Archives

You are currently viewing archive for January 2009
As I reflect on this question, I realize that I am defining qualities needed to be a great president. My previous posts:

From Polk: the ability to analyze a situation rationally and act accordingly, the willingness to go against one's own party if deemed necessary, and the steadiness to hold to rational goals. In Farmer's words, "a keen sense for the possible."

From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.

Today, George Washington, the First and the Exemplary President.

Many, many things have been said concerning Washington. I would like to focus on three.

First, Washington was very aware that his every word and deed would be watched, and would set an example. He responded with thoughtful, careful behavior and speech. Even though no other president is going to set the pattern for office the way Washington had to do, every president is closely watched both by those at home and those abroad. There is no room for the careless word or action. In today's 24-7 cable, radio, and internet era, not only foreign diplomats and members of the federal government, but ordinary citizens will be parsing, interpreting, reading-between-the-lines, of every word and deed.

Second, Washington was committed to the principle that private interest must be subordinated to the public good. He did not govern with a "what is in it for me?" or "what is in it for my group?" attitude. Washington truly wanted to do the right thing for the good of the new nation. We want such an attitude in our presidents; and in the long view of history, only a president that can transcend the desire for personal glory and partisan gain will be judged great.

Third, Washington knew how to quit. He voluntarily set aside the power of office to return to private life. Granted that his health was failing after he left the presidency, I still cannot imagine him trying for a third term, or searching for any way possible to stay in the public eye. He was our Cincinnatus.

From Washington: act according to the knowledge that every word and move will be watched closely and can have far-reaching effects, place the public good over private interest, and know how to leave the stage.
What do Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt have in common?

I would have voted against every one of them. As a conservative Federalist-Whig-Republican, given the opportunity to cast a vote, I am fairly confident I would have selected John Adams over TJ in 1800, John Quincy Adams over Old Hickory in 1828, Henry Clay over Jackson in 1832, William Howard Taft over Wilson (and Teddy) in 1912, Charles Evans Hughes over Wilson in 1916, Hoover over FDR in 1932, and Landon, Wilke, and Dewey in 1936, 1940, and 1944.

Want to hear something crazy? Even knowing everything I know now, I would still vote the same way given the chance.

What else do Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson and Roosevelt have in common?

They were American heroes and great (or near-great, at the very least) Presidents.

Barack Obama is not out to destroy the United States. Yes. He identifies with the Democratic Party--and that fact of life carries a distinct meaning, but, taken in the long view, hopefully, he is no more a threat to American liberty than the other aforementioned Democratic standard-bearers.

That is, even though Hamilton and Adams felt certain that Thomas Jefferson was a wild-eyed Jacobin who would carelessly squander the hard-won gains of the Revolution, Jefferson's political opponents were wrong. Even though John Quincy Adams sincerely believed that the boorish frontiersman, Andrew Jackson, lacked the refinement or capacity to govern the United States, and Henry Clay genuinely thought that the Hero of New Orleans was a dangerous "man on horseback" along the lines of Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon, Jackson's opponents were wrong.

You get my point. In the heat of the battle, we Americans are inclined to believe some fairly unreasonable things about our opponents.

Let's all take a deep breath. The campaign is over. It is time to govern.

Footnote (just for the record): it is possible that I might have voted for Jefferson in 1804.

UPDATE: Thanks to HNN for linking us as one of the "quotes of the week."
The Pew Forum has a chart listing the religious affiliation of U.S. presidents. Episcopalians are the largest group, way above their proportion in the general population. Presbyterians also are over-represented.

Unitarians also are present in numbers far above their share of the population, though none more recent than Taft. Unitarians are the only non-Christian group present, denying the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.

Andrew Johnson was our last president without a formal religious affiliation, sharing that category with Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. I am not sure that we would elect someone without church membership to the White House today.

For what it's worth, Bill Clinton and Warren Harding both were/are Baptists.

I am not sure that Andrew Jackson is in the correct category. If I get ambitious tonight I'll try to check on it. UPDATE: According to Robert Remini Jackson's people were Presbyterian. He himself united with the Hermitage Presbyterian Church in 1838, after the White House. Had he been baptized as an infant? Remini does not say.
In honor of the inauguration, I continue to ask what skills are needed for a successful presidency. In the first post I examined the presidency of James K. Polk and drew from his success these lessons: 1. make rational decisions, 2. don't be afraid of unpopularity with your own party, 3. keep focused on rational goals. Farmer suggested that qualities 1 and perhaps 3 could be summarized as having a keen grasp of the possible.

Abraham Lincoln has been on my mind the last few days. (I wonder why.) Many, many things can be said about his strengths as president, but I will focus on three.

