Posted on 02/13/2013 7:59:52 AM PST by Kaslin
As President Obama prepares his State of the Union Address and the nation looks forward to a Presidents Day holiday, Americans should consider the warning examples of our worst chief executives.
While few of Washington and Lincoln's successors could hope to replicate their epic achievements, every president can — and must — focus on avoiding the appalling ineptitude of John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and their feckless fellow travelers on the road to presidential perdition. The common elements that link our least successful leaders teach historical lessons at least as important as the shared traits of the Rushmore Four: Broken promises and gloomy temperaments lead inevitably to an alienated public.
All the chief executives unmistakably identified as failures displayed a self-destructive tendency to violate the core promises of their campaigns. Take Tyler, the unbending Virginia aristocrat who won election to the vice presidency in 1840 and assumed the highest office when his predecessor died just a month after inauguration. The new chief executive, dubbed "His Accidency" by critics, used 10 unpopular vetoes to block implementation of his own party's longstanding ledges. Most of his Cabinet resigned in protest, and eventually they all quit while the hostile Senate voted down four new Cabinet appointments — a record that stands to this day.
Between 1853 and 1861, Pierce and Buchanan completed back-to-back disastrous terms in which personal weakness and pro-Southern sympathies shattered confident promises of unifying leadership. Buchanan pledged to stop "agitation of the slavery question" and to "destroy sectional parties." By the end of his term, seven Southern states seceded from the union and the nation lunged toward the Civil War.
After that war and Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's vice president) defied members of the martyred president's Cabinet and congressional leaders, ignoring commitments to lead former slaves to dignity and full civil rights.
In the 20th century, Herbert Hoover's slogan promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," but he presided over the beginning of the Great Depression. Similarly, Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform pledged to reduce unemployment to 3%, but Carter ran for re-election with more than twice that rate.
No wonder that Hoover and Carter, like other unsuccessful presidents, came across as gloomy, self-righteous sufferers. Hoover's secretary of State said that a meeting with him was "like sitting in a bath of ink." Carter staked his presidency on a notoriously sour televised address that became known as "The Malaise Speech," warning the appalled public of a "crisis of the American spirit."
None of our least successful presidents displayed the self-deprecatory humor of Lincoln or the sunny dispositions that powered the Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin) and Ronald Reagan. A visitor described the Pierce White House as a "cold and cheerless place," noting the isolation of the invalid first lady, in deep mourning for three dead sons.
When Buchanan welcomed successor Lincoln, he plaintively declared: "My dear, sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."
The result of the depressing and erratic leadership of our six most conspicuous presidential failures is that all managed to estrange a once-admiring electorate within the space of a single term. Tyler,Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan all earned rejection by their own party, failed to win their own party's nominations, entering retirement as discredited figures. Hoover and Carter appeared on national tickets and campaigned vigorously but got wiped out in historic landslides, with each incumbent carrying a mere six states.
Democrats, who denounce George W. Bush as the worst president ever, along with Republicans who apply the same ugly title to Barack Obama, can't explain away the inconvenient fact that both of our most recent incumbents won re-election with 51% of the vote. Regardless of controversies blighting Bush's second term, or setbacks that might afflict Obama's, their legislative and electoral successes place them in a different category from the White House worst.
This baleful history should warn the current occupant and all successors against visibly disregarding commitments while encouraging voters to steer clear of presidential candidates with dour, inflexible temperaments. By selecting aspirants with clear, consistent agendas and cheerful, persuasive personalities, we'll face fewer shattered presidencies that leave reviled incumbents and a disillusioned electorate.
You're kidding, right?
The standard our Founders set for just what is "tolerable" was not that of Russians serfs under Ivan the Terrible, or any other example you mentioned.
The standard they set was English law, and the natural rights of Englishmen.
Their long list of dozens of British violations reflects that standard.
But, since you mentioned Attila the Hun, how does this item from the Declaration of Independence sound:
Isn't that a record even Ivan or Attila could be proud of? ;-)
the OlLine Rebel: "Let’s not forget many, many colonials were not interested in that rebellion, so in their view the Brits were not intolerable."
Years ago I was told that about 1/3 of Americans supported Revolution, 1/3 opposed and 1/3 were more-or-less indifferent -- curiously numbers reflecting politics in our own day.
