RNSK Vol I, Edition 4

The American Presidency:

Is Success Predictable?

Introduction

Predicting presidential success…a conundrum for the ages. Here we are in 2020, and about to conduct our 58th American Presidential Election. In the 57 preceding contests, there was just one that Americans were absolutely sure of electing a successful president: The first in 1788 when George Washington became the first President of the United States. Every subsequent presidential election was clouded with a certain amount of trepidation; this includes Washington’s second term in office.

Starting with the second presidential election in 1792, politicians, academia, pundits, political strategists, historians and the American public, have tried to figure out what it takes to predict a successful presidency. The first problem, however, is simply the fact that what it takes to get nominated, then get elected, and finally succeeding in the Presidency, are three different things entirely. In a very real sense, each of these three processes are largely done on a standalone basis, with different factors & people, wanted & unwanted, that shape the man and the results throughout his journey.

Some Presidents have really applied themselves at times along the way; at other times they were the unexpected beneficiary of good fortune; some were the architect of their own disaster, and sometimes they were the unwitting recipient of poor timing or bad luck. For some Presidents, the office became like hell-on-earth, though they themselves were not ill-intentioned. Some Presidents acknowledged the poor choices they made, like Ulysses Grant did in his final address to Congress regarding his choice of several cabinet secretaries who turned out to be dishonest. Other Presidents worked hard, but, died in office, and only after their death did the public learn of scandal, turning the man’s presidency into a hell-of-a-mess. As the saying goes: “sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

As you will see in the following discussion, predicting Presidential Success is not a tried n’ true process, or there would have been a lot more successful men in the Oval Office. The processes of finding, developing and electing Presidents have changed quite a bit. But, none of those things have improved the odds of Presidential success after the inauguration is over!

Factors and Traits of Presidents Prior to Taking Office

For this part of the discussion, see the Chart of the Presidents below. Since the first Presidential Election in 1788, George Washington set the bar for positive factors and traits the public could look for in choosing, hopefully, a successful President. But, are these things really valid in determining Presidential success? If you think about it, a positive public image, significant public service time, and being a military veteran, are things that George Washington’s admirers seized upon in trumpeting their support of his Presidential candidacy. In the Presidential Elections of 1788 and 1792, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were Washington’s competitors. Although neither man served in the military, their contributions in forming the United States of America were highly regarded, and easily eclipsed everyone else except Washington. In either man’s case, however, they did not risk life & limb on the battlefield, nor suffer the privations of war like George Washington. The fact did not escape anyone’s attention that the American Revolution had to be won on the battlefield against the greatest army in the world, not by diplomacy or politics. Washington clearly had all of the boxes checked for winning two Presidential Elections.

Washington’s successful Presidency was aided by the three characteristics mentioned above, but, they were not the real story. Additional one-time factors in Washington’s success were: he was the first President, setting the precedent for defining success, and; he was America’s symbol of a new nation that was not led by a monarchy. Subsequent Presidents would not have the luxury of these one-time positive characteristics.

Although the public seized upon Washington’s popularity, prior public service and war hero status, they were all extrinsic factors that were no guarantee of success. Rather, Washington’s intrinsic abilities, such as leadership, a shrewd judge of character and clear thinking under pressure, benefited him far more than what was on public display.

The Top-Rated Presidents

In the historical rating of Presidential success, Washington and nine other men have rated above average, including: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan. Of these nine Presidents, only Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, had all three of Washington’s pre-election characteristics of public image, public service and military service. Were any of these factors clearly more important to voters at election time? In the case of Jackson and Roosevelt, they were both war heroes, and Reagan cashed-in on his movie star fame. But, none of the three pre-election positive characteristics made them successful Presidents. Let’s take a look at the nine Presidents who rated above average like George Washington.

