| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Clark Morris" <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:dj5042ldcp68l1sjp2lhgb11cb4eiqmu4a@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:58:25 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Now and Zen it isn't.
LOL! (good one!)
On a more serious note which president(s) of
> the United States in the past 100 years did you think were worth
> something?
OK - I'll ignore the ones I have no personal memory of, because my opinion
of them would be based on history and what I read about them. That really
isn't fair to the ones I DO remember, some of whom haven't had their history
written yet.
So I'll not discuss all the Presidents from Teddy Rooseveldt (1901 - 1909)
through Harry Truman (1945 - 1953), recognising that there may have been
some 'great' Presidents in there, and not in any way dismissing the
acccomplishments of any of them, and start with Dwight Eisenhower (1953 -
1961)
I remember seeing movie newsreels of the campaign in America with people
chanting "I like Ike". A war hero, and Army General, you'd think he would be
a good man for the job. But the world was a very troubled place. There was a
'cold War' going on with Russia. The entire planet was threatened with
nuclear destruction. Khruschev (Leader of the Soviet Union at that time) got
up in the United Nations and famously banged the table with his shoe on
several occasions. He also shouted "We will bury you!" at the Western
delegates. For young people (I was a teenager) it was a very frightening and
worrisome time. It seemed that the Russians had a lunatic in charge and the
US had no answer. The US appeared to be being run by old men who couldn't
deal with or contain the energy of the dangerously erratic Russian Leader.
The whole world could be destroyed any moment and we didn't even get to
vote.
Please understand that to those of us who did NOT live in the USA the
domestic policy of the President was of little consequence; foreign policy
was everything. Dwight Eisenhower, in retrospect, was probably a good man
but he did not show leadership, seemed to have no answer to Khruschev, and
seemed to be totally devoid of charisma. He was unconcerned with countries
outside the US, did not work well with allies such as the UK (this may have
been a hangover from his wartime experiences with Churchill) and just didn't
seem to grasp that his decisions would affect the entire Western world. I
guess I'm saying that he was not a Statesman, in the sense that maybe FDR
had been.
As the American elections of 1960 approached we waited anxiously.
Nixon came over in the newscasts as being insincere (we found out later that
he certainly was :-)). This was the first election where the candidates
debated on television (it was also the first where Hawaii and Alaska were
invited to vote) and Kennedy won the TV debate easily. He also won the
election, but it was incredibly close.
There was considerable elation around the world, especially amongst young
people. Kennedy had passion, charisma, intelligence, and was in his 40s - an
unheard of age for a Head of State at that time.
He dealt with Khruschev over the Cuban missile crisis (Khruschev was removed
from office in 1964 and one of the reasons was because he backed down over
the Cuban missiles. Yet, he had a case. The West had missiles all around
Russia targeting Russian Cities, but when the Russians tried a similar
approach using Cuba, they were stopped.) It was seen as a major victory for
Kennedy and the West. He had correctly realised that the Russians would only
respect a firm stance, even though the stakes were incredibly high and the
risk was global annihilation.
There was a new spirit of hope. Kennedy travelled outside America and roused
support wherever he went. A fine orator, it was difficult not to watch or
listen to him without being moved. Even when he got it wrong (as he arguably
did in the famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech), the crowd still loved him.
(What his advisers didn't tell him is that in Germany a 'Berliner' is a kind
of doughnut that has jam injected into it, so his phrase actually translated
into "I am a jam doughnut". It didn't matter; the spirit and sentiment of
what he was trying to say was enough to bring rapturous applause.
He was badly advised and completely screwed up the Bay of Pigs (an abortive
invasion of Cuba by US backed Cuban expats. Castro was tipped off and was
waiting. There was carnage and no one ever tried invading Cuba again.
(Instead, the CIA tried to remove Castro by ensuring his supply of toilet
paper was poisoned...) Kennedy was forgiven by the world for this fiasco.
For most of us it was inspiring to see the advances he pushed for. The
Soviets lost their superiority in the Space Race and Apollo 11 landed before
the end of the decade, just as JFK had promised. (Lyndon Johnson deserves
much credit for this, but it was JFK who initiated it. I think it is a
tragedy he never got to see it.)
He showed vision, compassion, and responsibility. You felt like the world
was in good hands.
His death was simply devastating. Most people who were over the age of, say,
12, at the time, can remember exactly where they were and what they were
doing when the news of his death was received. (I could even tell you what I
was wearing...it was over 40 years ago. The only other event I could tell
you where I was and what I was wearing was the Apollo 11 landing,
ironically, as noted above, instigated by Kennedy.)
So, in my book, JFK was a great President.
(I think it is very  that there seems to be a preoccupation with his
alleged failings, now he is unable to answer or refute charges. Was he
involved in the death of marilyn Monroe? It makes a good story. Was he a
druken philanderer like some others of his tribe? Does it matter if he does
his job outstandingly well? Raise all the questions you like, in my book, he
got us through a very difficult time and his murder was a tragedy.
Since then we haven't seen anyone in the same league. There have been
occasional memorable incidents...
Nixon's impeachment and resignation in 1975. Made me laugh. The guy was a
villain who committed illegal and outrageous acts while holding the seal of
President (never mind the lying and manipulation), yet, watching him on TV
giving his farewell speech he came across as the victim :-) "They won't have
Richard Nixon to kick around any more." I actually laughed aloud when I saw
it; a conman to the bitter end.
Jimmy Carter always struck me as an honest, decent, man, but he didn't have
the drive and charisma that would put hm in the Kennedy league.
The Reagan/Thatcher partnership was an interesting one and you notice that
Gaddafi was chastised during this era. Since then we haven't heard a peep
out of him. I wonder if Al Queda would have tried the 9/11 attacks under
that regime. (This is not an implicit criticism of Dubya; who was
unfortunate enough to have been in power at the time of 9/11. There are many
criticisms of Dubya that CAN be made, but this isn't one of them.)
George Bush Snr. Had to deal with Desert Storm and did a passing good job
of it. Made a mistake in not letting Stormin' Norman go into Baghdad and get
Saddam (We're all paying for that mistake now...).
Bill Clinton? What can you say? Mention his name and I think of blue dresses
and cigars. It is entirely his own fault if this is his legacy.
Dubya? I'm making no comment. He gets points for trying, but put him in the
Kennedy league? I don't think so...
So where to now? Condoleezza Rice or Hilary Clinton? Well that's a choice
I'd be thrilled to make...NOT!
I don't envy those of you who DO get to vote... :-)
Without wishing to rub salt in the wound, there is a popular theory that in
a democracy people may not get the government they want, but they will
invariably get the government they deserve.
If you allow powerful hidden cartels and lobbies to manipulate the nominees,
if you require such huge investment to run for office that only the very
wealthy can have any hope of doing so, and even they will have to answer to
their financial backers, if you, in effect, put democracy up for sale, just
like everything else in your system, then you will not get outstanding
candidates and Presidents.
The best you can hope for is to keep USA Inc ticking over. And that ticking
may well be the time bomb of terrorism and insurrection. It seems to me that
some of the very worrying trends we are seeing emerging and discussed here
(like the WBC, and 1,000,000 people demonstrating to be allowed to be above
the law) can only end in disaster for the US.
There is a dire and urgent need for tolerance and a change of attitude on
the part of many. The widening gap between the Haves and the Have Nots MUST
be plugged if things are not to descend into chaos.
Maybe it's time the 'silent majority' broke their silence...?
Pete.
|