It should come as no surprise that I, as a person who is a fan of Smart People, endorse Barack Obama for president in 2008. I'm confident he's significantly smarter than anyone else running. Enough has been made of his vague promises to change the Washington atmosphere, but his specific plans on just standard governmental business is just fascinating.

I have, however, pledged not to make this a politics blog so much as a political history blog. About Presidents.

With that in mind, I'd like to direct you to the following piece Nightline did on Barack Obama.



There's a moment at the end where the anchor mentions that the Clinton campaign has already released a rebuttal to the interview, which they hadn't yet seen in full. The precise quote was "Considering that Senator Obama was a state senator just three years ago, he is the last person to be questioning anyone's experience. If he is elected, he would have less experience than any American President of the 20th Century."

Hold the fuck on.

The first thing I thought when I heard that was "Woodrow Fucking Wilson" and I immediately darted off to Wikipedia to confirm my suspicion. Now, Obama has talked a lot about how he has the "right kind" of experience, even if it's not necessarily enough. But let's see if we can talk about the experience question - in the modern, dominant, and embattled presidency of the 20th Century, how much experience does an aspiring President traditionally have?

Well, first, what counts as experience? Barack is keen to point out that he has more time in elected office than either of his chief competitors - Hillary Clinton will have eight years of Senate experience by the time the 2008 election rolls around, John Edwards will have had six. Barack will have had four, but eight years in state government before that. Of course, Hillary spent twenty years as the first lady of somewhere or other, but are we counting that? I don't think that's a position in the constitution.

If we're to play against Barack, we'll say that a position in national government, whether it means you're in the legislative branch, appointed by the president, or, what the hell, married to the president counts. Let's also say that having an executive position over any other government institution is also a reasonable way to have experience - say, Mayor, Governor, or if we're feeling salty, the Chairperson of the County Board (Just a few more years, Todd Stroger, and we'll elect you president!). And let's not count anything in state government, because that is obviously riding with training wheels.

The first President we'll look at is Teddy Roosevelt. War hero, right? He started as a state assemblyman and was on the United States Civil Service Commission from 1888 to 1895. Does that count? I'm not sure how important that was. Kind of a low level appointment, let's put that on the same level as State Senator, along with his experience as the president of the board of the New York City Police Commissioners for the two years after that.

T.R. was appointed Secretary of the Navy in 1897, and promptly resigned it in 1898 to serve in the Volunteer Cavalry in the Spanish-American War. He was in the military for less than a year, and was elected as Governor of New York in 1898. In 1900 he was forced upon McKinley as a running mate by Thomas C. Platt, became Vice President, served as VP for six months and then McKinley was shot and he inherited the Presidency.

So Teddy had, by our standards, about... four years of experience in National Government? Are we counting Military experience? Shit, why not.

William Howard Taft! Mediocre president, superb Chief Justice. Two years as the Governor-General of the Phillipines, and four as the Secretary of War. Filipinos loved him, though.

Next up was Woodrow Wilson, who I mentioned previously. He was the President of Princeton University for eight years, and then the governor of New Jersey for two. And while I respect his time as the president of a university, doesn't count. Two years. Didn't he lead us through World War I or something? I hear he was a racist. Fucking Wilson.

Harding had six years in the Senate, and two years as the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. Silent Cal Coolidge was mayor for two years, Lieutenant Governor for three, Real Governor for two more, and Vice President for two before becoming president on accident. Hoover was head of the Food Administration for four years and Secretary of Commerce for eight. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years and Governor for four. Truman was a Senator for ten years and VP for four months. Eisenhower had a bunch of important military positions for about eleven years that I don't really want to list. Kennedy spent fourteen years in congress, LBJ for 12 with two as VP. Nixon had four in the house, two in the Senate, and eight as VP. Ford spent an uneventful 24 years in the House of Representatives, including eight years as minority leader, and then less than one as VP. Carter spent four years as Governor, Reagan eight. Bush I was a representative for four years, ambassador to the UN for 2, head of the RNC for 1, head of the CIA for 1, and VP for eight. Clinton was governor for 12 years, GWB for 6.

What a lovely list! Now, I'm not entirely sure how we're sorting this list. What better prepares you for the presidency? Being President of a University? Serving in the Military? But one could argue that Wilson's greatest triumphs were leading the US through war and his postwar efforts at a new world order, or that Eisenhower's greatest legacy was his effective management of a nation in peacetime, with the Space Race, Social Security, the Interstate Highways and the nearly unrivaled prosperity. Is legislative experience less effective than executive? Truman and Kennedy did pretty well for themselves. Does a long, illustrious career make a glorious president? Nixon and Ford seem to be the exception to that rule. And of course, Wilson and Roosevelt, routinely ranked in the Near Great category of presidents (around #5 or #6) had less experience than Obama.

