I've got problems with things done under Eisenhower, Kennedy (big time!), Johnson (the worst, IMO), Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. I might have problems with Ford but can't think of any right now.
My read:
Eisenhower: the interstate highway system and the Marshall Plan come to mind. Ike was the least 'politician' of the bunch and despite small errors, is the most underrated President in my lifetime. In fact, when Time was trying to rate The Man of the Century, I thought it could only be a tossup between Ike and George Marshall, for their contributions in the war and post-war era. I rate him an 'A'.
Kennedy: a cold-warrior with genuine military experience who was wise enough to second guess status quo 'intelligence', he died too soon to get a definitive read on. He was castigated for the Bay of Pigs, though he'd made it clear before it began that we were not committing troops. The CIA operatives thought they could entrap him to join in and when he didn't, he took the historic blame, unfairly. Some indications exist that he was having second thoughts about deeper involvement in Vietnam, which, if true, is another plus, in my book. As a leader, he could inspire most of the country. Dead too soon, the worst I can rate him is 'neutral'.
Johnson - a consummate old school politician who knew where the bodies were buried. Highest marks on Civil Rights and 'misguided policy but good intentions' award for War on Poverty. Chief failing: trying to keep up with the Harvards, and letting them befuddle him into a disastrous 'Nam policy. But there was plenty of blame to go around there.... intelligence, generals, McNamara, Congress, the draft.... what a collection of numbnuts, yayhoos, wonks, bad policies and outrageous liars. The Pueblo incident was another example of a terrible military response, too. Still, the Civil Rights gains and anti-poverty attempts keep him out of the cellar with a 'C-' grade.
Nixon: another consummate politician, the dean of successful ways to get elected, but a dunce about what to do afterward. No trick was too dirty on the campaign trail from his earliest days. His opponents knew it and even Ike disliked him. Beat Humphrey NOT because of his Silent Majority charade, but simply because the South was not gonna forgive the Dems for the Civil Rights Bill of LBJ. (Read the Electoral College returns from 1951 to 2000 if you have any doubts). Nixon had one plan: to bomb the North Vietnamese into submission. When that failed, no Plan B existed, and the Nixon/Laird/Kissinger team has not been discredited enough for their lousy policies. Not to mention wage/price controls, the spying on citizens, etc etc. Only redeeming move: opening trade with China, which keeps him from a Failing grade. Rating: D-
Ford: the unelected guy who never won a thing larger than his Congressional district, his pardon of Nixon was not, as proclaimed, an act of healing. The Mayaguez was the sole other thing that stands out,
afa.org
and 41 dead soldiers to save the 39 Mayaguez crewmen seems a dubious trade-off. But Ford was simply in over his head as a Prez or Vice Prez; the middle-road party hack gets my second neutral rating.
Carter: all the FP wonks decried mixing human rights with FP initiatives, and embargoes/boycotts (the Olympics?) took precedence over warfare for a guy bent on peaceful resolutions. He was a nice guy with good intentions but his PR machine sucked (remember the killer bunny rabbit?). He paid big prices for the policies of predescessors, the most obvious in providing shelter to the Shah, which led to his undoing. He also presided over the second OPEC oil crisis near the end of a long period of stagflation attributable to policies begun under LBJ and Nixon, but had the good sense to sell AWACs to the Saudis, which began an oil-price-moderation era that would benefit every successive administration since his.... something he's rarely given any credit for. More an ineffective guy whose biggest 'mistake' was actually surrounding himself with DC outsiders, leaving him stranded in Congressional negotiations, and, perhaps, the misguided synfuels program as a weak alt-energy plan, he rates a 'C-'.
Reagan: PT Barnum had nothing on this guy, but as a leader who could motivate the masses, he ranked second in that regard only to the charismatic Kennedy in the past half century. Prior to our current recession, his was the last one this bad, but as noted with Carter, this was largely a carryover from predescessors and marked the end of the stagflation period. Touted as a tax cutter, he actually provided the largest tax increase in US history, on Social Security. He was also the biggest spender in our history and had his first budget passed intact, he would have spent nearly twice all previous presidents combined ! The govt. spending, combined with tax cuts for the well-off, helped facilitate the unravelling of the USSR and fostered a period of economic growth, with the only downside an enormous ballooning of the budget deficit and the Federal Debt, which, left unchecked, could burden future generations. Most importantly, it stymied, via economic practicality, any domestic initiatives for years to come. Principally for leadership and the hastened demise of the Soviets, Ronnie earns a 'B-'; had he not played Russian roullette with the budget nor been such an ideologue on so many human/civil rights and poverty issues, he might have stood a chance at an 'A' grade. Among the worst outcomes: providing no place but the streets for hundreds of thousands of folks freed from the mental health gulag in the late 70s-early 80s.
