Posted on 08/11/2003 7:17:06 AM PDT by danielmryan
I have written in the past about the possible benefits of men like Douglas MacArthur being elected President, Dick Cheney being made Chief Justice or Bill Simon winning the California Governorship. These describe the theme of latent greatness in good Americans.
But what lies at the opposite end of goodness? Who was the very worst American president? Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the first true "liberal" of modern American politics, was a president so awful for America and for the world that it is worthwhile to recount as a cautionary tale some of his larger failures.
Begin with his election in 1912. Wilson received barely forty percent of the popular vote, with the two Republicans (T.R., of course, as a Bull Moose) collecting sixty percent of the vote. But that understates Wilson's utter lack of any mandate. The vote that Wilson received came largely from the South, where blacks could not vote and where Republicans were a threatened group.
How much of a one party state was the South then? Consider that while Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 was receiving almost sixty percent of the national vote, in some states of the South T.R. received less than ten percent of the vote, even less than five percent of the vote.
Wilson almost immediately began undoing the good work of past Republican administrations on black civil rights. The Leftist notion that Republicans once supported black civil rights and then stopped is just patently false: Republicans, if anything, were more solicitous of black rights in the period from 1876 to 1920 than they had been before then.
Blacks could, and did, serve as delegates to the Republican National Convention, as federal officers appointed by Republican presidents, and even as Republican congressmen. Only when the Democrats reacquired the White House in 1912, did the gradual progress of blacks stop. And only the slavish dedication of black leaders to the Democrat Party today can mask the plain facts that Wilson and Truman were bigots of the very worst sort.
Woodrow adored The Birth of a Nation, which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction force. He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the civil service. W.E.B. Dubois had broken ranks with other blacks to support a Democrat, rather than a Republican, in 1912. Dubois soon regretted his decision. Wilson reneged on his promise to create a national race commission (something that his Republican successor, the ever maligned Warren Harding, would do.)
Wilson's bigotry was not confined to blacks. He also loathed Orientals. His two Republican predecessors had carefully intervened to prevent anti-Japanese legislation from being enacted in West Coast states. They urged, quite properly, that slapping Japan - a growing industrial power that sought friendly relations with America - was a national security question.
Woodrow, however, made no such effort. As a consequence, the combination of strength and fairness which Theodore Roosevelt had used to improve relations with Japan, which was complemented by Taft - who was quite familiar with the Orient - was all squandered by Wilson.
Even after the horror of the Great War - when all decent people were grappling with ways to prevent another war - Wilson was destroying the possibility of bringing Japan into the company of western nations, a principal factor in the Second World War.
Japan in 1919 proposed to insert a quite reasonable clause inserted into the covenant of the League of Nations supporting the principle of racial equality. Alternatives to the proposed clause were rejected as unsatisfactory by the Japanese. Japan, like America, had been one of the major allied powers.
They forced a vote, and President Wilson, chairman of the League of Nations Commission, again attempted to avoid a vote. When it passed by a vote of eleven to six, Wilson claimed that the amendment had failed since the vote was not unanimous.
Wilson also appointed as Secretary of State that paragon of virtue, the virulently racist and anti-Semitic perennial Democrat nominee, William Jennings Bryan. His famous (or infamous) "Cross of Gold" speech referred to the same "New York Jews" that seem to have so troubled Harry Truman.
Wilson ran for reelection in 1916, campaigning on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War." After he won and after he took his oath of office the second time, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on the Central Powers. In retrospect, we see Imperial Germany as a bad nation like Nazi Germany.
But in the Great War, there was no moral high ground. If ever there was a war in which America needed to remain neutral, and use its wealth and good offices to provide a lasting peace, this was the war. By entering the war, however, Wilson insured that Germans would view America as hostile to Germany.
As a consequence, the ghastly Treaty of Versailles caused quiet rage in Germany, deep cynicism in Italy, indifference in Communist Russia, apathy in France, and alienation in Japan. The three horrid totalitarianism systems of the Twentieth Century - Fascism, Communism, and National Socialism - each were helped mightily by Wilson's arrogance and ignorance.
Wilson, who deemed himself indispensable to mankind, concealed his mental incapacity just when the future of the human race was being hammered out in the salons of Europe. He failed, utterly completely and totally. Even honorable progressives, like LaGuardia, had almost unbridled contempt for Woodrow Wilson.
Charles Evans Hughes, who would later serve as one of the best Chief Justices in American history, almost won the 1916 election. Indeed, if blacks in the South had been allowed to vote, Hughes would have won a landslide in the popular vote. Had Hughes won, a hundred million or so lives would have been saved.
What can be said about Wilson? One of the least damaging parts of his awful eight years happened at the very beginning, when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, allowing a federal income tax.
Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com
Lying Under Oath as President ~ Lying Under Oath in a Deposition ~ Lying Under Oath to a Grand Jury ~ Lying Under Oath as a Lawyer ~ Abuse of Power ~ Obstruction of Justice ~ Deriliction of Duty ~ Bribe Solicitation ~ Corruption ~ Graft ~ Coersion ~ False Swearing ~ Malfeasance of Office ~ Perjury ~ Subornation of Perjury---I humbly submit that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst Co-Presidents this country has ever had to endure.
Wow! Two of us!
The money phrase is one I agree with wholeheartedly:
The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... Advocates of this view embrace... championing of American ideals but reject.. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan... [holders of these views] want to use American might to promote American ideals.I wholeheartedly agree with this. If neocon is the definition of anyone who champion American ideals abroad while rejecting reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives, then the label applies to distinct politicians from Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan- and as such is a meaningless label.This is, in case you haven't guessed, my own view too. So I guess that makes me a neocon. It's a designation I'm willing--nay, honored--to accept, if it comes with a caveat: Neoconservatism... has entirely lost its original meaning. It no longer means that you're a Johnny-come-lately to the good fight, and--contrary to Mr. Buchanan's aspersions--neocons are no less conservative than anyone else on the right. [I edited out the labels and left the descriptors, so that it would be clear what Boot is agreeing to and what I am agreeing to]
And if the definition of 'neoconservative' is one who embraces the championing of American ideals while rejecting a reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish it, then I guess by that definition I would be a neoconservative too, just like Ronald Reagan. Just like President McKinley. He certainly held what Boot would have characterized as a 'hard Wilsonian' view. Of course, it would be hard to say that Wilson was a hero of McKinley's, being that McKinley was dead by the time Wilson came to prominence. Which is why your attempt at using Boot's analysis (which you describe as idiotic) to prove your assertion is pretty funny.
Here's a hint- most people who believe in an assertive projection of power do not consider themselves to be Wilsonian, for good reason.
I am still waiting, however, for some proof that certain members of the right consider Wilson a hero.
So busy doing all those naughty little (largely historically insignificant) crimes that they didn't have time to do the hugely damaging things that define truly horrible Presidents. They failed at the one thing they wanted to do, socialize medicine. They left it for the Republicans to do one step at a time.
They were horrible people, and maybe evil, but they didn't do as much harm as many, many others.
Now what that has to do with proving your assertion, that some on the right consider Woodrow Wilson a hero, is beyond me. I am still waiting for you to provide some proof of this.
I want to get a clarification from you before I challenge you on your assertion that he was a 'non-ideological' President. What do you mean by 'non-ideological'?
But when you do, I am likely to challenge you to find some evidence to prove that some subgroup of the right looks favorably on Woodrow Wilson. Finding evidence of one analyst stating that one part of Wilson's approach was good is not sufficient to pass that test. JFK cut taxes (which I approve); I am not one who looks favorably upon Camelot. Clinton signed welfare reform (which I approve); I am not one who looks favorably on Clintonism. Reagan advocated a forceful foreign policy like Wilson; his favored President was Coolidge. Senator Robert A. Taft favored international law and organizations like Wilson (which is one of the two ways I disagreed with Taft); Taft could not be intelligently classified as finding Wilson heroic or whatever word you want to come up with. As I said early on, you are attempting a type of reducto ad Wilsonium- stating that if anyone agrees with Wilson on anything that they consider Wilson a hero. It's a false argument.
As for this statement:
Max Boot attempted to bring Wilsonianism in line with alleged conservative thought.I don't think this is a correct reading of that article by Boot, at all. I don't think it is even reasonable to assert it.
Easy. CARTER
1) Double digit unemployment
2) Double digit inflation
3) Burned the special forces helicopter in the Iranian desert, as our hostages remained in captivity for 444 days, untill Reagan was in office.
However, I would say that Coolidge's Presidency fits in well with those who "embrace the championing of American ideals while rejecting a reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish it". This was the essence of Coolidge's foreign policy:
"He believed that America should seek out foreign markets and refrain from entangling alliances and participation in the League of Nations... In Latin America, Coolidge's administration supported economic imperialism.From here and here.He subscribed to the idea that America should seek out world markets, collect its World War I loans, and refrain from entangling alliances and participation in the League of Nations...
During Coolidge's term in office, America continued to maintain a strong presence and assert influence in Latin America. Direct investments-which rose from $1.26 billion in 1920 to $3.52 billion in 1928, inextricably tied the economies of those countries to America. For example, the United Fruit and Standard Fruit companies controlled most of the revenue of Honduras, and U.S. firms dominated Venezuelan oil production. Control of the Panama Canal, and a policy of using of troops, when necessary, to safeguard U.S. interests also worked to give America the upper hand in the region. In a direct show of influence, U.S. troops trained and maintained a pro-American National Guard in the Dominican Republic and occupied Nicaragua and Haiti with a peacekeeping force of U.S. soldiers throughout the decade. Americans also controlled Cuban politics and the Cuban economy, and the U.S. nearly came to blows with Mexico over the ownership of Mexican oil fields by American companies.
