The Journal of Idiocracy

Give Them Internets IRL

2012-02-24T16:54:00.002-06:00

College isn't all research and paper writing; on occasion it's actually quite a bit of fun . . .

A few days ago in a course surveying U.S. Hate and Extremist Groups the professor mentions that every year in August some White Nationalists and Ayran Nation members meet outside of Springfield, MO for a big'ol hate festival.

Dr. Hamilton: Would any of you be interested in seeing this for the educational value?

After no one really responds . . .

Me: I'd do it for the lulz, man.

Suddenly, an otherwise quite classroom bursts into laughter . . .

PRO TIP: Give undergraduates some internet speak IRL, and they'll go nuts.

Unrau's Indians of Kansas: Considering the Origin and Transformation of Native Life

2012-02-22T15:37:00.000-06:00

Kansans recently celebrated the state's sesquicentennial, and while one hundred and fifty years may seem a long period of time for a people to inhabit a single area, the historical and social roots of many Kansans extend much deeper. This brief post will analyze the transformation of the lives of the Native Peoples of Kansas by considering (1) their historical arrival within what is now called "Kansas," (2) how their society and civilization changed over time, (3) the cause(s) of change, and (4) the native response to these changes. This post will cover these topics only very broadly, but should nonetheless assist readers in forming a more coherent picture of Native American life in Kansas from arrival in the area between approximately 11,000 and 12,000 years ago to near present day.

Forgetting the arbitrary lines which form the boundary of our state, the land and soil on which many modern workers labor has known the presence of Native Peoples for many thousands of years. The first inhabitants of what are now the Great Plains likely made their way into the territory by route of naturally occurring land bridges which formed after a minor Ice Age extending from the Rocky Mountains and into modern Canada (Unrau, 2001). The emigration of native peoples from high latitude northern areas into the lower portion of North America was largely in response to a climate-induced transition of the habitable zones of major game.

That being the case, the early occupation of Kansas by natives was not an occupation in the sense that permanent homesteads were established upon arrival, but rather in the sense that early inhabitants were following the migratory patterns of a food source [1]. Interestingly, this near constant travel allowed early native peoples to explore the land of contemporary America quite extensively. As such, the idea that North America remained a largely unexplored and desolate area until the arrival of Western nations in the 15th century was mostly a European notion.

While hunter-gathering amongst various native peoples remained a primary moving force for many years, continuing climactic shifts, particularly the Atlantic-Altithermal Interlude approximately 8,500 years ago, brought warm pacific air into the region, which encouraged the development of an environment more similar to the Kansan Plains with which readers today are most familiar. The arrival of this warm air caused a shift in the flora growth in the region, and paved the way for the development of societies which could rely primarily on farming and agriculture for sustenance (Unrau, 2001). From approximately 1,000 to 1450 AD, native peoples in the territory began to establish a more permanent residence, relying more heavily upon agriculture development than in centuries past.

The importance of agricultural development during this period should not be taken lightly. Whereas the Paleo and Archaic peoples relied extensively upon the hunting of game and gathering of available flora, these new native peoples, the Plains Woodland Village Farmers, gained immensely in the area of leisure insofar as their food source no longer required extensive amounts of time to obtain (Ibid).

Having not to worry as much about food production as in the past, the new method of subsistence farming provided native peoples with the time and resources to explore technological, religious and social development. It is within this period we find what is no less than a literal boom in the complexity of native life from sophisticated tool development, evidence of communal burial sites, the development of trade networks reaching as far south as modern Mexico, and the planting of complimentary crops including corn, beans and squash (Mactavish, 2012, January 25)[2]. For all intents and purposes the later Western account of these peoples as "savages" is highly inaccurate and shamefully biased. The natives living in modern Kansas during this period where a vast and thriving peoples with some tribes numbering 1,200 individuals by 1601 and others nearing 5,000 (Oñate)[3].

While relatively undisturbed for many thousands of years, the first Western groups to encounter native peoples were the Spanish. After conquering much of South America in search of riches, religious converts and national glory, the Spanish turned any eye toward the vast uncharted lands of North America. As early as the 15th century, various Spanish explorers traveled through the lower parts of the what is now the United States reaching as far East as modern day South Carolina.

However, Kansans will be most familiar with the explorer Francisco Vásquez de Coronado who in 1541 set off in search of the mythical seven cities of Cibola, crossing the border into modern Kansas in June of 1541 near what is now Liberal, KS (Mactavish, 2012, January 25)[4]. The pursuit of Spanish exploration was not so much to explore the land for the sake of adventure (though, certainly there is some credence to this notion). Instead, Spanish exploration centered primarily around the prospect of discovering wealth and creating powerful trade networks with native peoples whom they had learned about from their activities in the region near modern Mexico. Hitherto, Western influence amongst the Plains Indians was relatively sporadic, but despite having found no source of immense wealth in gold, the Spanish nonetheless recognized the area as being very similar to the climate in Spain, but with an abundance of large game (bison) which would have great value in the fur trade. For that reason, the Spanish began to seek beneficial and friendly relations with various tribes, trading alcohol, gunpowder, weapons and various technologies in exchange for fur. Unfortunately for the natives of Kansas, the Spanish also traded a variety of diseases which the native immune system was unprepared to combat with great success. Contact with the Spanish brought not just weapons and alcohol, but quite literally death (Unrau, 2001). The relationship was also disconcerting insofar as native peoples did not have a sense of capitalist (private) ownership, nor the highly individualized nature of Western culture. In many ways, the native peoples of Kansas lived communally (and with great success) solving issues between tribes via means other than outright warfare over what was perceived to be territory not owned by a single group [5].

But Spanish influence would not reign in this region for long, as by the 17th century the French had made their way into the territory; intent on expanding their own fur trade with native peoples [6]. Although the Spanish were arguably not entirely cruel (but certainly coercive at times), the French demanded even less of natives. In fact, Unrau (2001) demonstrates the French managed to push-out Spanish influence (and simultaneously create tension between natives and the Spanish), by providing the tribes of Kansas with better trade agreements, including better alcohol and firearms. Unfortunately, the British had also begun to trade with Indians during this period, and the fierce trade style between the three larger nations carried over into the tribes of Kansan Indians to such an extent that hostilities began to grow amongst native peoples. Unrau writes:

Worse, warfare broke out between the Kansas and Osages in the late 1790s over what they viewed as the cutthroat practices of all traders, regardless of their European background or affiliation. (40)

From first contact until this point, the native population of Kansas had been exposed to and become reliant upon the aggressive trade practices of European nations. Unfortunately, this was not to be the worst of it, as concerns the change style of Native American life in Kansas.

After a long period of trade degradation on account of French, Spanish and British warfare across the Atlantic, the United States had formed a desire for Westward expansion. In 1800, Napoleon sold a vast tract of land (including modern Kansas) to the United States in what is called the Louisiana Purchase. With French and Spanish trade at an all time low and the area relatively unexplored by members of the newly formed country, it became the basic goal of the United States to expand into and settle the newly acquired lands, as well as to build and maintain a positive trade relationship with the American Indians living in within this area (Unrau, 2001) [7].

Unfortunately, the worst of westward expansion was not to be heralded by the French or Spanish invaders of early years. With an eye toward manifest destiny and a promise to bring Americans untold riches in a vast new land, the United States became the sorriest abuser of native peoples in this region in history.

During the period of the great American expansion, native peoples in Kansas were, by and large, coerced into giving up traditional lands and encouraged to seek assimilation into "modern" society. It might have been enough for some natives simply to resist the onslaught of expansion, but in reality the prospect was relatively improbable. As Unrau (2001) has shown, the culmination of harsh trade practices, a dependence upon foreign technology, rising group tensions and decreased populations on account of exposure to disease left a number of native peoples at a clear disadvantage. For many, the prospect of obtaining a "reservation" with annual allotments of cash of varying size seemed a clear way to maintain what little land/culture had not already been affected by Western practices:

In 1808, it will be recalled, the Osages ceded nearly all their lands in Missouri and Arkansas, thus forcing them into future Kansas and Oklahoma. That treaty also provided that the government factory at Fort Osage would operate for their benefit. The total abandonment of the factory system in 1822, however, led to a second treaty with Osages that same year, resulting in their trade being turned back to the private entrepreneurs. At the same time pressure was mounting for the Kansas to make room for the emigrant tribes. (51)

In many respects, native peoples, not just in Kansas but in the United States as a whole, were effectively caught in a Catch-22 with little room to make decisions without a certain degree of obvious coercion. Unfortunately, these pressures led many tribes and native groups to make decisions which were not in the best long-term interests of their people.

Although a native response was difficult (and led to warring with the United States on a number of occasions), not all is lost for the Native Peoples of Kansas. Many years following the misguided, coercive and sometimes broken treaties, a resurgent interest in reclaiming Native American culture has found a strong grassroots support structure from the inhabitants of modern Kansas. There is also, as Unrau (2001) notes, an enlivened sense of shared histories developing amongst various native groups.

While this post has covered a significant amount of ground in only a few pages, it should be at least somewhat clear that native peoples migrated to and inhabited the lower parts of North American thousands of years before even the rise of the Roman empire, and that throughout this time a great deal of technological and sociological advancement was made in terms of food production, population growth and social interactions. It was not until the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century and their exposure to foreign trade practices and disease that we see a marked downfall in the stability of native life. This is especially evident when we consider how quickly the degradation occurred. In many ways it is both tragic and terrifying that native peoples could lose historical homelands, massive amounts of their population and cultural symbols developed over thousands of years in a matter of only several hundred.

References

Mactavish, B. (2012, January 25). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Oñate (1601). "Expedition to the North, 1601." Southwest Cross Roads. Retrieved February 7, 2012.

Unrau, W. E. (2001). Indians of Kansas: The Euro-American Invasion and Conquest of Indian Kansas. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Historical Society.

Aspirin Cures Computer Viruses

2012-02-21T20:14:00.000-06:00

A majority of computer users agree: viruses are bad. You know, like really bad. They hijack our beloved machines, spread our sensitive data across the web, and expose bank accounts and retirement plans to nefarious characters both abroad and at home. Most importantly, however, they seriously disrupt our ability to play Angry Birds or Stumble through the Cheezburger Network (let's not imagine what would happen if access to Facebook were cut off).

Now, I don't know about you, but that sort of displeases me. A great deal, in fact. But what am I to do? I haven't the wicked-awesome hax0r skills to mitigate this shit before it happens, and I really dislike having to pay $10,000 per year for an anti-virus subscription which seems only to slow down my entire machine and send emails from my friends to the local spam folder. MOTHERF**KER - I COULDN'T EVEN INSTALL ZOMBE'S FLY MOD ON MINECRAFT THE OTHER NIGHT!1! You know why? Norton kept deleting the damned file and giving me some flack about it being a "security risk." Horseshit.

It's seems that your average non-skilled computer user (viz. ~l33t h4xor) is in a bit of a Catch-22. It works like this:

If I surf the net for wicked awesomeness and use the Facebooks, my shit is going to get a virus and explode and/or vomit lag onto my desk. Life is bad, and now I can't run the software I wanted to buy (I'm looking at you Sims Medieval).

To avoid this, I purchase expensive, super-fantastic anti-virus protection with firewall shit I'll never use; ultra deep-web email attachment scanning functionality; and a wicked-sweet complementary Yahoo search bar. Life is good, but now I can't afford the shit I wanted to buy (I'm looking at you Amazon Instant Videos).

Unfortunately, we're not finished. While the wicked-awesome anti-virus keeps the rig clean as my whistle, it also causes the machine to explode/vomit lag onto my desk. Life is bad, destruction is ever present, and I still can't buy the shit I want (I'm looking at you Spotify Premium).

You see what I'm getting at here? Life is bad no matter what I do. So what do I do? What do we do!?!?

Fortunately, Foster Friess, "a top donor to a Rick Santorum-aligned super PAC," had a brilliant idea (Johnson, 2012, February 17). Apparently, women have this sort of problem too. But with babies and health-related issues. In order to solve the reproductive/health conundrum, Friess recalls an era of simplicity (analogous to our era of virus-free computing on windows 3.1 or some shit):

This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly. (Ibid)

No bullshit. This dude is a literal edifice of wisdom. Honestly, he's like some giant-golden-multi-windowed-super-baby-jesus-man. Dude has honestly solved both our problems with one witticism: aspirin between the legs keeps chicks from getting spaghetti-saucy. Why should the same not hold true for computer users? There's no reason for it, so without further dilly-dallying, here are the instructions for preventing the development of an explosion and/or projectile vomiting lag-factory via the Friess Theorem:

Installation Instructions For Laptop/Notebook/Netbook Users -

Place a single aspirin upon the keyboard of your laptop/notebook/netbook. Center of keyboard is preferred, but not required. (The science is out on whether location impacts efficiency)
Softly close the lid.
Set machine aside.

Installation Instructions For Desktop Users -

Place a single aspirin upon the keyboard of your desktop machine. Center of keyboard is preferred, but not required. (The science is out on whether location impacts efficiency)
Rest your computer monitor on top of the aspirin.
Set to side.

Perfection. The problem of epic lag/viruses has been solved, and ladies don't have to worry about getting babies and shit. It's been a good day.

* * *

So . . . after thinking about this for the better part of thirteen seconds, it occurred to me that if we do the aspirin anti-virus protection thing, we shan't be able to use our computers, which is sort of an enormous buzzkill. Not only that, but the aspirin thing is equally bad for women, as it deprives them of medicine used in the treatment of various conditions and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

As it turns out, you can't always address your needs by stuffing aspirin between your legs. Cuss.

Reference

Johnson, L. (2012, February 17). Foster Friess, Rick Santorum Super PAC Backer, Talks Contraception. The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 21, 2012.

Rick Santorum, Robert Heinlein . . . and Porn

2012-02-20T20:29:00.000-06:00

It's a truism that one ought to consider a candidate's position on "the issues" before voting. So . . . HIDE YO PRON and have a look at what Rick Santorum thinks:

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture.

For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail. ("Enforcing laws against illegal pornography")

lulz - I can't help but wonder if he's still mad about that whole "Santorum" thing . . . [NSFW]

On a more serious note, reading this brought a poignant Robert Heinlein quote to mind, and I think we would benefit in pondering it:

The churches had a thousand rationalizations to prove that their nosey-parker interference was necessary for the welfare of all. For example, Brown must be stopped from peddling pornography, because, if he does, he will harm the purchaser, Smith. But note that Smith is to be saved from harm for the good of Smith's soul, as defined by the churches. Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but in every case you will find at the end the churches attempting to use the state to coerce the citizen into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading the citizen to accept without coercion. Whenever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a powerful underworld which will seize the local government, and frequently, through control of local political machines, seize state and national governments as well. (2003)

References

"Enforcing laws against illegal pornography." (n.d.). Rick Santorum for President. Retrieved February 20, 2012.

Heinlein, R. (2003). For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
*This was written originally in 1938 but remained unpublished until after Heinlein's death.

Are Corporate Taxes Bad For Consumers?

2012-02-10T16:59:00.001-06:00

A recent letter to the Topeka Capital-Journal, brought up a point which I hear expressed more often than not. The author writes:

Take, for example, Washington’s recent effort to raise energy prices by increasing taxes on U.S. oil and gas companies.

Policies such as this are simply another tax on the public because energy costs directly influence the price of everyday goods. Everything from a hamburger to a pair of shoes will cost more for families in Kansas. I simply don’t understand how our leaders expect America’s businesses to be competitive or our communities to prosper under these circumstances. (2012, February 9)

PRO TIP: If you believe in free market principles, the author's assertion is false.

Now, I realize this variety of thinking is not only contagious, but seemingly filled with "common sense." Unfortunately, it cannot be true if we accept free market principles and the framework which ensures the fair/competitive behavior of for-profit organizations.

Here's why the assertion is flawed: If organizations/corporations pass the taxes incurred on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices, those organizations/corporations will necessarily harm their consumer appeal. In other words, if you pass a tax along to consumers (which you are welcome to do), your customer base will inevitably seek out a competitor who offers a lower price on whatever good/service is desired.

Such behavior would necessarily harm the interests of the organization, which is to produce an income which exceeds operational/production costs. (no customers = no income)

The only way in which such behavior could be possible without degrading a customer base is to remove the need for competition. This could be achieved by "price fixing," but as I'm sure many of you know, that is illegal.

To Sum It Up: assuming the rational self-interest of corporations obtains, taxes do not affect the price of consumer goods: supply and demand does. It is in the best interest of the organization/corporation to either absorb the cost of the tax or find a way to offset it without increasing the price of goods/services.

Just Sayin' . . .

2012-01-31T20:02:00.000-06:00

I'm always a little amazed when the teleprompter "issue" comes up. Seriously? We're still doing that?

Gov. Scott Walker Recall: Democrats Submit One Million Signatures

2012-01-17T15:47:00.001-06:00

According to The Washington Post, Democrats in Wisconsin have submitted over a million recall petitions against Governor Scott Walker (Weiner, 2012, January 17). If you're keeping track, that's nearly 500,000 more than required to force a recall; which should give Democrats a bunch of wiggle room should some signatories be deemed ineligible.

But all that aside, here is what I find really interesting: Walker's 2010 victory of 52.25% over Barrett brought out only 1,128,941 Republican supporters ("2010 Fall General"). While 128,941 is still a great deal, that's essentially the group of people the recall will be fought over. Whether or not Democrats will be able to increase the independent vote in its favor or shave moderates off the Republican side is still up for grabs, but at least one thing is for sure: this is going to be an exceedingly interesting and lively recall.

Get your popcorn!

References

"2010 Fall General Election Results Summary - Post-Recount [PDF]." (2010, December 1). Madison, WI: Government Accountability Board.

Weiner, R. (2012, January 17). Over a million signatures filed to force recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The Washington Post.

Achievements and Weaknesses: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan

2012-01-12T19:00:00.000-06:00

From conception through modern times, the office of the Presidency has come to symbolize a variety of American values. For some members of our polity, the President is the de facto leader of the American people, despite Constitutional limitations. For others, he is our representative abroad, director of the Armed Forces, and for others still he is the man who turns his eye not to wealth and power, but to those who suffer in poverty.

Whatever the Presidency may or may not be for the American people, Lyndon B. Johnson rightly observed while speaking to a long-time friend and advisor 1960 that “The presidency, is a man.” (Busby, 2005, p. 47). The Presidency, despite what we may be drawn to think at times, is still the endeavor of an imperfect soul. From George Washington to Barack Obama, the history of the American Presidency has been fraught with both moments of supreme greatness and times of tribulation. Presidents are men, and as such, the Presidency experiences both strengths and weaknesses. This brief post will catalog some of the more extraordinary achievements and weaknesses of modern Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, James E. “Jimmy” Carter and Ronald W. Reagan.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

(1933 - 1945)

Among political scientists and historians, Franklin Roosevelt is often ranked alongside Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as one of our country’s most influential and impactful leaders (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). While leadership may often rely to some degree on innate factors, it is more often crisis situations which draw powerful leaders into their greatest moments. From his inauguration in 1933 until resignation in 1945, FDR, our country, and the world, was beset with catastrophe. FDR had to deal simultaneously with the single greatest economic meltdown in U.S. history to that date (and even now), as well as the looming threat of Nazism and a direct attack on American soil by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in 1941. In order to restore American hope and push back the forces of foreign invaders which threatened our liberty and the liberty of our allies, FDR, pushed for and obtained some of the greatest and most expansive social/economic programs proposed in the history of the United States.

