Author Topic: Pick a President...  (Read 84 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pick a President...
« on: June 26, 2020, 02:14:44 PM »
Quote
Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

Honestly my opinion of Presidents since JFK is pretty low. Granted, for several of them I've only read about them or seen videos, as I wasn't alive at the time. I don't know that I have a problem with Carter, generally. I blame Reagan/Bush for the War on Drugs, among other things. When I was younger and didn't follow these things I liked Bill Clinton well enough. Since him I've had serious problems with those that followed. If you want to talk individual good moves I'm sure I could cite some that even W did, but I'm not sure what zeroing in on one good thing amid many bad things achieves. Obama was better than W, but that's not saying much.

Interesting. JFK was never high on my list of good presidents, more of a space filler - but is a great example of the organization being more important than the man or woman at the helm.

For example, Washington was a great president for the time - but his time in office was marked by the presence of the Founders in his administration, who pretty much wrote all his initiatives and authored all his actions. He actually dragged his feet with most of the great things that happened on his watch.

FDR was known for his young and powerful group of men considered to be the best and the brightest, who were instrumental in his administration. Amity Shlaes, the historian who wrote, "The Forgotten Man", was very good at pointing out the real numbers and effect of what was accomplished. Those FDR minions were entranced by Stalin. They were taken in by his propaganda and Potemkin villages. At the same time, Walter Duranty ws being awarded a Pulitzer for lying about Stalin's history.

That idea of the "best and the brightest" was reinstigated during JFK, along with the Peace Corps to bring in "better than politicians" to help run things. Rockefeller, when running for President dittoed that need for good helpers when he stated his secret of success was to "surround himself with his betters."

The Clintons added a new element to having a strong staff. They were mentored by Saul Alinsky (who in turn was mentored by the Mafia.) This input revolved around his Rules for Radicals and went a step beyond Machiavelli. Historians have noted the classic crime family paradigms that occurred. The basic rationale was "The Ends Justifies the Means." When Bill Clinton entered Washington, he fired the political class and replaced them with personal liege-men.

Obama was also a Saul Alinsky acolyte, but when he was elected, he had no personal liege-men who could be put into power via confirmation. He just picked up the Clinton retreads, and appointed his activist friends as Czars outside of confirmation.

Most effective presidents have had great staff to run things. The greatest, had charisma that over awed the staff.

By contrast, Bush 43, the highest-educated president, reinvented the office, itself, and created a new Presidential Office that was easier and much more effective to run.

Obama and Trump both had a stream-lined Presidency to run, and could plug successful operators into power positions more easily. Obama had to reuse Clinton staffers, but Trump had the entire nation's business world to select from. The prior paradigm was all about tenure. A know-nothing with thirty years on the job was given greater creds than real leaders. This is one of the reasons why Trump is so reviled by the "ruling class." They are left on the outside looking in.