« Scouts Out | Main | Early Christian Art in Texas »
December 08, 2007
A Perpetual State of Revolution
Idle hands, devil's workshop. . . The other day I rummaged through the encyclopedia and made a list of all the candidates nominated by major parties for the presidency, noting what political office they held at the time of nomination, or what had been their most recent office, or, in the case of presidents themselves, what was the "highest" office they had held before their terms in office.
The results are pretty interesting. Americans don't usually nominate men who have never held elective office, unless the men are or have been generals in the army. When such candidates are nominated, only the generals stand a decent chance of winning. All the others lose (Pinckney, Greeley, Hughes, Willkie). The generals themselves, as presidents, range from excellent to poor: Washington, Eisenhower, Grant, Taylor, W. H. Harrison.
So we vote for politicians and generals, but we don't vote for congressmen and senators. That's really quite remarkable -- it's something the European parliamentary politicians would find hard to understand. Since the days of Washington we have nominated 21 sitting senators to run for president -- again, I'm talking about major parties or significant third parties only (that is, a third party strong enough to gain electoral votes or a million popular votes). Of those 21, only two have won. The record is 2-19. The odds that you flip a coin 21 times and come up with at most 2 heads? It's 232/2,097,152, or roughly 1 in 9,000. The only senators to win? Harding and Kennedy. Not a great record, there.
Why don't we vote for senators? (We hardly ever even nominate a congressman.) Most commentators say that Americans distrust the "insiders" in Washington, and that seems right to me. We're patriotic, sure, but we also consider our own government, at least in part, as a kind of invading power to be overthrown once in a while, and modestly resisted at all times. So we nominate a lot of governors, in a usually vain attempt by more local and humanly comprehensible governments to rein back the central monster. (Governors and ex-governors, by the way, have a very fine record in these elections, winning over 70% of the time, by my count.) What will happen this year, I don't have any clear idea. The Democrats seem set to nominate one senator or another (and, if my hunch plays out, it will be the gentleman from the great Home of Lincoln), while the Republicans have sent into the arena an old senator, a mayor (no mayor has ever won), a couple of governors, and a couple of very smart and bold congressmen who have no chance of victory. Part of the problem for a senator is an easily assailable list of votes, an easily assailable list of absences, and the air of pompous detachment from the little people.
Another thing I noticed, musing over the pictures of past presidents. They're not great lookers. Some of them were dashing enough: Jefferson, Monroe, Kennedy. Probably the handsomest was Franklin Pierce. But they're rare. The Adamses were downright homely; Cleveland and Taft were obese; McKinley, one of the gentlest of men, stared down from beetle brows as if he wanted to land an ax at the base of your skull; Eisenhower didn't relish war as Patton did, but he looked as if he might, and never more than when he smiled; Nixon looked the part of a crook, as did Lyndon Johnson; Andrew Johnson looked like a butcher invited to the wrong party; and Lincoln may have been the ugliest man in the history of our politics. I guess that gives Mr. Giuliani an advantage. . .
I'm not sure, either, that television will change matters here. The choices seem to tap into what is still a deep well of mainly healthy skepticism toward government, and mainly healthy skepticism of the ever-smiling, pretty-faced "helpers" who want to lighten your life by lightening your wallet. But those wells may be drying up, as people increasingly turn to government as a surrogate for the church, to provide "salvation" and "security," in exchange for the surrender of one's will. With this difference, of course: when I surrender my will to God, I am set free.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 12:33 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54f9c55278833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Perpetual State of Revolution:
» America likes its Presidents ugly from DC in OC
... when electing a president, that is. Anthony Esolen, at Mere Comments, has been reviewing past Presidential elections and he has discovered that Americans have a tendency to elect ugly men. "Some of them were dashing enough: Jefferson, Monroe,... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 10, 2007 9:54:48 AM
Comments
So, statistically speaking, we are looking for an ugly governor?
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Dec 8, 2007 12:37:32 PM
Our distaste for legislators in the Presidency is especially curious given that our President serves not only as head of state but also as head of government. Or maybe that's not so curious after all.