In order to restore faith in the American government and ourselves, Roosevelt is to be remembered for having created and implemented: Social Security, which ensured disabled and elderly Americans would not have to worry about their financial future should they become faced with unfortunate circumstances; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which ensured that Americans would not lose their life savings if banks failed; and he provided economic grants to cities across the country (primarily in the South) so that new roads, schools, housing, infrastructure and hospitals could be built (Hamilton, 2011, October 11). This influx of federal money served to accomplish two memorable goals for FDR. Firstly, it put unemployed men to work. It provided them with a decent paycheck and the ability to feed their families. Secondly, the newly paid workers were now free to consume those items they felt necessary, which further stimulated the economy. These policies, taken together, are generally seen as having reduced unemployment from 30% in 1932 to 16% in 1938. Overall, historical economists agree that New Deal policies shortened the Great Depression (Whaples, 1995).

If FDR has any weaknesses, they are to be found in his handling of the War effort. However, it was not his behavior abroad which was cause for concern. Rather, it was policy at home which harms his historical stature. Believing that Japanese Americans may be cause for concern, FDR issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed local government/military leaders to imprison, without habeas corpus, Japanese members of our society. His reasoning, I conjecture, was similar to Lincoln’s imprisonment of some 20,000 Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. FDR likely feared the Empire of Japan would use Japanese-Americans to undermine the war effort. While FDR may be forgiven for being a victim of the beliefs of his time, forgetting the unlawful imprisonment of citizens based solely upon ethnic association must not be allowed to pass into our history without apology, recognition, and education.

John F. Kennedy

(1961 - 1963)

John F. Kennedy’s Presidency was cut tragically short in 1963, but it was not without its profound moments. Aside from supporting Civil Rights legislation – which would be passed under Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and 1965 – the plan to send Americans to the Moon, and strong use of The Peace Corps to introduce greater assistance in 3rd and 4th world countries, Kennedy’s greatest achievement was the avoidance of destroying all human life on planet Earth with his extraordinary handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1963. He is also responsible for working closely with Russian leader Khrushchev to eliminate the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

Although Kennedy’s time was cut short, there is at least one weakness which may be attributed to his presidency: secrecy as concerns abusive behavior towards women. Although it is not likely that Kennedy beat women, as “abusive behavior” might connotation, it is certain that he was unfaithful. While this has little bearing on his ability to perform well as President, such things have an effect upon the symbolic nature of the Presidency as concerns the understanding of the President’s role as moral leader in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Lyndon B. Johnson

(1963 - 1969)

Lyndon Johnson was a staunch admirer of FDR, and certainly considered the former President a close friend and hero. As such, Johnson carried much of Roosevelt’s New Deal progressivism with him into office (Busby, 2012). Johnson did not see the presidency as an office which merely executed the law, but rather as a position which required activism on behalf of the people. Even today, his greatest accomplishments can be seen at work in our nation. This reverberation is tied directly to his status as a master legislator. While in office, Johnson managed to propose and see passed over three hundred pieces of legislation (Hamilton, 2011, October 21). That legislation included: student aid, transportation, public housing, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, and Affirmative Action (Ibid). No president before or since has matched his legislative success.

Indeed, Johnson was an active president, and one who took his job quite seriously. However, and true to his own observation, the President is still a man. Johnson’s greatest weakness (viz. failure) was his policy in Vietnam. Not only did Johnson lie to the American people about Vietnamese aggression, he pursued a war effort which was both inhumane (viz. napalm carpet bombing) and devastating to the social order at home. This was true to such an extent that race riots and massive anti-war protests broke out across the United States. Devastated that his "imperial presidency" had caused more harm than good, and no doubt feeling as though he betrayed FDR, Johnson refused to run for reelection in 1968. While he administered and ushered in a great era of social change, he will likely continue to be remembered by many in the next several generations as the man who instigated America’s first lost war.

Richard M. Nixon

(1969 - 1974)

Nixon, like Johnson, was also a strong leader and utilized the powers of the imperial presidency. Even to his own demise as evidenced in the Watergate scandal. But also like Johnson, Nixon oversaw several powerful legislative measures, one of which has been almost consistently under attack by the Republican Party for the past twenty years: the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the achievements as concerns the EPA, Nixon supported the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and signed the associated act into law when presented with it (Hamilton, 2011, October 21). For all of Nixon’s achievements, his behavior as concerns the Watergate scandal is a great weakness, and it is a weakness which may have damaged the office of the presidency. Historian C. Vann Woodward writes:

Heretofore, no president has been proved to be the chief coordinator of the crime and misdemeanor charged against his own administration as a deliberate course of conduct or plan. Heretofore, no president has been held to be the chief personal beneficiary of misconduct in his administration or of measures taken to destroy or cover up evidence of it. Heretofore, the malfeasance and misdemeanor have had no confessed ideological purpose, no constitutionally subversive ends. Heretofore, no president has been accused of extensively subverting and secretly using established government to defame or discredit political opponents and critics, to obstruct justice, to conceal misconduct and protect criminals, or to deprive citizens of their rights and liberties. Heretofore, no president has been accused of creating secret investigative units to engage in covert and unlawful activities against private citizens and their rights. (as cited in Pfiffner 2011, p.236)

The issues Woodward addresses are expansive but related. In each case, it may be argued that the President failed to fulfill his oath in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII. In doing so, Nixon caused harm to the office of the presidency. He resigned his position August 9, 1974 before impeachment proceedings began.

James E. Carter

(1977 - 1981)

While the country was still recovering from the abuses of power perpetrated under Nixon, James “Jimmy” Carter was elected. While perhaps not always remembered for obtaining great legislative success, Carter was nonetheless the 3rd most legislatively successful president after Wilson and Johnson (Hamilton, 2011). Until the expiration of his term in 1980, Carter nearly doubled the amount of protected wilderness in the United States, established a coastal park off the shore of North Carolina, passed the Civil Service Reform Act, and began the buildup of cruise missiles which Reagan would later both exacerbate and reduce (Ibid.). While Carter was not an overtly or outwardly powerful man, he was quite successful with the legislature on account of his extensive experience as a member of Congress and the relationships he built with others (Bell, et al., 2008). For the most part, Carter is remembered not so much for his outstanding policy work – though it was obviously beneficial – but rather for his good nature, finalization of diplomatic relations with China, and the reframing of Cold War behavior by refocusing nuclear weapons on strategic Russian locations and away from civilian areas.

As we have seen with other Presidents, weaknesses have come primarily from policy decisions – FDRs internment camps, Johnson’s Vietnam policy, Kennedy’s secrecy, and Nixon’s disregard for the law. Carter’s weakness, however, was perhaps more unexpected. Following the Watergate scandal, and Nixon’s general dislike for the media, major news sources, for the first time, had become openly hostile toward the Office of The President. Carter’s weakness comes from his inability to anticipate this change and adapt to it accordingly. Although he improved this relationship in his last two years, relations certainly could have better – relations which would no doubt have seriously impacted the public perception of his presidency as being productive and beneficial.

Ronald W. Reagan

(1981 - 1989)

Finally, we arrive at the presidency of Ronald Reagan. As Reagan is still fresh in the minds of many Americans, it should come as no surprise that he is still viewed with a certain degree of mythology and contempt. Nonetheless, there are several policy areas where Reagan was quite successful. Firstly, Reagan solidified and empowered the voting coalition Nixon managed to grab from southern Democrats while Johnson was in office. This bolstering of support, coupled with extremely high name recognition, enabled the Republican Party to reassert its dominance by winning the presidency consecutively, gaining seats in the Congress and supporting a resurgence of Republican Governors and Republican-run state governments (Hamilton, 2011). Reagan was also successful insofar as negative media attention was generally rebuffed and silenced. Chris Hamilton, professor of political science at Washburn University, notes this may have been accomplished on account of Reagan’s “grandfatherly” attitude (Ibid).

In addition to these alterations, Reagan experienced great success in reducing the number of nuclear arms around the world with his Arms Reduction Treaties in the late 1980s. While not directly responsible for the fall of communism in Russia, it is hardly arguable that he did not have significant impact on creating a safer, less nuclear world (Ibid). We all are better-off for it.

Unfortunately, while Reagan’s foreign policy issues may have been excellent as concerns the reduction of nuclear arms around the world, his greatest weakness comes to us in the form of the Iran-Contra affair. Pfiffner (2011) writes:

There was no doubt about what the law prohibited; there had been a high-level public debate over aid to the contras throughout the 1980s, and the administration had not been able to convince a majority of the Congress that continued military aid to the Contras in 1985 was essential to U.S. security. (238)

Despite the wishes of Congress, Reagan aids and Lt. Colonel Oliver North devised a way to obtain money for funding by selling arms to Iran. In any case, it is very difficult to argue that Reagan did not willfully and knowingly obstruct the will of the Congress and degrade the balance of power in our Constitutional system. Ultimately, and as with many presidents, Reagan’s administration was fraught with both moments of masterful statesmanship and periods of poor decision making.

* * *

While exceedingly brief in discussion, this post has drawn out at least several of the major strengths and weaknesses the modern presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, James E. “Jimmy” Carter and Ronald, W. Reagan exhibited. Some are greater than others, but we cannot deny that each has contributed immensely to the evolution of the Executive Office, its impact on foreign/domestic policy, and the ways by which the American voter relates to it. For better or worse, each of these men has left their mark on our country, and future Presidents will likely look to them for guidance in time of need. Let us hope that attention is given to their weaknesses, and an effort made to avoid repeating history’s mistakes.

References

Bell, L.C., Conners, J, and Sheckels, T. (2008). Perspectives on Political Communication: A Case Approach. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Busby, H. (2005). The Thirty-first of March: An Intimate Portrait of Lyndon Johnson's Final Days in Office. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hamilton, C. (2011). Presidential Records [PDF]. Topeka: Washburn University

Hamilton, C. (2011, October 11). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Hamilton, C. (2011, October 21). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Milkis, S. M and Nelson, M. (2012). The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-2011. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency. Boston: Wadsworth.

Whaples, R. (1995). Where is There Consensus among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions. The Journal of Economic History, 55(1).

Bellamy’s Allegory of Capitalism

2012-01-06T18:23:00.000-06:00

Looking Backward: From 2000 to 1887

(Reading Selection)

By way of attempting to give the reader some general impression of the way people lived together in those days, and especially of the relations of the rich and poor to one another, perhaps I cannot do better than to compare society as it then was to a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsomely along a very hilly and sandy road. The driver was hunger, and permitted no lagging, though the pace was necessarily very slow. Despite the difficulty of drawing the coach at all along so hard a road, the top was covered with passengers who never got down, even at the steepest ascents. These seats on top were very breezy and comfortable. Well up out of the dust, their occupants could enjoy the scenery at their leisure, or critically discuss the merits of the straining team. Naturally such places were in great demand and the competition for them was keen, every one seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat on the coach for himself and to leave it to his child after him. By the rule of the coach a man could leave his seat to whom he wished, but on the other hand there were so many accidents by which it might at any time be wholly lost. For all that they were so easy, the seats were very insecure, and at every sudden jolt of the coach persons were slipping out of them and falling to the ground, where they were instantly compelled to take hold of the rope and help to drag the coach on which they had before ridden so pleasantly. It was naturally regarded as a terrible misfortune to lose one's seat, and the apprehension that this might happen to them or their friends was a constant cloud upon the happiness of those who rode.

But did they think only of themselves? you ask. Was not their very luxury rendered intolerable to them by comparison with the lot of their brothers and sisters in the harness, and the knowledge that their own weight added to their toil? Had they no compassion for fellow beings from whom fortune only distinguished them? Oh, yes; commiseration was frequently expressed by those who rode for those who had to pull the coach, especially when the vehicle came to a bad place in the road, as it was constantly doing, or to a particularly steep hill. At such times, the desperate straining of the team, their agonized leaping and plunging under the pitiless lashing of hunger, the many who fainted at the rope and were trampled in the mire, made a very distressing spectacle, which often called forth highly creditable displays of feeling on the top of the coach. At such times the passengers would call down encouragingly to the toilers of the rope, exhorting them to patience, and holding out hopes of possible compensation in another world for the hardness of their lot, while others contributed to buy salves and liniments for the crippled and injured. It was agreed that it was a great pity that the coach should be so hard to pull, and there was a sense of general relief when the specially bad piece of road was gotten over. This relief was not, indeed, wholly on account of the team, for there was always some danger at these bad places of a general overturn in which all would lose their seats.

It must in truth be admitted that the main effect of the spectacle of the misery of the toilers at the rope was to enhance the passengers' sense of the value of their seats upon the coach, and to cause them to hold on to them more desperately than before. If the passengers could only have felt assured that neither they nor their friends would ever fall from the top, it is probable that, beyond contributing to the funds for liniments and bandages, they would have troubled themselves extremely little about those who dragged the coach.

I am well aware that this will appear to the men and women of the twentieth century as incredible inhumanity, but there are two facts, both very curious, which partly explain it. In the first place, it was firmly and sincerely believed that there was no other way in which Society could get along, except the many pulled at the rope and the few rode, and not only this, but that no very radical improvement even was possible, either in the harness, the coach, the roadway, or the distribution of the toil. It had always been as it was, and it always would be so. It was a pity, but it could not be helped, and philosophy forbade wasting compassion on what was beyond remedy.

The other fact is yet more curious, consisting in a singular hallucination which those on the top of the coach generally shared, that they were not exactly like their brothers and sisters who pulled at the rope, but of finer clay, in some way belonging to a higher order of beings who might justly expect to be drawn. This seems unaccountable, but, as I once rode on this very, coach and shared that very hallucination, I ought to be believed. The strangest thing about the hallucination was that those who had but just climbed up from the ground, before they had outgrown the marks of the rope upon their hands, began to fall under its influence. As for those whose parents and grand-parents before them had been so fortunate as to keep their seats on the top, the conviction they cherished of the essential difference between their sort of humanity and the common article was absolute. The effect of such a delusion in moderating fellow feeling for the sufferings of the mass of men into a distant and philosophical compassion is obvious. To it I refer as the only extenuation I can offer for the indifference which, at the period I write of, marked my own attitude toward the misery of my brothers.

If you're interested in reading Bellamy's book, you may find a free version courtesy of the University of Virginia here. If you would rather read this on a kindle, try this free version.Happy reading, and feel free to share your thoughts in the section below!

Miguel de Unamuno Quote

2012-01-02T21:42:00.000-06:00

de Unamuno (1864-1936) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist. This quotation is taken from his work Tragic Sense Of Life

For if a man should tell you that he does not defraud or cuckold his best friend because he fears hellfire, you may depend upon it that he would not do so even if he stopped believing in hell, but would instead invent some other excuse for not transgressing. And this is to the honor of the human race.

Quick Reference: National Security and Foreign Policy Approach (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and G.W. Bush)

2011-12-30T16:57:00.000-06:00

Of the powers available to a President, none are more powerful than his command of foreign policy. While Article II may be vague as concerns domestic issues, his position as commander and chief compiled with the ability to make treaties with other nations (with the approval of 2/3 the Senate) is significant. But they were not always significant; in fact, much of the foreign policy Presidents enjoy today is the result of precedent set by other Presidents. George Washington no doubt set the grandest precedent of all when the United States became “the first nation to receive an emissary from the new Republic of France,” ambassador Edmond Genet (Milkis & Nelson, 2012, 83). This moment is important because it set the stage for how the United States was to involve itself with other nations around the world, and also provided that Presidents, without the express consent of Congress, could receive foreign heads of state (and in essence thereby recognize a foreign nation).

Since then, and with the development of the party system, foreign policy has been essentially divided into two fundamental camps: isolationism and internationalism. Isolationism is the position “defined by a general desire that the government avoid any ties or entanglements with other countries, whatever the relationship.” (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1987, p. 1108). Internationalism, on the other hand, is essentially the opposite position: that the United States ought to be concerned and involved with the affairs other nations. In general, the latter view has been the position of the United States throughout history, from our involvement in the War of 1812 through the World Wars, but each presidency approaches the role of the United States abroad somewhat differently. Consider President Barack Obama’s foreign policy statement:

President Obama has committed himself and his Administration from the beginning of his presidency to a foreign policy that ensures the safety of the American people. But he also refuses the false division between our values and our security; the United States can be true to our values and ideals while also protecting the American people. We will use all elements of American power to achieve objectives, and consult closely with the Congress so that our policies may have the broad and bipartisan support that makes them most effective. Finally, while there are instances and individuals who can be met only by force, the United States will be prepared to listen to and talk with our adversaries in order to advance our interests. (“Foreign Policy,” 2011)

With that statement in mind, let us consider the foreign policy perspectives of various modern Presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and G. W. Bush. In doing so, it should be possible to highlight the development of foreign policy power from one President to the next, and see how they differ from one another.

Eisenhower

By the time Eisenhower took office the Cold War was beginning. For that reason, it was necessary for a President, who had no doubt had his fill of war, to ensure a buildup sufficient enough to deter other nations from attacking the United States. On the one hand, the buildup would not have to be extreme, as the United States had and recently used the world’s first nuclear weapon. However, relying solely upon nuclear weapons as a deterrent was dangerous business, and Soviet buildups occurred almost in proportion to our own reserves.

If anything is to be said of President Eisenhower, it is that he was not an isolationist. While he may have opposed progressive (domestic) policy at home, he worked quite hard to open a dialog with the growing power of the soviet union and Khrushchev – at one point even proposing the two nations allow an “Open Skies” initiative, which would allow both nations to utilize air surveillance to monitor military buildup (“American President: A Reference Resource,” n.d.).

Eisenhower’s major policy positions include: maintaining a productive economy while allowing for buildup as deterrence against the Soviet Union, avoid overt aggression with reliance upon nuclear weapons as a major deterrent, and utilize intelligence gathering and align with other governments (Ibid.). Overall, Eisenhower’s use of the powers of the presidency (as developed during Roosevelt’s presidency) are fairly limited, though we do see an expansion of intelligence gathering, including the use of newly developed satellite technology such as CORONA (“Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-61,” 2008, July). In this regard, Eisenhower deserves credit as significantly expanding the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as a force in the world. This was an interesting expansion because it allowed the President to engage in covert military action without utilizing the military, and thereby decreasing the need to inform the Congress. Later Presidents would also claim an executive privilege as to information obtained from individuals investigated by the agency, and their use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Kennedy

While Eisenhower certainly had his hands full with the Soviet Union, he never had quite the difficulty Kennedy experienced in October of 1962. During this period, the Soviet Union and United States had continued in their arms race, but after the United States moved weapons into Turkey (a strategic location), the Soviets feared they might have come too close. As such, the Soviets dispatched nuclear weapons to Cuba in order to ensure a formal deterrent. Unfortunately, however, it seems that Field Castro had persuaded some leaders in the Soviet Army to give him control over several weapons.

Kennedy, fearing the Soviet move in Cuba would involve an attack, did two things in response: (1) he informed the media that he intended to use the United States military to arrange a blockade to prevent the shipment of missiles (which, in fact, were already there) and (2) privately intended to invade Cuba. As the situation grew direr, it became clear to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that a nuclear war could and most likely would break-out if something did not change.

Ultimately, nuclear war was avoided, but only after Khrushchev managed to make a radio broadcast with literally only minutes to spare, informing Kennedy that nuclear weapons would be removed from Cuba. The United States Navy, which was near invading Cuba, turned around and came home (McNamara & Blight, n.d.).

The foreign policy of Kennedy drives home the exceedingly important position Presidents play in the world around us – and sometimes without our true understanding. The immediate results were the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the extreme buildup and sale of weapons worldwide (not just nuclear). Although catastrophe had been avoided, it did not end the Cold War – it simply reshaped it. The situation also scared the Congress quite a bit, which led to a sort of strengthening of its own power as concerns military oversight; however, the fuller development of these powers would not come to fruition until the Johnson Presidency.

