Interesting piece on US presidents from Achenbach, with this reminder:
Experts on the presidency repeatedly returned to a central premise: A president needs to be good at making decisions, lots of them, on complicated matters. This may seem screamingly obvious -- but consider how little most of us know about the decision-making skills of the three people still running for president. We know more about the way they dress than the way they decide.Instead of, or in addition to debates, I wonder there could be a kind of Model Executive Branch or mock-government game for candidates. Perhaps stick them in a nuclear crisis simulator, see how they fare.
It would be important, for the public's interests, to get candidates in a situation where they couldn't resort to words, to waffling, or coming up with yet another memorable sound bite. Put them in a hypothetical ethical dilemma -- at what point do they rob the pharmacy?
Even if we could just confront them with a chess puzzle (in the actual game of chess), that could speak volumes. (Candidates would have the choice of go besides chess.)
Unfortunately, despite increased fascination in and power of the office, the cynical view is growing that presidents as individuals don't even get to decide, that they're just figureheads. Remember the confusion and 20 different versions about when Dubya learned about 9/11 and how he was told. Fact remains that he didn't even express emotion or basic reassurance to Americans independently; or perhaps he was instructed to wait for a cue.
And that sadly makes efforts by pocket historians like Achenbach quaint.
4 comments:
Despite efforts by the media and various "gurus" and "intellectuals" to portray Reagan as an out-of-touch bumbling idiot, it turns out from several books that he made many big and tough decisions himself and then stuck to them, fighting off the appeasers in the State dept and others who wanted to "make nice" with the Soviets. He was a good looking guy, never had trouble getting girls, was a lifguard who saved over twenty people from drowning, etc. He had self-confidence and a mission: to bring down the Evil Empire. Wish he had been around long enough to help Russia deal with its Communist past - just as the Germans had to face the reality of Nazi crimes. Then we wouldn't have seen the KGB clan - with Putin as front man - turning that country into a Russian version of Germany in the thirties. As Alexander Yakovlev put it in his book, A century of violence in Soviet Russia": "Only a consistent de-Bolshevization of the state and society can save our people from final ruin, both physical and spiritual."
...and now we've had another "out of touch bumbling idiot" in office for nearly 8 years who went after the axis of evil and unfortunately is prepared to stay the course no matter what. Maybe if he'd only been a lifeguard, it would have all turned out differently ; )
The whole Bush bunch is problematic. But I think you mis-read Readonly's comment about Reagan. In his case: "Mission accomplished!" Historians are pretty much agreed that Reagan played a large role in the demise of the USSR. Even most of those who criticized Reagan during his presidency are now crediting him with that achievement and with being a great president. He was NOT a bumbling idiot. Unfortunately then Bush Sr and the usual crowd of diplomat types and big businessmen messed up Russia's transition to democracy and freedom. In addition to other problems,the younger Bush has too many of his daddy's advisors around him.
Well, you'd have to look back exactly 100 years to find the most recent great Republican president.
I have to say that I tend to see Dutch as an extension of the gerontocracy that seemed to be flourishing in the 1980s. Another candidate for the Fletcher Memorial Home.
His unquestionably effective anti-communist policies came at the cost of dubious ties with dictatorships. America's inner cities became flooded with crack and homeless former mental patients. Net gain/loss -- open to conjecture.
The Promethean fire of the Internet -- and the basic economic lie of socialism -- would have brought the Soviet Union crashing down sooner or later, I think.
By being strong, Reagan did prevent any wild ideas on the part of the dying evil empire. There were no further Afghanistans. He kept world communism in check. Nothing wrong with peace through strength. As such, he may deserve to have a military base named after him.
Post a Comment