15/01: What Is the Skill Set Needed to Be a Successful President?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
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.
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.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
Certainly, Polk remains a model for presidents at war. What Polk understood as well as any president (and better than most) was that wars needed to be fought on a political timetable. Battles needed to be won quickly and on a grand scale. Good PR was an essential element of victory.
I also agree with the Gardener's kudos to Polk for having the sense to not wage a two-front war (with one of the fronts being Great Britain). Polk had a keen sense for the possible.
A few quibbles:
It is my understanding that the 1844 slogan was "All of Oregon or None" (which, of course, meant north to 54-40). It was Polk's opposition that coined "54-40 or fight" as a pejorative restatement of the original.
As for Polk willing to be unpopular within his own party, he did not have much choice. After stealing the nomination from Van Buren, the Red Fox of Kinderhook and his minions were out for Polk's hide. Give Polk credit for walking the tight rope between the Whig opposition that wanted to skin him and the Democratic infighters (later to be called "Barnburners") who wanted to embarrass him--but, again, not much of a choice in the matter for Polk.
Lastly, I would argue that he sort of lucked into the moderate treaty with Mexico--not so much orchestrating it but reluctantly accepting the Trist treaty, knowing it was for the best. No matter, in the end, again, his sense for what was practical and politically possible served him well.