Johnson

While the Cold War was still very much alive, Johnson had involved the United States more fully in a war in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was never actually declared by the Congress, so in many respects it stood out as an example of Presidential power pushed to the maximum. Although our force started out somewhat small, by 1967 the quota had reached 500,000 men (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). As the Congress had not declared war, many naturally began questioning the power of the President to persist in the endeavor. The State Department stated:

There can be no question in present circumstances of the President’s authority to commit U.S. forces to the defense of South Vietnam. The grant of authority to the President in Article 2 of the Constitution extends to the actions of the United States currently undertaken in Vietnam. (Ibid, 347)

The Johnson Administration was expressing what has become known as the imperial presidency in political science. This position grows out of the idea that the President is the sole arbiter of military action as described in Article II of the constitution. However, it is often argued that Presidents do not have the ability to declare war, only to make war. James Madison declared as much during debates over the formation of the Constitution:

That the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature, that the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right with the Constitution had deemed requisite or proper . . . [for the President]. (Pfiffner, 2011, 188).

Alexander Hamilton, a strong supporter of a powerful executive, writes in Federalist No. 69:

It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as the first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. (Ibid, 189)

There is little doubt what the Framers intended here, and Johnson, alongside other Presidents have in no short order claimed powers for their office which are simply not afforded by the constitution. Under Johnson, the president became the de facto declarer of war.

Nixon

Nixon also utilized the imperial presidency, but not to the extent to which Johnson had deployed it. In many respects, Nixon is often remembered for being the President who “lost” the Vietnam war, while his foreign policy achievements go unnoticed. Perhaps most interestingly, Nixon implemented a “madman” strategy in order to keep enemies of the United States confused as to just what our policy moves would be (“Foreign Affairs,” n.d.). What is truly amazing about Nixon’s foreign policy is his extremely tactful use of the carrot and stick approach. While certainly an outstanding policy President himself, he enjoyed the advice and counsel of Henry Kissinger, who was, and is, known for brilliance in matters of foreign relation.

Nixon also realized that in order to threaten the Soviet Union (and bring the arms race to a halt), it was in the nation’s best interest to make friends with countries which – though ideologically opposed – might also threaten the Soviet Union directly or otherwise. In order to keep the Soviets from becoming too worried (and launching nuclear missiles at us), Nixon behaved strangely toward them to such an extent that they were never sure exactly what he might do. in other words, the Soviet Union was afraid he might launch weapons at them.

Nixon also deserves outstanding credit for creating a viable trade market with China (which now produces a significant amount of the items American’s consume). It is also a source of export for the United States. In the end, Nixon did not so much expand Presidential powers as concerns the foreign policy President, but he certainly deepened the degree to which they could be utilized to the advantage of the United States.

Carter

Where other Presidents boldly led with military action and “madman” philosophies, President Jimmy Carter is perhaps best known as the humanitarian President. As President, he relinquished control of the Panama Canal, gained peace in the middle east via the Camp David Accords, and implemented the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II), which sought to reduce the production of nuclear arms. Unfortunately, the United States Senate never ratified the treaty; however, both nations abided by its rules nonetheless. Despite the United State’s failure to ratify the treaty, Carter pressed on in his dedication to peace, and redefined the U.S.'s policy role in the world:

For too many years, we’ve been willing to adopt the flawed and erroneous principles and tactics of our adversaries, sometimes abandoning our own values for theirs. We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water. This approach failed, with Vietnam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty. But through failure we have now found our way back to our own principles and values, and we have regained our lost confidence. (Carter, 1977)

In the eyes of Carter, the United States must not be just a military force, it must be a force for peace, and throughout his administration he sought just that. Perhaps his most notable (or remembered) foreign policy accomplishment involves gaining peace in the middle east via the Camp David Accords. Under the accords (briefly), Israel agreed to withdraw troops from Sinai if Egypt would agree to diplomatic relations. The peace treaty still exists today, with the U.S. government providing continued subsidies (“Background Note: Egypt,” 2010, November 10). While tensions in the middle east are still quite high, the accomplishment is unprecedented. Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for this achievement.

Reagan

The Cold War was not to end until Reagan came to The White House. In general, he is often given credit by the American people for bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the credit is misplaced. As political scientist Chris Hamilton notes, the real accessories to its fall are Poland, the Pope and Jimmy Carter (though to a lesser extent for the tertiary). Nonetheless, Reagan’s foreign policy will always be associated with this historical event.

Notwithstanding, Reagan did make great strides late in his presidency in terms of reducing the number of nuclear arms present in the world. Interestingly, political scientists often discuss Presidents in terms of having “two presidencies:” those which serve constituents and those which serve the nation. Reagan appears to have had two additional ones: those who escalate nuclear arm buildups, and those who reduce them significantly (Hamilton, 2011, November 2).

During the early stages of the Reagan administration, the President pushed the false idea that the Soviet Union had become militarily superior. Using this information, he convinced the Congress to invest in a massive $2 trillion buildup, and he proposed the development of at least two strange weapons of mass destruction – the neutron bomb and star wars. Ultimately, this degraded the United State’s image abroad, as a number of countries began viewing us as a nation filled with people who feared so much, they were willing to create weapons found – to this point – only in science fiction novels.

Ultimately, however, Reagan saw the film The day After and apparently had a change of heart concerning nuclear proliferation (Ibid). The threat of a nuclear holocaust scared the nation and Reagan significantly, and in 1986, Reagan met with Soviet leader Gorbachev to discuss the reduction of nuclear arms held between the two. By 1987, both nations had agreed upon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which required the “destruction of the Parties’ ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.” (“Treaty,” 1987).

Finally, he Iran Contra-Affairs caused some difficulties in foreign policy relations for Reagan, although not abroad. In general, the Reagan Administration was accused of bypassing an embargo which the Congress had implemented which strictly forbade the sale of arms to Iran. While disturbing of itself, the behavior drove home the point that Congressional oversight was still needed in order to ensure the Executive Branch did not lapse into a “unitary executive” position and straightforwardly violate the express position of the American people in order to gain in the realm of foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Iran-Contra affair was exactly the type of behavior Jimmy Carter was addressing in his Notre Dame Commencement Speech.

G. W. Bush

The final President under consideration here is George W. Bush. Perhaps more so than any President since Lyndon Johnson, the Bush administration pushed the idea of the “Unitary Executive” to its most extreme position yet. Not soon after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration took a variety of steps to escalate the “war on terror,” and in doing so developed and expanded Presidential power to a degree heretofore not seen. In arguing that aggressive interrogation was necessary, the administration invalidated the Geneva Convention, and was accused by Congress of usurping its power “To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,” as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution (Pfiffner, 2011, 246).

The Congress further accused the Bush administration of usurping its power when they suspended writ of habeas corpus for detainees. The complaint here was not so much that it was not afforded to prisoners of war, but rather that Article II (the Executive Branch) has no power to do so. The language describing when such an event may occur is found within Article I, thus giving Congress the authority to decide the matter (Ibid).

As a sort of final note, the Bush Administration is also accused of using Signing Statements to decide which provisions of law it will or will not follow. For many, this is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which provides that any law passed by the Congress is the law of the land, and that the Executive will:

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Section 8)

The Bush administration argued the Congress was not permitted to legislate as concerns a unitary executive branch, and that, in essence, the President is free to do whatever he wishes, so long as it serves the greater good of the nation – e.g. defending against terrorist attacks or pursing terrorism at-large. When compared alongside the development of power under other Presidents, none comes even close to the expansion experienced under George W. Bush

References

“American President: A Reference Resource.” (n.d.). University of Virginia Miller Center.

“Background Note: Egypt.” (2010, November 10). U.S. Department of State.

Carter, J. (1977). “Human Rights and Foreign Policy.” [Commencement Speech]. Notre Dame University.

“Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-61.” (2008, July). Central intelligence Agency.

“Foreign affairs.” (n.d.). Public Broadcasting Station.

“Foreign Policy.” (2011). The White House.

Hamilton, C. (2011, November 2). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (1987, December). “How Are Foreign policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model.” The American Political Science Review, 84(4): 1099-1120.

McNamara, R. S. & Blight, J. G. (n.d.) The Miracle of October: Lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis
[Unpublished].

Milkis, S. M and Nelson, M. (2012). The American Presidency: Origins & Development, 1776-2011 (6th ed). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency (6th ed). Boston: Wadsworth.

“Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.” (1987). U.S. Department of State.

Tucker, B. N. (Ed.). (2005). Dangerous Strait: The U.S. – Taiwan-China Crisis. West Sussex, England: Colombia University Press

The Kansas State Constitution

2011-12-29T20:50:00.001-06:00

Recently I've been reading through The Kansas State Constitution by Francis Heller for a bit of insight and direction as concerns my graduate thesis, and I have to say: if you've any interest in Kansas history, its constitutional development, and curious legal issues over the years, this is an excellent resource. As the book is fairly expensive, I recommend trying to find a copy of it at your local library in place of buying the thing.

Happy Learning!

Robert Heinlein Quote

2011-12-29T00:56:00.000-06:00

The churches had a thousand rationalizations to prove that their nosey-parker interference was necessary for the welfare of all. For example, Brown must be stopped from peddling pornography, because, if he does, he will harm the purchaser, Smith. But note that Smith is to be saved from harm for the good of Smith's soul, as defined by the churches. Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but in every case you will find at the end the churches attempting to use the state to coerce the citizen into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading the citizen to accept without coercion. Whenever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a powerful underworld which will seize the local government, and frequently, through control of local political machines, seize state and national governments as well. - For Us, The living: A Comedy of Customs

Book Sample: For Us, The Living - A Comedy of Customs (Robert A. Heinlein)

2011-12-26T22:06:00.002-06:00

I'm a huge fan of science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, and seeing as how I have a few weeks of freedom before it's time to return to the world of thesis statements and coursework, I took up reading For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs (Kindle). Although it was originally written in 1938 - making it his first novel - the book was not published until 2003.

For fans, this is an excellent opportunity to view the germ of what would later become some of Heinlein's most thought provoking ideas. For readers who haven't yet encountered Heinlein, here is an excellent opportunity do to so!

As such, please enjoy the following selection.

_______________________

Context: Our protagonist, Perry, has recently found himself transported from the year 1939 to the year 2086. As social customs have changed significantly, it is necessary for him to take up a study of the history which has filled the intervening years. In this scene, Perry is speaking with an historian by the name of Cathcart about a major war and its consequences. The female character, Diana, is Perry's rescuer, caretaker and love interest. The men are having this conversation in what is perhaps best described as her living room.

_______________________

"Five out of six of the heads of the leading international banks were killed in the raid on Manhattan, not to mention the destruction of a large part of the records of the financial dealings that had started the trouble. And of course, hundreds of the small fry in the banking racket. With the ring leaders gone Congress listened to the people of the country who had never wanted a war in the first place. An armistice was declared in 2004 February. The terms of the peace included moratoria on international obligations which was a polite word for cancellation, and established a Pan-American export-import bank to provide for resumption of trade on what amounted to a cash and carry basis."

"Anything else?"

"That was about all. The destruction of Manhattan was checked off against the raid on Rio and Buenos Aires. But the most important result was the twenty-seventh amendment."

"That's the war referendum amendment, isn't it?"

"Yes. Did the records tell you how it works?"

"Well, I gathered that it was an arrangement whereby the people had to vote on it before war could be declared."

'That is true as far as it goes. In effect the amendment states that, except in case of invasion of the United States, Congress shall not have the power to declare war without submitting the matter to a referendum. The article sketches out briefly the machinery for holding the referendum and sets a time limit in which to accomplish it. But the most amusing feature is the provision saying who shall vote in the matter."

"Doesn't everybody?"

"No, only those persons who vote are eligible for military duty."

"Aren't women permitted to vote?"

"Yes and no. If the current laws make women eligible for combat duty, they vote. If not, they don't vote."

Perry whistled. "I'll bet that caused an uproar."

Cathcart grinned as if savoring the joke. "It certainly did. Militant feminists screamed and frothed at the mouth. Then it was pointed out to them that the proposed amendment made no mention of sex and that they could, if they chose, make women eligible by including them for military service in the implementing bill."

"But that isn't practical."

"On the contrary. As a matter of fact the law did include women for a number of years. Women can be used in the place of men in practically all military positions. Not as effectively in many of them, but they have been used many times. Your military history should have told you that."

"I guess you're right. Yes, I'd forgotten the Battalion of Death. And they make very good pilots of course."

"At the present time a limited class of women are eligible for service and would consequently vote on a war question."

"But see here. It seems to me that it is unfair to leave it in the hands of those who are eligible to go into the service. If there is any one thing I've learned from history I've studied today it is that war affects everybody in the country, that it can kill off an entire population. Why we knew that even in my day."

"What you say is true. But the non-combatants don't expect to be killed - not seriously. In the A.-B.-C. war if those bankers who were killed in the raid on Manhattan had expected to be bombed and gassed, there wouldn't have been any war. But they didn't. They thought the war would be fought far away by the professionals. No, the great mass of civilians never see war as anything personal to themselves, unless it is brought home to each on that he, John, will have to fight in person. That is why nations used to declare war so easily and then be forced to use conscription to fight the war. The country wants to go to war. Oh surely, 'John Brown's Body.' 'Make the World Safe for Democracy.' 'Britons never will be slaves.' But if the war is more than a skirmish you have to draft men to fight it. With all due respect to you, Diana, women were worse than men about it. It's always possible to get women stirred up to war fever. Half of the men who do volunteer in a war instead of waiting to be conscripted, do so because some woman who thinks it's glorious and romantic is urging them or shaming them into it. In peace time women are emotional pacifists, but when the band starts to play, they are much more easily stampeded than men. What's on your mind, son? You look thoughtful."

"I was thinking of an organization that used to give me the cold shivers, the Gold Star Mothers. They were formed after the World War and a woman had to have had a son killed in the war to be eligible. They had meetings and officers and conventions and national presidents and so forth, just like a lodge. It made my flesh crawl."

Diana interposed. "But, perry, I should think such an organization could be a powerful force for good."

"It could have been, but it wasn't. If they had devoted themselves to making another war impossible, it would have been fine. But it was just another lodge, just another woman's club. But let's get back to the subject. I'd rather forget it."

Cathcart resumed his discourse. "I haven't told you about the neatest feature of the amendment. As we have said, only those who could fight could vote. Those who voted to declare war automatically enlisted for the duration of the war. The ballot even told them where to report the next morning. Those who didn't vote were the next draft, and those who voted no the last draft."

Perry looked puzzled and slightly annoyed, "But that puts a premium on cowardice, doesn't it? If war is declared, they should all have to take the same chances. If I had my way, I would just reverse the scheme."

"Don't be hasty, Perry. Stop and think. Is it a premium on cowardice? Perhaps it is. But isn't it just as likely to be a premium on common judgment? Perhaps the war isn't worth fighting. I've studied history all my life and I can remember but two or three wars that seemed to me to be worth fighting, and I have my doubts about those. In any case, if a man takes the responsibility of voting to plunge a country into a situation that may destroy it and is bound to kill and maim a lot of citizens, shouldn't he have to accept the consequences of his decision by being in the first line of fighting? There is a stern justice about it. Under this rule no man could cast a vote that would send a fellow human being out to face poisonous gas and shots and burning rays without being ready to stand alongside him and suffer the same fate."

"but see here, in a democratic country, we are all in the same boat. Why shouldn't everybody have to defend the country alike?"

"Your reasoning is sound, Perry, but it doesn't apply to the case. You have forgotten that if the United States is invaded, no referendum is necessary. The be exact if any part of the North American continent is invaded, or if a fleet approaches our home waters with evident hostile intent, Congress can act without consulting the people. The referendum applies to situations such as the First World War, or the Spanish-American War or the War of 1812 or the A.-B.-C. War. As a matter of fact the President has ample power to act, even without the consent of Congress, to repel invasion or to succor our nationals abroad. No, the purpose of this amendment is to permit the people to decide for themselves whether or not an incident or series of incidents constitutes sufficient reason for them to want to go outside our own country and fight someone else. Of course the munitions makers didn't like it nor a lot of the financiers and industrialists, but it was democratic and reasonable and the people voted it in anyhow, once they understood it. But the munitions makers fought it tooth and toenail and eventually cooked their own goose in the process."

"How?"

"At the next session of Congress there was the usual bill introduced to take over the entire arms industry and make it a government monopoly. But this time the munitions men were in bad repute and Congress passed it."

Perry laughed. "Served 'em jolly well right, didn't it? But seriously, while this scheme seems to fit modern conditions, I don't believe it would have worked in my day."

Cathcart's shaggy brows lifted. "Why not?"

"Too cumbersome. It would take weeks to get ready for the election and weeks more to be sure of the count. By that time the whole strategic situation could have changed and lost us the war, if we went into it."

"I think you overrate the difficulties, Perry. I believe that I know your period as well as an historian can for I have made a special study of it. If Congress was debating a war resolution, wouldn't everybody in the country know about it? The President habitually spoke to the country by radiotelephony, correct? So if he were to address the country announcing the outcome of the congressional vote and calling for a war referendum, everybody would be listening, would they not?"

"Ninety-nine per cent or better."

"Very well then. Calling the election is easy. How soon could it be held? No need to wait for the people to inform themselves and consider the merits; if the situation is actually grave, they will have been following it for weeks and probably have made up their minds long before Congress acts. The next question is how long would it take to do the physical acts necessary to conduct a balloting? Everybody in the country of voting age knew or could find out very quickly the location of his usual precinct election polls. And each of those polling places had official designated at the last regular election. Printing the ballots would be fairly simple, there being but one point to vote on, or they could be kept printed at all times, and let the name of the enemy be written in or assumed. Counting the ballots in each precinct would be a simple matter as well, twenty minutes at the most. The only new technique would be in collecting the returns. Tell me, there were telegram dispatching bureaus all over the country, were there not?"

"Oh yes, probably one within ten minutes of every polling place. I begin to see your point."

"Then let telegraph clerk in the country be considered a special election official. With a reasonably efficient system of intermediate clearing and tabulating, the final figures should be in the President's hands within an hour after closing the polls. "

Perry nodded his head. "Yes, that is feasible, entirely feasible. You made me feel rather stupid that I couldn't see it."

"You needn't feel so. I have simply described with a few minor changes some of the provisions of the original implementing act. You had adequate and sufficiently rapid communication in your day. All that was needed was the decision to use them. As a matter of fact the method has worked practically perfectly since it was adopted."

"It has been used, then?"

"Three times since it was adopted. Each time the people rejected war and each time, in my opinion, history has justified them. And so the United States has not committed suicide. Yet in each case you may take it for granted that Congress would have plunged us into war. The simple fact is that it called the referenda indicated that. You made another point, however, the point about the strategic necessity for a quick decision. This arrangement no only lost no time, valuable in strategy, but actually gained time."

"How do you figure that?"

"Because the first draft is mobilized the day after war is declared. That saves at least six weeks over all previous methods of conscripting an army. Furthermore adequate preparations could be made in peace time to provide fully for such an arming that prudence indicated could be undertaken without fear that arming itself would lead us into war. It was a means whereby a peaceful, non-imperialistic, civilian-minded people could be fully prepared for any possible war."

Perry nodded his head vigorously. "It certainly sounds like a foolproof scheme. I admire the professional features about it quite as much as the political. I'm glad you pointed them out. There were a lot of peace plans afoot in my day, but I didn't have much use for any I ever heard about. Most of them seemed to be based on the notion that the United States being unarmed and untrained would keep us out of war. I've read some history, and I was convinced that it was the one sure way to get into a war."

"I believe you are right, Perry. Of course there is one objection to the referendum plan that was made by a number of people."

