Eisenhower and McCarthy. Having constant hunts for spies and security risks can cripple an organization. McCarthy’s public fusillades tended to do just that with critical parts of the federal government. McCarthy is vindicated only in part by the times that he was right. His attacks were too much like firing off a shotgun in a crowd, hitting not just valid targets but also innocent people and panicking most of the crowd.
Taft versus MacArthur. You propose that if elected President, Taft, a mature man of deep principle, would have been forced by on the job training and taking up a national perspective to go from isolationist to interventionist. Just how long would such a process take? Would we have to lose Europe to the Soviets first? There can be no credible assurance that would not have happened.
Ike’s Supreme Court appointments. Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments include the dismal Earl Warren and William Brennan, but the historical consensus is that the liberal decisions they delivered were contrary to Eisenhower’s expectations.
By that reckoning, if you have banner economic growth, it's A-OK to similarly expand federal spending. I vehemently disagree. That's the time to cut back. Actually, there's never a bad time to cut government and spending. As for education measures, that's not something that should remotely be under federal auspices. At least the highway system could have an argument made in its favor, although I'm not a fan of what it did to many of our inner cities in destroying neighborhoods, many of which have never recovered.
"Eisenhower and McCarthy. Having constant hunts for spies and security risks can cripple an organization. McCarthy’s public fusillades tended to do just that with critical parts of the federal government. McCarthy is vindicated only in part by the times that he was right. His attacks were too much like firing off a shotgun in a crowd, hitting not just valid targets but also innocent people and panicking most of the crowd."
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. McCarthy was right to ring the bell and loudly. I disagree with the characterization of him "firing off shots" in the vicinity of innocent people hoping that it might strike a guilty party. For years I heard from people, who know little about McCarthy (only that he somehow managed the feat, mostly spent as a member of the minority, to Chair a "House Committee" on Un-American Activities) claiming he harmed "countless, innocent people." My response to that is, "Whom ?" The irony is that most people don't know that HCUA was established to weed out Nazi sympathizers and its founder and co-chair was NY Democrat Congressman Samuel Dickstein, later exposed as a paid Soviet agent.
"Taft versus MacArthur. You propose that if elected President, Taft, a mature man of deep principle, would have been forced by on the job training and taking up a national perspective to go from isolationist to interventionist. Just how long would such a process take? Would we have to lose Europe to the Soviets first? There can be no credible assurance that would not have happened."
Yes. Because there is a difference between being a Senator vs. being President, though he would've only had a matter of months to deal with foreign policy. We certainly know his successor, MacArthur, was no shrinking violet.
"Ike’s Supreme Court appointments. Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments include the dismal Earl Warren and William Brennan, but the historical consensus is that the liberal decisions they delivered were contrary to Eisenhower’s expectations."
But yet, he appointed them. You have to own what you do in office.