Presidential Preference Question: Adams, Kennedy, etc.

» 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