"It appeared in many different forms, but it always boiled down to the same thing. A contention that the people didn't know what was good for them and were too stupid to be trusted with so much power. It amounts to a total disbelief in the democratic form of government. Strangely enough it came from the very groups who are the loudest in their protests of affection for the American form of government, and 'Americanism' whatever that is, if it is not democracy. The people who made this objection were schoolteachers, preachers, officers of veterans and patriotic organizations, professional demagogues et cetera. Interestingly enough the army and navy did not oppose the scheme, even though they were denied the right to vote in the referendum."

"I'm pleased to hear that but not surprised. The professional military man is the last to believe any romantic nonsense about war, even though he may be calloused to it." (Heinlein, 2004, 85-94

Thanks for reading, and be sure to buy the damned book! It only gets better!

Reference

Heinlein, R. (2004). For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

“Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom," Presidential Biography Review

2011-12-26T17:19:00.001-06:00

Community Contribution:

In this post I will review the Presidential Biography Roosevelt: The Solider of Freedom by James MacGregor Burns. Thomas E. Cronin, in his article "On The American Presidency: A Conversation with James MacGregor Burns" Presidential Studies Quarterly, Summer of 1986, interviews Burns as Burns prepares to retire from teaching after forty years. In Cronin’s foreword to the interview he states: "Burns has been one of the most prolific writers on the American Presidency. His biographies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Kennedys have won wide acclaim" (Cronin, T.E. 1986: 528). I too, have nothing but praise for Mr. Burns in his writing of Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom. Burns knowledge of President Roosevelt and of the office of the presidency is supreme. Others agree; according to Amazon.com: “In 1971, Burns received the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for history for his biography of America's 32nd president, Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, 1940-1945". The man behind the book is as much an intellectual leader as the man the book is written about. Burns leads his viewer to a large extent like Roosevelt led America in the 1930’s and 1940’s. To quote Burns during an interview with Professor George R Goethels, Jepson School of Leadership Studies, Burns says: “Leadership is follower-ship and follower-ship is Leadership." Roosevelt followed American lives, joys and hardships and in return America followed him. I followed Burns through this book, and what I learned from him will follow me throughout my life.

James MacGregor Burns was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts and graduated from Lexington High School in 1935. He attended Williams College in Williamstown and graduated in 1939. From there he earned his PhD at Harvard. Burns returned to Williams as a political scientist to teach, become an authority on leadership studies, and to write (Cronin, T.E. 1986: 528). And write he did. Burns other contributions to the literary world have been: Leadership (2010), Government by the People (2009), Transforming Leadership (2004), George Washington (2004), Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court (2010), The Three Roosevelt’s: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America (2002), State and Local Politics: Government by the People (2011), and many, many others.

As mentioned above, due to his diligent research and study, Burns is an authority on leadership studies. He discusses in his leadership books the difference between what he calls "transactional" and "transforming" leadership. Scott London in his book review on Burns' book Leadership describes Burns’ analysis on the subject. According to London, Burns states that transactional leadership takes place when "one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things" such as when a public official promises something in return for votes. In contrast, there is a moral aspect to transforming leadership. Burns states it is when "one or more persons engage with each other in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality." Although the leader originally wanted personal recognition, he or she turns to a collective purpose by listening, acknowledging and attending to his or her followers (Ibid).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a leader in both meanings of Burns leadership definitions. He promised a better America if he was elected, and although he did like recognition, he listened to what people had to say about what and how he was doing and if needed he would change directions. I will attempt to summarize this book, mentioning a few details I found interesting, but unfortunately due to page and time constraint, I will have to leave out many other significant factors of Roosevelt's life and presidency.

Burns begins Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, on election night November 5, 1940. Burns states: “It was a moment of enormous relief for Roosevelt” (Burns, J.M. 1970: 3). Roosevelt, after worrying about his chances of remaining president had been re-elected. Burns continues in the prologue with a brief look at Roosevelt’s time before the forties: his marriage to Eleanor, his love affair with Lucy Mercer, and the United States non-involvement in the war. America had been denying pleas from Britain for destroyers and only offering moral support to France. However, on December 16, 1941, Roosevelt uncovered his new plan for aid to countries such as Britain. “Lend-Lease” was developed in which the United States could send weapons and other military aid without charge to help Britain in the war, and after the war was over the aid could be repaid in kind, although it was doubtful that Britain could re-pay what America would loan to them, and if they did, the repayment of military items would be useless for the United States. To get people on board with his program Roosevelt gave an analogy that common folk could understand:

Suppose my neighbor’s home catches on fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now what do I do? I don’t say to him before that operation, ’Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it.’ What is the transaction that goes on? I don’t want $15. - I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right. If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for the use of it (Burns, J.M. 1970:26).

With this aid program, Roosevelt felt that America’s involvement with the war would be limited. He claimed to the American people “there is a far less chance of the United States getting into war, if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:28). The Lend-Lease program now rested in the hands of the people for approval and funding. Roosevelt had to make amendments to the program for congressional approval, such as a limitation of the period he could authorize agreements and giving up presidential discretion over appropriations. The bill was passed somewhat easily in the House, and strongly fought against in the senate, but eventually was approved with revisions. Although Roosevelt kept claiming that the United States would not become involved in the war, he had played a crucial card in the dangerous poker game soon to be called World War II.

The White House was a charming place for visitors under Roosevelt’s reign as well as was the master of the house. Modestly decorated it appeared to members of the staff and others that “there was an air of small town friendliness” (Burns, J.M. 1970:59). Eleanor was busy in social welfare and liberal politics and in addition to her role as first lady she served as a very special presidential aide. Other aides were important and indispensable to Roosevelt. Harry Hopkins lived in the White House and beside Eleanor, was Roosevelt's closest aide. Roosevelt was so convinced of Hopkins abilities that he put Hopkins in charge of Lend-Lease in April 1941.

Although technically not "involved" directly in the war, Washington and London were sometimes divided on how to run the strategy. When the British wanted America to stage naval demonstrations in the East Atlantic to show strength, Washington was hesitant for fear that it would antagonize other countries. Internally Washington was divided as well. Roosevelt wanted to proceed much slower than many felt he should have, which led people close to the administration questioning the leadership of Roosevelt. They were mistaken to question his leadership. As Burns states: "Roosevelt would lead - but not by more than a step" (Burns, J.M. 1970:66). Roosevelt's concern over public opinion and its "rapidly shifting optimism and pessimism" kept him cautious in his proceedings in the war. He had to convince his administration and the public that the "war would be won...not by one sea fight" but by keeping the "main existence of the main defense of the democracies going" (Burns, J.M. 1970:66). Roosevelt had to keep the scales of optimism and pessimism balanced and his method of accomplishing this was to proceed slow and calculated.

Hitler, was an uncompromising force Roosevelt had to deal with during his presidency. Claiming Hitler to be an “enigma” Roosevelt kept a close eye on the man. Burns states: “Roosevelt followed Hitler’s chess moves with deepening anxiety” (Burns, J.M. 1970:64). In return, Hitler felt that "Roosevelt was simply crazy...he behaved like a 'tortuous, pettifogging Jew' because there was Jewish blood in his veins, and the 'completely negroid appearance of his wife showed that she too was half-caste'" (Burns, J.M. 1970:68). Hitler's power in Europe was astonishing and Britain was worried that they too would succumb to his forces. In England's attempt to have the United States more involved in their fight against Hitler it was Churchill's main policy "keeping Roosevelt informed and sympathetic" (Burns, J.M. 1970:73). Although Churchill and Roosevelt had not personally met, they had already developed a diplomatic friendship.

In addition to British pleas for help, other countries such as China and Russia were constantly asking Roosevelt for aid to fight the Japanese and Germans. The amount of aid to be given to these countries was always an issue. Roosevelt was bound by neutrality agreements that precluded the United States from offering help, and the State Department did not want to divert weapons from Britain. When needed, the President created a work-around to assist other countries. In order to provide more help to China, Roosevelt promised it would be eligible under Lend-Lease for weapons and he also signed an unpublicized executive order in April 1941 that allowed American airmen to resign from their posts and form a volunteer "civilian" group in China to help the Chinese fight (Burns, J.M. 1970:83). While the President had mixed feelings about the Kremlin and its policies, he ignored the neutrality act against them and provided them aid by allowing them to stay open for American shipping (Burns, J.M. 1970:103).

In domestic arenas during 1941, Roosevelt had, like all Presidents, to deal with interest groups. The National Negro Council wanted to abolish discrimination in all Federal Agencies by executive order (Burns, J.M. 1970:123). They threatened that if this order was not signed thousands of blacks would march into Washington, which would provide a negative image of the national unity Roosevelt was trying to portray. Roosevelt was afraid that an executive order would "set back the progress which is being made in the Army at least, towards better opportunities and less segregation" (Burns, J.M. 1970:124). Roosevelt tried every compromise he could think of, but eventually gave in and signed an order that labor unions were "to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in defense industries, without discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin" (Burns, J.M. 1970:124). This is one time of many, Roosevelt had to face the discrimination of black people.

The first meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill took place in August of 1941, not only to discuss the war, but also to discuss the roles of both countries post-war. Under the guise of an extended fishing trip with advisors and friends, Roosevelt sailed to the coast of Newfoundland (Burns, J.M 1970:126). On board the two ships Augusta and the Prince of Wales, the Atlantic Charter was formed which set forth guidelines and goals for the two countries to work together after the war. Roosevelt was not comfortable about this document, because to discuss post-war meant that there had to be a "war" first (as of this time the United States was still officially on the side-lines), and this alliance between Britain and the United States could be seen as a threat to countries such as Japan and Germany. Burns reveals that Roosevelt told Adolf A. Berle, a U.S. Diplomat and member of Roosevelt's administration, in June of 1941, "I have not the slightest objection toward your trying your hand at an outline of the post-war picture...But for Heaven's sake don't ever let the columnists hear of it" (Burns, J.M. 1970:129). Roosevelt remained cautious with the United States involvement in the war. Burns states "He was waiting on events to propel the nation toward full intervention in the Atlantic" (Burns, J.M. 1970:104). Intervention began with the invitation from Iceland for United States occupation. It was at this point Burns felt Roosevelt crossed the line between staying out of the war and aiding Britain by joining in the war (Burns, J.M. 1970:105). For Roosevelt more intervention was on the horizon.

It appears that Japan did see the charter as a threat, for during the summer of 1941, it was discovered that they had begun making plans to strike Brittan and the United States. Roosevelt kept his usual stance of keeping talks open with Japan, playing for time to try to diffuse any explosive situation with the country. But he did let everyone know that although America would not strike first, if provoked it would respond. The provocation came not from Japan, but from Hitler in the form of a German torpedo attack on the American destroyer Greer. Burns claims: "At last Roosevelt had his incident" and continues "shots had been exchanged in anger, and Roosevelt felt that here was his chance to dramatize the Nazi menace that he had long been picturing" (Burns, J.M. 1970:139). And dramatize he did. In his fireside chat he let the Americans know that "The time for active defense is now" and protecting the United States was his job as President (Burns, J.M. 1970:141). He was ordering the navy to "shoot on sight" to protect America and her citizens.

The war continued to escalate, and Roosevelt continued to delay the United States involvement. But on October 16, 1941, the USS Kearny south of Iceland was struck by a German torpedo killing eleven of her crew. Roosevelt was livid. He claimed "America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearney is not just a Navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman, and child in this Nation" (Burns, J.M. 1970:147). Even though Roosevelt was upset about the Greer and Kearney incidents and had called his Nation to their battle stations, he was still hesitant to commit the United States to the war. As Burns states: "now he could only wait on events" to happen to justify further involvement in the war (Burns, J.M. 1970:149). Roosevelt was waiting on Hitler to make a deadly move, miscalculating the other lethal force that was preparing to attack.

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, while hundreds of American service men slept and relaxed, the Japanese made the fatal move that threw the United States into the war; the bombing of Pearl Harbor. According to Burns, Roosevelt had made a "massive miscalculation as to where the Japanese would strike first" (Burns, J.M. 1970:160). Roosevelt had assumed that Japan would follow Hitler's method of conquering smaller countries to begin with. With the news of the bombing Roosevelt felt a heavy burden was lifted as it stood clear what America's next move would be. Across the ocean, Churchill was overjoyed; now he had the United States not merely backing Britain, but fighting alongside her. On December 8, 1941, Roosevelt stood in front of congress with the appeal "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire” (Burns, J.M. 1970:167). After 33 minutes of debate in Congress, the United States officially joined World War II (Burns, J.M. 1970:171).

Christmas in 1941 was solemn at the White House; no children or grandchildren being present. Roosevelt's sons James and Elliott were shipped off to war leaving Eleanor in tears. Churchill spent Christmas at the White House, and he and Roosevelt plotted war strategies throughout Christmas night. The two countries had differences as to how long to prepare and where to strike. Churchill wanted a North African invasion but Roosevelt felt that the Americans taking over North Ireland at this point in time would be more beneficial, freeing up British units to go elsewhere. Another problem was what would be the command, and who would be the commander, over Middle-Eastern forces. Roosevelt suggested a British commander Archibald Wavell, which left many in Britain worried about a "British scapegoat." However, trusting Roosevelt and his staff, Churchill agreed with the appointment (Burns, J.M. 1970:182).

On January 6, 1942 during his state of the union address, Roosevelt laid out what was seen as impossible goals for war production. Burns commented that Roosevelt realized the tremendous weight he was putting on the nation by saying to Congress: "I realize this is a terrific directive" (Burns, J.M. 1970:191). Terrific is an understatement. Roosevelt knew supplies for war production needed to be stepped up and so he demanded:

"to increase our production rate of airplanes so rapidly that this year, 1942 we shall produce 60,000 planes...next year, 1943, we shall produce 125,000 airplanes, including 100,000 combat planes" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190). He continued, "to increase our production of tanks so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 25,000 tanks; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 75,000 tanks" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190).

And his demands did not end there: "to increase our production rate of anti-aircraft guns so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 20,000 of them; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 35,000 anti-aircraft guns" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190) and finally, "to increase our production rate of merchant ships so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall build 6,000,000 dead-weight tons...and continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall build 10,000,000 tons of shipping" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190). To accommodate these goals Roosevelt created the War Production Board to oversee the production and set in on labor disputes to keep peace among laborers and their bosses.

There were, as Burns called it, “The Endless Battlefields” (Burns, J.M. 1970:198). The Philippines, a commonwealth that Roosevelt had "promised independence" was a battlefield to be lost, although Roosevelt with the direct help of General Douglas MacArthur was able to save its President. There were battlefields at home as well; people loss confidence in Roosevelt within three months after the war began. To help ease the strain, Roosevelt announced an upcoming fireside chat in which he wanted all Americans to have in front of them a world map. Burns states: "He asked his listeners to take out their maps and follow with him the references to the world-encircling battlelines of war" (Burns, J.M. 1970:212). Roosevelt's intention was good to include the American citizens in the some of the strategies of the war, and the response to his message was favorable, but his plan backfired a bit. During the speech a Japanese submarine was sighted off the coast of Santa Barbara firing a few shells, but not causing any serious damage. This as Burns noted taught Roosevelt "never again to announce his speeches more than two or three days ahead of time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:213). This proved to be too much time to give the enemy notice that the President was going to address the nation.

According to Burns “one of the sorriest episodes in American history” had occurred at this time (Burns, J.M. 1970:213). Due to fear and suspicion from many California residents and others in Congress, Roosevelt had ordered the Japanese-Americans to leave their homes on the West Coast and report to concentration camps to be watched and guarded. In the Pacific, Japan was basically conducting the same strategy; it appeared they were attempting to control the United States by trying to enter America through Hawaii. Roosevelt wrote to MacArthur, “It looks, at this moment, as if the Japanese Fleet is heading toward the Aleutian Islands or Midway and Hawaii” (Burns, J.M. 1970:226). It was true, Japan attacked Midway, but MacArthur and his troops prevailed and the battle at Midway was won by the Americans. This was enormous victory by the United States, but as Burns commented: “Roosevelt did not exaggerate its effect” (Burns, J.M. 1970:226). America’s Commander-in-Chief was well aware of what was ahead.

The time had come for the United States and Britain to address Russia and their request for a second-front to help with the battle of Germany. In an attempt to keep Stalin and the Russian government somewhat an ally, Roosevelt agreed to a second-front 1942. Therein lies what Burns calls “the fateful pledge” (Burns, J.M. 1970:234). Roosevelt had his reasons for his promise, one being guilt that the United States had not been able to fulfill Russia’s requests for munitions because America put Britain’s need first. In addition, Britain’s need became justification for postponing the second-front as Burns states: “Every ship shifted to England...brought the second front closer to realization and that the second front would be stronger is the first front still stood” (Burns, J.M. 1970:234). Roosevelt may have promised a second-front in 1942, but Britain did not. Churchill told Russia that a second-front would be more plausible in 1943, after an African invasion could be made to fight opposing forces there. Roosevelt finally gave into British pressure that an African landing would be more beneficial at the time than a second-front tactic in the Soviet Union. Stalin was furious: “I state most emphatically that the Soviet Government cannot tolerate the Second Front in Europe being postponed till 1943” (Burns, J.M. 1970:237). In lieu of a second front, Roosevelt was determined to keep peace with Russia and demanded that the munitions promised to Russia was kept up. The agencies listened and by midsummer 1942 military deliveries to Russia were catching up.

In the summer of 1942, there became a prospect more frightening than Russia being taken over by the Nazis. There was fear that Germany may be building the atomic bomb, and this fear led to the United States to take control of the joint atomic project with Britain, a program that was begun years before, in order to develop the bomb before Germany. The President ordered the Army to undertake the project hence, The Manhattan Engineering District was created in August 1942.

Late in the summer of 1942, Roosevelt went out visiting the country on a two week trip trying to keep it as unpublicized as possible. He visited the Chrysler Tank Arsenal in Detroit and the Willow Run bomber plant with Henry and Edsel Ford. He inspected Naval training stations, the Boeing plant in Seattle and managed to spend a little time with his children and grandchildren. He visited the Higgins Navy Yard in New Orleans and reviewed infantry divisions at Fort Jackson. In his recap to the American people about his trip he made the observation that the war dominated everything. Burns speaks of this observation: “People were singing ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition...Theater marquees featured Remember Pearl Harbor, Flying Tigers...and Sergeant’s Flea Powder showed ‘Old Sarge’ exclaiming ‘Sighted flea-killed same’” (Burns, J.M. 1970:271). The trip was good for Roosevelt and showed his popularity still remained high with the public.

Early November 1942, the attack Roosevelt had ordered against the advice of his military advisors, called TORCH, to invade North Africa side-by-side with Britain, was underway. This would be an attack against Germany as well as German influenced forces in France. Which country would be visible first and when the attack would take place posed problems between the United States and Britain. Roosevelt wanted to have American forces show up first and he wanted to be the one to talk to the French after the landing. Burns notes that intelligence performed an opinion poll of French attitudes and it indicated that “the American voice most known and respected in France - that of Franklin D. Roosevelt - speak to the French just after the landing” and that an “American landing would meet less resistance than an Anglo-American invasion, because of Vichy suspicion of British imperialistic aims and memories of Anglo-French rivalry” (Burns, J.M. 1970:290). The invasion went well for the American and British troops, and in the early hours of November 8, 1942, the French people heard President Roosevelt, speaking in French, “My friends, who suffer day and night, under the crushing yoke of the Nazis, I speak to you as one who was with your Army and Navy in France in 1918...’Vive la France eternelle!” (Burns, J.M. 1970:292). France soon broke relations with the United States, and continued to suffer unrest amongst their own government.

