Pick your president: a parlor game
Isaac Laquedem
The pundits say that the swing voters will decide the election, but almost all of my friends who support Senator Kerry have never voted for a Republican president (or at least don't admit to being part of the Reagan landslide), and almost all of my friends who support President Bush have never voted for a Democratic president (or in their dialect, a "Democrat president"). So far the only swing voter I think I know personally is Venerable Mom, who assures me that she's voted for losing candidates of both parties.
Surely -- unless you are so doctrinaire a member of your party that you would vote against George Washington if he ran on the other party's ticket -- the other party has nominated someone in the past century that you would be willing (not necessarily eager) to see as President.
With that in mind, I thought of the following parlor game. From the presidents of the last 100 years (back to Theodore Roosevelt), pick your favorite from each party -- meaning the one that you would be most willing to see as president today, if he were alive and able to run. The Republican candidates are Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the younger. The Democratic candidates are Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman (thanks, Joel), Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
My choices are Ford and Wilson. I agree with the Oregonian's editorial today to the effect that the younger President Bush has divided America, not united it. In effect he won in a squeaker and is treating it as a mandate. In his short time in office, President Ford demonstrated that he could work well with Congress on domestic issues and use American force and diplomacy responsibly overseas. On the Democratic side, Wilson (before his stroke) had the keenest grasp of foreign policy and the intellectual power to be respected overseas, two qualities lacking in the incumbent.
The Republican party is large enough that it must include some active politicians of the (relatively speaking) centrist nature of Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower; it's a shame that it can't nominate them from time to time.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 10, '04
Great post! I wrote a piece a couple weeks ago about the new Republican party that will soon emerge from this mess; although a lifelong Democrat I almost want to be a part of it. It's going to be exciting.
The 'new' Republican party will be mostly young centrists like Ford (one of my all time faves.) who will reign in fiscal responsibility as one of their ground staples and yet will also take in formerly 'liberal only' views on abortion and sexuality. They will have splintered off from the old Republican party line. That old party will become very small and concentrated, like the Greens are now. So we will have 5- Green Democratic Libertarian/Independant New Republican Old Republican
I believe in the next 15-25 years there will be a Republican JFK- I can't wait to find out who they will be.
Oct 10, '04
I think you missed Harry Truman. But Wilson and Coolidge are my votes.
Oct 10, '04
I thought my list of Democrats was a little too short. Thanks -- I'll put Truman's name in.
6:36 p.m.
Oct 10, '04
Easy, the Roosevelts.
Both would be instructive to current parties, as well. TR could teach the current crop of neocons what "conservative" really means--it supports free markets, but not fuedal slaveholders; it "conserves" the environment; it supports democracy abroad and at home. TR would mightily disapprove of corporate consolidation, the K Street cabal, Bush's gut-the-environment platform, and all the anti-democratic moves the party has committed since about 1994.
The Dems might learn what "liberal" means if they took a look at Franklin. They might not hasten to agree with neocons that "government" is a sinister word or that the markets are the solution to all social ills. They could take a lesson from his foreign policy moxie, as well.
If the parties followed their Rooseveltian leads, we'd have real leadership again.
9:30 p.m.
Oct 10, '04
Easy, the Roosevelts.
Ditto.
If the parties followed their Rooseveltian leads, we'd have real leadership again.
I'll second that, as well.
9:58 p.m.
Oct 10, '04
My GOP choice: T. Roosevelt (the last 'real' Republican in the traditional conserve-ative sense of the term)
My Dem choice: JFK!!
As for the coming change in the Republican party: I don't know. It's hard to say w/all the current polarization were facing.
However, if there is room in the near future for a centrist, moderate, Kennedy-like Republican Prez, I'm happy to report that I've already had the pleasure of meeting him & his name is Henry Scott.
None of you will probably recognize the name right now, but trust me on this: you will know it someday (a la the Bobbby McAllister phenomenon).
