Having political skills and a genial manner does not exclude talent as a leader. Eisenhower’s management style, like that of George Marshall, avoided flash and attention. Where Marshall was stern and sober-minded though, Ike as President cultivated an avuncular image and often seemed detached from day to day politics.
It took historians decades to discern that behind the scenes, Ike as President was frequently pulling the strings and accomplishing his objectives at minimal effort and political cost. Reagan used similar methods, with business magazines praising his skill at delegation, which insiders said was modeled on Eisenhower’s practices. Both Reagan and Eisenhower are now generally rated as among the country’s better and even greatest presidents.
Growing US domestic issues today.
The concept of proximate cause matters. Eisenhower cannot fairly be blamed for, say, today’s high rates of illegitimacy and family breakdown, nor can it be assumed that somehow MacArthur as president would have made a difference for the better.
Trying to save China from Mao.
US resources were limited to the degree that we might be able to check the Soviets from further gains in Europe, but we could not, to a virtual certainty, undo Mao’s conquest of China, and there is no possibility that we could have done both. Worse, squandering our economic and military resources trying to save China would likely have permitted a Soviet takeover in Europe.
Chiang as a ruler.
During WW II, US aid was often stolen or diverted by Chiang and his circle, and military resources were usually held back for use against Mao instead of the Japanese. After the war, Chiang and his allies were soundly defeated by Mao. Chiang and the Nationalists lacked a clear and appealing political program for reform and had little appeal to the Chinese populace.
Indeed, on Taiwan, much of the native population regarded Chiang and his Nationalists as invaders, and Chiang’s rule depended on a harsh security regime. Not until after Chiang died was a modern democracy contrived on Taiwan in the 1990s.
To be sure, US support for Chiang was sabotaged by communists working in the US government, but that does not mean that the Chinese populace was ready to revolt against Mao. What MacArthur would have delivered if he had his way would have been a war with China with little prospect of success at reasonable and bearable cost -- and we would risked losing Europe to the Soviets in the meantime.
It took historians decades to discern that behind the scenes, Ike as President was frequently pulling the strings and accomplishing his objectives at minimal effort and political cost. Reagan used similar methods, with business magazines praising his skill at delegation, which insiders said was modeled on Eisenhower’s practices. Both Reagan and Eisenhower are now generally rated as among the country’s better and even greatest presidents."
Historians, sadly, tend to overwhelmingly lean leftward (too often a problem with academics). I could see why left-wingers would praise Eisenhower. However, the more I learned about Ike, the less I found (as a Conservative) to like, for all the reasons I cited. One thing I'd be curious to know, since Ike was still alive when Reagan won the CA Governorship in 1966 and was seriously floated for the Presidency in 1968, what his opinion was of him. I would think it probably wasn't terribly well-regarded, as he was viewed as a Goldwaterite (albeit not exactly so), and Goldwater wasn't high on Ike.
"Growing US domestic issues today. The concept of proximate cause matters. Eisenhower cannot fairly be blamed for, say, today’s high rates of illegitimacy and family breakdown, nor can it be assumed that somehow MacArthur as president would have made a difference for the better."
But since Ike paved the way for JFK/LBJ and their explosion of their big government welfare state insanity, an individual in the Presidency who opposed such policies from being implemented at a national level might've slowed down or prevented the fiasco that resulted. Alas, that was neither Ike nor Nixon.
"Trying to save China from Mao. US resources were limited to the degree that we might be able to check the Soviets from further gains in Europe, but we could not, to a virtual certainty, undo Mao’s conquest of China, and there is no possibility that we could have done both. Worse, squandering our economic and military resources trying to save China would likely have permitted a Soviet takeover in Europe."