But more detailed studies show that actual Loyalists (to Britain), like true Liberals today, accounted for only 15% of all Americans, so the issue really wasn't as close as some have said.
Nearly all Revolutionary era Americans understood that Independence was what they wanted.
the OlLine Rebel: "I would think FReepers would give a little benefit of doubt to other FReepers regarding devotion to country and Constitution, instead of making libelous accusations."
If you are posting here to defend slave-holding secessionists' unconstitutional declarations of secession, illegal rebellions and treasonous declaration of war on the United States, then the burden of proof is yours FRiend, to show us why you do not hate the United States of America.
Or, as the case may be, to admit as much... ;-)
As made clear by the first six words of the Constitution ("We the People of the United States"), the Constitution was created by and for the American people.
And that document had no validity or standing until it was ratified by the states. The American people were the citizens of the states, which were at that time members of the Articles of Confederation. By agreeing to the Constitution the states were in essence seceding from the Confederation. The difference being that no group of states was willing to use force to save a failing Confederation.
It's the difference between withdrawing money from a bank with your ATM card versus a Colt 45 Pistol.
In both cases, you get money, but in the latter case, you will then have the law to answer to, FRiend.
Jay Redhawk: "The Federal government was created by the sovereign states and was meant to be the servant of the states."
If you had ever read the US Constitution, you might have noticed it actually begins with the words:
Jay Redhawk: "Secession is neither expressly denied or granted the states, but is rather to be assumed under the nature of the agreement, and the necessity of the states to ratify this Federation before it would become legitimate."
Wrong again.
Our Founders considered their "compact" to be as "perpetual" and "perfect" as a good marriage, and only to be ended by "mutual consent" (i.e., approval of Congress), or from a serious material breach of contract such as oppression or "usurpation".
For that, they established the Supreme Court to rule on such questions.
Jay Redhawk: "The parent does not ask the child’s permission."
Then you are a very poor parent, FRiend. ;-)
We the People of the United States!
“It’s the difference between withdrawing money from a bank with your ATM card versus a Colt 45 Pistol.
In both cases, you get money, but in the latter case, you will then have the law to answer to, FRiend.”
LOL. No, my friend, it is like walking into a bank and asking for the money from your own account and having the bank stick a .45 in your face and telling you “no.”
“or from a serious material breach of contract such as oppression or “usurpation”.”
This is the part of your own answer you are not getting.
Also my friend, you should not let your children run your household.
But the new US Constitution was never ratified by state governments -- state legislatures, courts or governors.
Instead, it was ratified by "We the people" in every state, through specially elected ratification conventions.
Jay Redhawk: "By agreeing to the Constitution the states were in essence seceding from the Confederation.
The difference being that no group of states was willing to use force to save a failing Confederation."
And no group of states used force in 1861 to prevent Deep-South slave-holders from declaring secession.
But when those secessionists declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861) then the issue was not secession, but rather rebellion, insurrection, war and treason.
There never was a “serious material breach of contract such as oppression or “usurpation”” in the case of the insurrectionists.
This is the part of your own answer you are not getting.
Just as the first six words of the Constitution confirm, we the People of the United States created the Constitution. It was then ratified by the people living in various states.
We, too, ratify the Constitution each time we pledge allegiance to our national flag and to the republic for which it stands, when we perform our military service and when we pay our federal taxes.
Each of us born here is an American citizen. In 1861, our national government was required to defend the rights of American citizens living in southern states because their state governments tried to deprive the American citizens living in those states of their rights under the United States Constitution.
That is not what I said. The people created their states which in turn created the Confederation, and then later created the federation. Prior to Lincoln’s War people regarded themselves as citizens of their state first and foremost. After that war, and the shear brutality of force used against the secessionist states, the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the people was changed. With the sovereignty of the states damaged, the federal leviathan became over the decades more the authority over the states and the people. What we have today in the form of an oppressive national government is a direct result of Lincoln’s destruction of the original federation. It may have taken 150 years and hundreds or so other corrupt leaders to get here, but Obama, the Punk-Ass, is a product of Lincoln’s war upon the Southern states.
