So I've been reading this:
The Leaders We DeservedI decided it was a sensible way to evaluate the relative merits of Presidents. Even if we are still free to disagree on the actual ranks the author put forth on historical Presidencies. (Notably it reads in some parts like it was clearly written by a Reagan conservative Democrat, though I'm rather likely to admit Reagan is clearly a far more effective President than most were. Even Obama said as much).
The basic assessment categories were:
Character -- basically if politician doesn't put private benefits over the national interest, or use the political power for the benefit of political cronies, this is considered good.
Vision: Do we have a plan?
Competence: Can we get that plan followed up on with administrative action, or is this plan so bad that we're all screwed?
Economic Policy: Is the economy going to get better or worse because of your policies (or lack thereof).
Civil Liberty/Human Rights: Are we to respect rule of law and extend the practice of that to each equally, or get bogged down in petty fights over race, gender, and creed.
Foreign policy/national defense: Are we at war and do we need to be?
One key issue which was addressed during this was where the prestige and power of the executive office was expanded or expended, was this by itself a good thing or was it used inappropriately. We have a jackass on our $20 in part because far too much respect is paid to Jackson for expanding and redefining the executive branch (he was literally called this and that's why we have a donkey as a party mascot). Essentially saying we want our Presidents to act like kings and not respect or work within the frames of our government in order to get things done. Rather than accept this as historical truth, it was necessary to arrive at reasoned categorical variables on which to base the quality of each administration rather than to use arbitrary political leanings to grind against one President's misgivings but forgive another for similar problems (Truman v Grant is instructive here). It's also instructive to consider that certain valuable members of our founding were less than effective as executives. Jefferson was the model philosopher-king by his own design, but he became rather petty when he couldn't resolve external problems (the Napoleonic War). He belongs on Rushmore for other reasons (him or Franklin, Ben got the money and some bad rap songs instead) but he was basically an above average president, not a great one. Madison on the other hand was a unmitigated disaster in most ways.
First there was the subjective and unusual term we hear bandied about "character". The author suggested that most Presidents were of decent enough stuff with the main exceptions being: Nixon, Buchanan, Polk, Pierce. And a few others (Clinton among them) who were of weaker stuff also. As an assessment of character, basically not whining and creating associative groups of 'those out to get me' and 'those who are my loyal minions' was the basic touchstone. The high mark was given to taking and expressing viewpoints that may be unpopular and tolerating the opposing viewpoints in an intellectually curious manner. Something not considered is whatever 'character' means now as it regards the private lives and usual sexual affairs while exercising political authority (unless it somehow became a major issue or especially a legal issue). This means Clinton's low mark (he's basically average otherwise) is probably based on other nefarious dealings and not his legal maneuvers during his embarrassing sex scandal. Oh, and this was the only good mark Carter got. Congratulations.
Basically people who get into politics as a manner of creating change (not in the buzzword sense, but in the Gandhi sense), as opposed to people who get into politics because they like being powerful are considered good character candidates. Buchanan for instance became a public official because he thought it would enhance his lawyer clientele, which seems like a rather shady reasoning to me. Once in office, using power for petty personal matters as opposed to resolving the business of the nation and the office it has appointed this person to execute is also a no-no. Clinton and Nixon are two very prominent examples here.
Had Mrs Clinton won the Democratic nomination, this Clinton sort of whiny attitude would have persisted and lends itself to suggesting she would make poor Presidential stuff anyway (vast right wing conspiracy, who cares?). Obama reacts differently to attacks on his character and demonstrates some distinct version of integrity. I'm not sure that it qualifies as 'strong character' because he so rarely works productively around people with opposing views (based on his voting records). Wilson had this problem. Because of his experience in Constitutional law and civil rights however, it does suggest Obama is accustomed to unpopular views intellectually (as indicated by his toeing the line of responsibility/government). Again, it's not clear where he's going with this. The media seems willing to paint him as someone out to work for the little guy (rather than himself). That type of politicking has been around since at least the time of Caesar. I demand results, not rhetoric, to determine the difference. Here his lack of experience is actually a detriment, something where there might be a record of accomplishments in this area to back up his statements. In other arenas, I usually don't care about political experience for the simple fact that people like Buchanan or George Wallace had plenty of it in resume fodder. They were still world-class scumbags undeserving of our attentions and respect.
McCain on the other hand seems willing to 'sacrifice' his popularity to accomplish things. As recent history demonstrates, this can be very, very bad. Lincoln, Washington and a few others however did this to the longer term benefit of the nation. I doubt Bush's exploits will come to be seen in this light, largely because his policymakers were of the sort of 'yes man' mentality that got Nixon et al into hot water. McCain didn't previously strike me as this sort of resistant thinker, because of his political adaptability, but this new version that he's been trotting out since he wrapped up the GOP nomination isn't very reassuring. About the only thing he is suggesting which is truly unpopular is his stand on campaign ethics, and that's only unpopular with Washington insiders and free speech advocates, not with the public en masse. Besides nobody important seriously thinks anything productive will come of it (because it would require legislators to actually represent the people who vote for them, not the people who get them elected). The war itself is no longer as divisive an issue as it was some months ago. Taxes are sort of divisive, but nobody really wants them to go up anyway. Abortion and other issues are strongly divided, but for reasons that no debate can ever resolve rationally. Where economists could be called upon to prevail upon some value in the tax code restructuring, there are no such experts on the value of the human 'soul' or who can attest to the state of attainment of 'personhood' (something Obama got himself into political hot water by pointing out).