Kari, if Blue Oregon is still in existence then, I will def ask him to write a guest column here upon his taking office. :)
Oct 10, '04
Well my pick for the Grand Ol'Party would be a tie with Teddy and Ike. For the Dems it would be Carter because of the hard work that he had to deal with of the post-Vietnam, Camp David, the high inflation and unemployment, and the oil crisis. Wow...Kerry has alot of the same things on his plate Carter had to contend with once he gets in office?
Oct 11, '04
Republicans: 1) Teddy R--"TR would mightily disapprove of corporate consolidation, the K Street cabal, Bush's gut-the-environment platform, and all the anti-democratic moves the party has committed since about 1994." Exactly. 2) Dwight D--moderate, honest, understands the reality of war rather than the Hollywood/flightsuit/"Mission Accomplished" kind.
Democrats: 1) Bill Clinton--even though he alienated the wingers, he's the most popular President in recent history. Foreign leaders and peoples respected and liked him. He's undeniably brilliant, and oversaw some great economic times in this country.
As they say, "Let the Big Dog eat."
12:40 p.m.
Oct 11, '04
Teddy Roosevelt would be my pick on the R side. Roosevelt was single-handedly responsible for trust busting and the origins of our conservation policies. Then there's the Panama Canal, the beginning of the FDA, and the first active presence for the federal government in labor-management relations. He may have been a little too rough and ready in strong arming the western hemisphere, but I have to confess I don't know my history well enough on that count.
Ike presided over a strong economy, with low inflation and low budget deficits (especially for the rise of the Cold War.) Still, Eisenhower's campaign strategy and foreign policy came straight from Dulles, which thrust us into a hyperventilating anti-communism and explicitly called for pressing our nuclear capability into foreign affairs. They hammered Truman on China, and in my opinion created an overly broad chasm there.
Ike's administration also destroyed our reputation in the Middle East. Look at the CIA's toppling of Mossadegh in Iran and our horrendous approach to al Nasir and the Suez Crisis--all ostensibly born out of a fight against the Soviets. The rise of every radical Islamic movement can be traced to this period, and we threw gasoline on the fire instead of recognizing the valid goals of self-determination and equitable distribution of oil revenues to the people. Khomeini's emergence in 1964 flows directly from this dark period in US foreign policy.
While Ike deserves credit for issuing his warning on the rise of the military-industrial complex, I think Ike--through the Dulles brothers--really helped to nurture this national identity. We couldn't help but slide from Korea to Vietnam, which still scars the country.
I think you have to go with FDR on the D side. Perhaps it was the times, but I don't think we've ever seen such a talented group in the White House and on the Supreme Court. FDR himself might not have been as strong intellectually as Clinton, Jefferson, or TR, but his leadership abilities and remarkable personal courage are unparalleled. He got us through the depression and World War II, and completely remade the landscape of the country.
I also want to add what I think is an asterisk for JFK/LBJ. It's so hard to predict what would have happened, or not happened, had Kennedy lived. On the one hand, he might have been independent enough to keep us out of Vietnam. On the other hand, his death and the sense of obligation that arose from it--combined with Martin Luther King, Jr. in full stride and LBJ's mastery of Congress--may have created the conditions necessary for the monumental civil rights and anti-poverty legislation that passed under LBJ's watch. LBJ also appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, and took a firm stance on desegregation. Other than emancipation, no one did more to eradicate second class citizenship. If only LBJ didn't feel compelled to avoid the perception of weakness in foreign affairs--the legacy of Ike, Nixon and McCarthy...
3:56 p.m.
Oct 11, '04
Rs - Teddy. A guy that cut his teeth in public policy by trustbusting, and exposing/erasing preferential appointments to important government positions. Decent commander-in-chief, able statesman, and a guy who, if one is serious about small but Effective government as a Republican, went about domestic policy the right way.
