► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘John Steele Gordon’

Most presidents who earned re-election became consumed by war, scandal or strife with Capitol Hill

by Mojambo ( 160 Comments › )
Filed under History at November 15th, 2012 - 2:30 pm

Scary to contemplate how bad a second Obama term will be. The key point of this article is that despite a horrible second term, FDR was able to hold onto his coalition  and be elected to a third and fourth term.

by John Steele Gordon

Barack Obama brings to 16 the number of presidents elected to a second term. The total is 18 if you include Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who were elected only once but had served nearly four years of a predecessor’s term. Mr. Obama would be well advised to consider the history of these second terms. Its message is to beware of interpreting re-election as an invitation to overreach.

The considerable majority of second terms were far less successful than the first. Some were disastrous. Only James Monroe, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt got through it with their reputations intact or enhanced. Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in his second term for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.

Even George Washington, almost an American saint in his lifetime, was savagely criticized in his second term. He caused outrage by signing the Jay Treaty, which was ratified in 1796. This trade agreement with Britain enraged Jeffersonians, who favored France in European squabbles and thought the treaty bolstered the rival Federalists.

Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley were assassinated only six weeks and six months into their second terms. The only other presidential second term to end prematurely was Richard Nixon’s.

But consider this when thinking of Nixon’s Watergate disgrace: Harry Truman, after firing the insubordinate but revered Gen. Douglas MacArthur and failing to win the stalemated Korean War, was so unpopular by the last year of his presidency that his approval rating sank as low as 22%, lower than Nixon’s when he resigned (24%).

Ronald Reagan became ensnared in the Iran-Contra scandal in his second term and Bill Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Ulysses Grant’s second term was mired in even worse scandals than those that plagued his first. Grant himself was honest, but he was notably loyal to his friends, who often were not.

Grant’s personal secretary, Orville Babcock, was deeply corrupt and involved in the so-called whiskey ring, where a group of federal officials connived with distilleries to siphon millions of dollars in federal liquor taxes. Babcock was tried for his part in the scandal and Grant gave a deposition at the trial, the only time a sitting president has done so in a criminal proceeding. Given that a deep recession had started only six months after Grant’s second inauguration (an economic decline that would last six years), it isn’t surprising that Grant became so unpopular.

Thomas Jefferson’s first term, marked by the Louisiana Purchase, had been a great success and he was easily re-elected. But in his second term he initiated one of the most bizarre policies in American (or, indeed, world) history and paid a terrible political price.

Both Britain and France had been harassing American merchant ships, seizing them and, in the case of Britain, impressing sailors into the Royal Navy. Hoping to force Britain and France to honor American rights, Jefferson pushed the Embargo Act through Congress in 1807. It forbade trade with the European powers and the U.S. Navy was deployed to, in effect, blockade American ports.

The act was very unpopular in all of the country’s port cities. But it was especially so in New England, where shipping and shipbuilding were the largest industries. Talk of secession rose as New England’s economy fell into a deep depression.  [………]

Franklin Roosevelt also politically overstepped in his second term. Triumphantly re-elected in 1936 but frustrated that much of his economic policy had been stymied by the Supreme Court, FDR proposed to “pack” the court by appointing an extra justice for every justice on the bench who was over age 70½. Roosevelt pushed hard for the bill, even giving one of his fireside chats about it in March 1937. But the bill was seen as tampering with the fundamental constitutional balance among the three branches of government.

Without public support, Roosevelt could not push the bill through Congress, even though both houses had huge Democratic majorities. When the recovery stalled later that year and the economy began to sink back into depression, Roosevelt’s popularity nose-dived. Still, his coalition secured his third and fourth terms, and success in wartime revived his reputation.

Perhaps the saddest second term was Woodrow Wilson’s. The income tax, the Federal Reserve and the Clayton Antitrust Act were passed in his first administration. Narrowly re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war,” Wilson asked for a declaration of war only a month into his second term. When the war was won, Wilson sailed for Europe in December 1918 to personally negotiate the peace treaty. He was away for almost seven months (with one brief return), by far the longest time a sitting president has been out of the country.

[……….]

Instead he went on a countrywide speaking tour to build public support for the treaty and get the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate. The effort proved too much for him and he collapsed in September 1919, while in Pueblo, Colo. A week later a serious stroke left him partially paralyzed and blind in one eye.

His wife, Ellen, essentially became the acting president, shielding him from his cabinet and even the vice president, deciding what he would deal with and what would be left to others. Wilson recovered enough to be able to walk with a cane, but his old vigor was gone. He was a wrecked man.

