Wars and Presidents
Wars make Presidents and Presidents make wars.
Our first American President was the general who led us to Revolutionary War victory. Service in the War of 1812 helped Andrew Jackson win the 1820 election. The War with Mexico was Zachary Taylor’s ticket to the White House. U.S. Grant led the Union Army to victory and rode that to the Presidency. Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War, which added a military credential to his Presidential campaigns. After the first World War, General Pershing hinted he might be willing to become President, but his close wartime alignment with President Wilson made Republicans wary of him, and Democrats knew Pershing was a Republican at heart - as are most Generals. General MacArthur had Presidential aspirations following WWII, but Truman firing him during the Korean War confirmed MacArthur’s time had passed and Eisenhower was the heir apparent to be anointed President.
War time Presidents get re-elected, but there are fewer of them than one might expect, only four, of whom three did not get over 55% of the popular vote. Lincoln got 55%, Roosevelt 53.4%, Lyndon Johnson 61% (by convincing voters his opponent, Goldwater, was trigger happy with nukes), and Bush II got a very marginal 50.7%. [If you are into numerology, maybe you can make something of the fact these re-election years all ended in a 4, 1864, 1944, 1964 and 2004]. The first two re-electees “won” their wars, while the last two could not deliver the victory they promised. Woodrow Wilson has the distinction of getting re-elected on a campaign slogan of having kept us out of the World War, while then getting us into it after his electoral victory.
Our Generals in the Vietnam War spent their post-war years defending against the legacy of their blunders, rather than sending out hopeless Presidential feelers. The Gulf War gave some Presidential credence to General Schwartzkopf, who did not pursue it, and then to Colin Powell who settled for Secretary of State. Wes Clark sought a Presidential nomination in 2004, but his military leadership had been in relatively unknown encounters, and he confused everyone by being a rare General running as a Democrat.
With two of our last three significant war adventures being shambles, maybe Americans have learned that wars don’t really make Presidents. Bush II has certainly reminded us that Presidents can make wars on false pretenses. Now we need to learn to how to solve problems without making war.
posted by Tom Blake | 1:08 PM
3 Comments:
Wes Clark was my favorite Democratic candidate. I never could figure out why the Democrats refused this gift horse. I guess it was because they just don't know how to focus on winning instead of on slippery ideology. I say slippery ideology because both party's ideology has transformed over the years. Remember when the Republicans believed in fiscal responsibility? Remember when labor union members were a mainstay of the Democratic Party? What the Rebublicans have done is set about winning strategies. They have been all the more clever by making a marriage with religious zealots, and in the process replacing Democrat unions with Republican churches.
The Republicans are in more disarray than even the Democrats now. But I doubt that the Democrats will take advantage of their opportunity. They had similar opportunities in 2000 and 2004. I'm very worried about Fred Thompson to the point I will probably vote for Rudy. The thought of a Fred-Hillary fight for President of the US is the stuff of prime time TV shows. God help America.
John from Phoenix
Clark was an unknown and did not attract funding needed to make himself known. Lack of big campaign money may mean lack of obligations to the financiers, but it also makes it harder to succeed in campaigning. I think the “Don’t Think of an Elephant” book hit the nail on the head about how the Democrats need to speak in terms of their traditional core values, instead of falling into the semantic traps the Republicans have set. Some erstwhile Democrat voters, notably workers who were traditionally union, have also fallen for the Republican trap.
Being clever and selling out your core values is what Republicans have done and it now seems to be turning against them. Gays, guns and God are only top issues to the core of zealots that continue to approve of Bush and who will be a major factor in choosing the Republican nominee. Once that nominee is decided, he will have to head for the center on these issues lest he turn off the majority of the electorate. The false moral appeal Bush got in 2000, in reaction to Bill Clinton’s sexual antics, is not present this time around. The Iraq mess is so much worse than in 2004, and it rubs off on all Republicans, so the Democrat opportunity to win in 2008 is much greater. Some may feel that Hillary comes with Bill’s peccadillos as baggage, but more may feel that she deserves credit for weathering that storm and rising above it to the US Senate and now maybe the Presidency. I wonder if she force feeds Bill salt petre.
Some may consider Thompson the alternative to the liberal Giuiani and the Mormon Romney, but whether he can raise the money and get the votes is much in doubt. The political parties opposed the open primaries, because they wanted to prevent voters from crossing over party lines to choose the opponent most easy to beat. But it sounds like you are saying that is exactly what you intend to do, having registered as a Republican, though in fact you prefer to see a Democrat elected. Washington was one of the last States with an open primary, and I voted in most of them through the years, but I never remember voting for a “beatable” Republican. I always figured a vote for the Democrat I wanted was the way to go, to show how much actual support that candidate had, and to counter any effort by Republicans to choose a Democratic “loser” in the primary.
I think Giuliani might be the toughest opponent Hillary could face, because he is more moderate and because his many marriages could be countered by Hillary’s husband’s sexual history. Many Republican voters may feel the same way, which could be the explanation of why Rudy leads Republicans in the polls.
Washington does not have (or should I say did not have)an open primary. It has (or had) a blanket primary. An open primary is one in which any registered voter may vote the primary election of any political party. So, for example, a registered Republican or an independent may choose a Democratic ballot. But what Washington has (or had) is one ballot for all parties and anyone could vote for a candidate in all parties for any office. This never made sense to me. What does party mean if non-members can vote for the party's candidates?
I think the blanket primary is crazy. But I also don't agree with the open primary. Political parties should be able to form and organize and not be vulnerable to outsiders messing up their agendas.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home