What Might Have Been
It is always problematic to argue the "What if?s" - Life and every situation is dependent and reactive with everything else that is going on. No one event or person lives in a vacuum. A "what if?" assumes all things are equal, when in fact, changing one thing changes many things. This is a law of dynamic systems.
One of the speakers on Tuesday (I believe it was Mark Warner's address, maybe Ted Sorenson ... the remark was off the cuff and not in the written versions of the speech posted at demconvention.com) threw up a "what if?" that's been banging around in my head ever since. He said, "thank God that Jack Kennedy was President during the missile crisis and not Richard Nixon." Well, why thank God? What would switching two men have meant...
This is following a thought out - not an endorsement of dismissal of a particular president, just going to the end of a proposed "What if?"
Jack Kennedy became President with a pretty thin resume and spectacular oratory. He was an unknown quantity on the world stage, and the Soviet Union was in an aggressive posture. Richard Nixon was a two term vice-president, staunch anti-communist (he was Sen. Joe McCarthy's right hand man during the HUAC hearings), a foreign policy expert, and had debated Kruschev personally on which system of government would prevail.
All new leaders are tested - especially the unknown quantities. Our allies as well as our adversaries want to know what to expect.
The question I pose in response is - had Richard Nixon been President at the time, would the Soviet Union have even considered putting missiles in Cuba? My thought is, no, they wouldn't have. Nixon's policy on Soviet expansion was clear - it would not be tolerated. It is well within reason to suggest that Kennedy's posture of idealism struck the Kremlin as naive and they felt the consequences of moving nuclear arms into Cuba would be minimal and negotiable.
This kind of circular logic runs through politics over and over - everything from "TGF (Thank God For) Bush on 9/11", TGF FDR during the Depression", "TGF Lincoln for the Civil War" as if the country would be inherently destroyed had these particular men not been in office.
The founders understood that the office of the president would be occupied by a human being for a limited amount of time, and wrote the Constitution as a manual to go by. When Lincoln was President he was thought to be a hillbilly and a dunce who trampled on the "Bill of Rights" according to newspapers of the day (shades of Bush today... wouldn't that be ironic?...). Publishing Mogul William Randolph Hearst made it a career to go after FDR - equating him to a communist and a dictator.
And what if Gore had won in 2000... an act of war is an act of war. He would have received the same intel as Bush, and knowing that the country needed justice would have gone into Afghanistan full tilt. We may or may not have gone into Iraq, but he certainly wouldn't have sat there and done nothing.
The founders set up a good system understanding that too much power in one person was dangerous, but that one person did need to be in charge. If the President strays too far, the Congress and the Courts can reel him back in. Nothing happens without the cooperation of Congress and the Courts - and we are witness to this everyday in debates on the Patriot Act or Guantanamo.
We at TPP believe that everyone who occupies the Oval Office is humbled by the job, and carries it out doing what he genuinely believes is best for the country. we believe that of Bush as we believe it of Clinton, FDR, Reagan, Lincoln or Washington. We believe it to be true of Obama and McCain. No one who goes through all of the trouble of becoming president wants to be a bad president.
We believe those who are elected rise to the situations they are handed, and history has made more men than men who have made history. We do not need to thank God for a particular man, we need to thank God for the wisdom of those who understood, even in their imperfect way, that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was a system superior to kings and monarchs.
This is why we believe that irresponsible statements like "Thank God For (fill in a politician)" need to be replaced with "Common Sense".
RLB
One of the speakers on Tuesday (I believe it was Mark Warner's address, maybe Ted Sorenson ... the remark was off the cuff and not in the written versions of the speech posted at demconvention.com) threw up a "what if?" that's been banging around in my head ever since. He said, "thank God that Jack Kennedy was President during the missile crisis and not Richard Nixon." Well, why thank God? What would switching two men have meant...
This is following a thought out - not an endorsement of dismissal of a particular president, just going to the end of a proposed "What if?"
Jack Kennedy became President with a pretty thin resume and spectacular oratory. He was an unknown quantity on the world stage, and the Soviet Union was in an aggressive posture. Richard Nixon was a two term vice-president, staunch anti-communist (he was Sen. Joe McCarthy's right hand man during the HUAC hearings), a foreign policy expert, and had debated Kruschev personally on which system of government would prevail.
All new leaders are tested - especially the unknown quantities. Our allies as well as our adversaries want to know what to expect.
The question I pose in response is - had Richard Nixon been President at the time, would the Soviet Union have even considered putting missiles in Cuba? My thought is, no, they wouldn't have. Nixon's policy on Soviet expansion was clear - it would not be tolerated. It is well within reason to suggest that Kennedy's posture of idealism struck the Kremlin as naive and they felt the consequences of moving nuclear arms into Cuba would be minimal and negotiable.
