UNITED STATES PRESIDENTS IN MY LIFETIME-59

The following is a thumbnail sketch of my evaluations of all the U.S. presidents in my lifetime. I trust that any reasonable reader will render the conclusion that my opinions of the individual presidents are neither overly censorious nor too encomiastic:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) is widely credited by the public for ending the Great Depression with his greatly expanded federal spending by creating myriad of what were called “alphabet soup” agencies and programs (SEC, WLRB, TVA, NLRB, FHA, HOLC, PWA, CCC, LWA, WPA, NRA, AAA, USHA, etc.). Historians are increasingly coming to the conclusion that not only did this pythonically increased federal spending, regulation, and intrusion into the private sector (again contrary to population perception, this big government answer to the depression was started by Herbert Hoover) did not help to ameliorate the economic depression, but prolonged and deepened it. A recent historian of this persuasion is Amity Shlaes, a self described liberal, with her 2008 book, The Forgotten Man.

I rate the wartime Roosevelt differently. Leading up to WW II the country was in an isolationist mood, yet Roosevelt recognized that the totalitarian and expansionist regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had to be confronted if the democratic nations were to preserve their freedoms. Roosevelt did as much as domestic politics would allow to aid Great Britain in its war with Germany. And once the USA got into the war, Roosevelt was an effective war time leader even if he trusted the Soviet Union, then an ally against Germany, a bit too much. By the summer of 1944 Roosevelt had serious heart disease and should not have run for a 4th term. After all, by that time the outcome of the 2nd World War was not really in doubt so he could have allowed another Democrat candidate to run for the presidency knowing that the war was essentially won. However, the downside was the likely outcome that the country would have been deprived of the services of Harry Truman as president (for much more on Roosevelt see my blog essay #23 titled FDR).

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) left office with about a 25% approval rate owing mostly to the stalemated Korean War. Over the subsequent decades his rating has risen until now he is generally considered one of the best presidents of the 20th century. Truman’s recognition of the threat to the West from the Soviet Union and his Marshall Plan massive aid to Western Europe as well as his assistance to Greece in successfully opposing the Communists attempted takeover of that country have contributed substantially to his increased stature. Truman is now given more credit than formerly for being an honest plain speaking politician who said what he meant and meant what he said.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1953-1961) People really did “like Ike” not only in this country, but generally around the world, especially in Western Europe because of his position as Allied Commander in Europe during WWII. It has been suggested that his administration was a calm and tranquil one, which was exactly what the American people wanted after the dislocation and frenetic activity of WWII and the Korean War. Wartime taxes, especially individual income taxes, were kept too high during the Eisenhower years, a condition which would be corrected in the next administration. At the finish of his administration Eisenhower issued a valid warning about the “industrial – military complex.” Overall I would rate the Eisenhower administration a success, but not a particularly distinguished one.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961-1963), the first U.S. president born in the 20th century, was one of the least experienced (although as we shall see experience is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a completely successful presidency), certainly of the more modern presidents. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was a near disaster; then there were the comedic plans and even attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, the dictator of Cuba. Also early in his administration Kennedy had a summit meeting in Vienna, Austria with the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, who came away with the impression that Kennedy was weak which led him to make the irrational decision to put missiles in Cuba capable of launching nukes. Kennedy faced down the Soviets, forcing them to remove the missiles. For that reckless action it was Khrushchev who was replaced by the Politburo and sent into involuntary retirement.

Kennedy was a fast learner and recovered quickly after this shaky start of his administration. He pushed for much needed civil rights legislation for minorities, especially blacks, cut the high tax rates, and through his brother, Robert, who he had appointed Attorney General (JFK jokingly said to give his brother legal experience), took on organized crime with a good deal of success. JFK’s charisma (as well as Jackie’s) not only made him increasingly popular in this country, but also around the world, thereby enhancing the image and prestige of the United States. Despite his personal peccadilloes (not unlike Bill Clinton) I would rate Kennedy as a good president who might have become a great one had he not been so tragically assassinated by that loser and cretin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969) was an archetypal political hack. The Vietnam War did his presidency in, but not before he had damaged this country socially, economically, and in worldwide prestige. The sooner he is forgotten the better.

Richard Milhous Nixon (1969-1974). If he had not resigned in disgrace he would have been the only U.S. president to have been impeached and convicted – the votes were there in the House and the Senate. Nixon said that the American people had a right to know if their president was a crook and he said he was not a crook, which proved that he was a liar as well as a crook.

Gerald Rudolph Ford (1974-1977) was the only president of the USA not elected president or vice-president. Mediocrity seemed to be the watchword of his administration. One plus was that he was an innocuous person who was able to heal some of the ill will, which was extant in the country after the disaster of Richard Nixon.