Thomas Jefferson. No one expected Jefferson to be any less of a success than Washington, and he did not disappoint. Did his popularity and public office experience help his success? Those extrinsic factors may have helped indirectly, but, Jefferson’s intrinsic traits of intelligence, leadership and innate critical thinking skills carried the day. His greatest achievements included the massive Louisiana Purchase of land, projected American power overseas with the U.S. Navy, and recalibrated the economy by shrinking the Federal Government & National Debt.
Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s war hero status made him popular with the working-class. He was the first President not from Virginia or Massachusetts; he hailed from rural Nashville, TN. Jackson was a controversial President, with plenty of detractors. He did, however, provide another critical recalibration of American society & government, similar to Jefferson. His strong moral compass guided his success by pushing to payoff the National Debt, and slow the enrichment of east coast bankers and their wealthy clientele. Jackson’s sense of right & wrong would be sorely tested throughout his eight years in office.
Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s communication skills are probably better than any other President in American history. These skills, however, go far beyond just writing and speaking. He understood how to develop a plot, a story, how to act your way through a scene, such that, he had no disbelievers, especially the Soviets. Reagan sensed the timing was right to push Soviet Communism over the cliff of economic disaster. He did this by a massive increase in defense spending that accomplished two goals: It pulled the American economy out of a deep recession, and it forced the Soviets to spend huge amounts of money they did not have on a military build up.

The other above average Presidents had varying degrees of George Washington’s pre-election characteristics, including one President with only one of the traits, and another man who had none of them! It really demonstrates that whatever characteristics a President had or did not have prior to election, did not necessarily guarantee success. For example, except for Abraham Lincoln’s two years of military service in the 1840s, he was not elected based on popularity, and he had limited public office experience. Lincoln was clearly a once-in-a-millenium leader who unexpectedly rose to the occasion, surprising millions. Woodrow Wilson never served in the military, had just two years of experience as Governor of New Jersey, and was clearly not the most popular presidential candidate. Had Theodore Roosevelt not split the Republican vote by trying to reenter politics against the popular President William Howard Taft, Wilson would not have won the election. In spite of having none of the pre-election appeal of Taft or Roosevelt, and a belief that his intelligence was superior to everyone, Wilson did well in handling the enactment of child labor laws, creation of the Federal Reserve System, Women’s Suffrage, and keeping America out of the First World War for the first three out of four years.

Three of the remaining four Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were successful, and often at odds with their own political party. Both Roosevelts graduated from Harvard and the Columbia Law School, but, Truman dropped out of college after one year. Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest successes include going up against his own contemporaries, like J.P. Morgan, to enact legislation and push through the courts the break-up of some of the world’s largest business trusts and monopolies. Roosevelt also revamped the Interior Department by creating the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. Roosevelt was the first president to push for conservation of natural resources during an era when little regard was paid to deforestation and animal extinction. Franklin Roosevelt also eschewed his wealthy upbringing by lifting-up the country through numerous measures to vanquish the Great Depression. He also successfully led the free world to victory in World War II. And Harry Truman, a no nonsense, mid-westerner from Missouri, first became a local politician through a big-time Democratic Party boss in Kansas City. It eventually led Truman to the U.S. Senate, where he proved he was his own man, not a puppet Democratic Party hack. While President, he took ownership for some of the toughest decisions ever made in the Oval Office, such as: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, and firing 5-star general, Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination during the Korean War.

Dwight Eisenhower is the final President with a successful rating. Just like Donald Trump, Eisenhower had never held a political office. His strong organizational skills as 5-star Army general carried him throughout his eight years. Eisenhower made solid cabinet selections who were fiercely loyal to him. His cabinet turnover in eight years is less than what Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had in just four-year terms.

The Least Successful Presidents

The Presidents who consistently rate poorly are mostly justified. They all had reasonably good credentials prior to taking office, but, none of it helped them in avoiding an unsuccessful Presidency. Some like William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, were extremely popular Army generals and war heroes, but, had the misfortune of dying after a short time in office.

President John Tyler, has been rated poorly when he really should not be. Tyler was Vice President and took over the Presidency from Harrison after dying of pneumonia only 30 days into his term. Tyler was the first Vice President to exercise the Constitution’s provision of Presidential Succession. The Constitution did not specify what should happen after Tyler took office, and this created a crisis in Congress. Tyler took the step, and thereby set the precedent, that the Constitution said he was supposed to be the President, and with no further clarification, that was that. Congressional leaders were outraged, and excoriated Tyler at every opportunity. In retrospect, Tyler did all of us a favor by setting the example of how a Vice President should conduct himself after replacing the person the public really wanted in the Oval Office.