The people created a amendment process for changing their United States Constitution. There isn't any alternative to that amendment process. If the people's amendment process isn't good enough for some folks, well, that's why we have cemeteries.
The Civil War is over, buddy.
No the people didn't create the states. The 13 origional states were created in London either as Royal Charters or as Proprietary Colonies. Subsequent States after the Founding were created by the US Congress in Washington.
In otherwords, people far away drew lines on a map that created all of the states.
Slavery was a legal, although repugnant, institution. There was no serious attempt to make it unconstitutional through the amendment process. In fact, many of the abolitionist wished for southern secession so that the United States, or at least the non-slave states, would no longer have a part in an immoral practice. I would agree with you that the amendment process is the proper process for adding or taking away the power of the federal government.
I am not trying to fight the Civil War, but rather, I am trying to lay out the basis for the next one. The storm is coming and people need decide who they are and what they believe in. I love the United States, but the government is not the United States, and this government is corrupt and rotten. Government is simply an institution, and when corrupted it is a danger to the people. I am much more interested in where people will stand today than I am in where they would have stood 150 years ago, but by examining the notions people have of the past you can get some insight as to where they will stand today.
I know many people in academics, and majority of them are on the left when it comes to politics. It is a fact that when history, humanities, and political science scholars and professors are surveyed as to who they believe is the best president in United States history they list Lincoln as number two, behind George Washington, but just ahead of Franklin Roosevelt.
Perhaps there is something to be learned from that. Was Lincoln more like Washington or more like FDR? Perhaps we should ask the left why Lincoln is so admired. By the way I expect Washington to drop out of the top ten as time goes on.
There is a word for the alternative to the amendment process - Revolution. Revolution received explicit approval in the Declaration of Independence. But, remember, the signatories pledged their property, their sacred honor and even their lives to the war for independence.
Good things don't usually come to those who fail at Revolution. It's a serious thing.
By the way, we have alternatives to both continuing to live here and revolution. I assume you know about the Confederatos. We don't have to put up with suffering here in the United States!
Somewhere along the line the people became to impatient, or lazy, to use the amendment process. As we all know, the leftwing activists discovered it was much easier to use the federal courts to gain what they wished, and that is one of many things that have corrupted the system.
I do know a few people in Brazil so that may be an option. I will have to hike, drive, or take a boat because after shooting my mouth off too many times here at FreeRepublic, and other places, getting on a plane may be impossible! Of course I think we all here are in that position. Our freedom is just coming down to whatever the ruling class and the One want it to be. I have little doubt we have all been flagged and some government geek is looking at every post made in America.
“one. The storm is coming and people need decide who they are and what they believe in. I love the United States, but the government is not the United States, and this government is corrupt and rotten. Government is simply an institution, and when corrupted it is a danger to the people. I am much more interested in where people will stand today than I am in where they would have stood 150 years ago, but by examining the notions people have of the past you can get some insight as to where they will stand today.”
Yes, and when states decide to disengage from that corrupt and rotten cesspool in DC, the brojoes, the dittos, and the taus will come to our doors to kill or subjugate you to that rotten empire, because a written rule orders them to.
This is getting absolutely absurd. Both in historical context and personally.
Use some common sense perspective. In the great scheme of things, Britain is and was the next best thing to the USA. If you cannot acknowledge that, I can’t help you. We took their superior society a step further and made it better. To view it otherwise is to be as ridiculous as the liberals who whine that Christianity has been just as cruel and atrocious as Islam.
It doesn’t take much to look over my posting history. You can prove it yourself. You can even find me on the net at large under this name. I know my upbringing and my patriotism. Even ask Pharmboy how long I’ve been on the colonial & RevWar pings. Never mind my membership in the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, and contributing to the save Paoli fund years ago. I’ve tried to be patient but you all libeling me personally is pushing the envelope.
Don’t libel me just because I see the right to secede. I don’t stop seeing that right just because the secessionists had or wanted slaves. Supporting that right is not supporting the slavery idea. You need to separate these issues. It’s a right for them as much as for the colonials, the American British (and that’s what they would actually have been).
If you persist in this, I suppose you can libel Walt Williams as a racist slaver who self-loathes.
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.