not sure I agree with your evaluation of John Adams. He steadfastly stuck with a diplomatic approach when his own party was agitating for war. But at the same time he put us on a war fotting just to be prepared. He created the Navy Department (since it was looking like a primarily naval war) and appointed George Washington general-in-chief and had him prepare and organize the state militias for war.
He may not have been much on public relations, but still he might not be a bad choice for managing the nation in a crisis.
Remember, I only mentioned Adams as another possibility, but my first choice remains Harry Truman. I think Truman proved himself through a number of crisis situations and big decisions.
-- posted by Mugwump53
»
Brian Tubbs
- Adams, Kennedy, etc.
I agree with John that you're being too hard on Adams. You mentioned cell phones and, by doing so, alluded to why there was no need for him to hang around in Washington. For one thing, Washington was a VERY different place back then, and people didn't spend more time in it than they had to. Secondly, (and this gets to the cell phone crack) communication was radically different and much slower. He had taken the steps he needed to and given the orders he felt appropriate. He could receive dispatches in Massachusetts as well as he could in the newly built capital. The times were different back then. I'm sure that if he were alive today and were President today, he would adjust his style and approach accordingly. And I tend to agree with John that he would make an impressive President even today.
I also agree with John than Harry Truman would be well suited to the task at hand, probably better than Adams admittedly. Your point is well taken, Bucky, that Truman lacks the charisma and "sex appeal" of JFK, but George W. Bush has neither of those qualities (except for hopefully in his relationship with the First Lady) and is performing competently. My guess is that Truman would do just fine, even though we wouldn't get the dramatic and soaring oratory of a JFK or a Ronald Reagan.
That said, it would be nice to hear JFK give some great patriotic speeches. And, contrary to what many Democrats might suspect, he would bring a fiscally conservative philosophy to today's economy. Not a bad combination.
However, Kennedy made some foreign policy blunders in addition to his sterling performance with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it's unlikely his appetite for irresponsible and indiscreet behavior could be tamed, and that would be disastrous in today's media climate.
I would suggest a few other contenders....
George H.W. Bush would be great on the foreign policy side of the current crisis, but would probably not be well suited to leading the country through a troubled economy.
Dwight Eisenhower would also do a stellar job in running the war on terrorism, methinks. Hard to say how he would handle a sagging economy, since he presided over eight years of economic prosperity thanks mainly to good political fortune and economic cycles working in his favor. Ike would appoint a competent administration and would bring a solid professional mindset to the tasks at hand.
I'm going to reserve comment on FDR because there have been some recent reassessments of his wartime presidency, namely with Thomas Fleming's latest book "The New Dealer's War" which I haven't read. My gut instinct is that I would take Truman over FDR, but I'll reserve any further comment.
Woodrow Wilson would be too divorced from practical reality. Too academic. Too idealistic. Too much the visionary.
Bucky, I agree with your mention of Teddy Roosevelt. Frankly, I'd rank him right up there with Truman as one of the leading contenders.
Finally, and I know my Democrat friends will fry me for this, but I've got to say it...
Ronald Reagan. Reagan faced a different world than George W. Bush does today, but remember that my question presupposes a familiarity with today's context. I think Reagan excels in two areas:
1) Image/Presence - He easily ties JFK in this regard and gives FDR a run for his money. His patriotic and dramatic oratory would define our country's cause and inspire our military quite nicely.
2) Leadership - Related to the above, Reagan was brilliant at setting out a broad agenda with goals and objectives, outlining the principles upon which said agenda is based, and then delegating the appropriate tasks to competent administrators. This style, which allowed him to become too detached late in his term (ala Iran-Contra), served him very well in the beginning, and presuming he were healthy and fully engaged, would serve him well in our current crisis.
Well, those are my thoughts.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
»
Brian Tubbs
- George Washington
Bucky, I have to grudgingly agree with you on Washington. The Father of our Country would not, I'm sad to say, command the same love, devotion, and respect in the capital today that he did in his day. Because of this, he'd be forced to take sides, to favor one political party distinctly over the other, and play politics. That would be anathema to him, and I don't think he'd adapt well to it. He would try to stay above the fray, and yet the modern presidency is fully engaged in that fray. It can't escape it. It's part of it. Even assuming biblical life spans, Washington would literally be a fish out of water were he the President today. And that's a shame.
I would see Washington more in the role of the "elder statesman" as whoever the President is (in our exercise) would undoubtedly be photographed and filmed visiting Mount Vernon repeatedly to "confer" with the Old General. Kind of how Bill Clinton visited Reagan upon taking office or how most modern Presidents have used Billy Graham for photo-ops to bestow legitimacy on their policies. Something like that, only much more frequent and more potent.
-Brian
p.s. Let's just hope Washington wouldn't ask for a commission for Alexander Hamilton to lead the ground war. :-)
p.p.s. Sorry, Alex. I shouldn't be so hard on Hamilton. He did a lot of good things for our country.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
» BuckyRea - Truman's sex appeal
Sex appeal is all surface of course. When Truman was president, the White House staff had to keep on replacing the bed frames that he and Bess used to break. Kennedy's own amorous prowess was reputedly lacking in stamina.Um, if you're under age 13, please don't read this thread.
-- posted by BuckyRea
»
Brian Tubbs
- Harry & Bess
I didn't know about the bed frames. That's pretty funny. Where did you pick that piece of information up at....to continue this PG-13 conversation?
I'm not surprised, though, when you consider that Harry was a consummate writer of love letters. He knew how to keep his wife feeling loved and cherished. That's for sure.
It would be interesting to discuss presidential marriages. I would guess that Harry & Bess would be right up there with John & Abigail as probably among the best marriages ever to reside in the White House. Ronald & Nancy Reagan would probably be up there as well.
I think the White House staff had to replace bedroom furniture for the Clintons as well, according to what I read and heard at different points. But for different reasons.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
» steph60 - Why did Americas condemn Buchanan's Ostend Manifesto?
Why did Americas condemn Buchanan's Ostend Manifesto?Why was James Buchanan not asked to serve as the Democratic in 1860?
Who served as the official hostess in the White House duing James Buchanan's stay there?
What document of James Buchanan encouraged the U.S purchase of Cuba from Spain?
-- posted by steph60
»
Brian Tubbs
- Re: Why did Americas condemn Buchanan's Ostend Manifesto?
You should post these questions as a thread in their own right, so they don't get lost in the mix. Click on "Discussions" on the Welcome Page and follow the instructions to start a new discussion.
-Brian
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.