The Tyler scenario would happen again when Millard Fillmore took over for the deceased Zachary Taylor. Fillmore also collared a poor rating. Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan received poor ratings for doing nothing to prevent the Civil War. And Lincoln’s replacement, Andrew Johnson, is always rated poorly for his mishandling of Reconstruction following the Civil War.

Warren G. Harding was elected in 1920 and was wildly popular, but, died two and a half years after taking office. Up to that point he had performed well. After Harding died, however, and thus unable to deal with any future problems, it came to light that several of his Cabinet members had defrauded the Government while in office. It also came out that Harding had fathered two illegitimate children, and the mothers were being paid ongoing hush money by political operatives to remain quiet. There is no evidence that Harding knew about his dishonest cabinet secretaries, or that the two women he had affairs with were being paid-off. In either case, Harding’s Presidency was tainted and rated poorly ever since.

The last President with a poor rating is Donald Trump. Trump shares the dubious distinction with Woodrow Wilson of having none of George Washington’s pre-election favorable characteristics. Wilson made those characteristics a non-factor in his Presidency, even when his lack of likability persisted throughout his time in office, and has never really changed. It is difficult to say whether Trump’s Presidential legacy will be judged unsuccessful or not…time will tell.

Does the Perspective of Time Change Things?

Of all the men who have been President of the United States, only five have seen any change in their success rating. Three have improved, and two have worsened. Just like having some, or all three of Washington’s pre-election favorable characteristics were not very helpful in predicting Presidential success, neither has the passage of time, nor a better informed populace, changed a President’s success rating from when they first left office.

The three Presidents who have seen some minor improvement from poor to below average are: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and George W. Bush. Taylor’s slight improvement is due to historians looking at his 18 months of service and concluding he actually accomplished some good, and should not be collared with a poor rating just because he had the misfortune of dying in office. In Grant’s case, he had a poor rating for more than 120 years. He has inched-up in the past 30 years after historians decided that his numerous dishonest cabinet appointees that pulled him down, should not completely outweigh Grant’s success in resolving the headaches of Reconstruction.

When George Bush left office, he had a low approval rating and graded-out poorly in terms of success, largely due to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama took office on a campaign promise to finish the job in both countries and bring the troops home. Neither war zone was mopped-up as planned, even after Obama sent in more troops. When Obama’s team ran into problems with the Iraqi government in negotiating a new SOFA (status of forces agreement), the President ordered American forces to pack-up and leave. As a result of America’s departure, ISIS filled the void, and it took three years and the virtual destruction of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, to eradicate the insurgency. In terms of President Obama’s success rating, it would be difficult to rate his Presidency as level two average, but, leave Bush at level four poor, for the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, when his successor did no better. So, it only seems fair that Bush has moved upward from poor to below average.

The two Presidents who’s ratings dropped were two term President Grover Cleveland, and Herbert Hoover. Cleveland served during the 1880-1890 timeframe. For more than 100 years, Cleveland’s success rating had been level two average. Over the past 20 years, however, Cleveland’s rating has slipped to below average. Similarly, Herbert Hoover, who served from 1929 to 1933, had his success rating drop from below average to poor. Why would these two Presidents see their ratings drop? In simple terms, they presided over an economic collapse. I will further explain below.

Well respected historians have an unwritten professional code: You research history, analyze history, and write about history, but, you do not make history. Historians enjoy finding new pieces of information about a previously well covered topic. They are careful, however, in putting the new information in the proper context of preexisting information. It is one thing to enhance or flesh-out an existing story, but, historians are loathe to be revisionists for the sake of stirring-up controversy, or self-aggrandizement. This is why 39 out of 44 American Presidents have largely retained their success rating from the time they left office, until present day.