So what's the point? It's hard to tell what experience an effective President needs; it often seems to be associated with the historical circumstances of the era - General Wesley Clark could have been the spiritual successor to Ike had he run in a different era. Eisenhower and Wilson embraced their roles as outsiders in their successful presidencies. George Bush Sr. did a pretty good job in the early 90s despite being a longtime government insider (admittedly in a time where something like that was more of an asset - he handled the Gulf War and the breakup of the USSR well). One could pretty easily argue that now is the time for an outsider, given the rampant power abuses and corruption of this administration, while led by a supposed outsider but infested with longtime political institutions.

Does Barack Obama have the experience to be President?

No, he needs to be appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy. But maybe after that.

Labels: barack obama, dwight d. eisenhower, george h. w. bush, presidents, teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson

Until recently, I took it for granted that Woodrow Wilson was one of our most influential and respected presidents. And then I found that he has nearly as many detractors as he has supporters.

So it's time to teach you motherfuckers a lesson.

I am going to go through every criticism of Woodrow Wilson that I can think of and explain to you why it is wrong. OK? Let's do this shit.

1. He was a racist. He had KKK ties. He reinstituted segregation. He was quoted extensively in "Birth of a Nation."

Far be it for me to ever endorse racism, imply that racism was ever socially acceptable, or to defend a racist president. Instead, let's break down Wilson's positions on race.

For instance, regarding the KKK: "...no more obnoxious or harmful organization has ever shown itself in our affairs."

Sounds like a big fan of lynching, there. He, in fact, disliked Birth of a Nation and had it banned during wartime. Even funnier, his quotes largely related to the reasons the KKK was founded - that because southern racist whites were not represented during reconstruction, they instead elected to try to accomplish what they wanted via intimidation. So, yeah. Big racist, that Wilson. Always trying to offer different perspectives on slavery.

What of the segregation thing?

Well, what of it? Plessy v Ferguson was decided in 1896, a mere 16 years before he took office. Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954, 34 years after he left. Wilson himself said there were benefits to segregation - "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it." Blacks attacked him for instituting segregation at all, and southern racists attacked him for not going far enough. It is very easy to look back with some perspective and say everything ought to have been integrated, but a president reflects the people who elected him.

In any case, Wilson's alleged racism is such a non-issue, that he segregated government jobs, compared to his impact on American history that it seems pointless to even dwell on it.

2. Espionage Act of 1917? Worse than the Patriot Act.

Before we start, I'd like to say Fuck the Patriot Act.

First and foremost: Congress passes acts, not the President. He signed it, but it needed the support of Congress first. Thought I'd throw that out there.

You know what else happened? Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR set up Japanese internment camps, and Truman took loyalty oaths from government officials, firing many and letting more resign. What is it about national crises that make presidents need to exert a greater degree of control at home?

In each of these cases, the Union was threatened like never prior. First, by civil war, then by the largest war to date including a certain Zimmerman Telegram, then by a war even greater than that, then the threat of Soviet nuclear annihilation. Presidents take more power during wartime. Was it unconstitutional? Not according to 1919's Schenck v. United States (validated by three branches! You owe me a quarter), but it probably was unconstitutional. Great presidents expand the power of the office to the point where it can be considered unconstitutional, though the converse doesn't necessarily hold true (see: Nixon). The powers of the act were undoubtedly abused (Eugene Debs). However, I don't think that something like this is enough to condemn Wilson entirely. No deduction.

PS: Fuck the Patriot Act, because the War on Terror? Not a national crisis.

3. Because Wilson elected to enter World War I, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, leading to Germany's post-war crippling and humiliation. Because of this, Hitler could come to power and kill all the Jews.

This is the dumbest fucking one.

To start, I'll play in your space logic world and pretend like Hitler would have never risen and whatever. Let's say that the conditions did not exist for Hitler to come to power and Germany remains a fantasy paradise.

Do you know who else was in Europe around that time? Stalin. Think he'd be on our side?

Anyone who has played Red Alert knows that with no Hitler, Stalin proceeds to sweep through Europe. BAM! Things are more fucked up than before. Do you know how many fucking people Stalin killed? So very many.

OK, let's say you disagree with my version of history and believe that post-WWI Europe, after a long and bloody stalemate, would have turned into a bunny-infested paradise.

Wilson's Fourteen Points hardly have anything to do with humiliating the losers. He was clearly the only true statesman present for the negotiation of the treaty, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for spearheading the League of Nations. But beyond that - if one is to argue that Wilson should have somehow known the result of the war would be the rise of fascism, it is either to suggest that a) Wilson ought to have had supernatural powers or that b) no one should ever do anything, because of unforseen consequences. James Watt, you asshole. You invented the steam engine which led to rapid industrialization of the Western World which haphazardly produced loads and loads of pollution which caused global warming which will destroy the planet, you ASS.