Russia was pleased with the invasion of North Africa, however the issue of the second-front was still at hand. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to a conference to be held at Casablanca where the United States military had a large air base to discuss the two-front strategy. According to Burns Roosevelt “would be the first President to fly, the first to leave the United States in wartime, and the first since Lincoln to visit an active theater of war” (Burns, J.M. 1970:316). Although he could not visit the front, he did meet and lunch with servicemen and inspect a few military bases telling reporters he “felt closer to having tears in my eyes than any other time” knowing these men were heading to the war front (Burns, J.M. 1970:321). In Casablanca, Roosevelt had managed to make the government of France come to some sort of united agreement about their leadership, but the timeline of the two-front strategy was still up for debate. This fact made Stalin angry in which he sent a cable to both Churchill and Roosevelt after the conference stating: “I must give a most emphatic warning, in the interest of our common cause, of the grave anger with which further delay opening a second front in France is fraught...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:327). Stalin’s mood was only made worse when convoys to Russia were being postponed for possibly four or five months to help beef up the African front. Still, Hitler’s people were being stopped making Stalin smile, and remaining hopeful of a second-front involving Russia, he sent a congratulatory note to Roosevelt: “I congratulate you and the gallant U.S. and British troops on the brilliant victory...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:330). Stalin at this point would take any stopping of Nazi forces.

Back on the home-front Roosevelt was once again facing challenges regarding labor. According to Burns: “In 1943 hardly a week went by without a crises” and "As usual the President waited for a crisis before acting" (Burns, J.M. 1970:335, 342). Not only were factories producing less than a desired amount of war material, the workers wanted a pay increase. It didn’t help that John Lewis the leader of the Coal Miners Union would not cooperate with Roosevelt and was behind the miner’s revolt. When the coal miners went on strike, Roosevelt addressed the miners calling on their sympathy to not let down American soldiers - soldiers that may include their own sons. The miners went back to work temporarily only to strike again when they were denied a pay increase. Roosevelt was beginning to lose his patience with the miners and their employers and wanted his administration to “start drafting striking miners between thirty-eight and forty-five years old” (Burns, J.M. 1970:337). Miners began to return to work only to walk out again later in the year. Even after the Labor Board offered more money to workers the coal troubles stayed with Roosevelt for about another year.

In addition to problems in the coal sector, the railroads were just as troublesome. As of Christmas 1943, Roosevelt had set in on railroad labor meetings and finally, two days after Christmas, Roosevelt gave orders for the government to take over the railroads. This lasted only briefly as Roosevelt had finally mediated a deal. It is true Roosevelt would wait until the boiling point to turn down the fire, and he would be the one in charge of the flame, but by the end of 1943 things began to change in the Presidency. Although Roosevelt was still Commander in Chief, he began to let his office staff take over more responsibility for policies and agencies, a practice that is common today. As Burns states: "During World War II, indeed, the modern presidency was created" (Burns, J.M. 1970:343). Presidents from this point on would learn to use their staff, not out of weakness, but out of a need for a stronger Presidential office.

Roosevelt was a unique leader. He did not follow the principals of an orderly administration. He liked to run the show and did not mind being in the spotlight. Roosevelt was a planner, but there was a time limited for planning. He did not like to plan very far ahead. Burns points out: "Repeatedly he restrained the military from making commitments more than six months or a year ahead" (Burns, J.M. 1970:353). Roosevelt like to deal with one set of problems at a time, but to keep someone else from stepping in and creating a long-term plan that people could like that was not his idea, Roosevelt would always include minimal future planning. Despite his planning faults and unorganized administration practices, the way Roosevelt led the country during the war would continue to have impact on the lives of Americans after the war was over. Because of Roosevelt and the war, women were now a major working force. Blacks were leaving rural areas and moving into cities. Education became vast as did social welfare agencies. Unemployment dropped and income grew. Even though these were good steps for the country they created new problems such as discrimination and housing shortages in the cities, which in hindsight may have been prevented had they been given more thought to possible consequences. Burns claims: "The burning of cities in 1967 and 1968 were not wholly unrelated to steps not taken, visions not glimpsed, priorities not established, in the federal agencies of 1943 and 1944" (Burns, J.M. 1970:355). It could have been that Roosevelt and his administration could not foresee the possibility of future problems; they were happy at the time with the situation, and the war took precedent over most things.

During 1943 Roosevelt continued a bit to plan for life after the war. The President helped create the "GI Bill of Rights" for veterans after the war to become educated and trained for occupations post-war. He helped plan for post-war life for other countries as well. Roosevelt and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden from Britain spent long hours considering "who would retain what" as far as land went. Poland should have East Prussia, Austria and Hungary should be independent states, and so on. It was hoped that the United states would be in Germany when Hitler fell to help prevent anarchy, but if not it would be wise to have an agreement with Russia and to where "armies should stand" (Burns, J.M. 1970:366). The President seemed to enjoy this game of divvying up the world, but others had reservations about how his mind worked in this area. Burns notes: “There was something almost alarming in the cheerful fecklessness with which the President seemed to dispose of the fate of whole countries" (Burns, J.M. 1970:366). Although Roosevelt had the post-war world planned, he still had a formidable force to deal with in Russia especially regarding the two-front strategy. Now it appeared that a cross-channel attack would not be possible until the spring of 1944 and Roosevelt knew he and Churchill would have to tell Stalin. Roosevelt attempted a face-to-face meeting with Stalin (Roosevelt always felt that if he could meet someone face-to-face the outcome would be favorable) but Stalin eventually declined after Roosevelt's letter to him stating "Under the present plans, there should be a sufficiently large concentration of men and material in the British Isles in the spring of 1944 to permit a full-scale invasion of the continent at that time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:371). Stalin felt he had been betrayed for a long enough time and ordered his people back from Washington. At this point in the text, Burns brings up the issue of just when the cold war began. Historians have debated that it possibly was a number of events, but Burns believes: "perhaps the most determining single factor was the gap between promise and reality that widened steadily during 1942 and 1943" (Burns, J.M. 1970:374). Stalin felt that he and the country were left out in the cold to fend for themselves, leaving them with icy feeling towards the countries that abandoned them. The three commanders, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin did finally meet in November 1943 at the Russian Embassy in Teheran. After quite a bit of talk and teasing at Churchill's expense, Stalin's coldness began to thaw as Roosevelt remembered: "From that time on our relations were personal, and Stalin himself indulged in an occasional witticism. The ice was broken and we talked like men and brothers" (Burns, J.M. 1970:412). Roosevelt's charm had worked on the Kremlin’s leader; Stalin had seemed to be settled on the second front strategy and was willing to work out post-war arrangements regarding other countries and how their governments should be formed and ran.

1944 arrived as a full force election year and with it the problem of service men not in the country being able to vote. Burn states that Roosevelt asked Congress to "enact a pending administration bill that would provide quick and simple voting for federal candidates" (Burns, J.M. 1970:430). Some in Congress took this as a measure for Roosevelt to sew up the military vote and others worried that this would allow Negros to take part in an election. In the end, the Senate and House won the battle by passing a bill that barely addressed the situation and disgusted Roosevelt so much he did not sign. Other disagreements between Roosevelt and Congress broke out during this time. In order to prevent Congress from not allowing the President to aid the Jewish refugees, albeit probably in hindsight too late, he simply took steps to bring Jewish refugees for Italy to New York, then announced his plan to Congress.

In March 1944, the president's health was in question. After being convinced to have a check-up, the prognosis was not good for the President. Burns mentions the doctor's findings were grim: "Hypertension, hypertensive heart disease, cardiac failure" (Burns, J.M. 1970:449). It seems that no one in Roosevelt’s administration could bring themselves to tell Roosevelt about his condition - they didn't and Roosevelt did not ask - he simply accepted the fact that he had to take more pills and rest. And although many remarked on his appearance - he appeared more gaunt and wasted- he would still put on his gallant face and raise the voice America knew and loved. Roosevelt was not finished being president as D day had not yet come.

Across the Atlantic, Hitler and his men waited for attack. Hitler had ordered that every beach be secure against the enemy and that enemy "must be liquidated within a few hours" (Burns, J.M. 1970:474). It was hoped that the liquidation would be enough to keep Roosevelt from being reelected and put an end to Churchill as well. Hitler’s plan failed as Burns proclaims: “The Germans were not only overwhelmed; they also were deceived, outwitted, and caught flat-footed" and “Roosevelt watched with admiration" (Burns, J.M. 1970:477). Once again, as it was in the beginning of the war, differences surfaced between Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill wanted to divert some of the forces to the Balkans, but Roosevelt wanted to concentrate on Germany and was concerned over the Americans reaction to some of the military forces being used for a Europe adventure. Churchill capitulated and Roosevelt and his planners felt justified. In the Pacific MacArthur and his troops were taking over Saipan; victory for America and Britain was beginning to come into view.

Although the war was not yet won, Roosevelt was certain to run for re-election in November 1944 choosing Harry Truman as his running mate. He would accept the nomination of the Democratic Party, but gave a speech to let the delegates know how things were going to proceed: “I shall not campaign, in the usual sense, for the office. In these days of tragic sorrow, I do not consider it fitting. And, besides, in these days of global warfare, I shall not be able to find the time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:506). Roosevelt would run for office, and keeping with the Rooseveltian attitude, he would do it his way. Roosevelt's campaign carried the hope for a United Nations agency to have power to keep world peace, along with more jobs, better hospitals, highways and aide to small businesses.

Throughout the rest of Roosevelt's presidency he still encountered continual problems with Stalin, China, and his dear friend Churchill as well as questions as to what would become of Poland, and when would Japan be invaded? While the President's health was failing he still worked on war strategy. He continued to address Congress and during one speech it was noted that many of his words were slurred. Burns states: "his voice almost gave way at one point; and throughout there was a repeated tiny faltering in his emphasis, as though his mind could not sustain its grip on the speech" (Burns, J.M. 1970:582). Roosevelt was losing the war of his body. Too much had been pressed upon him, and at this point the matters he held dear such as his trust in Stalin and Russia was coming undone. Russia’s promises for post-war, especially in regard to what shall happen to Poland were changing, and to Roosevelt it was not a change for the better.

At 3:55 p.m. April 12, 1945, President Roosevelt suffered a fatal stroke while resting at Warm Springs in Georgia. The news came as grief to some; Churchill and Stalin held hands, saying nothing. In China the Generalissimo left his breakfast at the table untouched. In Germany Hitler was given the news while he was in his bunker that "My Fuhrer! I congratulate you. Roosevelt is dead" (Burns, J.M. 1970:601). As the train left Warm Springs carrying the President the world was trying to come to grips with his death. The train stopped at the White House for the President to be honored in the East Room where Lincoln was brought after his death. Later the train left on its last leg of its intended journey. On Sunday, April 15, 1945, the train finally rested at the President's home of Hyde Park, New York. Burns closes the book with a sentence that brought tears to my eyes: "The soldier was home" (Burns, J.M. 1970:612). The great man that became President and began a great legacy, had now left it for others to follow.

In conclusion, during my reading of Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom, I did not find many weaknesses and I did not discover any biases. Knowing what I do about Burns and his reputation as a scholar, and knowing that this book won a Pulitzer Prize, I would expect nothing less than the quality the book contains. The only weakness I found is that Burns often included a lot of information about other governments and what they were doing, which seemed in my opinion to take away from Roosevelt as the main subject of the book. Burns was incredibly fair when talking about President Roosevelt. He mentions personal flaws the President had, such as the love affair with Lucy Mercer and how hurt Eleanor was about the relationship. Burns pointed out errors Roosevelt had made in military planning as when he miscalculated the Japanese. Burns was not afraid to say when Roosevelt was mistaken; the Japanese internment camps disturbed Burns, and promising Russia, supplies and a second-front when Roosevelt knew he could not fulfill the pledge was in Burns’ words "fatal." Burns was quick to mention Roosevelt's love of the limelight, but I never found an instance in which Burns had nothing but respect for the President. After reading this book, I too have nothing but respect for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In addition, James MacGregor Burns is a brilliant scholar and writer; my respect for him is as vast as the amount of books he has published. My only regret is that I cannot do him justice in this post or any possible paper I write in the future. I feel that Burns probably would not care about this issue; he would just be happy that I followed his leadership, and that I will lead others as well with the information he has given me.

- Penny

List of Sources

Amazon.com. James MacGregor Burns. Retrieved from

Burns, J. M. (1970). Roosevelt: The Solider of Freedom. New York: Konecky & Konecky.

Cronin, T. E. (1986). On The American Presidency: A Conversation with James MacGregor Burns. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 16, 528-542.

James MacGregor Burns on Leadership. (Video file).

London, S. ‘Leadership’ by James MacGregor Burns – A Book Review.

Features of the Recent Institutional Presidency

2011-12-26T16:02:00.000-06:00

Constitutionally, the powers of the President are not only vague, but also very weak when compared to the powers vested in the Congress and Judicial Branch. Nonetheless, the American populace often believes the President is exceedingly powerful, highly influential and capable of inducing significant change. It seems that even candidate for the presidency believe this, and often center their campaign on ideas and programs which are, to say the least, quite infeasible. Consider for example, the rising popularity of 2012 Presidential Candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 economic plan. In simple terms, Cain’s economic plan would institute a flat tax. The idea of a flat tax appeals to a significant number of American voters on account of its seeming simplicity. In place of a complicated tax code, American families would pay a 9% individual rate, businesses would pay a 9% rate, and a federal sales tax of 9% would be instituted on all goods purchased by consumers. The plan sounds wonderful, but in reality it raises significant questions not often addressed on the campaign trail. Will consumers be paying a Federal and local/state tax for goods? Will the sudden loss of work for tax attorneys and employment giants such as H&R Block negatively impact the economy?

Regardless of the answer to these few questions, the larger point is that many times there is a fundamental disconnect between what Presidents want to accomplish and what they can accomplish. Despite a desire for reform, Presidents must learn to cope with the fact that our system of government utilizes (and generally with success) a system of checks and balances. Oddly enough, many Presidential contenders focus their energy on domestic/social issues – areas where Presidential power is often at its very weakest. Strong Presidential powers are related primarily to foreign policy issues such as: starting wars, altering military tactics, conducting covert operations (much like the one surrounding the killing of terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden), negotiating treaties and making appointments to the White House staff (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Even within these few areas of strong power, Presidents are still occasionally required to inform Congress or make reports.

Presidential power, it would seem, is something which must be earned, or in less ethical situations, dictated. Nonetheless, the basic goals of all Presidents appear to be fairly stable over the modern era. Presidents wish to increase their power in order to pursue their goals (usually campaign promises), they desire strong public opinion support (as it increases power to pursue campaign promises), they wish to represent the party support groups which helped them become elected, they wish to fight for their vision of the United States, influence the economy, and in some instances serve the national interest as they see fit (Hamilton, 2011b)

The quest for Presidential success (goal obtainment) often begins very simply. If a candidate is elected by a large margin, such as Johnson’s defeat of Barry Goldwater (61%) or Nixon’s defeat of McGovern (60%), Presidents can claim public support for their policy (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). If an election outcome is large enough, Presidents almost always experience what is known as the “Honeymoon” period. During this period:
A new President usually enjoys a “honeymoon” with the public at the beginning of an administration, when the country wants to see the new President succeed. This feeling of goodwill is often reflected in Congress, which is willing to be more open-minded about Presidential proposals than later in the term. Presidential popularity almost inevitably falls after the beginning of an administration, and as the midterm elections approach, members of Congress will begin to get nervous about their reelections and will be less likely to be sympathetic to Presidents. (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 147)

As such, many Presidents seek to continue the honeymoon as long as possible, and with as much energy as possible. Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said:

I keep hitting hard because I know this honeymoon won’t last. Every day I lose a little more political capital. That’s why we have to keep at it, never letting up. One day soon, I don’t know when the critics and the snipers will move in and we will be at stalemate. We have to get all we can, now, before the roof comes down. (Ibid.)

If the honeymoon goes well, Presidents may experience a very successful first 100 days, and enjoy reporting to their constituents and party support groups that campaign promises have already begun to be filled. But taking advantage of perceived public memorandum cannot be a Presidents only method, and for the most part, it certainly is not. Early in his Presidency, President Obama is reported to have utilized a “tracking system” with which the Executive Office could keep track of which members of Congress had been invited to the White House (Ibid. p. 149). Although it may seem trivial, inviting an opposing member of Congress to Presidential functions can have a profound persuasive impact, and in some instances, endear a political adversary. The important point to take is straightforward: inviting adversaries to social functions begins the process of building rapport, which Gass and Seiter (2011) note is an exceedingly important part of persuasion at times.

Pfiffner goes on to suggest that rapport is also built during the signing of significant legislation. Most Americans who have watched a bill signing will have noticed the President uses more than one pen to officiate the document. Not only that, but he is often surrounded by large groups of people – sometimes the opposition. Again, the reason for this is simple:

“It was unbelievable, “ said [Senator] Jeffords, “No matter how long we’ve been around the Hill, there’s nothing more exciting than a call from the President.” (2011, p. 150).

Contact with the President, when used appropriately, is an exciting and rewarding moment. Whether it be on the telephone or at the signing of a bill, the moment can make the difference between a vote which would have been “Nay” but is now “Yea.”

And so we see that when it comes to Presidential power, real power for this office comes not from constitutionally vague and weak language, it comes from persuasive leaders. Of course, that is true only in times of relative prosperity and peace. There are extenuating circumstance – crises situations – which occasionally create environments of high acceptance as concerns Presidential behavior both abroad and at home. Without the crash of the stock market and the looming threat of Nazism coupled with the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Empire, it might reasonably be argued that FDR’s progressive New Deal would not have gained the votes to pass.

In times of crises, the American people look to the Office of the President for leadership and direction – they look, more or less, for someone to make wrong, right again. But these situations do not always arrive, and sometimes, they last longer than the term of the President who saw them started.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the country rallied fiercely behind then President George W. Bush, who saw his approval rating bounce to nearly 90% (Benedetto & Page, 2003, January 13). Such strong support gave him the leeway he needed to convince the Congress to significantly restructure our national security agencies (bringing them under the newly formed Department of Homeland Security), institute an aggressive plan of action concerning airport security, and justify invading Iraq (he also secured unrelated changes in education and significant tax cuts). However, by 2003, Bush’s ratings had dropped to 58%, and continued to decline until his term expired in 2008 (Ibid.). During the period of decline, Bush began to lose traction with the Congress, and eventually midterm elections of 2006 secured a Democratic majority in the House and Senate (Shear & MacGillis, 2006, November 10). Facing opposition, Bush pursued a new tactic in order to ensure his policies continued to be implemented. While it is true that President Clinton issued more signing statements than President Bush, it is the nature of Bush’s signing statements which are cause for concern for a number of legal and political scholars (Pfiffner, 2011).

In traditional terms, President’s extend their power by using Executive Orders, Determinations and Memorandum (signing statements). Executive order directs agencies to pursue some course of action pursuant to the law, Determinations elaborate what the President believes the law to be, and signing statements, when used appropriately, comment on legislation which has just been signed; usually in order to “comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing need.”

In the case of President G.W. Bush, signing statements were used to comment on portions of laws which his administration would not be enforcing because they were interpreted as a threat against the “unitary executive” (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 248). This behavior is controversial, as Woolley (n.d.) notes, because “Some critics argue that the proper Presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to ‘faithfully execute’ the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).” By claiming constitutional authority, the Bush administration was effectively saying it would continue torture of military prisoners, required reporting to Congress, whistle-blower protections, and illegally gathering intelligence (wire tapping of U.S. citizens) (Pfiffner, 2011). While certainly unethical, this sort of behavior did increase the President’s ability to continue exercising power, but ultimately is cost him significantly in public approval, and may have significantly damaged good-faith in our constitutional government.

