Former presidents

Remove all ads!

I am sitting here watching Clinton (promoting his brick of a book) on Letterman and I find him very sympathetic, intelligent and even funny but perhaps most of all sensible and diplomatic.

I have noticed that I feel and think the same about many former presidents, I think Carter seems like a very sensible chap and Bush the first as well. Seeing as Reagan had alzheimers during his second term and afterwards he did not have the possibility to give a good post-presidential impression. Heck, even Al Gore seems like a decent fellow now that he is not bidding for the white house. Why is it that ex-presidents (this actually tend to go for politicans in general but American presidents are the only one most of us know about) goes from being someone you are at best ambivalent towards to someone rather likable and sensible?

Is it the contrast towards the sitting president which in my opinion is neither likable, sensible or intelligent or is it because they are freed from the restrictive chains of pragmatism and realism which is the reality of the world of politics of today?

 

“Absence makes the heart grow fonder.”

Basically, I think that we tend to remember people in higher regard after they’ve been out of the spotlight for awhile. Depending of the severity of the ‘bad’ things they may have done when in the public eye, and depending on their overall charisma, we may actually like them later on. Clinton and Carter are good examples of this. Bush Jr., on the other hand – well, I don’t know; he has about as much charisma as my front sidewalk, and unless he is somehow proven correct on the whole Iraq situation, I doubt history will be as kind to him.

 

Politicians live and die by charisma. You don't get to be a successful politician with the personality of a bitter wallflower. We instinctively fight against the charm of politicians that we disagree with because it seems manipulative and sneaky...and instinctively sympathize with politicians we agree with because they seem so personable and savvy.

The sitting president is seen as quite likable, sensible, and intelligent by those who agree with him: he has that Texan charm, straightforward manner of speaking, and common sense approach. That's why he's likable - he's the stereotypical American. But he's seen as distasteful, irrational, and dumb by those who disagree with him: he has that Texan obnoxiousness, undiplomatic manner of speaking, and over-simplified approach. That's why he's unlikable - he's the stereotypical American.

Same thing, same charisma, different perspective. Once Bush is out of power, the ideological fog will blow away and only the charisma will remain.

 

@Grey Magistrate

I disagree. I know republicans who support Bush, but do not think he is intelligent. They are in favor of his policies, generally, and do not care about his character.

Actually, I think this election is going to be one of the most memorable elections in American history because everyone seems or feels so ideologically divided. I doubt that people will forget that.

 

One tends to appreciate the advantages of something once they're gone. One always notices the things a politician screws up but won't really notice the things he does right. When his successor screws them up, one gets to appreciate the ex. Doesn't matter much that the successor does some other things right. Also, as the time passes, bad memories tend to fade. As a result, you forgive lots of things you wouldn't forgive a current holder of the office.

 

Look at how much the Americans idolise the REALLY old presidents (like Washington and Lincoln).

 

Sorry, Grey. I'm not sure that you are really in tune with those of us who have contempt for Shrub. I know I'm not in tune with those of you who support this guy. I just don't get it with your crowd. IMO, and many others who share my dislike for him, he is not a stereotypical American. I love this country and I hate what he has done to it. He is everything that is anti-American instead. He is a conniving, deceitful bully, who has contempt for our democratic institutions and our process of government, as well as those who have institutions and ideas that are different.

He is, as Nader has described him, corporate America dressed up in a suit. He has made cronyism an art in Washington (something that was really hard to do considering it was quite bad already) and he despises the American public that both adores and loathes him. He despises Europeans and Asians, Muslims and Arabs and Africans. Unless of course they embrace his brand of Christianity and Capitalism. THEN they are an example to the rest of the world.

He does very little in the public good and instead has pandered to special interest, and he is proud of it. He is as corrupt as he is ignorant. He hides behind the military, and uses it to further his popularity. Thus, IMO, he is wholly Un-American. He could be, quite frankly, the most Un-American president we have ever had.

 

Clinton was interviewed over here a couple of weeks ago on Enough Rope by Andrew Denton (who I think is our equivalent of Parkinson), and I was really impressed by his soft-spoken charm and his big-picture understanding of his administration and the legacy it left. I think that in comparison to the current administration, former leaders look good for a couple of reasons.

