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.
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.
You shouldn't talk that way about yourself. Perhaps you should come on over to the right side ;-)
Somewhere in the distance I hear a yappin yanqui dog.
I asked two questions, neither of which you addressed. No doubt the DC empire will have its loyalists. Following orders are you?
Oh good God. I was using the same logic! Guess no one could understand the implied ipso facto. Rewritten:
“So I guess the AmRevWar was unjustified?”
Is that the only way you all can understand my argument? God forbid we don’t write it just the right way, else you jump on it for an “AH-HAH!” Gotcha Moment.
Meanwhile, I don’t care what you say about 1 statement. There is no call libeling someone whom you don’t know jack about as a Founder and America-hater based on a couple written posts.
You are simply wrong in your assessment. You have only my word in this brief Internet writing encounter, but you are all grievously wrong.
Enough.
That's not rewritten - that's restated. I must admit to being curious as to why you feel the sting of outrage so I went back to your #283. Beyond the peculiar phraseology one important thing stands out - you made a statement of fact: "And thus was the AmRevWar unjustified."
The plain, unambiguous inference to be drawn from such a statement is your declaration that the "AmRevWar" was (at least in your mind) unjustified. When coupled with your next statement which undeniably takes a British apologist tone, what other conclusion were we supposed to find?!
The fact of the matter is that one must try terribly hard to make any legitimate comparisons between the patriots of the American Revolutionary War and the insurrectionists of the Civil War. There are more contrasts than there are equivalences.
For what it's worth - although I question a few of your conclusions, I don't question your sincerity or your patriotism.
How about reading the last line?
“But better they stood up before it might get truly bad.”
Likewise have I told I think Bro that he seems to be ashamed of our -rebel-founding, desperately fighting the notion of us being in rebellion rather than some sort of separate countries. I told him don’t be ashamed and I certainly am not. Does that sound like someone who hates the Founding?
As a person heavily albeit casually read in the AmRevWar, including being a graveyard nut reading the very informative stones of the era, I’m aware of the stories. Most true atrocities occurred during wartime, however. Tarleton, Simcoe, Danbury, Groton, etc. I have some perspective via the whole of history. Britain still denied rights thanks to kingship ideas, not uncommon in the era, and denied more to even its kin colonies, but it’s the foundation we built on. Magna Carta, parliamentary systems, all that jazz, as I did say taken further. Even France would’ve been a worse legacy, much less the Spanish - yikes. Much less anything non-Christian world. But there is no question we are the greatest nation ever on the earth.
I thank you for at least acknowledging my sincerity and patriotism. How many of us would be here if we didn’t possess it? Usually Jim finds them and boots them, although I know a few seem to slip under the radar. But not many.
Nor did you answer my two questions in post #294, FRiend.
So, if you will point me to your questions, I will point you to where they were answered.
Neoliberalnot: "No doubt the DC empire will have its loyalists. Following orders are you?"
And here we've seen the OlLine Rebel in post after post crying buckets of allegedly sincere tears over the grievous insult of having his patriotism questioned, in one post.
At the same time, Pro-Confederates like yourself just can't let any post go by without some ridiculous contumely directed at those here to defend the Constitution and our Free Republic.
Where is the outrage?
The Neo-Confederates seem to me to be the most easily offended folks ever.
Or maybe they are just pretending offense to mask the fact that their arguments just suck. The Drama Queen Effect. ;~))
Comparing the Secessionists of 1861 to the Patriots of 1776? That is just obnoxious, but they do it all the time.
Reading your posts, I'd be sure you hated everyone North of the Mason-Dixon line. You seem to blame all of our problems on them.
In 1776, it was not the 'next best thing." The Americans, because of their isolation became something very different than the British, something much better.
In 1776, you could not serve in Parliament if you were a Catholic. But in America, you could sign the Declaration of Independence if you were a Catholic.
In England in 1776, if you were born working class or as a peasant, you would die as working class or a peasant.
In America, it did not matter what class you were born into. The sky was the limit based on your abilities and hard work.
In England in 1776, a King, who ruled under a notion of Divine Right, was the final arbertor of life or death over millions of people.
And the Founders either personally remembered or were told by the parents of the brutal religious and political wars in England in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
In 1776, outside of America, probably the best places were in The Netherlands or Switzerland which had their own democracys and did not engage in the folly religious and class distinctions.