Understanding historical context is critical to evaluating events from a bygone era. Presidential success ratings were assigned within the context of what historians and the public living in that era witnessed themselves. We have the benefit of hindsight; they did not. Here are a few examples to illustrate the point. It was known then, and it is well documented now, that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. In modern times someone might conclude that Washington and Jefferson were racists. But, within the context of the times and locale they lived in, was that a universally accepted definition? No, it was not. It stands to reason that neither President’s success rating should be lowered based on a modern day definition.

We can also look at the opposite circumstance where a modern day definition of a successful Presidency could elevate a rating. Take James K. Polk, for example, who served one term in the 1840s. Polk had previously served as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but, in the 1844 election, he was completely out of politics. Polk was nominated at the Democratic Convention as a compromise candidate after several dozen rounds of voting failed to select a candidate. Polk’s nomination & candidacy is what spawned the now famous phrase of being a “dark horse candidate. When Polk accepted the nomination, he promised to only serve one term, and he did just that. Polk, however, accomplished something that no other President before or since has ever done: He successfully completed all four of his four major campaign promises. By modern day standards, that is considered nothing short of a miracle. But, by 1840’s standards, Polk was merely seen as having done the job he was elected to do. Polk’s level two average rating has never been elevated to the top level.

The foregoing examples demonstrate the reluctance of modern day historians and political scientists to alter a past President’s original success rating, with only a few exceptions. Circling back to Grover Cleveland and Herbert Hoover, what caused a shift in their ratings? In Cleveland’s case he is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. He served from 1885-1889, and 1893-1897, with President Benjamin Harrison sandwiched in between. By time the 1892 election came around, the economic and financial changes occurring during Harrison’s tenure were perceived as needing a President “who knew what he was doing.” This led to Cleveland’s reelection. However, politicians at the time, and well into the 1930s, knew little about economics, big business and the financial markets. There was still a strong belief that financial problems were cyclical and had a way of working themselves out. When the Panic of 1893 hit, Cleveland failed to take the right actions to fix things, and the economic plunge persisted for his entire second term. Likewise, Herbert Hoover was at the helm when the stock market crashed in 1929, leading to the Great Depression. Hoover was not aggressive enough in taking government action, thinking like Cleveland that the economy and financial markets would self-correct; they did not.

Cleveland and Hoover did not take all of the blame for the two economic disasters. Cleveland, for more than 100 years, was rated level two average, and Hoover was rated level three below average. Two subsequent financial meltdowns seem to have changed historical sentiment for both men. Jimmy Carter supervised a huge recession with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, from 1977-1981, and made no headway is resolving the crisis. In 2008, President Bush was in the Oval Office when the mortgage banking industry collapsed. After witnessing the events of 1977-1981, and the 2008 collapse, historians, politicians and the public decided that President’s actually had the power and responsibility to either reduce the likelihood of a financial collapse, or step-in to lead a recovery. So, while revisionists were addressing Carter’s failure, and ensuring Bush took the appropriate blame, eyes were cast back to Cleveland and Hoover’s economic supervision during their tenure. Revisionists have decided that both Presidents were really “asleep at the switch,” and could have done far more to cushion the collapse. Cleveland’s Presidential success has been lowered to level three below average, and Hoover’s has dropped to level four poor.

Summary

A President’s pre-election traits and skills are rarely a good barometer of Presidential Success. Success is normally attributable to a President’s intrinsic capabilities, and how he applies, or fails to apply them. Success ratings pinned on a President as he leaves office, normally remain unchanged regardless the passage of time, even when things are better understood later on. If a success rating is changed, the evidence to do so must be clear, and universally convincing. One thing that does change after a President leaves office is: For better or worse, a departing President is no longer the same man he was when he first entered the White House; things will never be the same for him. As the 1940s author, Thomas Wolfe said: “you can never go home again.”