James Earl Carter, jr. (1977-1981). Incredibly Jimmy Carter recently said that he considered his presidential administration a success based upon the amount of legislation he was able to get passed by Congress. Few Americans agree nor agreed at the time of his attempted reelected. Carter won only 6 of the 50 states and 49 electoral votes to 44 states and 489 electoral votes for Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980.

Not every position or decision Carter took was wrong headed. He led the effort to give sovereignty of the Panama Canal to Panama, which Reagan opposed. And the treaty even gave the United States government the right to keep the canal open, by force if necessary. Thus in turning over the canal to Panama one more contretemps with Latin America was avoided. Carter brokered an important peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that has stood up to this day, and for which he should have been given, but was not, the Nobel Peace Prize similar to President Theodore Roosevelt being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his part in brokering peace in the Russo-Japanese War.

Carter’s being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Peace Price Committee during the George W. Bush presidency was more a repudiation of Bush and embracing of Carter because of his criticism of Bush than it was anything that Carter had accomplished in promoting peace around the world. In fact Carter has made it a habit of publically criticizing Republican presidents after he left office. This breaks with the tradition of former presidents not speaking ill of their successors and shows a distinct lack of character by Carter. Whatever faults one finds with Bush I & II, and that will be evident in what I have written further on, both of them had the class not to publically uttered any criticism of their successors.

Carter’s answer to the high inflationary conditions during his administration and accompanying high energy costs and shortages was to advise people to put on sweaters and to declare that the country was in a deep malaise. That was not what people wanted to hear or accepted. Carter’s inept and inherent weakness in responding to the Iran Hostage Crisis was the final dénouement in his defeat for reelection in 1980.

Ronald Wilson Reagan (1981-1989), similar to Barack Obama, inherited a horrible economic condition when he took office. Unlike Obama, however, Reagan reacted in an effective way to lead the country back to prosperity such that he was reelected by one of largest mandates in history, winning 49 out of 50 states and 525 electoral votes to one state and 13 electoral votes for Walter Mondale.

Reagan made people feel good about themselves and their economic future and proud of their country after the dour economic outlook and loss of standing in the in the world following the Nixon debacle and uncertainty of the Ford and, especially, Carter administrations.

One might argue, as I do, that Reagan convinced congress to spend too much money rebuilding our military, but what is abundantly clear is that the attempt to keep up with the United States spending on military preparedness, contributed mightily to the Soviet Union dissolution. Some credit also has to go to the Soviet leader and reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev, but clearly not all of the credit as the news media in the United States and elsewhere were wont to do.

I rate Reagan the greatest president of the 20th century. It is interesting that in the attempt to rebuild the reduced image of President Obama, the Main Stream Media have been describing Obama as “Reaganesque”, using it as a positive. Give me a break. During his presidency and for years after, the liberal media trashed Reagan, calling him a “dunce”, saying he delegated way too much, slept half the time he was in office, and was not very bright. Certainly not as bright as they were. These clowns must believe we will not remember what their description of Reagan was in the past.

George Herbert Walker Bush (1989-1993) convincingly proves my assertion that experience is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a successful presidency from start to finish. Bush was a U.S. Representative in Congress; the Director of the CIA; Ambassador to China; Ambassador to the United Nations; Chairman of the Republican National Committee; and two term Vice-President of the United States. How much more government experience could a person have? I would rate Bush a mediocre president. He was not defeated for reelection for nothing. Yes, Bush was brilliant in putting together a coalition of many countries including the Europeans, and the Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates to expel the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Even with this great success, Bush committed a grave error by not giving his commanding general, Norman Schwarzkopf, 48 more hours to destroy Hussein’s army and thereby driving that brutal dictator from power. Bush compounded his error after the armistice by giving Hussein permission to fly his helicopters in the South of Iraq ostensibly to supply Iraqis with essential supplies, but actually to suppress the rebellious Shiites who were opposed to the regime of Hussein. Seemingly the Bush administration allowed Hussein’s army to do this because of the fear that the Shiites in the South of Iraq would align with the Shiite government of Iran to the detriment of the United States.

Then who can forget Bush’s infamous “Read my lips – no new taxes” statement? After getting the Democrat controlled congress to promise they would significantly cut expenditures, Bush agreed to raise taxes on the American people. Of course congress did no such thing as cut government spending. What good does all of that experience do if one can be fooled so easily?

