Quote of the Day
The golden moments in the stream of life rush past us
and we see nothing but sand;
the angels come to visit us,
and we only know them when they are gone.
George Elliot
The Greatest President--Who Never Was
I do realize that my assessment of Presidents is now filtered through my emerging views of libertarian-conservatism. Is this a variation of presentist bias? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Consider the following set of principles:
- lowering taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits,
- reducing government spending and balancing budgets,
- restoring peace to the relationship between labor and industry,
- resisting government competition with private enterprise,
- recognizing the importance of profit in private enterprise,
- protecting collateral as a prerequisite for credit,
- reducing taxes,
- maintaining states' rights,
- aiding the unemployed in an economical and locally responsible manner, and
- relying on American free enterprise.
Good history students instantly recognize it as the bipartisan conservative coalition's "Conservative Manifesto" first published in late 1937 in reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's abysmal, counterproductive New Deal policies. Can you imagine even a single Democrat today, Congressman or Senator, whom could publicly sign his or her name to this document--which was edited by a North Carolina Democrat, Josiah Bailey?
So when I look at Wikipedia's compilation of various surveys ranking the Presidents, I'm horrified. I recently touched on this in a commentary, noting that Lincoln conducted a war, not against foreign invaders but fellow Americans: a war resulting in a number of dead greater than all other American wars put together with 10% of soldiers experiencing, at minimum, serious injuries. Lincoln also pursued protectionist economic policies; he violated some fundamental individual rights (i.e., habeas corpus).
I am not going to revisit here some of the libertarian arguments noting that the practice of slavery was economically inefficient (consider, for instance, natural incentives to make labor more productive through the use of technology, not to mention: did a slave have any vested interest in improving performance beyond the enforced minimum?) I suspect that a Confederacy built on bad economics was unsustainable and reunion was inevitable, without a traumatic war and horrific casualties. In fact, slavery in Brazil and elsewhere died out by the end of the century.
(I acknowledge that others will strongly disagree with this speculation. But if you think that there were ways to reconcile the states short of a Civil War, you have to second-guess historians ranking Lincoln so highly. How much did our country and economy lose from the massive losses of young men?)
As for FDR: I don't know what historians are thinking. I've pointed out in past posts that FDR ran as a fiscal hawk, using conservative arguments against Hoover, but once in office he did a complete swerve on economic policy. Upset by conservative Supreme Court decisions striking down his aggressive policies, FDR then tried to politicize the Court by intending to expand the court and pack it with partisan cronies, he ran for unprecedented third and fourth terms, he violated the civil rights of immigrants or descendants from Axis countries, and there is a legitimate question of whether FDR's policies made America's entry into the war all but inevitable. (I'm not revisiting here the decision to go to war--the Japanese government was solely responsible for its decision to attack the United States--but whether the President manipulated the situation.)
The fact that we are now facing a rapidly deteriorating, unsustainable financial position, in large part built on FDR's interventionist policies both domestically and internationally, not to mention his intent to manipulate another branch of government and his politically opportunistic attempts against tradition to become "President for Life", materially disqualifies him from consideration as one of our greatest Presidents. Certainly he was a consequential President, but not a great one.
What about lost opportunities? I've been thinking of American political family dynasties: John and John Quincy Adams, the Kennedy's, the Bush's--and even the Romney's, given the fact that Romney's dad, a Michigan governor, was seriously considered as a Presidential contender in the 1968 race. And the Taft's.
Everybody knows about President William Taft; there is something endearing about the reluctant, politically clueless President, meticulously committed to the rule of law, someone whom really preferred consideration as Chief Justice of SCOTUS over the Presidency, someone who was a problem solver and "naively" nominated candidates on merit versus political considerations. When Roosevelt, espousing a strident, divisive, party-blurring progressive politics, turned on his former protege and demanded that Taft stand aside for the 1912 nomination, Taft, attempting to maintain a delicate, unifying balance between party factions, refused, courageously standing up on principle on behalf of the GOP conservative faction, quite possibly saving the party. President Taft lost the 1912 election as Wilson politically exploited the divided opposition but later realized his SCOTUS ambition.
The President's son, Robert Taft, was elected Senator from Ohio in 1938. Let me reorganize a few relevant comments from Wikipedia:
Taft criticized what he believed was the inefficiency and waste of many New Deal programs and of the need to let private enterprise and businesses restore the nation's economy instead of relying upon government programs. He condemned the New Deal as socialist and attacked deficit spending, high farm subsidies, governmental bureaucracy, the National Labor Relations Board, and nationalized health insurance. Taft set forward a conservative program that promoted economic growth, individual economic opportunity, adequate social welfare, strong national defense, and noninvolvement in European wars. He also strongly opposed the military draft. In terms of political philosophy Taft was a libertarian; he opposed nearly all forms of governmental interference in both the national economy and in the private lives of citizensTaft ran for President 3 times, notably against Dewey, a Republican moderate NY governor, and other interventionist candidates. After WWII, Taft took a notably unpopular but principled stance against the Nuremberg trials (i.e., as victor's justice) and a contradiction of America's own legal tradition, i.e., where the rules were decided after the game was played. I firmly believe Taft was absolutely right on principle. This stance probably cost him the Presidential nominations in 1948 and 1952. (The interventionist Republicans recruited Eisenhower to oppose Taft.) It should be noted that Taft opposed involvement in Korea and issued early warnings about involvement in Vietnam.
Of course, now we know that Robert Taft died in the summer of 1953, and his Presidency at that time would have been short-lived. John F. Kennedy was suitably impressed by Taft, on a committee that later named Taft as one of the 5 greatest Senators in US history; he also included Taft's politically courageous stance on the Nuremberg trials in one of the chapters in his celebrated work, Profiles in Courage.
Can you imagine an America which possibly would never have gotten involved in two of the most tragic conflicts in US history--the Korean and Vietnam Wars, not to mention the Gulf Wars of dubious direct national strategic interest? [I'm not arguing against global intervention against Hussein--just America's predominant prosecution of them.] Can you imagine an America based more of libertarian principles than FDR's morally hazardous, economically ruinous positive liberty policies that not only failed to resolve social problems, but perpetuated them and a major reason why this country is now $15T in debt?
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Old Siam, Sir"
