Electing Past US Presidents

 

YouTuber Mr. Beat has revealed which candidate he would have voted for in each US presidential election since George Washington. He has left out those presidents elected in his own lifetime.

This seems odd to me: these are the very presidents on which he would have the most informed opinion. And if he is concerned about revealing his political bias, he already has, with his picks to this point.

I think I’ll fill in the elections since I first began to follow US politics, at the early age of seven. As a non-American, I didn’t vote for any of these folks.

1960—Kennedy vs. Nixon.

Kennedy, hands down. I was an Irish Catholic kid. There could be no question but supporting Kennedy, and putting at rest the ghost of Al Smith. Electing Kennedy felt like the dawn of a new millennium.

1964—Johnson vs. Goldwater.

Goldwater. I had an instinctive dislike and distrust of Johnson. He was a crook. Goldwater seemed a straight shooter. And I think, even in retrospect, Johnson was a terrible president. Goldwater too might have gotten the US bogged won in Vietnam—who knows?—but he would not have made all the expensive mistakes of the “Great Society.” And he would have set a model of honesty. History might have been very different, and much better.

1968—Nixon vs. Humphrey.

I really disliked Humphrey. McCarthy would have been my guy. Humphrey appalled me by speaking, in 1968, amidst the Vietnam War and the assassinations of RFK and Martin Luther King, of “the politics of joy.” And of referring to Nixon’s refusal to debate as “our Vietnam.” He struck me as the ultimate gladhanding two-faced professional pol. But Nixon was worse. I believe I can just look at some people, and see a darkness in their soul. Nixon was the first guy in whom I noticed this. He never looked comfortable, because he never told the truth. He was an almost satanic figure, in my mind.

1972—Nixon vs. McGovern

I had nobody to vote for. I liked Muskie, and I think McGovern stole the nomination by juking the rules beforehand. He was a cloying figure. And he sold out Eagleton; so much for imagining he was principled. But Nixon was beyond the pale. I would have had to vote McGovern.

1976—Carter vs. Ford

Another awful choice. Jerry Brown was my guy. Carter struck me as both utterly insincere and dangerously underqualified for the presidency. But Ford struck me as out of his depth as anything more than the president of a local Rotary. With his idiotic “Whip Inflation Now” pins. Yeah, that ought to do it.  And I felt the Republicans had to be punished for Watergate.

1980—Reagan vs. Carter

Getting rid of Carter felt like a blessed relief. I was not sold on Reagan as nominee, but at least he looked like a leader. I probably would have voted for anyone the Republicans nominated to get rid of Carter. Not because he was a bad man, but because he was incompetent.

1984—Reagan vs. Mondale

Definitely Reagan. Mondale looked to me like the typical unprincipled panderer, an impression sealed by his selection of Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. 

1988—Bush vs. Dukakis

I would have voted Dukakis. Bush alienated me with his Willie Horton ad, which I thought was racist. It also made capital punishment a hot button issue. I was opposed to capital punishment, and if this was the issue I had to vote against. Bush also alienated me with a call to make burning the American flag a criminal offense. He seemed to pander to voters’ worst instincts. Dukakis looked like a lightweight, but seemed a decent guy.

1992—Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot

I felt Bush had to be voted out after breaking his “read my lips—no new taxes” pledge, or no politician would ever feel the need to tell the truth or keep a promise ever again. Clinton was one of the “seven dwarfs,” a historically unimpressive Democratic primary field. He was underqualified, and a huckster. I would have voted Perot, for his concern over the national debt.

1996—Clinton vs. Dole vs. Perot.

Dole. Dole was a bright guy, and I felt he had earned it. He was more qualified than Clinton. It would have been nice to have a president with a sense of humour. And the sleaze of the Clinton administration was alarming.

2000—Bush vs. Gore

Bush. Gore was the originator of the Willie Horton hit. Another guy who seemed uncomfortable in his body, because he was not truthful. Another dark face. And it seemed to me the Democrats needed to be punished for the sleaze of the Clinton years. It was time to clean house. Gore impressed by choosing Lieberman for VP, though. Bush looked like a lightweight, but at least like a decent guy.

2004—Bush vs. Kerry

Bush. Kerry gave me the creeps. Another dark, insincere face. Especially trying to capitalize on his military service, when he was so critical of the military he served. I felt no ambiguity in cheering for Bush, even though I doubted his abilities.