So, it is possible for a President to increase constitutionally weak powers in a variety of ways, and generally, those ways implicitly, if not explicitly, involve the use of persuasion and a sense of Realpolitik. Unfortunately, however, there are instances where even the most persuasive and well-meaning President may come up against a wall. That wall is ideology, and it leads almost inevitably to certain gridlock. Ideology has always played a part in the American political system, and it is unreasonable to think that it will not continue to do so for many, many years in the future. For all intents and purposes, ideology in its most benign sense means having a clear vision of what the moral vision of this country is. By and large, ideology has played its role in American politics without seriously damaging progress since it became a major organizing force in the early 1990’s (Humphreys & Kropf, 2004). Today, however, ideologically grounded groups such as the Tea Party, have brought American political discussion to a near grinding halt. To add to the mess, extreme behavior by one political group often inspires extreme behavior by others. This is to say that as one group takes a hard-stand on a particular issue, it becomes more likely that the opposition will respond in kind. The result? Near government shutdown in the late summer of 2011, which resulted in the United States losing its AAA credit rating – and during a period of extreme recession.

Dealing with a highly partisan Congress can be a literal nightmare for Presidents, as the public looks to them as a national symbol – as a problem solver. And yet, without Congressional action, almost nothing on the domestic policy side of governance can be accomplished. In times like this, it seems wise for the President to reinstitute FDR’s Bully Pulpit. Instead of focusing persuasive prowess on a largely uncooperative group, the President could see power increased substantially by focusing his attention on the public, and using them to turn the tides of Congressional behavior. It would be a difficult task, but certainly not impossible; especially in a time when Congressional approval is 13% (Muskal, 2011, August 16).

Ultimately, a President’s greatest power rests not in Constitutional authority, but in his ability to be persuasive. If he is able to wield it well, he will have great success, and the United States will be better for it.

References

Benedetto, R. & Page, S. (2003, January 13). Bush’s job approval lowest since 9/11. USA Today.

Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (2011). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining (4th ed). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Hamilton, C. (2011b). Presidents.Basic.Goals [PDF]. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Hamilton, C. (2011c). Presdential.BasicInfluencesOnAgencies [PDF]. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Humphreys, Z. and Kropf, M. (2004) Hustle, Attention to Constituents, and a Little Bit of luck:
Moore Defeats Kobach in Kansas’ Third Congressional District. Ahuja, S. and Dewhirst, R. E. (Eds.) The Road to Congress 2004. (25-38). New York: Nova Science publishers, Inc.

Muskal, M. (2011, August 16). Gallup poll: Congressional approval ties lowest numbers on record. Los
Angeles Times.

Shear, M. D. & MacGillis, A. (2006, November 10). Democrats Take Control of Senate as Allen Concedes to Webb in Va. The Washington Post.

Woolley, J. T. (n.d.) Presidential Signing Statements: Frequently Asked Questions. The American Presidency Project.

Presidential Powers and Limits in Controlling Bureaucracies

2011-12-24T20:32:00.000-06:00

A common misconception shared by many Americans concerning presidential powers and influence, centers on the idea that the president is not just the Commander and Chief, but also the “boss” of the country. Despite what we may like to believe, the president is not the “boss” of our Union; and aside from foreign policy issues, he has very little power outside the Executive Branch. Specifically, he lacks power as most notably concerns the Congress, the Judicial Branch, Regulatory Commissions, Government Corporations, and other Independent Bureaucracies. Of course, this limited power is precisely what the Framers had in mind when they instituted a system of checks and balances. After all, a president with absolute power over the other branches, and their associated agencies, is little more than a dictator masquerading under some other name.

Of the approximately 3.6 million government employees, only 3,000 positions fall directly within the purview of the president. Of those 3,000 positions, many are filled as a result of the “spoils” system, which rewards party members for their loyalty, and those who assisted the president during the election. The remaining numbers of government employees are hired according to merit and report primarily their superiors within a given bureaucracy (Hamilton, 2011, September 26).

In total, there are five varieties of government agencies: the Presidential Staff, Cabinet Departments, Government Corporations, miscellaneous Independent Bureaucracies, and Independent Regulatory Commissions.

Presidential Staff

The vast majority of presidential power is focused in the Presidential Staff and Cabinet Departments. The president’s personal staff numbers around 500 individuals, is generally filled with party loyalists, and devotes it’s time to ensuring the president's goals and/or vision remain a focused part of legislation. The presence of the Presidential Staff was instituted under Franklin D. Roosevelt and later strengthened under Truman. While well utilized by most presidents following FDR and Truman, Richard Nixon stands out as the President who turned it into a tight hierarchy of influence. According to Nixon Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, one designed to “[. . .] get the work out to where it belongs – out to the departments.” (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 67).

Executive Office and Cabinet Departments

The Executive Office is an area Presidents have rather strong control over; however, that power may ebb and flow according to how well presidential policy coincides with professional/political realities. In recent media reports, these positions have been discussed in terms of policy “czars.” It is important to note these positions are often (though not always) filled with Congressional approval, lack legal authority over Cabinet Departments, and serve almost entirely as an advisory position with ready access to the president. The primary difference between the Executive Office and the Department of the Cabinet is the location of presidential power and influence. While “czars” may have easy access to the president, their role often has very little actual impact on the direction and decision making process of the Cabinet Department. So, the next time you hear Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann bantering on about policy "czars," remember they don't have any power outside the power of offering opinion.

Although not mentioned in the Constitution, George Washington was the first president to suggest a formal advisory board be established so the Chief Executive would have access to expert information supplied by a deliberative body of advisors. The Congress understood this need and formally established three cabinet positions in 1789: Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Treasury (Pfiffner, 2011). Today, the Cabinet Department has 15 positions: Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security. Each position may be filled by the President with the consent of the Senate. Oversight is present in order to ensure that knowledgeable individuals serve in these positions, thereby decreasing the likelihood that an unqualified individual would gain appointment on account of the spoils system (Ibid).

The Executive Office has been important for many presidents, as it brings them more control in terms of formal policy proposals or the directing of agencies. While secretaries may be appointed by the president (and confirmed by the Senate), they remain somewhat independent. The power vacuum in this area occurs because secretaries often have a powerful sense of devotion to their field of expertise. As such, their loyalty to president and party often comes second to their loyalty to the institution(s) being represented. While a president will depart after two terms (or one), the agency represented by a particular cabinet member will remain. Secretaries often develop a sense of organizational continuity, and behave in order to see organizational values are upheld. In some instances, this means resisting the president’s request to take certain actions – which necessarily reduces his power.

Government Corporations and Independent Bureaucracies

Government Corporations, such as the Post Office and the Tennessee Valley Authority, operate primarily via Congressional approval. Presidential powers in this area are exceedingly weak, if not straightforwardly non-existent. In general, government corporations are formed when a service is required, but providing it is not seen as profitable by the open market. These entities are managed almost entirely by the Congress.

Miscellaneous independent bureaucracies, such as NASA, also do not fall directly under the purview of presidential power. By and large, NASA receives its directive and funding through Congressional Committees (and reports to them often). For an interesting example of how President George W. Bush influenced an independent bureaucracy see the post Suppressing Climate Change Science and Information.

Regulatory Commissions

The final bureaucracy is known as Independent Regulatory Commissions. These commissions, as the name suggests, are entirely independent of presidential influence and almost always report to a specific House Committee. In this area, the president has absolutely no power, and may in fact gain trouble from Congress and the Courts if an attempt to influence them is made (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Several well known Independent Regulatory Commissions are: The Environmental Protection Agency, The Federal Reserve, The Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In Summary

As has been only briefly discussed, the majority of presidential power is focused in the immediate office of the president in the form of the Presidential Staff (including Executive Office “czars”), Cabinet Appointments and other miscellaneous appointments. The reason for this is simple: the connection to the President himself is more direct. The further one moves away from the Office of the President, the more difficult it is to be influenced by its power.

So what can a president do? It is possible for the president to assert some control on far-removed bureaucracies via Formal Executive Orders, Presidential Determinations and Presidential Memorandum (signing statements). In the case of an Executive Order, a President may exert control over an agency if it becomes a matter of law that he should do so (Article II). Determination is not legally binding, but represents an enumeration of what the President believes to be required under the law and in accordance with previous executive orders. Memorandum, or signing statements, are also not legally binding, but represent a public – and unofficial – veto or definition of a particular law (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Agencies may or may not abide by Presidential Memorandum. For example, a President could issue a Presidential Memorandum calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to shutdown, even though it is highly unlikely the EPA would do so, or that the President would fare well with the Congress for having behaved in in such a way.

Although the President may be able to exert some influence over government agencies, the further removed they become, the less likely success will be. In general, the President has very little power in the areas of Government Corporations, miscellaneous Independent Bureaucracies, and Independent Regulatory Commissions because (1) those agencies are far removed and (2) those agencies are responsible to some other Branch (most commonly the Congress).

Interestingly, there are instances where Presidents gain control of a bureaucracy and it resists his agenda. In general, resistance occurs for several reasons: agencies care more for enforcing the law than listening to a President who will soon be gone, (2) some agencies see presidential behavior in terms of political behavior not concerned with reason or efficient operation, (3) the agency has a strong culture, (4) they believe they are upholding laws administered by the Congress and (4) bureaucratic discretion. Of these, the most interesting is bureaucratic discretion. Although a President may come to control an agency, he is not always present at the “lower” discretionary levels. Discretion represents decisions made which might violate the law (or Executive Order), but serve the better functioning of a group. An example of low-level bureaucratic discretion: You are pulled over for speeding (and are completely guilty), but the officer writes you a warning instead of issuing a ticket. In any sense of the law, the warning the officer issues is a itself an abrogation. However, in exercising this discretion, he has likely accomplished two things (1) you have now slowed down, and (2) you will be more likely to behave in the future because the officer “took it easy.” Government agencies can, and sometimes do, behave in the same fashion – despite what a president may or may not desire.

A final note on presidential power in the realm of bureaucracies relates to the current global recession. Despite the fact that a president has very little control of or impact on domestic policy issues, a large portion of the American polity and current Congressional Republicans and Republican candidates for president argue that President Barack Obama is responsible for high unemployment and high national debt. Pfiffner (2011) writes:

One of the most important determinants of presidential popularity is the state of the economy, especially inflation and unemployment. Presidents have very little short-term control over these factors. All presidents want a healthy economy, and they do what they can to strengthen economic performance. The problem is that even if most economists agree on the right prescription, presidents can affect economic performance only marginally. (50-1)

Domestic policy issues such as high unemployment are difficult tasks for a president to tackle because he has no constitutional authority to interfere with matters falling under the purview of the Congress. Recall that even though FDR’s New Deal was highly successful, it still had to pass through the Congress. In terms of what a president can do, the answer is perhaps not as reassuring as some might like: the president can speak with cabinet members and obtain the advice and expert opinion of economists in order to develop measures which might help reduce rising unemployment or hold back the tide of depression. Ultimately, however, that plan must be presented to and passed by the Congress. The president does not have a great deal of discretion in this area, and despite what we might like to think, a president cannot make great strides in leadership without the support of the other two branches.

References

Hamilton, C. (2011, September 29). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.

Ultimate Luxury: Silly Zenith Watch

2011-12-21T15:53:00.001-06:00

I love the silly crap you can find on Amazon. Here's a ridiculous Zenith "Xtreme Tourbillion Titanium Chronograph Watch" for the (apparently legitimate) price of $86,999.99. It's not so bad, when you realize the watch has been discounted from $145,000 . . .With that said, I'm sure it would make an excellent Christmas gift for the dick-head in your family.

If that doesn't do it for ya, have a look at the world's most expensive, yet apparently standard, flash drive.

World's Most Expensive Flash Drive?

2011-12-21T15:43:00.000-06:00

I think I may have found the world's most expensive 8 GB Flash Drive. Surprisingly, it appears to be a run of the mill SanDisk. No worries though, if you have $10,000 to spend for 8 GB, this is the device for you!

lulz - did you notice shipping is still $4.95? Couldn't even spring for free shipping . . .

Presidential Power and the Economy: Tax Cuts or Investment?

2011-12-18T22:13:00.000-06:00

American citizens look to their government, and perhaps more specifically, to the President, to solve, manage and mitigate a tough economic environment. Over at least the past six years, the United States has experienced an economic recession the like of which has not been seen since the Great Depression. For what must seem like an eternity for many, the unemployment rate has been over nine percent, the national debt has ballooned to nearly fifteen trillion dollars, and despite what appears to be some movement out of the hardest part of this recession, the Congress, the President, and the American people are up in arms over how best to return our growth rate to pre-recession levels and get the American people “Back to Work.”[1] If the government is to play any role in the development of an economy which grows, the basic question before us is straightforward: what influence do Presidents and the Congress have on domestic economic matters? As Pfiffner (2011) points out,

One of the most important determinants of Presidential popularity is the state of the economy, especially inflation and unemployment. Presidents have very little short-term control of these facts. All Presidents want a healthy economy, and they do what they can to strengthen economic performance. The problem is that even if most economists agree on the right prescription, Presidents can affect economic performance only marginally. (50-1)

Despite the fact we would like our Presidents to have more power than is expressed in Article II of the Constitution, they can have only meager influence. However, that influence can do some good, and they administer it in a variety of ways: through budget reform, directing bureaucracies to take certain steps, and by appealing to the Congress for assistance in the form of legislation.[2] This influence can go only so far, and it depends a great deal on several factors: (1) the effectiveness of the Office of Management and Budget’s proposals, (2) how receptive a particular bureaucracy’s leadership is to the plan presented and (3) the cooperation of the Congress in implementing suggestions.[3] Outside of these options, a President is exceedingly limited in his ability to “get the economy moving again.”

By and large, the President’s ability to influence the economy is both weaker, in constitutional terms, from that of the Congress, and weaker, generally, from agencies such as the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. To drive this point home, it is useful to consider the activities of both as relates to the recent economic recession. Both President Bush and Obama implemented “stimulus plans” in hopes it would avoid a full-scale depression. Bush’s plan, entitled the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was designed to:

[S]rengthen market stability, improve the strength of financial institutions, and enhance market liquidity. Treasury announced a voluntary Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy. (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2011)

The TARP plan authorized the expenditure of at least $700 billion dollars in a variety of areas to shore up a banking system which had become involved with toxic mortgages and over leveraged in a failing derivatives market (Elliot, 2009).

Obama’s plan, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was similar in scope, but focused more on sending money to sectors of the economy which would create or save jobs, extend unemployment benefits, expanding tax credits, and focusing on the development of infrastructure. The ARRA was also a de facto tax cut for the average American family; one of the largest in history. The program, since implemented, has totaled $733 billion dollars (Recovery, 2011).

In either case, Presidential influence required the consent and cooperation of the Congress. Even in instances where Presidents may be able to influence the economy a great deal, they must necessarily rely on the Congress to pass the legislation. Presidents cannot simply direct the Federal Reserve to take certain steps. By law, the Federal Reserve falls within the jurisdiction of the Congress.

With that said, it should be at least somewhat clear that when matters of domestic economic policy are concerned, Presidents have very little influence, while the Congress and certain government organizations have a great deal. The most powerful force of economic influence is (1) the Congress and (2) the Federal Reserve/Treasury Department.

As the Congress maintains oversight and regulatory power, as well as the power to levy taxes, the question is: how might the Congress best address an economic recession? The answer boils down two at least two dueling positions: (1) those who believe cutting taxes spur economic growth and (2) those who believe investing in debt will spur economic growth. Despite the ideology which surrounds these ideas, they both have a certain air of truth to them. Cutting taxes does spur economic growth in the short-term, but it does so at the cost of increased deficits without subsequent cuts in spending. The logic of tax cuts works similar to this:

If we cut taxes, American’s will have more money in their pocket. If they have more money, they will spend more. If they spend more, businesses will see an increase in demand and begin hiring. Newly hired workers will pay taxes, which will thus reduce the deficit via increase revenue.

Another theory often debated, Supply Side Economics, suggests tax cuts would encourage workers to invest their savings. Such investment would lead to growth in the corporate sector, and stimulate job creation. Unfortunately, so-called Reaganomics or “trickle-down economics” are scarcely supported by research (“Supply-side economics,” n.d.). However, the tax-cut mentality does contain some short-term impact. In general, tax cuts produce about a $1.25 return for every dollar spent. However, the method is unsustainable for obvious reasons - no taxation is equivalent to no income.

The second economic position involves anti-recessionary measures which spur growth via debt investment in jobs and infrastructure. The logic for this method works similar to this:

Investment in jobs and infrastructure puts people to work. People who are working have more money to spend. Having money to spend, the economy begins to stabilize via increased consumption. As consumption increases, hiring by private organizations returns. As organizations hire more, more people begin paying taxes. More taxes lead to increased revenue, which leads to a reduction in deficits.

Overall, this economic theory has the greatest long-term impact because it creates an environment where full-time positions remain sustainable, and it can be throttled back as the private sector begins to grow. In comparison to the tax cut method, this solution returns approximately $1.65 for every dollar spent. This latter position is the one implemented by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration under New Dealism, and 71% of historians and 51% of economists agree that it significantly mitigated the Great Depression of the 1930’s (Hamilton, 2011, October 11).

It seems the best way to handle an economic recession is to strike a firm balance between cutting taxes and debt investment. Allow tax cuts to shore-up short-term economic growth and supplement that growth by investing in the future through jobs and infrastructure spending. Unfortunately, ideology often prevents policy makers from producing legislation which address both these options.

As a final note on the economic plans, it should be mentioned that of all the recessions our country has experienced, this one has seen the most in terms of extraordinary and unprecedented response. While both the TARP and ARRA prevented the United States from falling into a full-blown depression, they were also not large enough to offset the damage, which is why our country still has an unemployment rate hovering near 9% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011, December 2). However, without an unprecedented decision by the Federal Reserve, both TARP and ARRA would likely not have stabilized our economy as much as they did. According to Kopecki and Dodge (2009, July 29), the federal Reserve handed out nearly $24 trillion dollars to U.S. banks embroiled in the sub-prime mortgage debacle and over leveraged in the derivative market (if you're counting, that places actual national debt at close to $40 trillion). For such an unprecedented move, the situation must have been quite a bit worse than some economists realized on the face of it. And of course, it really was much worse. Perhaps even more disconcerting is the fact that the Federal Reserve authorized this bailout without informing Congress or the President.[5] The move was apparently initiated in order to get banks to lend money again; the hope being that consumer spending and confidence in the housing market would begin to return.

At no point in our history has such a move been undertaken by the Federal Reserve without the expressed approval of the United States Congress. Interestingly, the increased funding (viz. not a loan to be repaid) no doubt contributed significantly to the stabilization which we are experiencing now. Ultimately however, our economy has a very long way to go in terms of returning to a position of solid growth. Add to this the increasingly grid-locked nature of the United States Congress over matters of economic policy, and it seems unlikely that without some sort of miracle the economy will recover as quickly as it might otherwise. As case in point, it is unfortunate to note the spending and budget package proposed by President Barack Obama in September of 2011 includes a variety of the jobs, infrastructure and tax cut options discussed above, but has not been seriously considered in any reasonable way by the Congress (“Fact Sheet and Overview,” 2011). Dishearteningly, the Congress appears unable even to agree on something as simple as continuing a pay-roll tax cut, which would provide at least some short-term growth in the economy (Condon, 2011, December 14).

References

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2011). Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)Information. Washington, DC: United States.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011, December 2). The Unemployment Situation – November 2011.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Condon, S. (2011, December 14). “Payroll tax cut bill stalled in the Senate.” CBS News.

Elliot, D. J. (2009). “Measuring the Cost of the TARP.” The Brookings Institute.

“Fact Sheet and Overview.” (2011, September 8). Office of the Press Secretary. Washington, DC: The White House.

