Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Presidents: #24

#24: Benjamin Harrison
Term: March 4, 1889 to March 4, 1893
Grade: C

Benjamin Harrison sits in the middle of a group of Presidents who were neither extraordinarily good or bad. Starting with Chester A. Arthur, and ending with William McKinley, I must admit to knowing only very little about them. When I think about Benjamin Harrison (which is rarely ever), I usually think about The Simpsons song about mediocre presidents. It should be noted that Benjamin Harrison is so unremarkable as to not get mentioned in that song.

Still, unlike some of the lesser known Presidents*, at least Harrison doesn't seem to have done much harm, and actually was party to a few good things. He signed the law that made Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks (although did little to preserve them), and also signed the Sherman Antitrust law (while not really pursuing cases). He fought (and lost) for civil rights in a time when it was not very popular. He believed in reform of the civil service, although didn't seem too prepared to defend it. If signing bills and not executing them effectively were a criteria, he probably would be much higher on this list.

Ultimately, he was taken down by the expensive nature of high tariffs and by the Homestead strike debacle. He lost to Grover Cleveland, the man he beat in the Electoral College in 1888. Thus, he became the only President to lose to the previous incumbent. I suppose being the clunky part of a unique Presidential story is a fitting legacy for him.

*See 1850-1861 for more information

Sunday, November 22, 2009

The Presidents: #5

#5 John F. Kennedy
Term: January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963
Grade: B+

John F. Kennedy is one probably the hardest President to place in a ranked list. This isn't due to a lack of talent, or a lack of achievements relative to his length of term. It isn't because of an inconsistent record, or an immensely complex personality. The wildcard nature of his ranking is due to one question. What If?

What if Lee Harvey Oswald doesn't make it to that window at the book depository? What if he takes a completely different path on Vietnam What if civil rights legislation dies on the vine?

Had he lived to see January 20, 1969, it is very possible he would deserve to be much lower on this list. The scandals and failures of second terms have tarnished the legacy of many Presidents. It is possible he would have decided upon a similar path in Vietnam. You can almost hear the chants of "Hey, Hey JFK, how many kids did you kill today?"

However, he might also have charted a new course for US foreign policy. The disaster that was Vietnam might have been averted, and the real problems on the domestic front might have been tackled better than they were. Best of all, it might have prevented a Nixon presidency.

Obviously this kind of hypothetical history is not very productive. Kennedy did die, and his death makes it harder to realistically assess his presidency. If I were to rebuild this list from scratch five times over, I would not be surprised if Kennedy ended up anywhere between 20 and 5 on it, depending on my mood.

In that case, why is he at the top of his potential range on the list? I suppose I am in an idealistic mood. His presidency in a way stands for the American experiment, in that its work is never finished. His words and his spirit are the guiding light of our perpetual effort to perfect our union, even if his accomplishments (save for one) don't exactly measure up to that ideal.

But putting aside abstract ideas of progress and inspiration, he deserves credit for the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had a president such as George W. Bush been in office during a time of such peril, I doubt I would be here writing this blog. It was a particularly precarious tightrope walk, even for a job that is nothing but tightrope walking. During those tense 13 days, he showed what it means to be a President, and why in a democracy the military must answer to the President, and not the other way around.

Up Next: Back to the bottom of the class with our last F-club member
Then: What do William Daniels, Paul Giamatti, and Billy Crystal have in common?

Note: Starting with this post, I will be filling out the list of Presidents in a non-linear fashion. I am doing this partially to shake things up, and partially because slogging through the Gilded Age Presidencies at once probably means I would not get this done. The one exception to this are the top 4, which will be released in order. I hope to be getting roughly 3 of these up a week, until February 12, 2010, when #1 will be unveiled. I bet you can't guess who that might be.

Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday will be the days to look for new posts, with the exception of Feb 7 - 12, which will be nightly. Expect no posts on Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve, but expect a bonus post on January 20, which will be a one year review of the Obama Presidency.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Presidents: #38a, b, and c

#38a: Millard Fillmore
Term: July 9, 1850 - March 4, 1853
Grade: F


#38b: Franklin Pierce
Term: March 4, 1853 - March 4, 1857
Grade: F


#38c: James Buchanan
Term: March 4, 1857 - March 4, 1861
Grade: F

These Presidents deserve are all so very equally bad, they deserve to be recorded as a trio. They presided over one of our nations worst decades, a decade in which the unanswered question of slavery festered and grew until it split the country and plunged us into war. None of them seemed able to comprehend the major changes which were taking place as the country moved forward in its move westward and its industrialization. Although it is unlikely that anything could have been done to avoid the horrible war of the next decade, their actions certainly made it more inevitable. Whether openly antagonizing the north, such as Pierce, or trying to come to a compromise every party hated, such as Buchanan, these Presidents just did not succeed.

Fillmore helped divide the Whig party and divide the Wilmot Proviso, while doing nothing to answer the tough questions put forth on the issue of slavery. After the defeat of Winfield Scott by Pierce in 1852, the Whig party ceased to be an effective political party, paving the way for the rise of the Republican Party.

Pierce's term wasn't any better, as Bleeding Kansas erupted during this time. A southern sympathizer, he didn't do anything to stop the spread of slavery, favoring the repeal of the Missouri Compromise for the idea of "popular soveriegnity", which further angered northern citizens without pacifying the southerners. Like Fillmore, he was so unpopular the Democrats didn't bother nominating him for 1856, instead choosing James Buchanan.

During Buchanan's administration the bottom fell out. The Dred Scott decision and John Brown's raid further divided the country, while Buchanan did nothing to solve the issue. His bungling almost started a small war against the Utah mormons, although he didn't make the situation of the Pig War any worse. Like his two predecessors he was not chosen to run in 1860, as the Democratic party split in two between northern candidate Stephen A. Douglas and southern candidate John C. Breckenridge. His biggest failure was to do nothing as South Carolina and six other southern states left during the lame duck period before Abraham Lincoln took office. Believing secession illegal, but doing anything about it to also be illegal, he acheived the goal of pleasing nobody while trying to please everybody.

While not rising to the levels of absolute sinister incompetence of George W. Bush, or the disgusting malfeasance of Richard Nixon, these Presidents deserve a grade as bad as our bottom dwellers. They did nothing to slow down, and in many cases acclerated our nations greatest crisis. For this they deserve to be in the "F" club.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

THe Myth of Instant Change in America


One of the biggest myths in the unwritten bible of American liberalism is that FDR was elected by a whirlwind in 1933, and everything was fixed immediately. Many people assume that the Democratically controlled Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp that gleefully pumped out the laws creating Social Security, the FDIC, and several other pieces of progressive legislation that reverberate to this day. It is a good story. But, like all myths, it is a collection of inaccuracies and fallacies wrapped around a kernel of truth.

The fact is, as much as FDR accomplished in those legendary first 100 days, not all of it was successful. Much of what was passed was later thrown out by the admittedly out of touch Supreme Court , and that which was never challenged in the courts didn't do as much as hoped, or needed additional legislation later to improve it. The original flavor of Social Security would be considered a betrayal of the nation by the liberal blogosphere today. Many times FDR had to turn to progressive Republicans to get his legislation passed, as many southern Democrats joined with conservative Republicans to oppose FDR. The Depression continued for the most part until the start of World War Two, although the various New Deal pieces of legislation certainly helped keep the nation afloat during that turbulent decade. Nevermind that there were few victories for minorities during this time, a result of the need by FDR to cater to the racist southern Congressmen who held a disproportionate control over Congress during the Jim Crow era (and later the war racism of the west coasters).

An era that was somewhat more accurately an explosion of liberalism was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Even this was nothing more than a major extrapolation of the New Deal, and its civil rights components nothing more than a culmination of a bitter struggle since the end of Reconstruction and the disgrace of Jim Crow. Even here it took the myth of a fallen President, a President who was the most talented vote wringer in our history, and a few willing Republicans to get those laws done. And considering all of those facts, it still wasn't a complete victory, as the divisions over Vietnam, the many well-intentioned failures of the Great Society, and the backlash that created the abomination that is the modern GOP have shown.