This kind of circular logic runs through politics over and over - everything from "TGF (Thank God For) Bush on 9/11", TGF FDR during the Depression", "TGF Lincoln for the Civil War" as if the country would be inherently destroyed had these particular men not been in office.
The founders understood that the office of the president would be occupied by a human being for a limited amount of time, and wrote the Constitution as a manual to go by. When Lincoln was President he was thought to be a hillbilly and a dunce who trampled on the "Bill of Rights" according to newspapers of the day (shades of Bush today... wouldn't that be ironic?...). Publishing Mogul William Randolph Hearst made it a career to go after FDR - equating him to a communist and a dictator.
And what if Gore had won in 2000... an act of war is an act of war. He would have received the same intel as Bush, and knowing that the country needed justice would have gone into Afghanistan full tilt. We may or may not have gone into Iraq, but he certainly wouldn't have sat there and done nothing.
The founders set up a good system understanding that too much power in one person was dangerous, but that one person did need to be in charge. If the President strays too far, the Congress and the Courts can reel him back in. Nothing happens without the cooperation of Congress and the Courts - and we are witness to this everyday in debates on the Patriot Act or Guantanamo.
We at TPP believe that everyone who occupies the Oval Office is humbled by the job, and carries it out doing what he genuinely believes is best for the country. we believe that of Bush as we believe it of Clinton, FDR, Reagan, Lincoln or Washington. We believe it to be true of Obama and McCain. No one who goes through all of the trouble of becoming president wants to be a bad president.
We believe those who are elected rise to the situations they are handed, and history has made more men than men who have made history. We do not need to thank God for a particular man, we need to thank God for the wisdom of those who understood, even in their imperfect way, that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was a system superior to kings and monarchs.
This is why we believe that irresponsible statements like "Thank God For (fill in a politician)" need to be replaced with "Common Sense".
RLB
Posted by The Thomas Paine Project at 8/27/2008 7:03 AM 
Categories: National Security, Democratic Convention Coverage, Foreign Affairs, Partisan Politics
Tags: DNC
Categories: National Security, Democratic Convention Coverage, Foreign Affairs, Partisan Politics
Tags: DNC
How can you say that Bush isn't evil? - an illegal war, trampling on people's rights, stealing the election - what more do you need?
Reply to this
Well, it's good to see a true believer from the left speak up - it was getting a little lonely standing here in the middle... welcome and feel free to comment all you like.
I didn't say that Bush was a particularly GOOD president in terms of doing his job. He is no conservative - compassionate or otherwise - he has spent like a drunken sailor, increased government oversight of our lives rather than limit government. By trampling on people's rights, I'm assuming that you mean the Patriot Act, among others - and with that I share your concern. The potential for abuse of the powers granted by the Patriot Act is frightening. And it was originally passed in the wake of 9/11 - in an atmosphere of fear and vengeance - never a great time to make laws. This is why it was passed as a temporary measure and needed to be renewed earlier this year. Then, with the passage of time some, of the more heinous attacks at the Constitution were rolled back, modified or eliminated by Congress. That is their function. This type of law should always be subject to renewal and fine tuning as the original threat that it addressed is dealt with. With no law or guideline on the books at all though, there was no legislative protection of the Constitution. That was what the Patriot Act was supposed to do - define the limits of those special wartime powers.
An illegal war - Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier and hindsight is always 20/20. It may be hard to remember now, but at the time our intelligence services and the intelligence services of just about everyone else agreed that if Saddam Hussein did not HAVE weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he was in the process of acquiring them. He had been documented to use chemical weapons on his own people, and he was flipping the bird to the world in general. As it turns out - all of the intelligence was wrong. As it came out in his trial, Saddam was just puffing up his own dictator creds, and we believed him. By then it was too late - we were already in there and had broken the country. While I didn't necessarily agree with going into Iraq, the consensus on the world stage agreed with the Bush Administration and authorized force, and the Congress of the United States agreed and authorized force - with many Democratic Senators and members of Congress voting to authorize it. So, the war was not illegal, it was ill-informed. Bush acted on the information he was given, which agreed with the information everyone else had - got the authorization of the United Nations and Congress and then proceeded to mismanage the war. My take would be that his intentions were good, but that he did not rise to his own good intentions - and like so many other things good intentions can lead to bad results. I don't see evil.
Stealing the election - now that's holding a grudge. Even Al Gore thinks he dodged a bullet by now. So we're in an electoral dead heat in 2000 - Florida is the deciding factor. And Florida - colorful as it is, had a really screwed-up, confusing way to vote, which there was no way to straighten out in a timely manner. The issue that was brought to the Supreme Court was "Does the Secretary of State of Florida have the ultimate say on certifying elections in that state?" The Constitution of the United States (which is the only basis for the Supreme Court to rule from as defined in the Constitution - Article 3, Section 2) only gives us Amendment 10 to rule on this issue, which says that powers not laid out to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the States. The justices had to defer to the Florida Constitution which specifically gives the power of certification of elections within Florida to the Secretary of State of Florida" Kathryn Harris, Secretary of State of Florida, certified the election by the ballot count determining George Bush to be President. Al Gore conceded. Game over. It may be law, or it may be luck, but it's not evil.