Perhaps one of the stupidest things you can do is blame World War II on Woodrow Wilson. If the rest of the world wasn't ready to hear him, perhaps that's his fault.

4. Sure, he proposed the 14 points, but they were mostly ignored and we didn't even join the League of Nations.

He had a fucking stroke. He was out campaigning for the League so hard that he had a stroke and became bitterly uncompromising. Republicans were strongly opposed to the League in the Senate, and Wilson had a stroke and was unwilling to compromise. So we never joined. It's unfortunate, and if we would have joined, Wilson would be undoubtedly even more highly regarded. These don't really count as points against Wilson, but aren't exactly points for him.

Anything else? I'm glad to continue to defend WW with whatever you wish to throw out there.

Now, let's look at why one should consider Wilson among our upper echelon of presidents.

The League of Nations was effectively the model for the UN three decades later, and shit like the War Industries Board were models for the New Deal. He was the architect for the plans that would end up so widely revered by the Second World War. Wilsonian Idealism has been the primary influence for foreign policy throughout the Western World throughout the 20th century. Self-determination, collective security, democratic government, international law. We take these things for granted by now, but Wilson was the perhaps the most brilliant and influential foreign policymaker of the century, if not more. Before the USA got the poor reputation it enjoys today, we were the shining example of a benevolent empire, the superpower that can end the dopey territory wars, that can settle issues with diplomacy rather than militarism. Wilson set that example. He expanded the role of the president to include the diplomat to the world, and embraced a New World Order. We now have that order, and it is described as Wilsonian Idealism.

Think about what the Constitution means. Ignore our current administration, the politics, all of that, and think of what it means. It's a pretty fucking good American ideal to try to live up to. The document might not be perfect, but we all know exactly what it's trying to live up to - a perfect fusion of freedom and order, of safety and expression. Where we are welcome to live our life to the fullest under our own control, with a government to ensure it stays that way. Where everybody gets a shot. Imagine the rest of the world given that kind of liberty. I don't mean the imposing democracy that's so trendy, I mean what a true, kindly American empire could be. Making the world more perfect by example.

That's what Wilson means to me.

Don't fuck with Wilson. I might be more of a Tru-Man, but Wilson waits in the wings.

Labels: presidents, woodrow wilson

Directly after what Historians widely refer to as the "ugliest Presidents," Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, the United States had a long line of bearded or mustachioed presidents, as well as a few who were, for lack of a better word, rotund. With Woodrow Wilson's election over Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in 1912, however, the US ceased its practice of electing Presidents that were round-n-fuzzy. Sure, Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge both had very soft features, but even our jowlier presidents like Nixon were fairly lanky from then on out. Eisenhower himself seemed to be a rebellion against all things hairy (and in some respects, Harry, har har).

Every directly elected president from Lincoln's assassination until Cleveland wore a beard. Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, and James Garfield all had formidable facial hair. Hell, throw Benjamin Harrison in there, too. Chester Arthur, though president by happenstance, had some not-to-be-tussled-with muttonchops, as well. What do all these men have in common?

They were weak leaders in an era in which American politics was dominated by the Senate.

It wasn't until Cleveland's first term that the Presidency gained some real power again. He used his veto more than twice as much as all previous presidents combined in his first term alone. He established the presidency as an autonomous branch of government that reports directly to the people. Employing executive privilege regarding congressional approval of his nominees was a huge boon to the executive.

So naturally, Cleveland only had a mustache. It signaled the end of the post-Civil War era that had been mired in mediocrity and helped to usher in the Modern presidency that grew so powerful during Teddy Roosevelt's turn in office.

Wilson, then, likely brought an end to the rotund-with-facial-hair era because he entered as a quiet intellectual who advocated peace like none other, focused almost exclusively on domestic issues but still managed to become one of our greatest presidents, setting the US on a path of morality on the global stage - he was the most inspiring leader in the world by leaps and bounds in that era. Perhaps being a dignified intellectual suddenly seemed like better qualification for the gig than the rough-and-tumble mustache and an imposing round figure.

Taft Anecdote Tuesdays:

Taft's girth once prompted New York Sen. Chauncey Depew to survey his protruding belly and joke to a crowd of supporters that the president was "pregnant with courage ... pregnant with integrity." To which Taft is said to have retorted: "If I give birth to a girl, I shall name her Courage. If it is a boy, I shall name him Integrity. But if, as I suspect, nothing but a great bag of wind, then I shall name it Chauncey Depew."

(courtesy of sfgate.com)

Taft++

Labels: appearance, facial hair, grover cleveland, presidents, william howard taft, woodrow wilson