2008—Obama vs. McCain

McCain had been my preference for Republican nominee back in 2000. He seemed like a real straight shooter, and I thought he’d earned it. Obama was seriously underqualified. He’d have been a better president with a few more years’ government experience; and he had lots of time left in his natural career. It is probably a curse to be elected president too young.

2012—Obama vs. Romney

I wanted to see Gingrich get the nomination. But given the choice, Romney. Romney seemed to have demonstrated truly impressive executive competence. And seemed to be a moral character. Let him get in there and tidy up a bit. Get some honesty back in government.

2016—Trump vs. Clinton

I did not want Trump to get the nomination. But since he was nominated, Trump over Clinton. Clinton looked to me like a criminal, and possibly a Russian asset. Were she to be elected, the US would only be embroiled in the need to impeach her.

2020—Biden vs. Trump

So they ended up trying to impeach Trump for the crime Clinton was probably guilty of. The violent reaction of the media and the Democratic opposition to Trump demonstrated the need to have elected him. Something was obviously seriously wrong in government, and we needed an outsider to fix it. This time there was no question in my mind. It was fantastically dangerous to elect Biden, because he was not competent to be president, and would be controlled by some unknown party or parties. It looked like a perfect setup for a fascist government to take over. It still does.

The Best Canadian Prime Ministers and US Presidents

Who was Canada's best prime minister?

This is often debated among Americans about American presidents. It comes up less often for Canadian PMs. No one cares much about Canadian prime ministers. In one sense this is wrong, because Canadian prime ministers actually have more real power than US presidents. But it somehow seems easier to cite presidents who are admirable. Canadian prime ministers always seem, at best, just another politician.

I think this is partly because presidents serve symbolically as head of state, national symbols, partly an artifact of the US term limits. As Enoch Powell once observed, under the Westminster system, every political career ends in failure. Leaders usually stay on until voted out of office—or until they know they are going to be voted out if they again face the polls: until popular opinion turns against them. And so this is how they are remembered. With US term limits, it is common for a leader to retire while still popular, and this is how he is remembered.

When deciding on the best prime ministers, or presidents, there is a tendency too to give highest marks to ones who made a lot of changes while in office: who left a legacy. They are, naturally enough, the most remembered. America would be a very different place today had Lincoln or FDR not been in office.

I think this is a dangerously bad idea, and a bad influence. In principle, any change has only a 50-50 chance of being for the better. So we ought not to give precedence simply to change. Encouraging this imagined need to leave a legacy can prompt leaders to do dumb and dangerous things.

I think, for example, of Brian Mulroney's Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. He came close to busting the country, just to be a bigger man than Trudeau. Or Pierre Trudeau's inane, pretentious, and counterproductive world peace tour at the end of his final mandate.

Stephen Harper

With all that in mind, I think Canada's best prime minister to date is actually relatively unassuming Stephen Harper. He held a steady course, in which all the regions and constituencies were kept generally content. Maybe Wilfrid Laurier next. Then Louis St. Laurent. The country prospered, and they didn't unnecessarily rock the boat.

Wilfrid Laurier

Other prime ministers, those that did, tend to my mind to have usually left sour tastes when they departed. Paul Martin was a great finance minister, but as prime minister, he seemed to me unprincipled and duplicitous. Jean Chretien was lovable in a number of cabinet posts, but as prime minister, he seemed dangerously ruthless. One felt he was prepared to let the Liberal Party and parliamentary traditions burn to the ground if necessary to keep his own power. He badly fumbled the ball on the 1995 Quebec Referendum, and again the country nearly broke up. Brian Mulroney, although he deserves credit for NAFTA, was unforgivably reckless, as noted with Canada's future for the sake of his supposed legacy. Joe Clark's signal accomplishment was quickly getting himself voted out of office. Pierre Trudeau deserves credit for his work on national unity, and he was an inspiring presence, but he showed a frightening authoritarian streak with Les Ordres, his romance with Castro, and his Hate Crimes legislation. We are still paying for that legacy. Lester Pearson deserves credit for Medicare, which for all its faults few Canadians would want to do without. But at the time, a difficult time for Canada, he seemed maddeningly weak. Always the diplomat, one felt that, had half the country gone Neo-Nazi, and the other half become serial rapists, he would have gone along with it all without saying anything for the sake of superficial concord. Diefenbaker was a lot of fun to have around, and deserves a little credit for the Canadian Bill of Rights, but shambolic in power. Mackenzie King was remarkable mostly for hanging on to power so long. F.R. Scott claimed his motto was “never do by halves what you can do by quarters.” That is not by itself a bad thing, but it is not really true. It is more that this is the impression he made: uninspiring, While doing lots of things, a transformation comparable to that by FDR in the US, by stealth.