I chalk this up more to the failings of Truman to let MacArthur actually stop the Communist menace in the Asian theater. But that opportunity was there and should've been swiftly pursued. That MacArthur was relieved of duties was the greatest disasters to befall Eastern politics, and well over a billion souls have paid the price. I also vehemently disagree, again, that we had to choose one over the other. We could deal with Europe AND Asia. After all, we did so in WW2. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"Chiang as a ruler. During WW II, US aid was often stolen or diverted by Chiang and his circle, and military resources were usually held back for use against Mao instead of the Japanese. After the war, Chiang and his allies were soundly defeated by Mao. Chiang and the Nationalists lacked a clear and appealing political program for reform and had little appeal to the Chinese populace.
Indeed, on Taiwan, much of the native population regarded Chiang and his Nationalists as invaders, and Chiang’s rule depended on a harsh security regime. Not until after Chiang died was a modern democracy contrived on Taiwan in the 1990s.
To be sure, US support for Chiang was sabotaged by communists working in the US government, but that does not mean that the Chinese populace was ready to revolt against Mao. What MacArthur would have delivered if he had his way would have been a war with China with little prospect of success at reasonable and bearable cost -- and we would risked losing Europe to the Soviets in the meantime."
I cannot summon up any indignation against Chiang in "skimming" weaponry to use against Mao. Indeed, I'd have cheered him on. There's simply nothing that can be said to me that would convince me to the contrary that the policies ultimately pursued here were a positive. Mao should've been defeated and executed at the earliest possible time. You pursue an argument reminiscent of those who said Batista removal was justified by Castro. There's another epic-level failure of Ike's... Cuba. And that was left for an in-over-his-head junior Senator who stole the 1960 election (for which Ike also did nothing about it).
It seems an obscenity to compare Eisenhower to Ronaldus Maximus as leaders. It was Eisenhower's "modern" wing of Republicanism which bitterly resisted the rise of Reagan. While you rightly note that Eisenhower was too long ago to be directly blamed for the moral degeneracy of our era, it is also true that he had little interest in such matters. Ronaldus Maximus was THE great POTUS of my lifetime. Eisenhower fans should have some shame and refrain from embarrassing their man with any comparisons.
Depending on his policies and motives, MacArthur's administration of Japan does not evoke confidence that he would have been a force for social issue morality. He had no problem with abortion in Japan in the 1940s. He wanted to force women out of their traditional family roles and into the work place. He seems to have wanted to emasculate Japanese males via social policy. It goes without saying that MacArthur would have been infinitely superior to Eisenhower on foreign and military policies.
Chiang Kai Shek was originally trained by the soviets in the time of Lenin to be soviet stooge in charge of China using the Nationalist Party of Sun Yat Sen. Chiang announced his independence of Moscow by killing thousands of soviet spies in China in The Night of the Long Knives. After that, the soviets hated no one more than they hated Chiang. BEFORE Mao won his revolution, Chiang was betrayed by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau who, in spite of orders from POTUS, ordered a planeload of gold to be grounded and not sent to shore up Chiang's currency during an absolute fiscal crisis. Then Mao won his revolution.
Somehow, when we are faced with fascist and Nazi enemies, it is practical to do the right thing, attack them and destroy their regimes and execute their leaders. Is it not strange that it NEVER seems practical to treat ANY communist regime similarly. We would not take out Kim Jong Mentally Ill's grandpa or his daddy or him. Nor would we arrange to drag "kindly Uncle Ho Chi Minh" by the beard from his Hanoi lair to be executed in the streets of Hanoi as Mussolini was in Rome. During World War II we humiliated ourselves allying with Stalin. It took Reagan to do in the soviets and, even then, no one was hanged. Curious double standard.
If "we" had lost Europe to further infringements by the soviets, how would things be different? Europe has been conquered by Gramscian communism which offers the moral perversions of your choice in exchange for the rest of your freedoms: The European Union. Also, because the Europeans have become too materialistic to bother raising children and have abandoned traditional religious faith, Europe is now being overrun by Muslims all too willing to raise children. Seizing Europe by outbreeding the Europeans is a lot more fun than armed warfare.