Ds - FDR. The soul of this party, and exactly what we'd need in times like these. There's a reason that guy got four terms, and it isn't "wartime president." Won a World War on two fronts, lifted us out of economic depression, and led us forward scientifically and industrially, all while battling polio. No better President has existed, anywhere, at any time. Most important American since this nation's birth.
4:01 p.m.
Oct 11, '04
Another coupla thoughts. I was talking with a friend today about Kerry, whom I'm surprising excited about (I was formerly backing Kucinich and have voted twice for Nader), and we started comparing the greats. Earlier I said the two Roosevelts, which I stand behind. Did they make any big mistakes?
My friend mentioned that Kerry supported NAFTA and then didn't oppose the Supremes ruling in 2000 (that first scene in Fahrenheit 9/11, when black house members are begging for a senator to sign on). He wondered how you forgive a guy for these.
I think you don't forgive him. You don't have to--even the greats have unforgiveable black marks on their resumes. The truth is, no president can be all things to all people. You forgive the bad because the good is so good. What else can you do?
Horrible acts by the Roosevelts:
Teddy actually started the civil war in Columbia and had a back-door deal with Panamanian rebels for the canal for US backing of the Panamanian state.
Franklin committed a gravely unconstitutional act (and possibly a war crime) when he rounded up Japanese American citizens. They lost their freedom and their possessions due to racist paranoia. And many consider him the greatest president of all.
Oct 11, '04
Ooooh, this is a great post! Simply put, Teddy Roosevelt gets my Republican vote because he was a progressive. Clinton gets my Democratic vote, because he has a fantastic mind and is a gifted politician... I think that he and the Republican Congress of his post-94 years demonstrate the beauty of checks and balances. His presidency marked what I think will be known in retrospect as a high point in our history.
Admittedly, I like just about all the Democrats... Has anyone see Miracle? The Carter speech that they use as a voice over? He had to be president in a low point in our history and now look at him: the best ex-president of all time (although John Quincy Adams was also a goodie).
12:15 a.m.
Oct 12, '04
Sorry, Isaac, I'm going to break the rules here. I'm picking a Canadian - the late, great Pierre Trudeau.
For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics (yeah, I'm a serious political junkie), Pierre Trudeau had Bill Clinton's charisma, Bobby Kennedy's liberal idealism, and Teddy Roosevelt's bravado. His sixteen years in office - from 1968 to 1984 (!) - was a time of unprecented social change and reform in Canada.
If I have to pick Americans, I'll join the hordes behind TR. For the D's, I'll pick Bill Clinton.
Oct 12, '04
TR on the GOP. You've got to like him all around because he did what needed to be done and said what needed to be said.
I'm breaking the trend on the Dem side. Truman is my pick. Here's a guy who was president of the United States and still mowed his own lawn when home in Missouri. He used plain language to explain his complex views on democracy and public service. He also wasn't one to take the limelight away from others, hence the Marshall Plan, which was one of the great policy achievements of the 20th century. He made tough decisions -- dropping the bombs on Japan, recognizing Israel, etc. And he was one hell of a politician, taking on a solid opposition Congress and screwing them at their own game to win his own term outright.
2:24 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
Oh, come on Kari--Clinton? Pshaw!
Oct 12, '04
Just came across this site, already putting it on my 'favorites' list. I remember when I was very young my two grandfathers (who were very good friends) used to sit out on a bench near the garden and 'argue' politics'. They did it because they really enjoyed it and enjoyed each other. Grandpa T identified himself as a 'Teddy Roosevelt Republican' and Grandpa S said he was a 'Norman Thomas Socialist' so you might imagine some of the discussions they had. Of course you all realize that Republicans today wouldn't consider TR a 'real Republican' and most people don't even know who Norman Thomas was! I guess I have ended up closer to being a socialist (a liberal democrat) than a Repub. but I do think TR is the only Republican I could support -- and for a Democrat I would pick Truman, not because I agree with everything he did but because he was truly a great president for his time. Now we need another like him for our time and I have big hopes for Kerry.
<hr/>