Hamilton, C. (2011, October 11). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.
Author Note: Hamilton is a Professor of Political Science.

Kopecki, D. & Dodge, C. (2009, July 20). “U.S. rescue may Reach &23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says." Bloomberg.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.

“Supply-side economics.” (n.d.). Wikimedia Foundation.
Author Note: This source has been vetted by political scientists as reliable.

Understanding Lyndon Johnson: An Intimate Portrait by Horace Busby

2011-12-16T17:08:00.001-06:00

From conception to present day, the office of the Presidency has come to symbolize a variety of American values. For some members of our polity, the President is the de facto leader of the American people; for others, he is our representative abroad, our moral leader, a commander in chief presiding over the most powerfully military force on Earth; and for other still, he is the man who turns his eyes not to wealth and privilege, but to those in our Union who suffer and wallow in poverty. Whatever the President may or may not be is a matter of continuous debate not just amongst scholars, but among the populace itself.

As the President has come to mean so very much for so very many, it should not come as a surprise that Presidential biography has itself come to embody variety. Today, it is possible to find hundreds of sources both in books and journal articles discussing the intimate aspects of every President from George Washington to Barack Obama. While some biographies are certainly more reliable than others, we should take heart in diverse opinions, for, if anything, those opinions teach us that Presidents and Presidential leadership are not linear ideals: they are dynamic and speak much toward our ability as a society to adapt in an ever evolving world.

With only modest review, it becomes clear that Presidential biographies generally embody three basic forms: (1) those which elucidate Presidential character by considering policy decisions both foreign and domestic, (2) those which elucidate Presidential character by considering socio/political circumstances, and (3) those which elucidate Presidential character and leadership by considering the life of a President more generally.

This brief review of Horace Busby’s biography of Lyndon Johnson flows from none of the above. In fact, this biography is not just one of Lyndon Johnson, it is also very much about the author’s life and experiences with that extraordinary man. The book has been described at Busby’s son Scott as a “remarkable second chance,” to know his father better (2005, X). As such, readers should not begin a study of this book with the hope of learning about the complex details of Lyndon Johnson’s foreign and domestic policy. Nor should they look to it for an explanation as to his troubled involvement in Vietnam. This book is meant to accomplish none of these things. Instead, focus has been given to Lyndon Johnson the man, his hopes and aspirations, his vision of America, his dedication to certain moral principles, his often brash and acidic personality, his self doubt, and his great distaste for politics.

As a great deal of this manuscript is also devoted to the life of Horace Busby, not every chapter will be covered. Instead, only those chapters which I feel give readers the clearest and most basic understanding of Lyndon Johnson, the man, will be covered. In doing so, it is my hope readers will come away not just with a desire to read the biography in its entirety, but also with a deepened sense of understanding as concerns our 36th President. In short, this post will cover those points in the biography which most stood out to me as elucidating the character and substance of an extraordinarily interesting President. <---- in place of endnotes, hover your pointer over blue text lacking an underline to read a little more.

About Horace Busby

Horace “Buzz” Busby was a longtime friend and close adviser of Lyndon Johnson’s throughout his positions in the House, Senate, Vice Presidency and as President of the United States. Spanning a career of more than thirty years, Busby’s account of Lyndon Johnson the man is, perhaps, the most honest and telling yet developed.

Born in Fort Worth, Texas in 1924, Busby probably never imagined the life which lay before him. He studied, as many Texans still do, at the University of Texas at Austin, and applied his energy within the discipline of Journalism, which, as one might surmise, necessarily included an emphasis on political discourse at the time. Before he began work as a Johnson staffer in 1948 at the age of twenty-four, Busby “worked briefly for the United Press International news service in Austin.” (2005, 251). His position did not last long, as he answered, albeit with some hesitation, a request to work with an up-and-coming Texas politician known for his veracity and acidity.

Following his service with President Johnson, Busby stayed on in Washington and “built a successful business as a management consultant, political analyst and publisher.” (251). He published two widely read newsletters, the American Businessman and The Busby Papers, and while he never finished his degree in journalism, he was crucial in writing and reviewing a number of Johnson’s most famous speeches and legislative undertakings; including his Great Society and oratory before the Congress on Voting Rights for African Americans in 1965. Busby also assisted Johnson in writing the speech he delivered in 1968 announcing he would not be seeking reelection.

Horace Busby passed away in May 2000 in California without publishing the manuscript under review; it was found amongst a stack of papers in a garage by his children.

“Lyndon Stories”

The story of Lyndon Johnson’s life and legacy is not something which can be told comprehensively by reviewing his policy decisions, or in undertaking a review of his activity in Vietnam. Decisions and activity of that sort are only part of Johnson’s life, and according to Busby, if we are to understand Johnson in his truest sense, it is necessary for us to understand how he functioned at the core of his being. As such, Busby’s work often focuses not on Johnson the President, but Johnson the man:

I though, in the living of it, that I was only sharing the story of another man, an extraordinary man of extraordinary capacities, towering one moment, slouching abjectly the next; a man bedeviled by grand and innocent visions almost beyond mortal reach, and a man beset by petty doubts and cynical suspicions of himself; yet a man who, for all of this, wrought very large works upon his times. I laughed with him when life was sweet, sorrowed for him when life went sour; I worked with him, argued with him felt for him both pride and pity; and when the power was his, I chose to turn and walk away. I did not know through most of this, that in sharing his story, I was sharing history. Thus, in the telling of it, as in the living of it, the story cannot be changed; it must be told as it was lived. (14)

The story of Lyndon Johnson the man is not something readers may ease themselves into, as Johnson was not an easy sort of person. Even amongst his closest associates, Johnson could be harsh and argumentative. That being the case, it should hardly be surprising that Johnson suffered fools poorly to such an extent that people began to relate “Lyndon Stories,” which give readers a somewhat satiric but rich understanding of his interactions with other people. Though not always accurate, “Lyndon Stories” capture the gist of the man in a fashion similar to the subtle understanding of an inside joke shared amongst friends. Ultimately, “Lyndon Stories” give us the picture of a man with a single overriding principle: to be a man for the betterment of the people and our Union. This moral core, I think, is summed up exceedingly well in reading Busby’s retelling of an encounter Johnson had with Texas Governor James Allred in 1936:

"I know that out at Johnson City, where you come from, there aren't any coloreds," the governor began, carefully and correctly avoiding the inflammatory, and in those days insulting, terms "Negroes" and "blacks." "But, you've got to understand, son, you're playing with something that would tear Texas apart; the people just aren't ready for federal money to start helping colored children through school." Allred went on at length - "at my persuasive best," he would say, laughing in recounting the experience - and concluded with an appeal to self interest. "If you make the grant, you have no political future in Texas from then on - you'll be run out of the state."

"Know what that rascal did?" Allred liked to ask, affection mingling with exasperation. "He stood up and said, 'If that's all, Governor, I must go. You are so wise, so judicious, so fair-minded, so progressive, so Christian, that you have persuaded me. I must hurry back to the office before the money goes out to Prairie View - and double it." (25, emphasis added)

This encounter with Governor Allred, and at such a young age, provides readers with a great deal of insight as concerns Johnson’s unrelenting and courageous position on matters of civil rights. For Johnson, Realpolitik did not always have any home with him. In fact, where many seasoned politicians would not dare tread, Johnson would rush ahead with an eye for the future and a sense of adventure. He was a Democrat who supported and heatedly admired the New Dealism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. If a piece of legislation or some major event, such as civil rights, came into conflict with what he believed was good for the American people and what others would have him do, you could count upon it that he would act in accordance with his moral core; and he would do so without giving much thought to how that behavior might affect his popularity among the power elite, influential constituencies and wealthy campaign contributors. At the end of the day, and as countless “Lyndon Stories” demonstrate, he was a man of and for the people – and not just those in his district.

This is true to such an extent that Johnson went so far as to bring great harm upon the Democratic Party in 1968. Until this point in history, Southern states had voted primarily Democratic, but Lyndon, probably with more credit due than any other Democratic President, single handedly ensured the defection of Democratic governors in southern states to the Republican Party by “forcing” civil rights legislation upon them (Hamilton, 2011, September 9). In essence, Johnson decimated Democratic support in the South by doing what he believed was right, and by appealing to the Declaration of Independence: providing for Civil Rights and Equality.

The Sunday Shift

We may not think about it often, but Sunday’s were as slow a day as any other for both the President and regular Americans. “The Sunday Shift,” as Busby referred to it, was one which he was often called to perform. On these days, the President would begin his morning by reading through several of the major newspapers, often complaining to Busby about where they were wrong or wondering why policy proposals contained therein could not be implemented. In general, Johnson would have these ideas or see them printed and begin a flurry of telephone calls to various member of the bureaucracy, asking them why some unnamed plan could not be implemented, or complaining about why his own staff had not come up with such a remedy for some social ill. In general, these calls were mostly unsuccessful, and after a while the President would relent and get ready for the day ahead.

But more importantly, Busby notes, Sunday’s were extraordinarily trying for President Johnson because he was not a lazy man. Indeed, he seemed to both relish and despise the constant political onslaught, and when that onslaught failed to come, it left him alone with his thoughts. During these times of relative quiet, Johnson would take to reviewing his policy and more often than not, filling himself with a sense of extreme doubt. It is here where Busby appears to have played his most important role; despite all of the speeches written and advice given, Busby’s role was often simply therapeutic in nature. He offered the President a non-judgmental ear; a person who would simply listen and provide the occasional reassuring statement.

Playing President

Johnson’s attitude toward doing the right thing as expressed in “Lyndon Stories”, even if it meant dragging others away from a tendency toward conserving the status quo, was not something which developed sporadically. Johnson very much admired the great men of our past, and he did a great deal not just to learn by their example, but to mimic their greatness. After successfully obtaining office in Texas’s 10th Congressional district on a New Deal platform, Johnson was quick to make friends and gain attention from then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. We learn from Busby that Johnson did not just admire F.D.R.; he sought to embody the spirit of a man whose progressive policy and exceptional handling of some very trying times in our history are almost beyond repute in terms of good-works-done. In a telling moment on the first day Busby met his new employer, Congressman Johnson took to mimicking many of F.D.R.’s mannerisms and speech style. While certainly done in jest, it gives readers some idea of how Johnson intended to operate his office: with any eye toward the people and progress.

In fact, it turns out that Johnson only hired Busby because he needed a man who could learn to write as Winston Churchill spoke. To drive home the seriousness of Johnson’s role for Busby, the Congressman had nearly every possible book held in the Library of Congress concerning Winston Churchill delivered to his office. The only direction: read these and learn to write as he speaks. The reason for this, readers are encouraged to gather, is that Johnson was a man concerned with the business of the American People. Perhaps instinctively, Johnson’s realized that if you were to be for the people, you must learn to communicate with them; you must inspire them, and you must give them hope for the future. As Such, Johnson’s mimicking of F.D.R. and his desire to have a speech writer familiar with Churchill’s prose was a proactive attempt to bring his message not to powerful interest groups, but to the people who looked toward the President as a man capable of creating a more perfect Union.

But Johnson’s goal of obtaining the peoples heart and becoming a bastion of their hope was not merely the empty rhetoric some politicians shovel. Johnson actually believed in this role, and like the great men before him, he intended to make good on his claims. But, being a Texan, one might expect Johnson to have also been very friendly with the gas and oil industry which dominated the economy in his state. Exactly the opposite was true. Johnson despised these special interest groups, and he despised them for at least two reasons: (1) they were not “the people” as the recent Citizens United ruling might encourage contemporary voters to consider, and (2) he did not want to be nudged by those power forces which would inevitably want something for themselves in exchange for cash, and at the expense of decent American’s. In fact, Johnson met any and all attempts by powerful people to influence him without outright contempt. In another memorable “Lyndon Story:”

A senior bureau chief who regarded himself as one of the real powers of Texas accosted Congressman Johnson at a political convention and asked a long, characteristically obtuse question. The Johnson lips, witnesses reported, set in a thin, tight smile, and the teeth clenched. “You know what you need?” The Congressman asked, with cloying sweetness. “You need a nice tall dose of warm salt water to flush out that constipated mind of yours.” (29)

Johnson would not have anything to do with the power elite of his day, nor any of their generous campaign contributions and parasitic support. What Johnson needed was not a campaign chest full of wealthy donors; Johnson needed votes, and he knew just how to get them; with a staff writer who wrote as Churchill spoke, and the ability to control a crowd with superhuman oratory.

But we should not regard the text of Johnson’s speeches (which he often revised as well) as being inherently affecting. What really made Johnson speeches on the stump extraordinary was the combination of excellent writing and excellent delivery. Johnson was not afraid to attack his enemies, to propose big ideas, to tell people what they needed as opposed to what they wanted, and as Busby notes:

Shouting pounding, now whispering, now thundering around the stage, disdaining microphones and loudspeakers, he transformed sedate summer-night audiences into perspiring, foot-stomping, emotional mobs. Never careful with his voice, as politicians must be, he let his words come out raw and grating, but this only added a guttural and convincing meanness when he took after “PUP,” a term he fashioned for the forces of evil: Petroleum, Utilities and Privilege. (26)

Lyndon Johnson was no fool, and he was as formidable a campaigner as any politician was ever to meet. Indeed, Busby leaves readers with the impression that we ought honestly feel sorry for any opponent who had the idea of standing against Johnson in a race for some office. And indeed we should.

In 1946 Roosevelt was out of office and it seemed the progressivism of the New Deal was finally coming to an end. The power elite (viz. Big Oil) decided to finance the campaign of a challenger, and set to work on destabilizing Johnson’s credibility among the people. In a curious development, Johnson refused to leave Washington and return home to assist in what appeared to be a quickly unraveling campaign. Despite the protests of his campaign managers, Johnson would simply not come home. Busby related Johnson’s reason as being “he had no time for politics.” (27). With the time until the election dwindling from months, and then into weeks, Johnson would still not return to Texas. For his opponent, this was a sure sign of victory, and no doubt enlivened his confidence in an easy victory. Finally, as Busby recounts, Johnson announced his return:

Fortuitously, the agenda of the nation would permit him to come home for the finals days of the campaign, so that he could “visit” with his friends in each county seat. Neither the district nor the state ever saw such a virtuoso performance. (27)

With only ten days remaining before Election Day, Johnson returned and brought his constituents to a boil:

“PUP” had his opponent – petroleum, utilities, and privilege had their candidate – but the people had him, the faithful public servant who had toiled at their labors without thinking of himself. The little people shook their fists, stomped their feet, and let tears run down their cheeks, while the opposition – which had been so close to victory – gnashed their teeth. (27-8)

On the final night of the campaign, Johnson’s opponent gave a speech, which Busby recollects had more people on the stage than in the audience, and all the while Lyndon Johnson was meeting the people at “free water melon parties” with his friend, and beloved, actor Gene Autry (28). Johnson won 73 percent of the vote; his largest victory ever.

This sort of behavior is nearly unheard of in today’s political climate, and it speaks a great deal not just to Johnson’s occasional confidence in the work he was doing, his ability to move a crowd and inspire the people, but also to his shrewd political knowledge. In staying away from the campaign, Johnson did not have to debate or acknowledge his opponent, which means he significantly reduced the possibility he would inadvertently give his opponent some unknown ammunition with which to gun him down. It also meant that he could take a higher moral position, insofar as it related his great concern to constituents. Although it may seem somewhat unscrupulous, the truth is that Johnson probably was more concerned with the people’s business than he was in running a campaign against a PUP mouthpiece. He trusted the people would seek their own interest, and he trusted they would vote for the man who was actually going to work for them. They did, and he continued to do so.

“Time of Triumph” with John F. Kennedy

Skipping ahead to 1960, we encounter Senator Johnson still very much pursuing the people’s business, but now seeking the Democratic nomination for President in California. Unfortunately, Johnson was unable to secure a win against a young and vibrant John F. Kennedy, but that was not to be the end of Johnson’s endeavors. Not long after accepting the Democratic nomination, Kennedy invited Johnson to campaign as his Vice President. In many respects, the Kennedy request made good political sense. For some members of the populace Kennedy was too much of an Easterner. Combine this attitude with the realization the Kennedy was Catholic, and many strategists and party loyalists were concerned he would be unable to carry the Democratic south.

The solution, as the Kennedy campaign saw it, was to find a southern Vice President with strong ties and a loyal following. As Johnson was a native Texan, and influential politician, all eyes moved toward him. He was favorable (though not too much), and had proven himself immensely as a highly skilled and dedicated campaigner. Johnson accepted the request happily, and began the hard job of campaigning for Kennedy.
As we learn from Busby, Johnson had no real difficulty accepting the nomination, and it does not appear he held any sort of animosity toward the soon-to-be President. Kennedy, like Johnson, was also a strong supporter of civil rights, and the two shared a great deal in common as concerned domestic policy direction. However, and I think more importantly, Kennedy offered Johnson a great deal of freedom as concerns the office of the Vice Presidency:

And I must say that if we are successful in November, that Senator Johnson, when elected, can play a role as Vice President greater, more influential, more significant, and with greater benefit to the public interest than any vice President in history. (108)

In many respects, Johnson was absolutely taken with Kennedy, and in a more private setting often lost his ability to contain his enthusiasm and posture. On more than one occasion in the presence of Kennedy, Johnson is said to have spent far too long explaining his ideas or reiterating points which were already agreed upon. While some were certainly annoyed by Johnson’s repetitiveness and grew concerned his behavior may not sit well with voters, it did not seem to bother Kennedy in the least; he listened to Johnson intently and with a great sense of poise. Of course, at a more fundamental level, Kennedy behaved the way he did because he and Johnson were very similar. Ultimately, and perhaps against the wishes of some caucus members, Kennedy knew Johnson would not fail when the people’s business required attention.

The Situation in Brussels

One of the more powerful aspects of Busby’s biography is his ability to place readers in the shoes of Lyndon Johnson – to give us some idea as to how the man felt about and approached various situations. Interestingly, the man who could lead men and women to tears and foot stomping was a terrible, if not disastrous, person-to-person communicator. Indeed, many of the “Lyndon Stories” are not about his behavior in small groups or on the campaign trail, but rather about his behavior when placed in the company of one or two people whom he did not know.

This is odd in many ways, as just the opposite is generally true for many others: those who have a significant fear of public speaking do quite well when confined to small groups. The situation in Brussels introduces readers to a side of Johnson which elucidates (1) his distaste for interacting with people one-on-one and (2) his distaste for political life in general.

While meeting with a Belgium representative on a matter a national business which Busby does not mention, Johnson is seen greeting a small crowd of people who have formed outside of the Hotel Westbury. To Johnson’s great distaste, an American man familiar with Johnson exits the hotel and remarks upon seeing him: “Godamighty, if it isn’t old Lyndon himself!” bellows the man. Johnson ignored him, but he continued, “Lyndon, Lyndon, it’s Harry Plunkett! Long Island Democrats, finance committee, 1960. Raised lots of dough for you and Jack, yessir, lots of the old moola!” (124). Although Johnson avoided the man and slipped inside, the damage had apparently already been done. Johnson remarked in the elevator on the way to his room:

“Goddamn loudmouth,” he muttered. Then he turned to Special Agent Rufus Youngblood and asked earnestly: “Rufus, how’re we ever going to lead the world with idiots like that running loose?” (124)

What is a relatively benign situation for most turned out to be a rather disconcerting episode for Johnson. Why that is, Busby does not entirely explain, but it sets Johnson off into a long and serious episode of thinking. Later that night, Johnson phoned for Busby to join him in his room. Johnson was in the mood to discuss what Busby intended to do “when this is all over.” (125). Although Busby was not entirely clear, Johnson had a variety of ideas for himself: he thought he might like to start up his own newspaper and really do a number on the Texan oil barons and utility masters. Ultimately however, it seems that what really set Johnson off today was the mention of “Jack.”