Vision: What is it that a candidate wants to get done. Or, if unforeseen events alter the ability or priority, how well will they respond/adapt to this new situation and craft a new vision. Something always put in social psychology is the ability of a leader with a vision to manipulate others into following it. It is good and well if that vision entails certain benefits for the society without major deterrence to some of its members. Hitler for example would score 'well' on vision but the fact that his vision was inherently doomed based as it was on deep seated violent hatred. The fact that his economic policies created a booming war machine in the short term suggests that his powerful personality wasn't so different from the 'force of nature' type that typically governs in American politics. He was just more of an asshole. The book in effect compares Andrew Jackson's appeal to mainstream historians for decades to the mass hysteria that Hitler whipped up...because they both seriously abused the power granted them to commit atrocities. We didn't have industrialism and German efficiency around to gas the Cherokee out of existence, but we could march them away at gun point against our own laws.
Basically what this means it that an effective President should have a mission, somewhat broad in scope (but not excessively broad like LBJ). They should not be simply an administer of men, managing events as they go on without a plan as to how things can be shaped or an agenda that they would like to see implemented. Reagan was the essential modern President in this regard, possessing only vision and the wit to get others to make use of it. It is said that he had basically one speech and only four or five ideas. Obama has something like a vision, but nobody really knows what it is (his acceptance speech was really the first reliable hints of policies he's made). McCain seems to believe that either DC should be accountable to the public or the public should be able to trust DC to deal with matters that it wants attended to. That's at least a vision. I'm not sure it's either realistic or something he really believes himself. If he's willing to work to gain some level of trust, fine. I don't think that people should necessarily 'trust' their government, in the sense that they can rely upon it. I suspect it is best if people are at least suspicious of it, enough to be aware and probing into its activity, but reasonably assured that it is doing what we put it to task for (namely the establishment/maintenance of a reasonably organized society with few distractions from our freedoms posed by maniacs who don't understand that freedom doesn't mean getting to pee on restaurant booths and their patrons).
I would basically define the 'competence' of a President as this: someone who understands that there are always two Americas; the one that is too stupid to know what it wants and the one that is too snobby and disaffected to care what it gets. The mission of the Presidency is to get things done in spite of people always getting in the way from both directions. This was the one area Jackson was especially good at because he used his political capital so effectively to do things he wanted to (despite the fact that they were singularly stupid). I suspect Bush may be viewed in much the same way because his basic policy objectives since he took office have been carried out even though few of them make any sense or come without some sort of strange religious attachments (AIDs funding for example).
It is unclear what, if anything, that Obama has as a vision or some essential message that he wants done. His specific policies are so far somewhat reminiscent of progressivism and Keynesian systems. What we can rely on is this: who he has picked to be advisors in both his past and his VP choice (a de facto cabinet member). I don't see people of angular views who will obstruct his initiatives, but I also don't see people who will present sound advice, even if it is contrary to party lines. Biden is pretty much a hardcore liberal in the American sense of the word. McCain by contrast has shown an ability or willingness to try to get things done while in the Senate. That's a good thing..but he's now re-imagining himself as this conservative party ideologue of sorts by nominating a stealthy hardliner on social issues like abortion. I'm not sure that America really needs more concern over our sex lives as a significant portion of public policy discourse with some headaches in economics and some festering problems with Islamic free radicals, not to mention being in two shooting wars already. True, the sort of people likely to support McCain policies are likely to support these social causes and see a clear distinction between himself and Obama (and thereby mobilize in greater numbers the way they did for Bush). But it doesn't bode well for his ability to focus in on key problems or to set important national priorities for his administration.
Economics is basically a hazy subject for the common person. Bush-McCain (yes there's not much difference here), is fairly straight-forward. Tax less, regulate less, hope the free market figures it out. Roosevelt (Teddy, Franklin was an economic moron) had what I see as an appropriate view. The market will eventually figure out what is in the best long term interests, but not quickly enough to prevent major social problems from emerging. Intervening should be used as a friendly reminder to both labor and capital to work in the collective interest of the whole and not simply in the interest and self-interest of the present. Long term prosperity is far superior to short term indulgences or excesses. I think from what I've heard Obama kind of understands this essential message, but hasn't quite figured out how to make it work. For example, the simplest way to fix the housing markets is to make the loan documents standardized into a simple summary page. The actual legal stuff that we all sign can be specific..but people really need a way to boil down the actual terms that they're signing into without reading 30 pages of legalese (and then suffering a Yoda induced migraine). Instead, we get bailout loans?
