Posted on 03/04/2011 11:42:19 AM PST by americanophile
The answer for anything good is: Ronald Reagan
The answer for anything bad is: Democrats
I’d rank them 20th century:
Coolidge, Reagan, Bush II, Eisenhower (recall he built the interstates), Taft and then Harding. Harding wasn’t around for very long, which makes it difficult to rank him up there with Taft who was full term with similar policies.
Taft royally pissed TR by jettisoning the progressive agenda and sticking with conservative principles. Which gave us Wilson after TR ran with the Bull Moose.
On the Dim side:
FDR, Wilson, Obama, Carter. Carter really deserves to be higher then Truman, Truman cut the post WW2 deficit and his administration paid off substantial amounts of debt. Makes him a giant compared to Carter.
As for the 19th century. Obama is a dead ringer for Franklin Pierce, one of the very few single termers on either side who failed to acheive his own party’s nomination after completing a full term. Which makes Pierce and Buchanan right up with Obama and Carter as the worst single termers. Wilson got re-elected which gave him significant time to do damage to the United States.
Unfortunately, the breed of Republicans in MA changed over time. Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. was a stalwart Conservative. When HCL, Jr., his grandson, was elected 12 years after Sr’s death, he was a solid liberal. Add to that the bad taste Catholics had to the MA GOP and you had a long-term disaster in the making. JFK was, of course, to the right of Lodge, Jr. when he defeated him in 1952, but the national trend of the Democrats was leftward, and so that was where he went in rapid order.
The young college liberals did a clean-out/purge of the Democrats, replacing the calcified old-timer Conservatives by the ‘70s, while the Republicans had nowhere near such a movement (which was piecemeal at best), and what accounted for the near-total collapse of the MA GOP presence in the legislature was that the young Dems were able to pick off so many open/retiring GOP seats (partly due to the increase of Catholic Dem voters, and partly due to the GOP being so statist and lacking for that active grassroots movement).
So many of those Republicans were almost ideologically carbon-copies of the Democrats, but ran as “pedigreed” types, that arrogant sense that they were the only ones who should “rule” over the Dem rabble. No wonder so many were shown the door (with Weld being an exception, a snobbish Brahmin). The MA GOP never got the remake/revitalization (or a gigantic enema) it should’ve received back in the ‘50s and ‘60s.
It’s too bad that in the ‘80s, the MA GOP utterly failed to harness the national energy to reboot the party using the Reagan voters, but everything up there was so messed up. It was the Brahmin liberal RINOs who had more in common with Carter/Mondale (Weld and Slick Willard, who wasn’t even a Republican by his own admittance), while the Democrat Governor Ed King was far closer to the Conservative GOP model. It was no wonder with the bad guys in charge of the GOP that they ended up where they are today, and still remain (and then you have these types like Charlie Baker and Scott Brown who seem like they can’t get far-left enough fast enough and act as though they’re reformers). MA is ripe for change, but as long as there is no viable alternative with the GOP, those people have nowhere to go.
Camelot was a fiction. But the MA GOP exists only on paper and has been so for 40 years.
FMDJ,
As usual your post is chock full of great factual and historic information, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.
There were many good, conservative candidates that ran last November in MA. Like I've posted scores of times, folks like Sean Bielat against Bwaney, Karyn Polito for MA Treasurer and Mary Connaughton for MA Auditor and they all lost soundly.
These are good people and were fine, fine conservative candidates who ran in spite of a MA GOP that makes the architect who came out with “New Coke” look like a genius.
The problem is too many people here are on the dole; it's a symbol of systemic failure in nearly all "Blue" states. The leaches will vote themselves "Bread and Circuses" until they collapse. The sane producers are hopelessly outnumbered, period.
I tend to cut both Buchanan and Pierce some slack, but for different reasons. Pierce was largely inebriated and bitterly unhappy for the bulk of his term, and shortly after his election, his last living child was crushed to death in a train as he and Mrs. Pierce watched in horror. He was ill-prepared to deal with the dicey situation nationally, and had no moral support from his wife, who was a profoundly depressed basketcase and had begged her husband to stay out of politics entirely (for which probably would’ve spared their son and not plunged the Pierces into such misery).
As for Buchanan, I also considered him to be in a terribly uneviable position as President. As a 1850s Democrat, he had to walk a fine line between appeasing anti-slave Northerners and pro-slave Southerners. Any decision he made would enflame either group and if he took decisive action early on, it just would’ve brought on war that much earlier. It didn’t help matters that his VP and many members of the cabinet were viscerally pro-Southern. Once the 1860 election occurred, it gave him the only opportunity to step up as he saw the pro-Southern Cabinet faction aiding their cause (which by all accounts would be considered treasonable) and he forced out or urged the resignations of all but the Navy Secretary. Lincoln would end up retaining Buchanan’s replacement as Attorney-General, Edwin Stanton, shifting him to the War Department.
I’m not sure what the net difference would’ve been had Pierce been defeated by Whig Winfield Scott. As was pointed out elsewhere, Scott differed little in his campaign platform from Pierce (aside from being anti-slave). The Whigs were already collapsing in 1852 (and would run their final candidates in the ‘54 midterms), and like with the Democrats, they also had a tenuous coalition of Northern abolitionists and Southern (pro-slavery) Aristocracy, and it was just as easy to piss off either group with any stance.
As for 1856, with the first candidate of the Republicans, it would’ve been interesting to see how John Frémont would’ve presided. However, as with Lincoln, it ultimately would’ve caused secession four years ahead of schedule, and Frémont would’ve been the “War” President. At least Pierce and Buchanan could claim their elections didn’t immediately precipitate war, something Lincoln (or Frémont) could’ve claimed. Perhaps better than nothing.