Ciao,

Steve Miller
Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com Presidents

U.S. Presidency

The American Presidency: Each One Begins With Promise…But, Some Lose Their Way…

US Presidents 2

History teaches us important lessons. As long as the human race has been able to write and keep records, documenting history has been an important undertaking by scholars and religious leaders. The Bible’s Old Testament, regardless its religious significance, is likely the oldest volume of recorded history we have in the modern-day. It instructs us on the who, what, when and where of people and the events surrounding them. But, even this knowledge is not particularly useful without two additional components: the how and why that underpins the who, what, when and where of the people, places and events. The Old Testament‘s information can be quite interesting; however, its instructional value would be nil if the chapters did not discuss how and why things happened the way they did. The how and why are the most important parts of any history lesson. Legitimate learning cannot take place without understanding the how and why of events. Recorded history is nothing more than a good story without knowing why and how it happened.

How important is U.S. Presidential History to subsequent presidents and their administrations? Without a doubt, every president and the men & women appointed to serve in the administration need to study and apply the lessons learned by their predecessors. Some may argue that the events and decisions of President Thomas Jefferson and his Administration from 200 years ago do not apply to the Bush Presidency in 2008. Granted, technology and the world’s trappings today are vastly different than it was in Jefferson’s day. But, one thing remains the same: the human experience and its application to the circumstances at hand.

I often wonder how much, if any, our presidents and their appointees actually pay attention to the history of past administrations in terms of how and why things happened the way they did. It is my opinion they may have a reasonable grasp of the who, what, when and where of past presidencies. After more than 200 years of Presidential History there is plenty of material to study. It seems to me, however, the hows and whys of Presidential History require more intense study than a typical president and his inner circle are willing to invest. History shows us that effective or less than effective presidencies are no more or no less likely today than two centuries ago. All presidents begin their term with designs on logging an effective presidency. But, not knowing ahead of time, all of the who, what, when and where they will encounter, maybe a new presidential administration ought to study past presidencies that were less than effective to at least avoid the obvious mistakes and inadequate decision-making that plagued them.

In the pages to follow are five United States Presidencies that history records as being one of the least effective. I am also going make a few caveats to set the stage:
1. It is common practice for presidential staffers and political appointees to implement their president’s policies & plans, watch out for his better interest, and mitigate potentially damaging information from “going public.” After all is said and done, however, the actions and inactions of anyone serving at the pleasure of the president is ultimately laid at the chief executive’s feet. This means that in the discussions below, a given president may not have been the worst or least effective on a personal level; but, failure and misdeeds by his Administration ended up tainting his time in office. In a nutshell, an ineffective administration seen through the eyes of future generations is interpreted as an ineffective president.
2. In judging ineffectiveness, I have given a “pass” to several presidents who died in office after only a brief stint. James Garfield served only six months in 1881 until he was assassinated. Zachary Taylor died in 1850 of a stomach ailment after 16 months of service. William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia in 1841 after serving just a month. His death was not in vain, however. He wisely chose an able vice presidential running mate, John Tyler. Tyler became the first V.P. to exercise the Constitutional provision for a vice president to become the president if the elected one is unable to discharge his duties as the president. Tyler and Congressional leaders realized the Constitution’s wording left a lot up to interpretation. Once Tyler was sworn-in, there was a collective, “now what?” Numerous politicians felt the founding father’s intent was to merely use the V.P. as a presidential “fill-in” until a special election was called to elect a new one. Tyler set an important precedent by pointing out the Constitution’s silence on what to do next. Wisely, Tyler saw the situation akin to the old adage, “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” He notified the House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore that he would faithfully serve-out Harrison’s term, and not run for reelection. Tyler’s actions were critical in setting the tone for future vice presidents having to step-in to the presidency.
3. Lastly, I have not attempted to put them in a certain order to avoid quibbling over trivial things.

