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.
I disagree with the authority, the leftist scholars, so I certainly am not appealing to them. I am not sure the modern view of conservatism is even relevant in the discussion on Lincoln. Most liberals would claim him as their own, and that is my point.
“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.”
Evidently it is impossible for some to understand that states’ rights, legality, individual liberty, and morality do not always go hand in hand.
Who cares (besides you) what leftists think?
Jay Redhawk: "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.' "
You got the analogy all wrong, historically.
Leaning on this analogy a bit more: Deep-South slave-holding secessionists went to their local "bank", claimed it as their own, seized it by military force (i.e., Fort Sumter), incarcerated "bank" employees (i.e., in Texas), formally declared war on the "bank" corporation, and sent armies to assault as many other "bank" branches as they could reach.
Yes, after they were defeated, those same now-former slave-holders began concocting fairy tales for their children, to explain how those evil "bank" officials had invaded their country and destroyed their wonderful life-styles.
So propaganda is every bit as much about what you leave out of your story, as what you tell... ;-)
BroJoeK: "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'."
Jay Redhawk: "This is the part of your own answer you are not getting."
All allegations of Northern "oppression" or "usurpation" by today's Neo-Confederates are pure fantasy.
Neither word, "oppression" or "usurpation" appears in any secessionists' "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"
In 1860 it was all about defending slavery from potential future infringements.
Jay Redhawk: "Also my friend, you should not let your children run your household."
LOL, my children are all long-since grown and gone, and I am more-or-less retired.
How do you suppose I have time to play here?
And someday, if nature takes a natural course, I could well be dependent on them for care or decision making.
Then I'll be quite happy I treated them with love and due respect when they were in my care.
Think about it... ;-)
I know right wing people who put Washington first and Lincoln second, myself included. So what's your point?
Washington is number one IMHO and after him we could argue forever. As to Lincoln, he did what he had to do in a time of crisis, but as to his impact on future generations from any of his policies other than holding the Union together, I'd say the only one with a lasting impact was the Homestead Act which really created the middle class driven type of country we became. But even that had been proposed before he was in office, and only made it through congress because the slave power were no longer in congress. We do know that he supported it and encouraged its passage.
Looking at Lincoln, his entire first term was about putting down the insurrection. We really do not know what would have been had he been able to serve out his second term. But I do believe that Reconstruction would have gone much better than it did under the worst president until that time, Andrew Johnson. The next worse IMHO was Lyndon Johnson, but Obama may well be able to pass him before he's done.
Yes, there is much you have so far failed to grasp.
the OlLine Rebel: "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."
Sure, but so what?
Our Founders did not simply copy the British system, rather they looked at every political system in recorded history, and took what worked best from each.
But it seems your larger point is an effort to claim the Brits weren't really very oppressive, really they were nice friendly people, just like today, and so our Founders had no real cause for Revolution -- do I have that correct?
And somehow you seem unimpressed by our Founders' Declaration of Independence itemized list of dozens of complaints against "the King of England", including one eventually dropped, that "he" had imposed slavery on the colonies, and would not let them abolish it!
More to the point, the king wanted to rule over his colonies without giving them a voice in Parliament.
So "no taxation without representation" was the slogan which eventually won over our "low information" Founding generation.
the OlLine Rebel: "Don’t libel me just because I see the right to secede."
It's always amusing, and sometimes bemusing, to see how quick our Pro-Confederates are to insult those who disagree, and just as quick to "take offense" at words normal people consider non-insulting.
the OlLine Rebel: "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)."
First of all, everyone on these threads acknowledges a "right to secede" -- lawfully, peacefully -- through Congress, the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment, once it's approved: you're out of here, you're gone, you're history.
But if you unilaterally declare secession, "at pleasure", then start seizing property which doesn't belong to you, if you imprison, threaten and shoot at Federal officials, if you formally declare war on the United States, then you're fate will be pretty much the same as that last crowd which pulled such stunts.
Second, there's a huge difference between our Founders in 1775 and slave-holding secessionists in 1861.
For one: Founders like Ben Franklin had spent many years in London, trying to negotiate peaceful resolutions of Colonists concerns, with no results.
By contrast, the Slave-Power had ruled in Washington DC, virtually the entire time from the Republic's Founding in 1788 until secession in 1861.