I Think history will be kinder to George Bush than we are. I believe his intentions were good, his execution needs a lot of work, and he may be lucky by stumbling into a win in Iraq with the help of Gen. David Petraeus - who had a good plan and was allowed to run with it, and the intense dedication and pride of all of our armed forces. They were asked to do a lot with very little, and now it looks as though they will succeed. And if in 20 years Iraq is a peaceful democracy, would that be a bad thing?
Reply to this
The thought that it really doesn't matter who wins is a good point, no one man is going to destroy the country, but it does matter in which direction the country gets pulled. In the example you give, Kennedy was the riskier choice, but the situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis worked out. The longer standing issues that lived on past Kennedy were committing more deeply to Vietnam (which Nixon probably would have done) and committing to the Civil Rights movement (which we can't say what Nixon would have done with). Even if Bush was "well-intentioned" his choices and mistakes will leave a mark on the country for years to come. I'll even give you the point that Al Gore or John Kerry would have made their own mistakes with repercussions down the road - but the country would be moving in a different direction than it is now. No one can say that the direction would be absolutely better (or worse), but it would be different - so, at least for awhile, it does matter who wins.
Reply to this
This speaks to the current campaign going on - beyond all of the mudslinging, these really are two honorable guys, with two honorable running-mates, and all of them want what's best for the country. Neither team is going to destroy 225 years of America. We've had a few who did the job badly - that's why we get to throw them out of office after 4 years (or try to remove them for war crimes or hummers in the oval office via impeachment). Picking a president is more about choosing a direction than a final result. No one can really predict what the final result of either choice will be.
Reply to this
Two honorable guys maybe, but the Kennedy-Nixon comparison does pass muster. An old pro vs. the newbie. I never was a big fan of JFK - thought he was both naive and reckless. I'm sure most of the "legend" laid on him is due more to his untimely death than to his accomplishments - and it was up to Nixon to eventually correct his mistakes (VietNam, for one). If Obama wins, expect more of the same - shame McCain won't be available for the do-over.
Reply to this
Seems Tailgunner Joe got his tongue caught in his zipper this past weekend - he guaranteed that if Obama became President, we would have an international crisis in the first 6 months of his administration - hell yeah Joe - get us to go for the O by scaring us with what we're already afraid of. But you have to admire a guy who takes honesty beyond the call of duty. Maybe he can wolf whistle the next time Sarah Palin walks by.
Reply to this
Perceived weakness in a President always comes back to bite us. You cite Nixon vs Kennedy, bagorocks gives us the Obama scenario, but look all around. The world has us by the short hairs under Carter and only let go because they feared Reagan. Clinton was all conciliatory and Saddam thumbed his nose to him - as well as Iran, N. Korea and China. Bush was "tested" with 9/11 and thankfully came out swinging - and everybody pulled back. Reagan stated, and all true leaders know by nature - true peace only comes through strength. I'd rather skip the test and go with McCain this time - there's enough trouble brewing right now that we really don't need to add any more.
Reply to this
Saw new posts an wanted to check it out and wow... You seem to make the point that it's better to be feared than respected. I can't agree with that. And Carter produced the Camp David accords, which gave us a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. Iraq still seems like a personal issue with the Bush family - clinton found ways of dealing with dictators other than just invading countries left and right. Smart s better than strong.
Reply to this
I'll give you that smart can win over strong - and of course the best of all world's is lucky. Being a respected country is important, and has long been a part of our tradition, but when it comes down to it, when we have a "weak" President we lose both strength and respect, and in getting them back, it is easier to get the strength and fear first. We were not respected and the Iran hostages were taken, we were not respected and two embassies, the World Trade center, and the USS Cole were bombed (on Clinton's watch - exactly HOW did he deal with them?), we were not respected and the WTC and Pentagon were targeted. After Carter was bounced out, Reagan came in and got everyone's attention, and if it was out of fear, so be it. His one mission was to get the rest of the world to stop picking on us, and he did that. It was Carter who took us in a weakened and demoralized state and made matters worse by tanking the economy and becoming "church lady" for the world. Camp David - yeah, anyone can trip over a win once in awhile. Sadat and Begin had their own reasons to agree to it. Carter was in the right place at the right time. Getting back to Clinton - his lack of dealing with the terrorist attacks against us, and his abandonment of the Mujihaddeen in Afghanistan after the Soviets left, were what gave rise to Osama Bin Laden and our general reputation of being soft and lazy. Bush may not be the smartest guy in the room, but he knows that when you're hit, you hit back even harder - it builds "respect"
Reply to this