So embittered were most Latin American countries over America's imperialistic policies that the republics of the Western Hemisphere assembled for their triennial conference in Havana in 1928 eager to denounce and confront the United States. Coolidge personally traveled to Havana to address the conference, hoping to lessen the rage. It took all the eloquence of former secretary of state Charles Evans Hughes, now a Justice of the United States, to persuade the gathered delegates from passing a strong anti-United States resolution.
I think it is likely, that the following would have some people labelling him a neocon, were Coolidge around today:
Control of the Panama Canal, and a policy of using of troops, when necessary, to safeguard U.S. interests also worked to give America the upper hand in the region
Quite possibly - because of our actions since the war began. Some of our large banks were loaning money to the Allies and would not have much of a chance of getting repaid if they lost. Also we had munitions factories supplying rifle and artillery ammo to the Allies in large quanites - all while we were "neutral".
>fallacious reasoning that only American influences led to the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Japanese Imperialism, and the second World War.
Well if America were not factored into the W.W.I equation at all things most definitely would have worked out differently. Even with American aid the Allies were at a stalemate by mid war. I will forget the possibility that our aid might have kept them from losing, that's arguable. What is not arguable is that there was a stalemate and terms would have had to come about except for the fact that the Allies had hope in US intervention on their side therefore stiffening their resolve against peace at that time. If peace had been negotiated in 1916 or 17 the European monarchies all would have been maintained. The chaos, revolution, stripped territories, border disputes, etc. that set the stage for W.W.II would not have occurred. Trotsky would have ended up a professor at New York City College and Lenin would have remained a crank in Switzerland living nicely off of writing polemics against capitalism and the Czar. No matter how one figures it US meddling with and entry into that conflict had dire consequences. The outcome could not have been what it was without the US in the equation. Would there have been future conflict in Europe? most likely as there is historic president for it but there would have been no Soviet Russia, no communist revolution in Germany and elsewhere, no Nazi Party, etc. Whatever outcome of W.W.I without the US it would not have been anywhere near as horrible as what came about because we interfered and tipped a balance.
Re: Japanese imperialism. True that can not be blamed on W.W.I. In fact the only reason Japan fought with the Allies was to have a "legitimate" excuse to grab German colonies. But if Britain and France had not been bled white in the 1st World War they would have been in better position to deal with the Japanese. Also with Hitler's maneuverings in Europe (made possible by W.W.I) England was not able to deal with the European crisis and the Pacific one simultaneously. Please note that the British were content to sit back and let the US take the lead in pre-WWII efforts to stem the Japanese. Now I could ask why it was up to us to do anything at all or what we were doing with possessions in the Pacific in the first place but I'll leave that for another discussion.
Hi,As for Creative Destruction, notice the date, and consider what the subject matter is-- how to stamp out the terrorist threat against us. I find little in that article I would consider fascist. I also find little in that article I disagree with. If you want to say that makes me a fascist, that is your perogative. However, I know what fascism is, and I disagree with just about every aspect of fascism, just as I disagree with just about every aspect of any form of leftism.RE: [lbo-talk] Neocons Inspired By Italian Fascists?
I think the article is an amazing example of using a myriad of accurate historic and theoretical references to mask the simple fact that the whole argument is based on the classic fallacy of logic that falsely claims that things that can be shown to have some identical characterists must therefore be identical in all characteristices and thus congruent.
Example of invalid logic:
Milk is white
Chalk is white
Therefore chalk is milk.
This is an asinine assertion, and one that the average middle school graduate should be able to debunk. This is the core flaw in "Flirting with Fascism: Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right," by John Laughland, June 30, 2003 issue, The American Conservative.
The same fallacy of logic was used in the equally invalid essay that has plagued the Internet: "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" by Lawrence Britt, Spring 2003, Free Inquiry magazine.
Arguments that fail basic tests of logic should not be debated since they are invalid on their face, whether they claim to come from the left, center, or right.
There is also the problem of some weird form of intentional fallacy in which the fact that Ledeen is an expert on fascism somehow is used to imply that his politics are influenced by fascism, which requires a proof not offered because the other arguments are fallacious.
The arguments about fascism as a mass movement having real popular appeal and unleashing creative cultural energy for the heroic rebirth of the society (populist palingenesis) are more fairly attributed to British academic Roger Griffin.
Wrapping crap in gold foil does not make it delicious.
It is unwise to dine with those who think otherwise.
Chip Berlet
Still waiting for some proof that some on the political right idealize Wilson.
"I am not sure what more proof you need to demonstrate that Max Boot find Wilson to be a hero."Something like a statement that "I really admire Woodrow Wilson" or "I think Woodrow Wilson was a great President" would suffice.
Instead, what you have done is point to an article where he says that he agrees with a mindset that agrees with Wilson in persuing American interests agressively but disagrees with him on pretty much everything else.
In other words, not only have you not proven it, you haven't even come close.
As for the idea that we should kill those who would kill us, that is just common sense.
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.