1. Their transgressions are forgiven unless they are truly monstrous. Nixon isn't fondly remembered. Reagan is, despite the economic woes of his era. Clinton is still popular, and the Lewinsky issue is gone (as it should be; no-one got killed in the process, and it still got him impeached). We have the same thing here with Gough Whitlam. Great leader, charismatic, driven, determined... and he sold my generation up the damned river by not running the country responsibly. Nearly everyone my age remembers him as the guy who brought in free university education and hates the Liberals for HECS (a loan scheme which is paid off through an income tax-like system).

2. Nothing in the past is as immediate as what is happening now. That said, Grey, I have to respectfully disagree with you - I think that when Bush leaves office, the **** will really hit the fan and his popularity will go down faster than a two-dollar hooker. The implications of what Bush and the PNAC people have been involved in are greater than anything since Vietnam.

3. Living memory changes; if it's been a while since the person left office, then only the most prominent things remain in mind. Charisma and force of personality are two of the top ones. JFK is well-loved even now, and what did he really do? All I can think of is the Cuban missile crisis.

 

Harbourboy wrote:

Washington was our first president, and the successful general that gained our independence from Britain. How could he NOT be idolized?

Lincoln presided over a divided nation, abolished slavery, and brought our country together again - Another Herculean feat!

Both presidents set the bar at what is considered a "Great" president as opposed to caretaker presidents that nothing to help or hinder the growth of our nation. Other greats: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Harry Truman, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, maybe James Polk.

Each of these presidents made a contribution to the continued life and growth of America...And I'm fine with idolizing them as models to emulate.

 

Bel, I think that's partly due to what others seem to be saying (starting with me) - the longer the period of time since people have been in power, the more forgiving we become of their errors, and look only at their accomplishments. I'm no expert on U.S. presidents, but I suspect that, with each of the ones you've listed, they were much less admired when they were in office than they are now.

 

Well, everyone's critical while in office. I mean, look at Dubya...In twenty years he'll be the saviour of Western Civilization.... Okay, maybe not.

 

Well, it depends on who you are talking about. In the case of Lincoln, you're absolutely right. He was pretty much despised in the south - at least the southern states that had slavery - which was pretty much all of them.

On the other hand, Washington was adored while in office. Granted, back in 1776 (metaphoric dating used there - as CtR would point out, I should say 1775 to be historically accurate), only about 1/3 of the nation supported open war on Britain, and nearly as many were openly opposed to it. However, by the time the war ended and the first presidential election rolled around in 1788, Washington was already an American icon. Again, this may be another symptom of people looking more favorably on leaders after the fact (after all, the Revolutionary War had ended 6 years earlier), and as the general, he was already an established leader.

 

For some (most? all?) of us outside the US, what you've just described is EXACTLY the idea of the stereotypical American. Notice the word "stereotypical", as in "an oversimplified or biased perception or conception of an aspect of reality, especially of persons or social groups". From a foreign point of view, Bush embodies the absolute worst about the US.

I can totally understand why you want to dissociate yourself from him, though...

 

One thing I have to say about Clinton is that he is my favourite American president, ever. He seemed to be very practical and competent, while he was president. But as soon as Mr. Bush has come into office, I've developed a deep dislike for him and his administration.

About all former presidents in America however, I must say I cannot really agree...but since I'm not a US citizen eitherway, I guess it doesnt really make much of a difference.

 

Faraaz, when you say Clinton is your favorite American president "ever" - are you really sincere? Or does "ever" mean in your life time? I have a hard time believing you think that Clinton stacks up well with the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, or Kennedy.

 

See! Look at how much you like all those really old presidents but nobody ever likes the recent ones! There was no AoDA in the olden days for you guys to pore over the president's flaws so history only remembers the good things they did. I bet Washington and Lincoln and those other old boys were just as corrupt as Bush (there were less laws back then so it would have been easier to be corrupt), we just don't have any evidence for it.

 

Yes, but most Americans don't see themselves that way. I was speaking from the viewpoint of the American electorate. But I'm sure you are right, and many outside the US do see Americans that way. But Shrub and his minions are the exception. That particular description really is the "neocon mentality."

 

I wonder if it's too early to talk about Bush in the past tense in this thread?