William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001) Unlike the previous Democrat president, Clinton was reelected. Presidents are doing something right if they get reelected. True, one could fault Clinton for not taking the threat of Islamic Terrorism seriously enough, but at least he did not get this country bogged down in foreign wars the way his successor did. After the midterm election defeats in 1994 suffered by Democrats, and therefore which reflected a repudiation of his policies, President Clinton made a course change to the right. Co-operating with the then Republican Congress, Clinton cut federal spending, including welfare reform and continued his cutting of military spending. Most conservatives were opposed to that;
not me however (for an explanatory view of my position on the United States military read my blog essay #55 The USA Military). Without factoring in the liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, in Clinton’s first five years the budget deficits were relatively low and in his last three years and in the first year of Bush’s administration there were budget surpluses. In his entire eight years there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept. Owing to the growth of the GDP (gross domestic product) during that time this $700 billion deficit actually became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP than previously. How appealing does that sound now in our current fiscal funk?

On the negative side Bill Clinton had the sexual morals of an alley cat (If one can attribute moral standards to animals.). For lying under oath about his escapades with “that woman”, Monica Lewinsky, the House of Representatives impeached Clinton – the Senate then proceeded to find him not guilty, at least his crime (lying under oath about a personal matter) was not considered significantly serious to remove him from the elected office of president. Republicans should give thanks for this outcome because it would have been highly likely that as the succeeding president, the insufferable Al Gone would have been elected president in his own right in 2000. What grade do I give the boy president (as R. Emmitt Tyrrell, jr. called him)? A low one for his first two years (again there is the inexperience factor owing to Clinton’s relative youth); considerably higher for the last 5 or 6 years thanks to the repudiation voters gave the Democrats in the mid term elections and the change of course for the president, even taking into account the impeachment verdict meted out to Clinton by congress.

George Walker Bush (2001-2009). Before I excoriate this president, justifiably in my opinion, I will recount a couple of positives for him. His income tax cuts, which he convinced congress to pass, were justified and highly stimulative for the economy through the proper mode; that is through the private sector rather than the government. Bush wanted to make the cuts permanent, but had to settle for a 10-year period in a compromise with congress. At least from a conservative viewpoint the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to SCOTUS were excellent choices, but who can forget the abortive nomination of his White House Counsel, the unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court where even Republicans in congress rebelled and forced Bush to withdraw his candidate.

Now to the objurgatory part of the evaluation of President Bush – and where to start? How about the circa $5 trillion increase in the national debt, from $5 ½ trillion to $10 ½ trillion, that occurred in the eight years of the Bush presidency? What caused this colossal doubling of the national debt? It was federal spending of course. The unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfunded prescription drug program contributed mightily to this debt and there were other expansions of federal spending. Many on the left are wont to say that the “Bush tax cuts” added to the debt because they look at it as a zero sum game. This is disingenuous and wrong. Every time federal taxes are cut the revenues to the government go up. You do not have to take my word for this – read what two of the preeminent economists in the country today, Drs. Thomas Sowell (for more on Dr. Sowell read my blog essay #20 titled Thomas Sowell) and Walter Williams, have written.

From about the year 2000 there was a housing boom where unrealistic prices for housing rose at an unsustainable rate and it should have been inevitable and predictable that a correction was overdue, but the correction, a housing bust, when it came, seemed to have been a Black Swan (for a definition and examples of a Black Swan see my blog #42, Black Swans). The worldwide economic downturn starting in 2007 was triggered by the housing bust and led to banks, other lending institutions, auto companies, Wall Street financial firms, and other businesses ostensibly to need government bailouts to keep them from going bankrupt and causing an even much more ruinous economic and social catastrophe. What would have happened without government intervention is a matter of speculation, so perhaps intervention was the better option to have taken. Was this economic collapse avoidable? I believe it was, but there were multi-varied factors involved in its cause too numerous to comment on here. For a cogent explanation and quick read of the whole mess I refer you to a 2009 book by Thomas Sowell titled The Housing Boom and Bust.

The charge by the far left that Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al) had evil and rapacious intentions in invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely bogus. Bush is and was a good and decent man who, in my opinion and many others, was tragically wrong in his attempt at “nation building” by use of military force. Although a final verdict is not in on the outcome of the type of societies and governments which will eventuate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other counties in the Muslim world and therefore whether stability will ensue, at this juncture it appears that the sacrifice in blood and treasure was not nearly worth it. George W. Bush will not be considered a mediocre president like his father; he will be either a resounding success or a dismal failure.

