Presidential Legacies
By Ari Kaufman (01/17/08)
On New Years Day, the new mayor of Indianapolis, former Marine Greg Ballard, whose "grassroots" campaign scored the greatest upset in city history, had his inauguration in the Indiana War Memorial, where I happen to work.
A little over a year later, the new American President will do the same on the steps of the US Capitol Building. He or she will have quick work to do to keep America on its course in the fight against Global Jihad---or depending upon the winner, to "repair America's tarnished image in the world." And whether they like it or not, such policies will not only affect President Bush's legacy, but begin to pen marks on their own. It's an important time, and the derisive comments about the former President will have to take a back seat to "moving forward" here and abroad.
Folks have already gone to their caucuses and polls in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan, and will soon do so in the key states of Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. Within days the presidential field will mercifully be cut at least in half; within 40 days we'll possibly know the final two nominees. In an election cycle unmatched in length, historical significance, and unparalleled in its effect upon the future safety of America, gleeful Americans will finally break free of the constant news cycle, faux debates and planted questions. A year of campaigning---or for some, a lifetime---will have finally ended.
But the new Commander in Chief will undoubtedly have big shoes to fill. The Bush Doctrine and the outgoing president's ultimate legacy will be affected greatly by the new Head of State. Their legacy begins, as all others have, with the remnants of their predecessor. But they will soon choose their own path. If history is a guide, and it nearly always is, the new president won't desire the Iraq portion of the War on Terror to be part of his or her tenure. The Iraqis may want us to remain, and we may be succeeding, but for better or worse, this is George Bush's war, and no other executive's---be they Democrat, Republican, ardent critic and obstinate supporter.
So while the party of the leader in power, and surely his or her personal ideology, will no doubt decide the speed at which change will occur, one need only look back half a century for an eerily direct analogy.
Before the post 1960s era of citizen impatience and media acquiescence to such immaturity reared its head in Vietnam and now Iraq, there was a two-year warning---a stalemate in Korea, which overlapped two presidencies.
President Harry S. Truman was moderate, hawkish and from Middle America, with a foreign policy ideology no 2008 candidate from his party would recognize, much less invoke. This Democrat began the four-decade Cold War versus Communism by assigning troops---many of whom were just recovering from World War II's toll---to Korea, without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress. Imagine that.
"Truman's War," as some called it, was led by Second World War Hero and General of the Armies, Douglas MacArthur. Though controversial, and with a rapid escalation akin to what we saw later in Vietnam, the American public was solidly behind the intervention. Within one year, that overused euphemism "stalemate" was tossed around the papers, and after another year, the war suddenly was now also deemed a "conflict" or simply a "police action."
As such was the furor of the situation, and a national focus into the "corruption" within the Truman Administration became the rallying cry of his detractors, the noble Truman, with approval ratings in the 20s and calls from his impeachment---especially after he relieved the popular MacArthur of his commanding duties---did not seek re-election. If the aforementioned does not resemble soundbytes from your nightly newscast or the USA Today, ponder this tidbit:
In 1952, Harry Truman saw his approval rating fall to a mere 22 percent after his administration became mired in the Korean War. Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill after another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict. Frustrated, they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower—especially after the World War II general told voters, “I shall go to Korea.”
That World War Two General, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican who had originally been recruited to run by the Democrats four years prior, won the election over Adlai Stevenson and took power in January 1953. In turn, he became the first career soldier to be Commander in Chief in 82 years and the last General America has seen guide the nation.
Though he was a military man, a declarative statement of his intent to "go to Korea" a half-century ago was big news. Nowadays, for various ideological reasons, the next president surely will have "gone to Iraq" numerous times, but the parallels are eerie, even though, despite what the critics pontificate, the actual battles at hand are hardly similar.