A. Franklin Pierce. 1853-1857. Pierce had a good record as a military officer. In that era, military officers, diplomats, senators & governors tended to be perceived as men who were a cut above the rest in education, wealth, life experiences with important people, and adept in maneuvering in the halls of power. The 1850s was a politically polarized and perilous time due to slavery issues. Political leaders from the non-slavery northern states and their counterparts from the pro-slavery southern states were finding it increasingly difficult to identify candidates that could equally satisfy both factions at the same time. Pierce was a northerner who was willing to somewhat look the other way on slavery issues; this included signing some pro-slavery legislation into law. Pierce became politically ineffective rather quickly. It did not help matters that on the way to Washington, D.C. to prepare for his inauguration, his son was killed in a horse n’ buggy accident. Both Pierce and his wife spiraled into despondency, and he slowly became an alcoholic.
B. Warren G. Harding. 1921-1923. Harding had previously been a Republican U.S. senator. The 1920 presidential election had a strong undercurrent of sentiment in the country that World War I should only be seen in the rear-view mirror. The War was presided over by a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who basically worked himself to the point of exhaustion & suffered a stroke while trying to launch his “League of Nations” idea to prevent future conflict. Instead of Americans seeing the League as a good thing, it kept reminding everyone of something they were ready to forget.
The political end result of Wilson’s power vacuum in his final 18 months created a huge albatross around the Democratic Party leader’s necks, and became a windfall for the Republican Party. Party leadership was looking for a presidential candidate who was not a fire-brand, but, someone who could go along to get along…a political “good guy” not prone to rocking the boat; Harding became the good guy poster boy for the Republican Party.
Two and a half years into his presidency, Warren Harding suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died. At the time of his death, he was an extremely popular president. During his truncated term he actually showed some positive results from his goals and leadership. He at least showed the electorate (and party leaders) that he was no patsy. In general, anything negative later said about President Harding, was not so much an indictment of him personally, as it was for some of his Cabinet members.
In terms of anything less than positive directly attributable to Harding, it would have to be his long-running affair with one woman, and a second woman who became pregnant as a result of her own affair with Harding. The affairs first came to light when the Republican Party Chairman and his lieutenants found out about the pregnant mistress. It could not have surfaced at a time much worse than it did…right in the middle of the presidential election after the nominating convention, but, before election day. In order to keep a lid on the whole thing, party leaders paid hush money, and continued to do so for many years after Harding died.
After Harding died, the public gradually became aware of certain Cabinet members who were indicted for malfeasance and fraud of the 1st order. No evidence surfaced after Harding’s death to directly implicate him in the various scandals. Instead of Harding demonstrating his lack of culpability and leading the charge to politically & legally clean house of his cabinet’s bad apples, he became the convenient patsy and lightning rod for the public, the Congress, and the court’s ire. Even though members of the Harding Cabinet went to jail, Harding’s death prevented him from putting distance between himself and the scandal. Many of the pundits claimed it was implausible for Harding to be unaware of the crimes; or, if he truly knew nothing about it, then he was a fool for not seeing what was right under his nose.
C. Andrew Johnson. 1865-1869. Johnson became the Vice Presidential running mate for Lincoln’s second term election and victory. Lincoln chose Johnson as V.P. for his extremely tough and successful effort during the War as the military governor over the slave-owning border state of Tennessee. Tennessee was the first state to not remain with the confederacy after secession.
Throughout President Lincoln’s term in office, he made numerous decisions and took a lot of heat over them. Examples included:
1. Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War;
2. Promulgating the Emancipation Proclamation;
3. Allowing African-Americans to enlist in the Union Army;
4. Dismissing under-performing Army generals;
5. Meddling in the duties and affairs of the War Dept run by Edwin M. Stanton;
Lincoln brought several prominent, well-to-do politicians into his Cabinet who all had presidential aspirations, too. Besides Stanton he tapped Senator William H. Seward as Secretary of State, and Salmon P. Chase as head of the Treasury Dept. Only a master in interpersonal relations & communication could pull-off a feat of critical success with this kind of leadership horsepower and egos all under one roof. Lincoln was the man to do it. In 1860 none of these men even thought Lincoln could be elected, let alone save the country and win the Civil War. In due time all of them quietly tipped their hat to Abe, acknowledging that if ever there was exactly the right man in the right time and place in history, Lincoln was it.