While it might make some economic sense to (slightly) raise tax on the highest incomes (because of obscure economic premises like the
Laffer curve), Obama's failure to understand that 1) spending increases while cutting taxes is a bigger issue because it guarantees inflation and stabs economic growth in the heart..and 2) capital gains tax revenue most definitely increased when the taxes were cut..suggest there's a problem with how he'd actually address the labor-capital dilemma as well as national budget policies in general. For those interested, this was the one area Clinton did well in, he was mostly unremarkable/average except for his personal excesses. The author gave "great" to Washington, Lincoln, TR, and Reagan. Ike, Clinton, JFK and Coolidge did fine (among others). The usual suspects adorn the terrible: Jackson/Van Buren and Hoover presiding over the worst Depressions we've had, Nixon and Carter over the worst inflation while also exacerbating the crisis and Madison-Monroe who were apparently just unconcerned with money.
Civil rights: Obama was a civil rights/constitutional lawyer for a time. This is the one arena he gets significant support from libertarians. His answers to the types of questions, even when unscripted, sound sensible, thought-out, and most importantly they are consistent with an essential belief in the importance of both rule of law and civilian/minority rights within that context. The freedom of all must be secured for the freedom of any to be maintained. McCain gets/got some support because he opposes torture (for obvious personal reasons). But simply not torturing someone while otherwise evading our rule of law is not quite the same thing as protecting civil liberties. Considering the laundry list of reckless things Bush v2 has done in this area, it's clearly an important issue worth seeking out the opinions and agendas of prospective candidates. The author rated only 3 Presidents with a 'great' tag here: Lincoln, LBJ, and Grant. Most of the bad seeds are during a long run of mediocrity around Lincoln and Grant, with only Ben Harrison and TR getting a 'good' and everybody else from Jackson to Wilson getting smacked as poor or worse and only Nixon coming outside this run. Considering most of the important work was done by Congress during that stretch anyway, the only thing a President needed to do was push things along privately. None did so, and some even pushed the wrong way (Buchanan or Wilson).
Foreign policy. This is for me the biggest reason to pick a Presidential candidate. Everything else is potentially set and enacted by Congress (or at least, it's supposed to be. The Executive Orders log is pretty extensive now days). But foreign policy tones and the representation of the nation occurs, in part, through the central public figure and elected representative of that nation. I give some respect to McCain for helping force some marginally useful public changes in the course and conduct of the Iraq war, but I don't think it was wise public policy to get involved in the first place. While Obama seems quite popular in Europe, that's not necessarily any indication that his policies will be or that his appointed agents and manner of dealing with foreign entanglements will be any better than McCain's. The issue with McCain is that he basically has assumed the mantle of foreign policy expert on the basis of being shot down in a war and held captive. That gives him some very necessary insights and very traumatic memories I am sure. I'm not sure that it gives him any credible geo-political maneuvering skills. It's funny watching Bush try to emulate Reagan for this reason. Reagan had experience in bargaining from his days as a union leader and various other offices. Bush basically does the opposite of bargain. Reagan never quite did either, but he at least was able to make concessions where they were needed to get other parts of his agenda through and to respect (at least publicly) his opposition. Bush basically mocks or blames his (for reasons at turns both petty and insightful, simply mocking Bush's stupidity without sound proposals of your own isn't very useful opposition). There were plenty of good ones here to draw examples from, so the key was to avoid the stupid ones: Madison, Carter, LBJ, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Basically don't be uninvolved (the 20s guys) but don't be too aggressive (Madison/LBJ). And don't be a ninny (Jimmy).
The book basically had two feels. One reminds me of a story Tolstoy tells about meeting a remote tribe and encountering their unexpected reverence for the great
"Lincoln". Lincoln is argued as "the best President" precisely because he did so well in very trying times and probably would have done just as well in other times..though not to be so highly and broadly regarded. Considering the two preceding Presidents and his successor are the bottom 3, the entire situation probably should have been averted to begin with (by picking some better candidates).
And the second is to establish important criteria for making electoral decisions by observing some key distinctive traits of both good Presidential material and bad. After basically summarizing these, Obama comes out looking ok, but certainly not great (probably better than Clinton, but that's no bragging rights). McCain comes out looking decent in some areas, but has demonstrated a curious and disturbing sentiment in making the principle elective issues the War and abortion (Taxes everybody votes against anyway). Since he is not qualified enough to make distinctive and useful observations about foreign policy, it would be interesting to know how he intends to make further conclusions and who he chooses to advise him. Bush v2 picked some disastrously idiotic people and ignored/politically neutered the one guy who had some credibility in his administration (Powell). And being rather restrictive of social policies on which he has shown little personal interest seems rather strange as well. At least Obama manages to seem thoughtful about these topics, even when they're not useful discourse for our public policy makers.
Posts