In Europe, in 1776 under George III, England at best was in 3rd place as far as personal liberty and opportunity goes.
Don't have some rosy picture of the UK in the late 18th Century... even though it was far from the worse, for the average guy, it was not that nice of a place to be. America was far better, the people here knew it was better, and they fought to keep the Freedom they had made for themselves.
The Revolutionary War was was not about taxes as the left has been trying to brainwash us for the last 60 years. The taxes Parliament imposed and the King attempt to enforce were just the evidence of what a government people had no control over could do to them without their permission.
The War was about freedom and individual liberty. Not perfect then, but far better that England or any other nation on earth would achieve for well over 100 years.
The Founders and the United States set the standards and you seem to demean that by saying well, it wouldn't have been that bad to stay under the British.
That IMHO, is a desperate attempt to justify what a group of people who denied individual liberty in 1861 did.
Once again you mischaracterize and overstate the issue. I am simply pro-American and anti-tyrannical government.
Bo is following the lincoln path. He is building tactical units for domestic assaults. He will direct them to kill their fellow Americans and will probably win. Once again, as the victor, he will be eulogized as a great hero simply protecting the integrity of a benevolent government. Phewy! Seen and heard it all before. He is a killer of his own and will justify the killing by writing the history. His followers will do his bidding and claim the moral high ground.
Once again you mischaracterize and overstate the issue. I am simply pro-American and anti-tyrannical government.
Bo is following the lincoln path. He is building tactical units for domestic assaults. He will direct them to kill their fellow Americans and will probably win. Once again, as the victor, he will be eulogized as a great hero simply protecting the integrity of a benevolent government. Phewy! Seen and heard it all before. He is a killer of his own and will justify the killing by writing the history. His followers will do his bidding and claim the moral high ground.
Once again you're making baseless allegations, why?
And once again you've refused to answer my two simple questions from post #294 above, why?
Neoliberalnot: "Bo is following the lincoln path."
That was not "Lincoln's path" until after the Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States.
Then the Confederacy received what it so obviously wanted: war.
No, I am not a pacificist. But I will not take orders from a corrupt government to kill my fellow Americans. My ancestors have fought in every war including the Revolution against a corrupt British Empire. I visit my great, great...........Grandfather’s grave every Memorial Day. He was a Lt with the NC militia. Again, my ancestors fought on the Union side and followed orders to kill their fellow citizens. That is the issue. Do you think Bo will give orders to kill Americans? Of course, he will. Yes, Fort Sumpter was the first shot fired. An encampment of Union soldiers harbored in the South—imagine that.
An encampment of American soldiers harbored in America—imagine that.
FIFY
So, when it came to the Civil War, you would not serve in a Confederate army with orders to kill your "fellow Americans"?
As a Confederate soldier, you would refuse orders from your "corrupt government" to:
And all that came before the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
So, FRiend Neoloberalnot, after your Confederacy's "corrupt government" declared war on the United States, as a Confederate soldier, you would refuse to obey orders to invade any non-Confederate state or territory, and kill "fellow Americans" there -- places such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona?
Would you also refuse to operate in Confederate gorilla bands in California, Colorado and Vermont?
Would you also refuse to kill your fellow Confederates who remained loyal to the Union, and did not support the Confederacy in places like Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina and Northern Arkansas?
Well, well... if a Confederate Neoliberalnot refused to obey Confederate orders to do all those things, then I'd say you've at least taken a somewhat consistent position against violence on both sides.
I don't agree with it, I think that war needed to be fought, but as in the case of genuine pacifists, I'd say to you: God bless you, and go in peace, FRiend.
So I take that to mean you would have refused to serve in the Confederate Army or take orders from Jeff Davis or R.E. Lee?
Lincoln had no choice. War was chosen and selected by the slave power.
Jefferson did free some of his own slaves. They were descendants of Sally Hemming, who may, or may not have been his offspring, but were certainly related to his wife. Virginia law restricted the practice of freeing slaves. He submitted several times a revised law that would remove the restrictions.
The restrictions were along the lines of having to support the slaves as they moved out of the state, and got into a livelihood. Plantation owners were normally cash poor, and that posed a serious barrier.
A pity the southern soldiers didn’t follow your scruples.
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.