For another difference: over many years, our Founders had developed a long list of actual oppressions and usurpations, which they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
By contrast, the Slave-Power having ruled for generations, had nothing serious to complain about, except a potential future threat to slavery represented by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln.
the OlLine Rebel: "I suppose you can libel Walt Williams as a racist slaver who self-loathes."
Is that your opinion?
I've had no such thought.
Where did I insult you, or anyone else?
I’ve had it with this circular argument. Done.
the OlLine Rebel: "Where did I insult you, or anyone else?"
You fall into the second category of "quick to 'take offense' at words normal people consider non-insulting".
the OlLine Rebel: "I’ve had it with this circular argument. Done."
Nothing "circular" about my points, but anytime you wish to review the facts and understand the reasons, feel free to post again.
In the mean time, have a great day. ;-)
I did mean the argument in general, not just you.
I do not consider directly calling me Founding-hating or America-hating, and accusing me of such, to be anything but highly offensive and insulting to me personally. It is very serious to me.
Once again we note how the northern powers are aggressively preparing to kill their fellow Americans. Homeland Security Has Purchased 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks
by Robert Wenzel
Economic Policy Journal
Recently by Robert Wenzel: The Developing Student Loan Crisis
The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States, reports Modern Survival Blog.
Forget whatever propaganda you hear, the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for civil unrest.
Here’s a Homeland Security agent in Albuquerque, New Mexico for Law Enforcement Day, explaining the features of the vehicle.
Obviously, the United States government is quickly gearing up its firepower and other equipment to deal with average Americans. You don’t need this kind of equipment against the occasional lone nut. Keep in mind that DHS has also recently stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets. That’s enough to put about a million bullets into every serious nut job that has popped up in the country over the last 100 years.
Wow, you must really hate America. Maybe you should move somewhere. Get out before it’s too late!
/s
Note the strategy Bo is using in comparing himself to Lincoln. Why is he doing this? Who turned American against American and had them killing each other while the seat of power in DC grew steadily to strength and control?
Note the strategy Bo is using in comparing himself to Lincoln. Why is he doing this? Who turned American against American and had them killing each other while the seat of power in DC grew steadily in strength and control?
Jeff Davis?
Jeff Davis?
First of all, you may be just too sensitive, your skin may be too thin for posting about controversial subjects on Free Republic.
Please consider that all of us who defend our Free Republic and Founders Intent on Civil War threads have been accused of worse, and called far worse names.
Some have been actually threatened.
On just this thread alone I was called a "sorry ass" (see post #218), and that's quite mild compared to some CW threads... :-)
So this exercise is not really suited for the feint of heart, the weak of mind or anyone easily offended by rough and tumble debates.
Second, there are several appropriate responses to the accusation of "anti-American", including:
If all of those apply to you, then you are a patriot, no matter what anyone else says, and you can just brush their insults aside.
Finally, if you think I have "insulted" you, then I'd invite you to quote my words, and explain exactly what about them you find "offensive".
Post #284, by Ditto, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
My view is that is a libelous insult, because that’s how dear my country has been to me.
I read that article earlier today, and that is frightening. Obama is definitely up to something or is expecting something to happen. There is no reason why Homeland Security would need these vehicles to navigate the streets of America unless they were planning on massive violence. Combined with all the ammo HS has been buying up the logical conclusion is that Obama, whom I think I will call Lincoln II from now on, is intent on starting a war with the American people. Why? Because he is an evil sob and he can.
Ol Rebel I too am finished with these circular arguments. Some people just do not have the ability to understand philosophical principles and logic. They will never get it and will always be on the wrong side of reality and history. Hang in there.
But Ditto's post #284 was 100% accurate, and you fully deserved a spanking for posting such a silly argument in #283:
Of course, you now claim that what you really meant was just the opposite of what you wrote.
I'd say, if we let you get away with such nonesense, then shame on us, FRiend.
How about if you promise, from now on, to say what you mean, and mean what you say?
Try it, you might like it... ;-)
The only "circular arguments" I've seen here are the ones you folks post.
Jay Redhawk: "Some people just do not have the ability to understand philosophical principles and logic.
They will never get it and will always be on the wrong side of reality and history."
Those would be your typical Pro-Confederate Lost Causers.
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.