I am discussing all of this because these were the shoes Vice President Johnson was left to fill. As masterful and charismatic as Lincoln was to save the country in his first term, it would take another masterful four years to put the country back together again. This effort became known in history as, “Reconstructing the South.” Even by his own, self-biased standard, Johnson knew he was no Abraham Lincoln.
The whole concept of Southern Reconstruction was a hotbed of controversy. Many influential northerners had the attitude that the Confederates lost, and now it was time to be treated like losers. Johnson understood Lincoln’s rationale behind Reconstruction, but no firm plan of who, what, when, where or how had been fleshed-out and presented as proposed legislation to Congress. Johnson lacked the people skills and finesse to pull it all together. Furthermore, the northern politicians and businessmen he needed on his side were suspicious of Johnson who came from a nominal, slave-holding state (Tennessee) and owned slaves himself at one point. When it came to southern leaders, they perceived Johnson to be an early “sell-out” of the southern cause, as seen with his military governorship appointment, and then being Lincoln’s second in the 1864 presidential election. No doubt, Johnson was on a precarious, political knife-edge, and under Lincoln he likely would have been Abe’s envisioned best tool in helping carry out Reconstruction. Being thrust into such a presidential hotbed in 1865 was practically a no-win situation for Johnson, or any other politician.
The end result was Congressional gridlock, Cabinet member infighting, and so forth. Andrew Johnson became the first President to be impeached, and came within one vote of being bounced out-of-office. If Lincoln was the right man, for the right time, President Johnson was the wrong man, for the wrong time. For his inability, partially his own fault, to successfully follow, arguably, one of America’s best presidents of all time, Johnson’s presidency surely fits the category of least effective.
D. Jimmy Carter. 1977-1981. The country was coming out of the turbulent 1960s and early 1970s with major news items such as:
A. The Vietnam War and all of its homefront ramifications;
B. The space race to the moon;
C. The Kennedy assassination;
D. The Watergate Scandal;
E. The energy crisis & oil embargo;
F. A major recession, double-digit unemployment and rampant inflation;
G. Civil rights unrest.
All of these issues were connected in some way with the Washington, D.C. establishment. Anything connected with Washington during this era became tainted in the public’s eye. This pervasive sentiment became a direct carryover to the 1976 presidential election. This is the political power vacuum in which Jimmy Carter intended to exploit as a “Washington outsider.” Carter’s political experience included one, four-year term in the Georgia Senate, and four years as Georgia’s governor. Carter never worked in Washington, D.C. in or out of government.
After Carter prevailed in the 1976 general election, his transition team went about the process of setting-up-shop in the White House prior to his January 1977 inauguration. Thinking his election victory was a vote of confidence in his philosophy that the American presidency was becoming too “imperial,” and the key to getting things done by an administration was based on what you know, not who you know, Carter began to dismantle some of the presidential “imperial trappings.” He reduced the appointed White House staff by nearly 35%; directed his staff to arrange for the sale of the presidential yacht, Sequoia, and decided the White House staff needed to be managed differently.
Carter was an Annapolis engineering graduate and became a nuclear engineering officer aboard submarines; he served six years in the Navy. Carter’s Naval service revealed the then practice of each service branch’s top commander being his own chief-of-staff. Carter was influenced by this leadership concept, thinking it was a much better way to lead a team by making yourself the central hub with all communications routed, unfiltered, unprioritized, directly into the Oval Office. So, his first two years were conducted sans appointing an actual chief-of-staff.
Carter was an intelligent man. At times, however, Carter felt his superior intelligence meant that others were not quite as smart. When you coupled the lack of a White House Chief of Staff with Carter frequently trusting his own judgment over that of his staff experts, it created sticky problems that could not always be smoothed over in short order. After two years of the White House flailing without solid direction, Carter acquiesced and promoted Hamilton Jordan to Chief of Staff.
Even though House Speaker, Tip O’Neill, was a Democrat like Carter, O’Neill was seen by the President as a prototype Washington insider; so, relations were strained. Not having good relations with a House Speaker from your own political party can seriously stymie a presidential agenda – and it did for Carter.