Barack Hussein Obama (2009 - ?). As with his presidential predecessor, it is too soon to give Obama a final evaluation on his presidency, however, based upon what he has done so far, midway through his term, it does not portend positive for him. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama characterized himself as a new style politician, one that evoked the slogan of “hope and change” and he sold himself as a unifier, not a divider; bipartisan not partisan, and a post racial president (He did not say that, but his acolytes did). True, the president inherited a financial mess, none of which was his fault. Unlike Reagan, Obama chose the strategy of using the coffers of the federal government to bring the country out of the recession with massive (nearly a trillion dollars) stimulus spending, with no more success than FDR had in the 1930’s.

Obama’s first important legislative program after the abortive stimulus package was an effective federal takeover of the healthcare system in this country, representing approx. 1/6 of the U.S. economy. With the country stuck in an economic morass, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, candidly said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Using overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, Obama and the Democrat leadership were able to pass this legislation against the will of a majority of the American voters and increasingly so as more became known about this monstrosity of a healthcare bill. Much of the first year and one-half of Obama’s term was devoted to selling and passing healthcare legislation that has become the centerpiece of the first two years of the president’s term. The unpopularity this and the stimulus, as well as unrelenting deficits contributing to an ever burgeoning national debt combined with a high and intransigent unemployment rate were resoundingly reflected in the mid-term elections where Republicans easily recaptured the majority in the House and closed the gap in the Senate. Obama himself said that he and the congressional Democrats took a “shellacking.”

So has Obama learned anything from his historic midterm election defeat? Despite some early sounds that he had; apparently not. His proposed fiscal budget was a joke as far a trying to curtail spending thereby shrinking the deficit and lowering the national debt. Instead spending increases were the order of the day (what Obama and Democrats refer to as “investments”). In the four years of the Obama administration the national debt has expanded from $10 ½ trillion to over 16 trillion with yearly deficits of over $1 trillion as far down the road as can be forecasted. During the Obama presidency 200,000 federal jobs have been added while total employment jobs have diminished by 3.3 million. The Obama budget for the coming fiscal year is $3.7 trillion. “….O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that.” King Lear Act III, scene IV. Truly, the direction the country is going is madness. Further if this trend is not reversed the country will slide into second rate and worst status. The way Obama and the left wing Democrats in Congress (led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) are reacting it seems as if the mid-term elections never happened.

President Obama inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in a responsible way is trying to extricate the United States from these unfortunately conflicts after making naïve and unrealistic promises to do so during the election campaign and in the embryonic days of his administration. Personally I wish he would get on with the withdrawal, but I understand the political and security factors that have to be considered.

Nowhere, except perhaps with the economy, has Obama’s inexperience, arrogance, and naiveté shown itself more clearly than his attempts to negotiate with America’s enemies such as Iran and North Korea. Clinton was played for a fool in trying (partly through the uninvited auspices of the meddlesome Jimmy Carter) to deal unsuccessfully with North Korea and Obama learned nothing from that failure. When it comes to Iran, Obama failed even more miserably and with even greater negative consequences. Apparently fancying himself the anti-Bush, Obama seemed convinced he could successfully talk Iran into giving up their nuclear bomb ambitions. Of course he could not as any sensible person would have fathomed. The outcome was even more potentially disastrous than his dealings with North Korea. In an attempt to curry favor with the Iranian régime, Obama did not wholeheartedly support the Iranian people when they came out in the streets in the summer of 2009 to protest against the repressive, brutal, and fanatically fundamental Islamic government. Perhaps the overthrow of the Iranian government still would not have occurred even if the Obama administration had given overt and covert support to the rebellious Iranian people, but that is an outcome that will forever be unknown.

Starting in the presidential campaign and continuing into his presidency, Obama criticized past actions of the United States in a series of speeches in Cairo, Istanbul, London, and at the United Nations. When asked if he thought the United States was an exceptional country he replied that many countries believe they are, thereby strongly suggesting that he did not consider the United States exceptional. And as if to cement that belief he made a number of bows to foreign leaders from around the world when he first met them: He made a deep bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in April 2009 (It is true that President Bush held the hand of then Crown Prince Abdullah, who was the actual ruler of Saudi Arabia, at his Crawford ranch in April 2005, which was dopey, but not demeaning); He made a slight bow to Russian Prime Minister Putin in July 2009; another deep bow to Emperor Akihito of Japan in November 2009; and a pronounced bow to President Hu Jintao of China in April 2010. This obeisance by the president of the United States is demeaning to the presidency, the country, and to Obama himself. Why did he repeatedly do it? The answer may lie in Obama’s attitude toward this country as he implied in his statement about the USA not being exceptional which is in sharp contrast to President Reagan’s characterizing the United States as a “Shining City Upon a Hill.”

I will close with this quote from over 2000 years ago to show that the fiscal problems and their solutions we face at this time are hardly new or original:

“The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43 BC)