Posted by: DGP | Dec 8, 2007 12:53:59 PM
Maybe we prefer governors and generals to senators because we prefer someone with who has had the reponsibility of running something to someone who bloviates a lot and votes on legislation once in a while.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Dec 8, 2007 2:26:44 PM
"Part of the problem for a senator is . . . the air of pompous detachment from the little people."
So true, Dr. Esolen, so true.
But senators also appear to be detached from themselves. Just turn to c-span to watch them at work. They give speeches to a nearly empty chamber, in a language so distant from ordinary discourse as to sound almost foreign. The worst of it is that they don't seem to think for themselves. Often, most read ploddingly, without any preparation, from statements written by their staff. That has led some into the absurdities of never-never land. Remember how Joe Biden gave a speech written for him that revealed he was the son of a British miner? And how Hillary Clinton, in the ad hoc free-for-all of a television debate, contradicted her position on illegal immigrant drivers' licenses a mere minute after she proclaimed it?
Perhaps if they had to take part in something like the parliamentary question periods of Great Britain and Canada, where elected officials have think on their feet, senators would seem more presidential to voters.
Posted by: maria horvath | Dec 8, 2007 3:05:31 PM
Exactly, or in other words, a governor is an executive, as are most if not all generals. It is the executive branch, after all, were electing someone to. A senator, on the other, is what you said.
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Dec 8, 2007 3:08:19 PM
>>>Maybe we prefer governors and generals to senators because we prefer someone with who has had the reponsibility of running something to someone who bloviates a lot and votes on legislation once in a while.<<<
He is, after all, the "Chief EXECUTIVE". Senators and Congressman don't execute much of anything, not even their staffs. Since BS is a legislator's stock in trade, perhaps people look towards candidates who have, at least for a while, actually been responsible for something.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2007 6:19:47 PM
I saw a remarkable claim made on C-SPAN the other day - whether true or not I don't know, but the deliverer seemed authoritative - that no Mayor of New York City has held subsquent political office in over a century, although several (notably would-be President John Lindsay and would-be Governor Ed Koch) have tried. That's an interesting sign of the distrust with which people view New York City, since in theory running a city that large would (and most likely does) require skills as great as running a state.
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 8, 2007 7:34:51 PM
One characteristic of the early presidents, outside of Washington, is that they all had extensive diplomatic experience, and 4 of them served as Secretary of State.
John Adams--ambassador
Thomas Jefferson--Secretary of State under Washington
James Madison--Secretary of State under Jefferson
James Monroe--Minister to France, Minister to Court of St. James, Secretary of State
John Quincy Adams--Minister to the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, chief negotiator of the U.S. commission for the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, and minister to the Court of St. James (Great Britain) from 1815 until 1817, Secretary of State under Monroe
Posted by: Thomas Hart | Dec 8, 2007 8:14:09 PM
>>>John Adams--ambassador<<<
Neither a very good nor a very successful one--could not hide his disdain for decadent and immoral Europeans who we just happened to need as allies. Also did not get on well with fellow commissioner Benjamin Franklin, whom he considered a dirty old man.
>>>Thomas Jefferson--Secretary of State under Washington<<<
Also Ambassador to France, and far too much enamored of his host country. Turned out not to be very good at foreign affairs as President, being responsible for the Embargo Acts which single-handedly ruined American commerce--not that Jefferson, the agrarian republican, cared much for grubby commerce (which is why he died bankrupt).
>>>James Madison--Secretary of State under Jefferson<<<
Implemented Jefferson's bankrupt foreign policy, turned out to be a perambulating disaster as President, had to flee Washington one step ahead of the British army.
>>>James Monroe--Minister to France, Minister to Court of St. James, Secretary of State<<<
The one foreign policy success so far. Benefited from the stability that ensued after the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the command of the seas by the Royal Navy.
>>>John Quincy Adams--Minister to the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, chief negotiator of the U.S. commission for the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, and minister to the Court of St. James (Great Britain) from 1815 until 1817, Secretary of State under Monroe<<<
By far the most intelligent President, a polymath and polyglot, and a very accomplished diplomat--but not very successful as President. Did not face many foreign policy challenges in any case.