President Carter’s greatest success as President was his negotiation with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat of Egypt. The positive outcome was the Camp David Peace Accords. Unfortunately, Carter’s efforts at Camp David had no direct benefit to the United States internationally or domestically. The country was in a deep recession with double-digit unemployment and the same for inflation; but, Carter was unable to make improvements.
Even though Carter’s first two years were problematic, he may have been able to improve things during the second half of his term; but, it did not happen. Instead of success, it was more inaction and disappointment when his presidency came to a grinding halt over the 444 day long Iran Hostage Crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The hostages were released unharmed shortly after President Reagan took his oath of office. Whether it was deliberate or not, it was hard to ignore that the Carter Administration failed to get the hostages released; yet, the moment Reagan took office the hostages were free to go. It was as if the militant Iranian students who took the hostages were mostly intent on embarrassing the Carter Presidency. Regardless the kidnapper’s intent, it guaranteed Carter’s walk into presidential history to be a negative one.
E. Ulysses Grant. 1869-1877.
Americans love heroes, and they had one in General Ulysses S. Grant. The U.S. Presidency has had no less than nine Army generals grace the White House; the list includes: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Grant, Franklin Pierce, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight Eisenhower. Aside from the fact the Union Army won the Civil War, it also dominated presidential elections, starting with Grant in 1868. For the next 32 years (1868-1900) no one was elected President of the United States except those who served as Union Army officers during the Civil War. When the War ended in 1865, 80 years would pass before a president took office from a former slave-holding state – Harry S. Truman of Missouri. A total of 22 presidents served in the military. And, just like society in general, there is no certain formula for career success; nor does an Army general or any other service member increase the odds of a successful presidency. Ulysses Grant’s two-term Administration would bear out the foregoing statement; even a popular hero cannot win all-the-time.
President Grant graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Grant’s academic record was merely average; but, his military science skills ranked him near the top of his class. Upon graduation in 1844 he reported to his first duty station in Texas and served in the Mexican-American War. Grant’s commanding general in this campaign was Zachary Taylor; he would become the next president in the 1848 election.
After 10 years of service he resigned his commission to begin a civilian career. Speculation has it that he was asked to resign due to alcohol problems. Grant spent the next seven years as a civilian trying to make a living farming, selling real estate, and working as a landlord over several large buildings. He was never successful in private business before or after the Civil War. After two terms in the White House he returned to civilian life and was bankrupt in less than a year.
Although Grant’s leadership skills were well-honed from his military service, he had never held an elected or appointed political office and had shown little interest in running for office. Simply put, Grant was a political novice when he became president in 1869. Critics later blamed his lack of experience for the economic panic of 1873 and scandals that dogged his administration.
Though scrupulously honest, Grant became known for political appointees of poor character. Grant struggled to spot corruption in others. While he had some success during his presidency, like pushing through the 15th Amendment and creating the National Parks Service, his Administration’s scandalous behavior was a constant distraction throughout his two terms. In the court-of-public-opinion Grant faced charges of misconduct in nearly all federal departments, engaging his Administration in constant conflict between corrupt associates and reformers. He protected colleagues and appointees, unless evidence of misconduct was overwhelming. No one implicated Grant in the scandals; nor did proof surface of an Administration-wide conspiracy. As more one-off scandals became public, Congress began corruption investigations in many of the Cabinet departments. High profile appointees, such as the Attorney General, Secretary of War, Treasury Secretary, and Interior Secretary resigned when evidence of wrongdoing was blatantly obvious.
In President Grant’s final address to Congress before leaving office, he kept his personal integrity intact by solemnly acknowledging his failure to choose Cabinet members who brought honor to their fellow citizens, and the Grant Administration. Indeed, for all the turmoil wrought upon the country that stemmed from his poor staffing choices, he could only feel shame for not doing a better job. The President was not obligated to say anything to Congress about his troubled Administration; but, he knew that good leaders delegated duties, and responsibility always comes back to the boss, good or bad.

The REPORT on NATIONAL SECURITY KINETICS™

Reliable * Well Researched * Timely * No AI…100% Author Content

Tag Archives: abraham lincoln