"Not really in tune?" Well, given that 99% of the Bush-related posts on this board are against him (or darning-with-faint-praise for him), if I don't yet understand the anti-Bush mentality, it's no one's fault but my own. Oh, but wait...

So he has contempt for democratic institutions...but contempt for those institutions that are NOT democratic? His contempt is equal-opportunity!

I'll grant you that. (It's one reason I'm voting for him!) But you can't say that corporate America is somehow unAmerican. It might not be a part of America that you like, but it's definitely American. Or, to head off any retort - any definition of what is genuinely "American" that does not take into account history's most powerful, extensive, intrusive, and creative commercial engine, built on American executives from American business schools using American advertising aimed at American consumers and American workers is, to be kind, inadequate.

Oh, now I get it. So what you're saying is, Bush doesn't judge people based on their race or culture, but on how they act and believe? Yeah, that'd get me upset too.

At least he's an even-handed despiser. From your assessment, it seems that Bush not only despises Americans and democracy, but also despises non-Americans and non-democracies. That basically covers everyone and everything. You've gotta give the guy points for consistency.

Sounds eerily similar to the slam that Bush is not only a powermongering evil genius but also a bumbling fool. Maybe he's an idiot-savant - incredibly dumb, but inexplicably gifted in some minor way (say, running the world's hyperpower).

Y'know, now that I consider it, you're right. I don't think I truly understand the depth of the contempt for a man who inexplicably manages to turn natural idiocy into realpolitik evil genius...bumbling failure into an impenetrable network of cronies and corruption...contempt for democracy into a crusade to spread that same democracy...Christian zeal into raw, unadulterated evil (unlike Clinton's adulterated version)...a policy for economic growth into a spiderweb of corporate collusion...and personal charisma into fear and loathing.

But hey, he can't be TOTALLY unAmerican. He likes baseball!

(Though I wouldn't be surprised to hear he despises the MLB.)

 

That, of course, is the problem with ideologues. But you really do believe that we are in Iraq to spread "democracy." But wait, we turned the government over to the Iraqis. What if THEY reject democracy in favor of a religious autocratic state? You like? But wait, what if it is *gasp* a Muslim state? Oh no, now they will be just like their neighbor, that bastion of liberty, Iran. You still like? But we only care if corporate America is to be fat and happy. Perhaps you should try working for them, instead of voting for them.

But at least you admit it has more to do with economics than good government. The Iraq endeaver is really about spreading an economic system, more than a system of government. What's good for business is "good for America." I know you like that. Calvin Coolidge, the most know-nothing-do-nothing president (Shrub may not know much but, but at least he doesn't think the president's job was to sit out on the front porch and watch the traffic go by - yet, we may be better off if that's what Shurb did), said, "the business of America is business." You seem to share the same thought.

Some of us actually believe that the government is supposed to protect our freedom and liberties (Jefferson thought that, silly him). And for advancing Justice and the rule of law (Hamilton believed that). There is something to be said for "the public good," and civic virtue, rather than just "the corporate good." This was what Jefferson and Madison feared the most; that the interest of the "money men" and "stock jobbers" would come before the good of the pubic, or the common person. Jefferson referred to them as "corrupt squadrons." Was he right after all?

But Shurb's ideology is very narrowly focused: it is to be sure both "Capitalistic" and "Christian." But even that ideology is narrowed further in its focus. That is the center of the storm: Should our government promote an economic system? or one religious system over another? Is that the "function" of government? Is the public good less important than the ideology of economics? or religion? Do you think the twin ideologies of economics and religion are tied to our involvement in Iraq? I think so. Sorry, Grey, for all the questions. They are NOT meant to be sarcastic in the least (except maybe just the first few in the opening). There are people on the right who would answer in the affirmative to the questions above and have no problem with that answer. Yet, I would say "no" to all the above in the last section, with the exception of the last.

[ August 13, 2004, 04:11: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It would be fine to promote an economic system if that system was actually working. But with foreign debt increasing at exponential levels, NEGATIVE real interest rates, falling real wage levels, and a currency precariously propped up by China's continued refusal to float the yuan, it would be tough to say the US economic policy was being advanced in any way that is looked back on favourably in years to come.