Back home in the States, Kennedy’s reelection bid was starting to formulate, and the opposition had apparently sent a number of unscrupulous reporters into Johnson’s stomping grounds in Texas in order to dig up enough dirt to convince Kennedy to choose a different vice Presidential nominee the second go around. The hope, Busby implies, is that without Johnson, Kennedy may lose the election by losing the south. But all of this was merely a rumor spread by the musings of less thoughtful people. Apparently, a number of pundits began cooking up the story when they noticed Johnson had invited the Kennedy family to stay at his ranch in Texas for a few days. Some believed the visit was engineered by the Kennedy’s so they might break the news to Johnson more easily.

In reality however, Kennedy was to visit Texas in order to stir up support in a state he only barely won in the previous election. It was his belief that if he went down there and spoke with the people, they might better understand him, and by extension, offer him votes. Johnson was certainly not opposed, and he welcomed them. But, Johnson ever the self-doubter allowed himself to worry over the entire affair. Kennedy, according to Busby, was not so foolish a politician as to dump such an important vice President on the eve of a renewed election.

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Not long before Kennedy’s visit to Dallas, Busby’s wife noticed a newspaper article which claimed President Kennedy intended to parade through the streets without the protection of an enclosed vehicle. In other words, Kennedy was intending to ride in a convertible. Busby could not believe Kennedy would make such a decision, but Johnson affirmed that Kennedy was seriously considering just that. According to Johnson, Kennedy did not want to appear as a man afraid of his own people; he wishes to have some freedom in addressing them. Despite the protests of Johnson and the First Lady, Kennedy did indeed choose to travel through Dealy plaza in Dallas, Texas in a convertible. He was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

The news of Kennedy’s assassination rocked the United States, and put Johnson in a seriously complex situation. After all, rumors were floating around that Kennedy intended to drop Johnson from the ticket, and Kennedy was in Johnson’s home state. Despite the conspiracy theory, however, Johnson was faced with having to take up the reins of a federal government which was just seriously damaged. In this situation, it fell to Johnson to ensure the balance or power remained intact, and that Presidential succession moved with great care.

While Johnson did experience a sort of perversion of the “honeymoon,” he knew all too well that sooner or later the “poison” would start to enter the politics of his office. He tried, and succeeded in maintaining as many of Kennedy’s staff members as would like to stay. By and large this was a brilliant and skillful political move, and it set a powerful precedent for future Presidents faced with tragedy. More importantly, however, it demonstrated that Johnson was not as power hungry a man as some detractors might have us believe. Quite the contrary, it showed that Johnson was sensitive to the idea that he may be seen as a bit of a usurper. Any such thought along these lines would have been exceedingly damaging to the functioning of the United States Government and its ability in the eyes of the American people. On the opposite end, however, Johnson was also faced with the task of asserting his Presidential power; and of reminding the American people that despite great tragedy, we must retain our fidelity for the Democratic system. Johnson managed this period with great skill, and it certainly helped that he spent a great deal of this term on pushing legislation Kennedy had prepared.

In many respects, it is both inspiring and disheartening to see that Johnson was successful during this period of time. The situation was inspiring because it provides us with both the picture of an exceedingly compassionate man and one who understands that times of tribulation require, perhaps above anything, delicate and thoughtful behavior. It is disheartening because despite his want to assist the Kennedy staff and associated loyalists, it was necessary for him to ensure the transition of power was both complete and without difficulty which might otherwise degrade our constitutional system.

State of the Union, Vietnam, and a New Presidency

Following his succession to the Presidency, Johnson had successfully won a term in his own right, but escalation of the war in Vietnam in 1963 had begun to take its toll on the American people. By 1968 it was also beginning to takes its toll on Johnson. Johnson, if we have learned anything from Busby to this point was not a particularly powerful war President: he was a domestic policy President. Nonetheless, he had assisted in escalating the Vietnam War, and his options for getting out of it without causing a great deal of harm to the United States were slowly constricting.

In private meetings with Busby, Johnson spent a great deal of time considering his resignation. Johnson had become unsure of himself, but he had also grown increasingly upset with the policy bureaucrats who he believed were preventing him, at least to some degree, from fully investing in the end of conflict:

“I’ve made up my mind,” he declared with sudden force. “I can’t get peace in Vietnam and be President too.” [. . .] “Those other fellows over there” – he swung a long arm in what I took to be the general direction of Southeast Asia – “won’t let me have both, and “ – now he jerked a contemptuous thumb over his shoulder toward capitol hill – “that bunch up there doesn’t want me to have either.” (175)

In essence, Johnson had framed his only outcome as either persisting in the war effort or resigning from office. Unfortunately, he could not be for sure that in resigning, something better could be produced. Instead, he hoped that a moratorium of carpet bombing in North Vietnam might be sufficient to bring the Vietnamese to the negotiating table. Fraught with this difficult decision, Johnson had Busby write a secret and separate speech concerning his resignation which he may or may not deliver during his State of The Union address in 1968.

For the most part, Busby remarks that Johnson’s behavior may have simply been another instance of therapeutic necessity. And he may have been correct, at least for some time. Johnson did in fact not deliver the speech which Busby had prepared for him during his State of The Union address in 1968. It is rumored that Johnson had the speech in his coat pocket, but he decided half way through to persist.

Months later, partisan divide within the Legislature and amongst the populace began to reach new heights of ferocity, and Johnson again called Busby to the White House. It is here on this second meeting that Johnson recalls what it is he believes his duty to the American people is:

But those are all personal matters,” he said. “You must never forget that fellow out in Omaha or Indianapolis or Denver. He has a wife going into the hospital for a cancer operation, a daughter he’s trying to put through school, a boy on his way to Vietnam, car payments to meet, insurance premiums due, a mortgage hanging over his head, and his mother needing to go into a nursing home. When that fellow looks at the White House, he thinks the man there has it made, has everything in the world – and he’s right. All my troubles put together aren’t as big for a President as that little fellow’s troubles are for him. We have to remember that. We have to remember that here in this house –“ he slapped his palm firmly against the arm of his chair – “no man who sits here can ever afford to think of himself first.” (192)

Not long after, Busby drew up a second draft of the speech Johnson had not given at the State of The Union address, and Johnson seemed to contemplate the matter more seriously. Although he did mention his lack of interest in having to deal with campaign contributors, and decried the role money played in Washington, it seems that Johnson’s real motivating force here had very little to do with Realpolitik. Indeed, it seems that Vietnam had left Johnson with a feeling that he had moved away from his New Deal ideals, and in doing so, had violated the trust of the American people. Not only that, but he believed – whether accurately or not – that he had contributed in some way to dividing a nation. On March 31, 1968 Johnson delivered his address to the nation: he would not be seeking reelection.

The text of Johnson’s speech is telling, and while Busby does not go into great length about its construction or delivery, he does spend some time considering the effect it had not just on the American people, but also on the Vietnamese leadership. Johnson had rolled the dice with Vietnam. He hoped that by not seeking reelection, he might encourage the Vietnamese to come to the negotiating table, which – and surprisingly – they did. By that standard alone, Johnson’s decision not to seek reelection was a victory for the American people, but it did not stop here. The following day, Johnson was due in Chicago for a speech, a place where distaste for his Presidency had grown considerably. But when the troop arrived, they found that there were not any protesters picketing as was usual. In fact, the streets seemed to be relatively clear.

What happened next was something which not anyone really expected. Johnson walked into a room packed floor to ceiling with people: they met him with applause. It is here that Busby notes Johnson, for the first time perhaps, did not seem to know what do to. “Poor man,” a Johnson press secretary said, “he doesn’t remember what a friendly crowd looks like.” (229). For the first time in a very long time, Johnson recalled what it was like to be an admired President.

But Chicago was not the only place where people were suddenly happy with Johnson: the whole nation was brimming with admiration. For the first time, and perhaps the last time since, a sitting President – who so many accused of hungering for power – made the decision not to seek reelection because he believed it would only cause more harm than good. This realization caught many people off guard, and in doing so caused them to think more seriously about what mattered in our nation. For Johnson, like Lincoln, a divided house is of benefit to no person. Our country was seriously divided, and very upset both on account of social issues such as civil rights, but also over what an increasing number believed was an unjust war with no clear endgame. But Johnson had an endgame, and it was perhaps one of the greatest upsets of all time. It was truly an instance where the American people, if only for a brief period of time, could have their cake and eat it too: Johnson had brought us back together.

Concluding Thoughts

The text as discussed here really does very little justice to the life and work of both Horace Busby and Lyndon Johnson. The sections which have been recounted cover only a small portion of a gripping biography, and for that reason readers are encouraged to explore this work in its entirety. However, it should be noted that readers interested in learning more about the details of Johnson’s foreign and domestic policy positions should look elsewhere.

In many ways this book offers readers a great deal, and yet leaves them wanting even more. If it were a matter of recommendation, I would propose readers study this work and then take up a more comprehensive overview of Johnson policy. As Busby has argued, it is impossible to understand the weight of a man’s decisions without understanding what makes him tick in the first place. For that reason, much of this essay has focused on details which are not, at first glance, directly related to the Johnson Presidency. We have covered “Lyndon Stories,” his formidable campaign ability, his distaste for powerful interest group, the trying times of his Presidency shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and ultimately his decision to not seek reelection.

The picture which should have emerged, at least to some degree in the minds of readers, is one of a man who cared deeply for his nation and his fellow people; a man who desired civil rights and spent a great deal of time shirking the opinions of other people; a man who was fraught with self doubt and relied intimately on his closest friends to assist him in performing the business of the people. If anything, readers who saw Johnson negatively on account of his involvement in Vietnam should be able to provide him with at least a modicum of forgiveness. After all, as Johnson himself reminds us, the Presidency, despite what we may wish it to be or think it is, “is a man.” (47).

Of course, there is an obvious bias in this book toward seeing Johnson as a larger-than-life public figure. He may not, in reality, have been as big as Busby makes him out to be. But it seems hard to argue that after reading. I do not think Busby’s goal was to write a book defending his friend. On the contrary, it seems Busby’s overarching objective was simply to tell us his story – a story which happened to involve our 36th President. In the end, it is up to readers to draw their own conclusion as pertains to the life and work of Lyndon Johnson. This biography only proposes a method by which one might begin the task of doing so.

References

Busby, H. (2005) The Thirty-First of March: An Intimate Portrait of Lyndon Johnson’s Final Days in Office. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hamilton, C. (2011, September 9). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Rick Perry on Gays, Christmas and Prayer

2011-12-09T15:47:00.001-06:00

(Lolz) Despite his smashing entrance into the 2012 Presidential race, Rick Perry's GOP ballot support has experienced a downward trend over the past five or so months. As of today, he is tied with Michele Bachmann at 6%. With numbers like that, it really isn't surprising the Perry campaign decided to pump some cash into campaign ads, but I don't think anyone really expected this doozy:

Holy balls, Batman - he actually did it. At any rate, this probably won't help Perry at all with independent voters (which he would need to beat Obama if nominated), and I don't honestly think it will propel him back to the front of the race, but who the hell really knows?

Aside from the "gays" moment, what really stuck out with me in this video was the suggestion that we need abandon our understanding of the Establishment Clause as including a separation of church and state. Consider the text of his ~~argument~~ pandering:

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.

When Perry says "our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school," he's either an idiot or he means for his audience to think of something else entirely.

Of the idiot issue, it does not take a great deal of work to discover that, yes, children are quite allowed to pray in school. In fact, when I was in high school, there was a Christian group (Young Life) which formed large prayer circles in hallways and on sidewalks several times per week in the morning. They prayed up a storm, and no one prevented them from doing so. So, if children are allowed to pray in school, what the hell does Perry mean?

The only option left is that Perry means prayer ought to be part of the classroom or assemblies. Well, you can only have that if you abandon our understanding of the Establishment Clause. But that's not really a very big deal for conservatives, and here is why:

Conservatives only appreciate the separation of church and state on the condition religions other than Christianity are separate.

Consider that for a moment. Do you think conservatives like Perry would side on their thumbs if Islam was given the exception? Of course not; they would protest their asses off.

And that's the hypocrisy. Beware peripheral association and metaphor in political rhetoric . . . (it's after more than just your heart).

Bill O’Reilly Confounds History and Makes Bank (WTF, America?)

2011-12-08T11:50:00.001-06:00

While rummaging through Amazon's Best Sellers in books the other day, I happened upon a rather depressing sight: Bill O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln was ranked sixth:

So why is that depressing? The straightforward answer is this: Bill O'Reilly is not an accomplished historian! He's a damned political pundit with a Masters in Public Administration. An M.P.A. certainly qualifies one to administer, but to write as an authoritative source on matters of national/world history? Absolutely not. Would you accept legal advice from a sales associate at Target? How about heart surgery; does it seem reasonable to let someone other than a heart surgeon perform such an operation? Of course not.

Reading historical works written by people other than historians is generally very risky business. Why? It's a matter of accuracy. And wouldn't you know it, O'Reilly's book has come under intense fire for . . . historical inadequacies. Such to the extent that the Ford's Theatre National Historic Site superintendent Rae Emerson reports the book will not be sold in the Ford Theatre's store. Seriously - If the damned Ford Theatre is unwilling to sell the book, what makes you think it's reliable?

Of course, historians could have it all wrong: Maybe O'Reilly is correct. Maybe the thousands upon thousands of articles, journal publications and books written by actual historians have it backward. After all, I agree with historian Hans-Jurgen Goertz who believes "that each generation exercises its right to re-read the sources that have been read by the preceding generation and to interpret them in a different way than before." (1998, 103).

Let's be clear about that: it is okay to re-read what has been written before, and to suggest new ways of understanding our shared histories. However, "Revisionism is, correctly understood, a step forward in awareness and understanding, not a step back." (Ibid, 105). But O'Reilly's book is isn't revisionism properly understood. This is a television personality writing books about history according to how he thinks it ought to be interpreted - never mind citing primary sources, addressing previous research and submitting research for peer review. You know - making sure your contributing to our understanding and not confounding it. But, nah - to hell with all that academic shit, IT ARE FACT (he edited the Wikipedia page)!

In reality, O'Reilly's book offers readers nothing - aside from inadequacy. And yet it remains in the top sellers list on Amazon, and USA Today ranks it #13 on their top 100 list:

So I don't get it; we complain about inaccuracy, about revisionism, and about how our history is being constantly altered. And nonetheless, O'Reilly's book - which accomplishes all of this - does exceedingly well. Hey America: what's the deal, man?

Are readers unsure how to judge the credibility of a source? Are we just not sure who is reliable? Is it that we're afraid "history books" are boring? You tell me. And in the mean time, if you're really interested in learning about an extraordinary president, give historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rival: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln a read:

It's Reliable!

Reference

Goertz, H. (1998). "Response to The 'Revolutionary Nature' of Thomas Muntzer." trans. Alexandra Sterling-Hellenbrand, The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 72: 103-107. Retrieved December 7, 2011.

Herman Cain’s Failure is Good for the GOP

2011-11-29T00:58:00.001-06:00

As Herman Cain's gaffes, accusers, general lack of knowledge and book sales pile up, it seems he can accomplish little more than singing to crowds and demeaning the Republican image with independent voters. For reasons which should be obvious, that probably is not a good thing. Right?

Well, Cain's failure may in fact work to the benefit of the remaining Republican field by way of a persuasive tool called the perceptual contrast principle. Respected author and scholar in the field of compliance gaining and negotiation, Robert Cialdini says of the principle:

Simply put, if the second item is fairly different from the first, we will see the second as more different than it actually is. (2009, p. 12)

So what's that mean? Well, if you're a sales associate at a technology store this is what it means: An $800 laptop is going to seem inexpensive when compared to a $2,000 model. The quick tip? Show your customers the expensive items first, and you're almost guaranteed a purchase on less expensive item. Customers, of course, should beware the use of this tactic ;+)

If you're still unsure how it works, consider an example from the physical sciences: You pick up some item with a known weight of 50 pounds one time, and immediately after setting it down, you pick up a second item of lesser, but unknown weight. Nine out of ten times, you're going to say the second weight is considerably lighter than it actually is.

So how does this relate to Herman Cain's dying campaign? It's easy; the further Cain's campaign plummets in the eyes of independent voters, the more favorable other candidates will appear - even if they aren't actually any better. It's good old fashioned contrast, and it may very well help the GOP retain some votes it might otherwise lose on account of Cain's erratic behavior.

If you want to learn more about the contrast principle and it's more intimate workings, I suggest getting a copy of the books listed below, or at least scouring the internet for information on these related concepts:

Fixed Action Patterns
Trigger Feature
Judgmental Heuristics
Controlled Responding
Foot-In-The-Door Technique

Happy learning.

References

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (2011). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Herman Cain: Libtards, Sexy Time and Foreign Policy

2011-11-28T17:44:00.001-06:00

I suppose one could say Herman Cain cannot win for losing. Not long after being accused of sexual misconduct by four separate women, a fifth has come forward to report she had an ongoing and consensual affair with Cain for 13 years. I'm willing to bet Mrs. Cain is not entirely pleased.

Not surprisingly, Cain denied the allegations made by Ginger White, and even preempted her disclosure in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer (Oliphant, November 28, 2011). Cain's legal council released the following statement concerning the affair:

Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media. (Russell, November 28, 2011)

Oh buddy! I smell a libtard conspiracy in the making! Wait for it . . .

Well, it wasn't exactly conspiracy proper, but Lolz! Tony can do satire!

But in all seriousness, here's what's really disconcerting: While the Cain-Train works hard on derailing itself, comment threads like this build momentum and head toward the zone of all-out bullshit and neglects, with near complete success, more substantial issues.

Truthfully, we should all care less as to whether or not Herman Cain had an affair. I'm not really even concerned he is accused of sexual misconduct. Now, I'm not saying that what he has done is permissible, but I am wondering what impact such behavior has on his ability to serve as president.

At no place in Article II do powers afforded the president have anything to do with sexy-time, running Domino's, creating jobs, or banning abortion.

I know. It's crazy, but if you read Article II, you'll find I'm quite correct.

So what does a president do? Foreign Policy. I'll write that again, but with italics: Foreign Policy. And now with italics and caps: FOREIGN POLICY. You get the point yet?

The only strong powers a president has involve foreign policy. You want low unemployment? Call your damned Congressman. And even if a president might have profound impact, any policy decision in this realm requires the consent of . . . Congress. Buzz-kill; I know - but it's true. FDR didn't work miracles because that's what president's do; he worked miracles because the Congress worked with him.

So, if a president only has strong power in foreign policy, my question is: where does Herman Cain stand on foreign policy issues? Apparently, here:

and here . . .

Gotcha, bitches!

Look, the real reason Republican's should be against Herman Cain's nomination is simple: as concerns an understanding of foreign policy, the powers of the presidency, and a demonstrated willingness to take some initiative in considering foreign nations in an increasingly globalized world, Herman Cain is not a good fit for the office. That's all, and I submit it without prejudice.

Of course, my position is bound to rile a bunch of people up, and that's understandable. We look to presidents to do a great deal beyond what they are in fact capable of doing (legally and otherwise). There is little doubt in my mind that Tony and his concurring masses are seriously interested in the discussion they are having. I can dig that, but ultimately they argue points which have little relevance to presidential powers, and should be attributed more to what we might call the banter of backlash politics.

References

Oliphant, J. (November 28, 2011). Herman Cain denies report of 13-year affair [video]. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA: Tribune Company.

Russell, D. (November 28, 2011). Georgia Woman Claims 13-Year Affair with Herman Cain. Fox 5 News. Atlanta, GA: Fox Television Stations, Inc.