Alas, knowing his legacy began with Day One, President Eisenhower ended "Truman's War" in the Far East within six months. Ike's dynamic presidency was thus defined not by an unpopular war a world away, but rather by peace, prosperity, Leave it to Beaver and family values, keeping the pressure on (and militarily competing with) the USSR, the creation of the Interstate Highway System, five supreme court justice appointments, two new states and the impetus for the Civil Rights Era with Brown vs. Board and the "Little Rock Nine".
The inflexible and ferociously determined Eisenhower, a Four Star General who would have surely be considered a warmonger by today's far left, is now nearly always considered one of the ten best presidents in historical rankings. He knew Korea should not part of his legacy, just as the next president will realize about Iraq (and "Bush's War") with respect to their legacy.
The Korean War, overshadowed by World War II and Vietnam, is now known as "The Forgotten War." And despite all the fulmination directed toward H.S. Truman in 1952, history has been quite kind to him. Our 34th President is now ranked even higher than Ike, often 7th, occasionally breaking into the top five. Perhaps this lofty rating is because of Eisenhower's tenure, but also arguably due to a defining late summer event just months into his tenure when the world changed. Again, seem familiar?
The immediate decisions of Rudy, John, Hillary, Mitt, Barack, et al. will thus have a major stamp on not only their own legacy but on G.W. Bush's. The future will judge whether whirlwind changes on the ground in the Middle East will augment Bush (or his successor's) ultimate rating. The new president can be like Ike with some decisive changes at the onset but must continue on some semblance of Bush’s “inflexible” path, especially considering the positive goings-on late in 2007, regardless of the media and the polls. To be too capricious in the first month---or the venerable "first 100 days"---of a new presidency at this delicate and crucial time in history and divert an agenda to secondary issues would be catastrophic.
Former Indiana territorial Governor William Henry Harrison was said to do great things in his first 30 days in office. Unfortunately, he died shortly after due to pneumonia after refusing to don a coat during his lengthy inaugural address in March 1841. Let's hope the 44th Leader of the Free World has a staffer grab his or her pullover, and a sensible global vision.
What's my opinion? Erstwhile frontrunner Michael Huckabee showed telling ignorance with his recent faux pax in Foreign Affairs Magazine, and the Democrats, especially Barack Hussein Obama, believe "change" and "hope" are all we need to lead America in its most crucial hour to defeat our enemies. Thus, it appears that these four men---and them only---seem most capable to lead America based upon past experiences, knowledge, and current rhetoric:
Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson.
Only time will tell if the average America is cognizant of these facts. One thing is for certain, President Bush, for all the hatred and condemnation thrown his way---by both sides---has achieved much as the first post 9/11 president. It's a new world with greater challenges than any could imagine. Folks claim they want a "uniter," and well, by irking both sides, Bush has proven to be such.
He is a noble man, an honest man, who is NOT walking on the constitution or "pi**ing" on civil liberties. There is no proof of this. Just go to any peaceful suburb or anti-war march to prove that. These are lies, infuriating ones for sure. We won't know what we had until its gone. And for all the tactical errors in Iraq (rarely noted by his faux liberal detractors who never read nor think, so they instead just yell "no WMDs" or "no war for Oil" like little children), the last four and a half months of Surge has been remarkably successful. We are winning, no soldiers are dying, and it's up to the next president to be consistent. I know McCain, Giuliani, Thompson and Romney will. Ron Paul, John Edwards, Hillary and Obama surely will not. Huckabee perhaps not as well.
Reading history is key. President Eisenhower may have been intrepid, but he was savvy. After all, he was a General. (Barack Obama's foreign policy "experience" is living in a Muslim country when he was six years old and voting "present" (not "yes" or "no") at congressional sessions. Quite a guy.)
"Troops home now" was not a slogan in 1953, as people were smarter (and less naive) then. There were no I-pods, celebrity gossip, Facebook, antiwar.coms, and Barack Hussein Obama to distract them. They read, pondered, discussed and decided. Now it's all on impulse. We expect old-fashioned retrospection from the next president. Not to nitpick, but Obama's "new breed" is ignorance personified, and the antithesis of what the Leader of the Free World should be about.
Ari Kaufman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ari Kaufman