Louis St. Laurent

R.B. Bennett might have amounted to something, but had the misfortune to be in power during the worst early years of the Great Depression. Robert Borden seems a suit, a cipher, and tone deaf on Quebec. And so on back to Sir John A, who was above all else a political deal maker. A useful skill, but not an inspiring or really very admirable one.

Now to apply the same principles to American presidents. Because I can't resist. Most admirable, I think, has to be George Washington. He could have become America's king. He could have been a Cromwell, dictator for life. It was virtually historically unprecedented at the time—people had to think back to the Roman Republic and Cincinnatus—that he did not try for greater power than suggested in the Constitution, and then insisted on retiring from office after two terms. He set a model everyone else felt obliged to follow; at least until FDR.

Speaking of which, by this same measure, FDR was an especially bad president. So are some others generally heralded as among the best: Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson. Lincoln's bloody tumult and suspension of liberties was in itself not at all good, but perhaps a morally necessary thing. That argument hinges on whether you can see slavery being abolished peacefully in the US, as it indeed was throughout the British Empire.

After Washington, Jefferson deserves a lot of credit. He represented the radical faction from the Revolution coming to power. If Washington might have been a Cromwell, Jefferson might have been a Robespierre. Instead, he acted with admirable restraint and magnanimity. Jefferson is largely responsible, with Washington, for establishing the vital principle of a peaceful transfer of power. He did exceed his constitutional authority in one regard: in buying the Louisiana Territory, peacefully doubling the US's physical extent. But who, in retrospect, can fault instead of credit him for that?

I think it is unfortunate, and unjust, that Jefferson's reputation is currently in eclipse. He is blamed, firstly, for owning slaves, and, secondly, for supposedly having had a long extramarital affair with his own slave, Sally Hemings. I think the first is a bum rape: the problem was structural. Given that other farmers used slave labour, Jefferson as a farmer could not have refused to do so and remained solvent. It seems to me to matter more that he was politically opposed to slavery. A for the second, it is an unproven allegation, and so no more than salacious calumny. Contrary to common belief, it has not really been confirmed by the DNA evidence. And if it is true, it is a matter that does not reflect on his presidency. Presidents should have the same right to privacy as common citizens.

Calvin Coolidge

Another candidate for the best president is Calvin Coolidge. He resisted exercising power when possible, and insisted on leaving after one term. Another admirable example; although this one has not since been followed.

U.S. Grant

I have a soft spot too for Ulysses S. Grant. He governed at a tough time, during Reconstruction, and it seems his fate to be eternally underestimated. His administration was mired in corruption, but I do not think Grant himself was responsible. On the other hand, he had a record of magnanimity towards the defeated South, and advanced civil rights for both blacks and American Indians. He was a steady and a fair hand when it was desperately needed.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Next, I like Teddy Roosevelt. He was no doubt an activist, which is not in itself a good thing. But far more than for Canadian prime ministers, a large part of the job of a US president is to set the tone of discourse, as head of state. At this, at least, Roosevelt was perhaps the best of all American presidents. He personified the American spirit, and the best of the American spirit, in a way nobody else has done so well before or since.

On the same score, I think John Kennedy ranks high. Like Roosevelt, he projected hope, good nature, a sense of fairness, and optimism. I give him credit for civil rights. I do not blame him for Vietnam. I think Vietnam was down to Eisenhower, who has been generally given too much credit by history. I think Ike was a much worse president than people generally think. Kennedy's rep, like Jefferson's, is in decline because of his personal life. I maintain this is not relevant.

And on the same score, Reagan must rank high. As a national cheerleader and spokesman, he gave Americans hope and optimism.