The President and Mrs. Coolidge were being shown [separately] around an experimental government farm. When [Mrs. Coolidge] came to the chicken yard she noticed that a rooster was mating very frequently. She asked the attendant how often that happened and was told, “Dozens of times each day.” Mrs. Coolidge said, “Tell that to the President when he comes by.” Upon being told, President asked, “Same hen every time?” The reply was, “Oh, no, Mr. President, a different hen every time.” President: “Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
I’m sorry, I was talking about the actual state party leadership. There obviously were good candidates, but the party leadership under these elitist snob Socialist buffoons is content to keep the party in permanent moribundity. Wresting control from the likes of Nassour & Crew with real, committed grassroots types (and I don’t mean folks like Peter Torkildsen who come in making ludicrous, undeliverable promises of winning majorities in a single cycle and quickly running off when nothing happens) who can make good, solid incremental gains over time (how the Dems climbed from moribund status to super-majority) is the way to begin to turn things around.
Just a couple of minor points. Few said that Sean Bielat wasn’t a good candidate, but it was going to be hard regardless, because it simply is a Dem-heavy district. Even a superb candidate can lose based on party demographics in an area (compounded by the fact that there’s no viable GOTV party presence to aid said candidate). Had Bielat run in another district that was more GOP-leaning, he might’ve pulled out a win (as it was, an astonishing 6 out of the 10 districts had our candidates get within 4-17% of winning, the best showing in decades).
As for Karyn Polito, she lost by less than 10% (also an excellent showing, all things considered), the execrable Baker by just over 6%, and Mary Connaughton did the best of all, losing by just 2%. In a Dem state where the GOP registration is nearly non-existent, these are not “solid” Dem wins, but very weak holds which (again, on registration) should’ve been 30% or higher blowouts. Don’t forget we also took two open seats on the Executive Council in districts we haven’t won since the ‘70s or earlier with Charles Cipollini in the Fall River-based 1st and Jennie L. Caissie in the 7th (Worcester/Central MA). We haven’t won a single seat on that board since 1990.
Considering how outnumbered and outmatched we are from on-the-ground people to $$, that’s an exceptional showing. Remember, too, I warned last year not to get too excited where MA was concerned with respect to gains. There is much work to be done for the long term to continue to chip away, and starting with cleaning out our own party of traitors and dead wood is #1.
Great post. Thank you. When did the MSM get in bed with the commies? They are doggedly leftist today but I do not recall that as the case in the 50’s. Perhaps I am wrong, too young to really understand.
We rely so heavily on media and elitists to formulate historical opinion that very little survives from the Country Class. I sense a vigorous movement to change this in the forseeable future. It seems to be a product of the WWW with its broad based communications easily accesible to anyone.
Is it possible for a conservative political philosophy to build a stronghold in the electorate sufficient to overcome the current progressive influences? This must include a vigorous religious revival. When Christians begin taking warfare against Islam seriously there will be some hope of reestablishing the centrality of the US as a genuinely Christian nation.
I see what you write and where you’re going with it, but on a personal level, I just don’t see it happening. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just don’t care what happens here (in MA) anymore.
Full bellies paid for by someone else makes for greedy pig voters and special interest groups. And they do not nor will not tolerate ANYTHING that upsets the (rotten) apple cart.
Here’s a great book about MA politics and how MA soils the rest of the USA:
http://www.amazon.com/Bluest-State-Democrats-Massachusetts-Blueprint/dp/0312368313
I’d call the title “Reddest” :-P. I’ve actually got it here on my desk but haven’t finished reading it.
“Reddest”: So very accurate.
Do you like the book?
Keller’s good at getting to the heart of matters. I asked him once if he’d ever run for office here in MA. One word answer: “No.”
I need to finish it to give a valid opinion. I get so distracted by so many things... ugh.
Understood. Let me know what you think about it when you’re done.
Personally, I thought it was very accurate and well done.
You are far too kind. Kennedy screwed the pooch big time with his incredibly cavalier full-scale entry into Vietnam, despite the precise warning given to him by Eisenhower and MacArthur. And in the end, our ally fell to the communists.
Remember a little deal called "The Bay of Pigs? " Or how about his handling of the Cuban missile crisis, which his Hollywood hooligans incredibly managed to spin into a win, but caused us to have to pull back from the borders of the Soviet Union.
We are still paying for some of the mistakes made by that lecherous, diseased bastard who thought one could run the US in two hours a day and spread STDs among movie stars for the rest of the time.
Thanks Impy. Harding wasn’t one of the best, but he’s nowhere near the worst.
Well, perhaps Harding is "the most despised chief exec" only in the minds of the left-leaning academics who are the usual folks rating the presidents.
But he certainly wasn't despised by the American people whom he served in the White House. When he died in office (from natural causes) in 1923, there was a massive and spontaneous outpouring of grief around the country.
Harding's administration, applying what is now known as "supply side economics," pushed a large tax cut through Congress which helped to revitalize the economy after a severe recession in 1920. You could argue that his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, was the father of the "supply side" theory, which unfortunately fell out of vogue from then until it was revived during the Reagan years.
As for the Harding administration's scandals, there is no historical evidence linking the President directly to any of them. The worst that can be said about Harding ethically is that he didn't properly vet a couple of his Cabinet members who turned out to be corrupt.
Intriguing! I’ll have to read more about this Mellon fellow. First I’ve heard of him.
Andrew Mellon was from the family that founded and ran what is now Mellon Bank. In addition to his being the Secretary of Treasury for a long time (appointed by Harding, stayed on through the Coolidge administration and then Hoover) and being what today would be called a strong supply sider, he was a big name in philanthropy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.