Bush the Elder: a congenial toady who earned his way through various offices by being uncritical of anyone (one of the very few national GOPers who avoided criticizing Nixon throughout the Watergate/resignation period), his visible area of competence during his campaign was in his experience with and understanding of the military, and the resulting success of the Gulf War demonstrated that. However, his oil buddies and his socio-economic lineage were impediments to any understanding of domestic issues, which would prove his undoing during his re-election campaign.
Clinton: a campaigner with the consummate skills exceeding all, who did not need to resort to the Nixon trickery, he had high promise, with an IQ above all those others; paralleled only by Kennedy. As his critics in Arkansas had dubbed him 'Slick Willie' before his campaign for POTUS, his subsequent love of campaign money and cheap women were no secrets to anyone paying attention. A liar? Nothing new there: all national politicians are liars. Period. It goes with the turf. Clinton was also a masterful politician in office, most skillful at usurping opponent's planks by claiming them as his own. Two principal things worked against him: he faced the most mean-spirited and vituperative Congress in the past half century and he reigned in a period largely unmarked by pressing economic or foreign policy necessities. High marks for ending annual budget deficits and paying down the national debt, and for conciliatory initiatives in racial, gender and sexual preference arenas. Lowest marks: botching the move to national health care at the ripest time ever measured in popular support for such a plan. He was also the first obviously pro-biznuts Demo seen in that office in the past half century. He could not be a great Prez as there was nothing much to be great about. Rating: C+
Bush the Junior and Al Gore: this was the battle of the Eddies. Eddie Munster lost and Eddie Haskell is da boss. Gore lacked executive leadership skills and on the personal side, sports a mean temper. However, he was a proponent of sound environmentalism and was a good student at whatever policy area grabbed his attention and could have been expected to maintain a steady middle course for the country with good odds against major gaffes. Unlike his draft dodger/let-me-rethink-that boss, or the AWOLee now in the Oval Office, Gore deserves credit for his military credentials, just as Bush the Elder did.
Bush the Haskell, on the other hand, may become the toady's toady. His entire career has been built on the favors bestowed mostly by his Dad's buds, and he had to nip a penchant for boozing to keep from tarnishing the silver spoon he was born with (and possibly snorted with). His status as a compassionate conservative is remarkable, considering his tenure as gov was marked by a freewheeling record of frying murderers at a rate unmatched in the past 3/4 of a century. And historians hence may yet establish this presidency as a turning point in our country, as it took a gross political maneuver by a Supreme Court that decried judicial activism till called upon to anoint their homeboy.
Obviously, the jury is out on this one as yet. Early indicators are troubling:
1) Civil liberties are being tossed aside in pursuit of terrorists and the spectre of Big Brother looms large (though to be fair, Clinton was not stellar in this regard either).
2) Surrounding himself with the same folks who brought the Gulf War to an unsatisfactory conclusion, it's hard to see what's new here. Powell remains over-cautious and repetitive and the hawks haven't budged an inch either. Is there not a fresh idea available anywhere, in a time that demands novelty?
3) Rushing to protect Americans from email and cell phones, he seems to have overlooked protecting us from terrorists bearing anthrax and the airline security moves are all talk and no action.
My prediction: via tax cuts and pro-biznuts deals and enormous spending, and coupled with Uncle Al's Fed rate cuts, Shrubya has primed the pump well for an economic turnaround. Reagan got re-elected with the claim of reducing unemployment, and most Americans conveniently forget it worsened first.... and ended only a hair lighter than at the beginning of his term. This scenario promises to repeat for Bush. So all he needs is a couple of minor victories in the War on Terrorism to seal his re-election. (Or is it his first proven election as POTUS?)
All well and good; it sets the stage for his complete undoing. This pump-priming is being done with the SS surplus needed to contend with the pending retirement of baby boomers. No matter who wins in 2004, that Prez is heading into an economic paralysis worse than any since the Great Depression.
-----------------------------------------------------
And please, before this devolves into partisan one-upsmanship, recognize that I am an independent with personal political views across the spectrum, depending on the specific issue under discussion. I possess, in my feeble effort to rate them here, the quaint historian's view that 80% of the voting behavior of Americans depends on their wallets.... and another 19% is based on bias against others (such as blacks, Jews, the Irish, Catholics, Hispanics, or isolationism, which is a similar bias). There are very few Presidential races in US history where the outcome depended on something other than these two factors of personal economic condition and/or bias. Thus, my rating is less based on ideology than on the pragmatic view that a good President provides for the national defense, economic security and a neutral bias towards non-WASPs, with other factors relatively unimportant.
And, as a final note, let me add that this past election between the two Eddies highlights a disturbing trend: the nation is running out of quality candidates, and recent events demonstrate that we are entering a period when the demands will increase for true leaders, capable of venturing away from the middle with innovation and the courage to take risks instead of polls.
Such were the strengths of FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, the last two decades of Goldwater's career, and candidates such as Jerry Brown and John McCain. But who, of note, is on the horizon? |