Today, the idea that something as sweeping as the New Deal or the Great Society could be attempted is not very convincing. The battle over civil rights in the 1960s resulted in a shift of the Republican base from the Northeast and Midwest to the South, as Rockefeller Republicans went blue while Dixiecrats turned red. The "Reagan Revolution" (the conservative version of the New Deal myth) has created a class of politicians on the right that are unwilling and even hostile to working with Democrats. Where FDR could look to Norris, Borah, and others to support his domestic agenda, Obama and the Congressional leaders face a party who has decided its goal is to be a party of obstruction. Without a few people willing to cross the aisle, the significant, if fairly small, group of conservative Democrats* can pout and hold their breath until bills are watered down so they can still vote against them.

Thiry years of the Reagan myth, and its hold over the so-called "Liberal Media" (another myth of our time), have made it hard for progressives to control the debate. When supposed liberal outposts like the New York Times or CNN parrot GOP talking points, it is hard to counter them, especially when many DLC types believe that Democrats should abandon progressivism and become a Republican Lite party. The political establishment and even the political language of our nation have been so controlled by the right wing since 1980 that it is hard to go against it. Think about this the next time you hear someone use liberal as a slur, or calls a center-left pragmatist with a strong desire for consensus a "socialist liberal America-hating nazi".

Thus, it is hard to ignore the scope of the victory achieved last night. Although there are still considerable steps required to get this bill to Obama's desk, its passage through the House is an achievement by itself. I believe most people in this country would support progressivism, if they could just understand the truth of its message, instead of being instantly biased by the message of the media and the Republican party. To do this requires hard work, and a belief that sometimes the perfect must not be the enemy of the good. The first step in this process is to get off of the couch and actually start making Congress and the President do the job we elected them to do. As FDR said to progressives who wanted him to do more:

"I Agree. Now make me do it."

*Real moderates would have supported this health care bill

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Sausage Works: Health Care Bill passes house (UPDATED)

The "People's House" has passed its version of the Health Care Bill 220-115, with 39 so called Democrats voting against it and one Republican (Cao from LA) voting for it. I really don't understand why those 39 Democrats are still Democrats. This bill appears to have much to appease all but the most leftist liberal, as well as some stuff that should have appealed to moderates and even conservatives. Is it perfect? No. Is it in line with the basic tenets of the Democratic party, at least the tenets since 1933? Of course. I am confident those people who voted against this bill will go down in history much like those people who opposed Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other "socialist hells" that on the balance have made this country better.

Of course now it has to get through the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World". Expect such noble tools of the insurance industry senators such as Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Bayh, and Lieberman to stand up for their masters principles. Who knows, maybe Harry Reid won't shrink from the situation.

(we're doomed)

UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot that a few of those no votes might have been Democrats who felt the bill didn't go far enough. If you voted no for that reason, you are off the hook for cowardice (but not for being unrealistic).

Also, that vote in NY23 wasn't anywhere near as important as New Jersey and Virginia governorships, right? I'm sure those votes in the House of Governors will screw Obama over no...oh wait, nevermind. If the Republicans get behind the Republican, this bill probably fails.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Sigh: Do we have to explain it again?

Apparently some "patriots" just don't get Godwin's Law. Some people just need to STFU and CTFO.

By the way we're still waiting for you to join us at the grown ups table. The moment you start being realistic and pragmatic, you can certainly share in repairing our government and bettering our nation.

That is all.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

In Regards to the NY 23

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I bet that "tip of the spear" is looking awfully sharp right now, eh Mr. Armey?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Of course, it does suck that a crappy governor tied to a crappy financial mess of a company was beaten by a crappy candidate that apparently is doom for Obama even if the exit polls don't say so. Also, it sucks that a weak-ass Democrat ran away from his base and the young folks that helped Obama turn VA blue last year lost to a candidate who played to the middle. And don't get me started on the equal rights of some of our nations citizens being denied once again thanks to stupid ass ballot initiatives. There are many things referendums are good for, but equal rights are not one of them.

It appears that the tally will be a +2 Governors seat gain for the GOP, and a +1 shift for the Democrats in the House. Of course the media will spin this as an absolutely terrible sign for the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. It will be, if they decide more mealy-mouthed crap and Republican Lite posturing is the strategy to use in 2010.

The "real" grading period for Obama has just begun, as the 2010 midterms begin to get ready for the main stage. Game On!