And there you have it; typically enough for a Canadian, I seem to have much more to say about US presidents than Canadian prime ministers.

Best US Presidents

Just imagine what you can see from the Canadian side...

Most lists are, to my mind, biased towards activist presidents, which is to say, towards leftist presidents. It is not clear to me that expanding government is a good thing. No--without good reason, it is a bad thing.

Here's my top five list:

George Washington. He could have been the man on the white horse. He could have made himself dictator or king. That's the usual thing following revolutions. That he did not do so, and set the precedent of the two-term limit, is probably the single most important act by anyone guaranteeing American democracy.

Thomas Jefferson. He roughly doubled the size of the US, without war, lowered taxes, and lowered the debt. Not a bad record, on the whole.

Theodore Roosevelt. Ushered the US onto the world stage as a great power. Showed how the presidency should work: as a “bully pulpit,” by force of personality. Personified the American spirit in a way no other president has.

Calvin Coolidge. Reduced taxes and reduced the federal debt. Cleaned the KKK out of government, granted full citizenship to Indians, fought for civil rights.

Ronald Reagan. Achieved the unprecedented feat of generally acknowledged greatness while trying to shrink, rather than expand, government. Won the Cold War.

Here are a few who did not make it, and why:

Andrew Jackson. A shameless warmonger who introduced the patronage system.

Abraham Lincoln. It is easy to look like a great leader if you lead during a major war. But objectively, the North did not do well in the Civil War: they started with overwhelming strategic advantages, and it devolved into a bloody, protracted affair. Lincoln must take responsibility for his military appointments and firings. He also played pretty fast and loose with civil rights and constitutional protections in the process.

Woodrow Wilson. Again, given unearned credit for leading during war. He introduced racial segregation in the federal government. He greatly enlarged the size and power of the federal government, getting him unearned points for activism which may well have been destructive. His foreign policy was a failure on all counts.

Franklin Roosevelt. His policies probably prolonged the sufferings of the Great Depression. He vastly expanded government and executive powers. He stayed out of World War II until forced to come in; if this was dishonourable for Neville Chamberlain, why should it be honourable for Roosevelt? He broke the precedent of staying for only two terms.

Harry Truman. Bottom line: a machine politician not qualified for his job. He gets unearned praise for having been a war leader (WWII and Korea).

Dwight Eisenhower. He has risen of late in popular estimation. I blame him for kicking a lot of cans down the road. His foreign policy, in my opinion, was disastrous. He stabbed Britain and France in the back over Suez, creating a power vacuum the US was then obliged to fill. He got the US into Vietnam, an unwinnable fight. He set some of the tone for the Eisenhower years, which were not a good time in a lot of ways. There was a reason for the Sixties, after all.

The Princes of This World

Henry VIII with family at Whitehall: divorced, beheaded, died...

Watching “The Tudors,” the Irish-Canadian TV co-production from a few years back, I marvel why Henry VIII is not remembered as the awful tyrant he was. He looted England, and specifically the poor of England, through the seizure of the monasteries, purely to support the sumptuousness of his court. Worse than Hitler or Stalin, in a sense, because he showed no human feeling even to his own family. Being his close friend or counselor or even wife was generally, sooner or later, a sentence of death.

And yet, he is remembered by the English, not as an evil ruler, or even a bad ruler, but as a strong ruler.

It reminds me of Aesop's fable of King Log.

Henery the Eighth I am, I am...

Human nature is perverse. It does not turn against a government or any instituted authority because it is evil, but only if it appears to be weak. Hitler is remembered as evil because he lost the war. Stalin and Mao, who were objectively worse, are not remembered as evil because they won their wars and died in their beds. Indeed, Mao is still a great hero in China.

Similarly, someone has pointed out that the US presidents commonly remembered as the best are in fact the most tyrannical, within the limited orbit permitted to US presidents: FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, all ran roughshod, in one way or another, over the Constitution and the balance of powers. Presidents who followed the rules and behaved well in office are remembered as nonentities: Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, Rutherford B. Hayes.

Not a face you see on Mt., Rushmore.

Yet, honestly, at what time would life for the average American citizen have been most pleasant and prosperous, during the presidencies of the former, or the latter?

It all illustrates the Christian teaching that the rules and ideas of the social world are in systematic opposition to the True and the Good.