First, he recognized the greatest challenge facing his presidency--the secession of several Southern states--and the imperative for his office--to reestablish the Union. From this imperative he never wavered, in spite of the cost of the war, and the opposition of the Copperheads.

Second, he was able to communicate his goal for the conflict, even as that goal evolved and gained complexity. Lincoln articulated his war aims in terms of the nation's founding ideals, as in the Gettysburg Address.

Third, Lincoln recognized that history was bigger than he or the Federal Government. Though he rejected the church (and the politics) of his father Thomas, in the end he understood that the Sovereign God of his father was at work in the war. This belief strengthened his resolve, and kept him from identifying the cause of the Union was absolute good. See his Second Innaugural Address.

From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.
I hope to do more thinking about this question over the next week or two as we get ready for a new president of the United States. Prompted by reflections on Farmer and Mariner's thoughts on education and presidents, I offer the following.

To begin, let's take a little known, but successful U.S. President as judged by most historians: James K. Polk.

Three things stand out about him to my mind.

First, he remained rational in emotional times, making rational decisions. For example, Polk, a Democrat, came into office with looming conflicts betwen the U.S. and Great Britain and Mexico. With Mexico over the recent aquistion of Texas, combined with the claim of Texas for territory down to the Rio Grande. With Great Britain over the boundary between the U.S. and Canada in the Northwest. Both issues generated lots of emotion. His own party had campaigned on the slogan of "54 40" or fight!" In other words, take all the disputed territory in the Northwest or go to war with Britain. But, when in office, instead of being swayed by the emotion of the moment and going to war with the British Empire (especially since war with Mexico seemed likely), he entered into negotiations that resulted in the present boundary between British Columbia and Washington State and eastward.

Second, as seen above, he was willing to be unpopular with his own party. Polk did not simply follow what seemed the prevailing opinion of the moment among voters. In addition to acting rationally in the above situation, he risked rejection by elements of his own party.

Third, he kept focused on his goals. He wanted to ensure that Texas was safely part of the United States, and he wanted to add California, then part of Mexico. When negotiations broke down, he used military force--probably upon a pretext--to acquire California and the Southwest, plus force Mexico to recognize that Texas was now part of the United States. As the War with Mexico proceeded, however, some Democrats pushed for the conquest and aquisition of all Mexico. Polk, instead, entered into new negotiations from a position of military superiority on the battlefield, gaining his goals.

From Polk: the ability to analyze a situation rationally and act accordingly, the willingness to go against one's own party if deemed necessary, and the steadiness to hold to rational goals.
In an essay for TIME entitled "The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act," Klein makes this assertion:

"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.

Full essay.

Here is a link to the text of the Geneva Convention from the UN website. Here is the relevant portion. I've put into boldface those that Islamic terrorists do not meet. In the document, "Parties" refers to the signing countries. Since the terrorists are not the official forces of a specific country, they cannot count as regular troops.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


So, let's summarize Klein's mistakes. (1) He does not demonstrate how the Geneva Convention could apply to captured terrorists. (2) He assumes that not treating terrorists according to the non-applicable Geneva Convention automatically led to abuses such as at Abu Ghraib. (3) He does not offer a rigorous, legal definition of torture, thereby allowing him to include underwear on the head and dog leashes. (4) He ignores successful follow-up actions based on intelligence obtained by water-boarding.

At least TIME magazine is a declining forum for this nonsense.

08/01: Shamocrat

One of the Christmas gifts I received is a day-by-day calendar that gives English words that have fallen out of use. Put together by Jeffrey Kacirk, each day also includes a tidbit of history.

Today's word is shamocrat: One who pretends to be possessed of wealth, influence, rank, or indeed any quality which is only conspicous by its absence. Citation is to John Farmer's Americanisms Old and New (1889).

I thought of this word when listening to a portion of Barak Obama's address on the economy. When it comes to economic knowledge, the guy is a shamocrat. The New Deal did not bring the Great Depression to an end. As a general rule seen in modern history, increased government control and manipulation of an economy does not bring prosperity, rather, economies are damaged by too much government involvment. Some regulation is necessary to prevent abuse and preserve free markets, we learned in the late 19th century. But too much government involvment results in ordinary people being trapped in underperforming economies.

Recessions are not catastrophes signaling the end of free markets. Though they are painful, they seem a necessary evil in free markets. Our nation has survived about twenty recessions and depressions in its history. Would it be nice to have no recessions? Of course. But we rarely are given the choice between perfection and imperfection. Rather, we must choose between various imperfections, choosing the lesser evil. Totally free markets led to abuses, so has too much government involvment.

Obama's plan seems the idea of a shamocrat.