Second terms are hazardous affairs at best. But no modern president is likely to suffer the humiliation that James Madison experienced in 1814 during his second term. That was when the British invaded the country and burned the nation’s capital.

Read the rest – The peril of second terms

 

Regarding Herman Cain

by Mojambo ( 103 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney at October 3rd, 2011 - 8:30 am

I like Herman Cain but in  no way (in my opinion) is he qualified to be president of the United States of America. Being good with the zingers is not a qualification, otherwise we could nominate Billy Crystal or Dennis Miller – or worse, Newt Gingrich.

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Conservatives have spent the last several months chewing up and spitting out a number of Republican presidential hopefuls as well as some who haven’t run. If you eliminate those who haven’t done well when exposed to scrutiny, like Michele Bachmann​ and Rick Perry​, that means Republicans must either make their peace with Mitt Romney​ or re-examine their misgivings about the other candidates. Given the choices, that’s not much fun. So, it’s no surprise this has led to a second look at some who have very little chance of winning the nomination.

[…]

Thus, Herman Cain’s moment has arrived. His straw poll triumph in Florida over Rick Perry has led some thoughtful writers such as the Wall Street Journal’sDaniel Henninger and our own John Steele Gordon to ask why Cain shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Both buy into the notion electing a businessman without any government experience is a good idea given our economic problems. They rightly point out he has some good ideas about finances. But both also ignore or rationalize Cain’s ignorance about foreign policy while being seduced by the possibility the Godfather Pizza exec could split the African-American vote. While Cain has established he’s good at delivering cliché-laden one-liners in debates, there are still good reasons for conservatives not to waste time on him.

[…]

But that is exactly why Republicans ought not to duplicate that experiment. We’ve just seen what it’s like when you have a president who hasn’t much idea of what he’s doing, so why would a similar fault in a candidate be considered a recommendation? For all of the popularity of rhetoric about our disgust with veteran political hacks, successful presidents have to know how Washington works. Maybe governments ought to be run more like businesses but, like it or not, governments are not the same thing as fast food franchises.

It also bears repeating that despite the obvious emphasis on economic issues this year, a president’s first and most important responsibility concerns defense and war and peace issues. That’s something that even those, like George W. Bush, who entered the office with no thought of devoting much attention to foreign policy, have learned. When he began running for president, Cain’s ignorance of the world beyond our borders was almost complete. He’s uttered some memorable clunkers in which he said we could stop Iran from getting nukes with energy independence, had no idea what the Palestinian “right of return” was, and admitted he hadn’t a clue about what to do about Afghanistan. Since then, he’s cleaned up his act a bit and learned a few one-liners about supporting Israel that he will repeat whenever given the chance. But it’s still fairly obvious he doesn’t have a grasp of these topics. While we may have elected a number of presidents with no direct foreign policy experience, even most of that number knew more than Cain.

Last, there is the idea that Cain could split the African-American vote. But there is no reason, other than Cain’s own assertion to believe that this could happen. Enthusiasm for Obama among his base is probably diminished, but there is no sign whatsoever African-Americans are likely to jump ship even for a black Republican.

[…]

Read the rest: Re: Herman Cain?

For the pro Herman Cain argument we have the following.

by John Steele Gordon

Dissatisfaction with the other candidates and his own strong performances in the debates has lifted Herman Cain from who-do-these-guys-think-they-are territory to a-long-shot-but-who-knows land. Certainly a mark of that new status is yesterday’s Wall Street Journal column by Daniel Henninger.

The main objection to Cain is that he has never held public office. Given the fact that Barack Obama has never held anything but, I’m not sure that that is such a disqualifying attribute.

Potential presidents’ résumés are usually judged according to political experience, executive experience, and foreign-affairs experience. Cain has only the executive experience, and did pretty well at it, according to Henninger. But are the other two so vital? Of the last six presidents, only George H. W. Bush and Obama can claim “foreign-policy experience,” and Obama’s consisted of nothing more than two years as a Senate backbencher (the last two years of his Senate career consisted almost entirely of running for president). Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter had all been governors.

[…]

So I don’t find Herman Cain’s résumé fatally defective. And his nomination would have two big plusses. One, it would rip the race card right out of the Democrats’ hands and two, it would set up a race between—in Glenn Reynolds marvelous phrase—Cain and Unable.

Read the rest: Herman Cain?