Of the five Presidents listed, Adams carried the prestige of being part of the Committee on the War in the Continental Congress, as well as a drafter of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was governor of Virginia (not particularly successful) as well as principal author of the Declaration. Madison was instrumental in devising the Constitution, and was a legislative technician par excellence Monroe got in mainly because he was Madison's protege and because the Federalists were already collapsing. J.Q got in mainly because he was John Adams' son..
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 8, 2007 8:44:11 PM
Bobby,
Yes, an ugly governor, exactly!
I did make a blunder in the post: we did elect one man who had never been elected to public office, but who had held positions of high executive responsibility (Hoover).
I agree entirely with Stuart's assessment of the unconscionably underrated John Quincy Adams. Garfield, though wishy-washy, was pretty intelligent -- I've read that he could write in both Latin and Greek -- at the same time, with a pen in each hand. Nice parlor trick.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 8, 2007 9:32:48 PM
Garfield also wrote an original proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Clearly he must have been a very bright man, but he was pretty mediocre as a statesman and probably would have been mediocre as a President even if he had lived.
The Adamses are probably my favorite Presidents; it's too bad that they were Unitarians (as was another President of whom I'm fairly fond, William Howard Taft; his admirable son Robert was Episcopalian, however). John Quincy seems to be coming back into historical favor. Daniel Walker Howe's new 1815-1848 volume in the Oxford History of the United States is dedicated to his memory.
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 9, 2007 12:55:19 PM
As far as bright legislators, I've become a latent fan of Duncan Hunter. His grasp of issues is flat out amazing. I also think he's preformed the best in the debates. Unfortunately he doesn't have the star power of Thompson (my current favorite) or Guilliani and lacks the religious appeal of Huckabee (who is a European Christian Democratic style party leader in the making and a keen example of how the Religious Right would shatter sans a pro-death democratic party). Of course I've been impressed with the whole group of them except for Mr. Guilliani and Romney who both seem far too slick for their own good. I even like Ron Paul in his own very-not-a-president-but-would-be-nice-at-dinner sort of way.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 9, 2007 1:26:31 PM
I would welcome anyone defending Jefferson's status as one of the near great presidents. He certainly was a great man and had many great accomplishments, but I can think of little he did while President to justify his high ranking. The two accomplishments which are most often brought out, the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis & Clark Expedition, hardly seem worthy of the opinion of his being a near great President. The former literally fell into his lap because Napoleon needed the money and the latter made a lot of sense in light of that purchase, though the West would almost certainly have been explored in short order without it given the prospects of private interests making money. Against these "accomplishments," we have the embargo ("O Grab Me" as it was known, and for good reason), which was a disaster.
Posted by: GL | Dec 9, 2007 1:36:05 PM
If Ron Paul's mouth and brain were in the body of a Christian Mitt Romney, I think we would have a winner.
As for the American people, I think we are pretty fickle. We like that personality come election time (can you give any other reason besides personality why Paul would not make an excellent president?) but when it's attempting to pull the wool over our eyes on some matter or another, we are shocked and appalled.
Personally, I say 86 the hang-up on personality and elect a straight-talking, no-nonsense man who is not interested in rhetoric. (Like Ron Paul.)
Posted by: Irene | Dec 9, 2007 1:52:05 PM
>>>As far as bright legislators, I've become a latent fan of Duncan Hunter. <<<
In my dealings with Hunter, mainly on defense matters, I have found him to be one of the best informed, most engaged and most perceptive legislators I have met. But then, his son is on his fourth or fifth deployment to Iraq, so he has a dog in the fight.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 9, 2007 2:51:56 PM
>>>Personally, I say 86 the hang-up on personality and elect a straight-talking, no-nonsense man who is not interested in rhetoric. (Like Ron Paul.)<<<
Except that Paul, like his Ronulan fans, is essentially just deranged.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 9, 2007 2:54:26 PM
>>>Except that Paul, like his Ronulan fans, is essentially just deranged.<<<
The only sane man in the asylum will often appear out of touch.
Posted by: Kirk | Dec 9, 2007 8:03:41 PM
Yes Stuart, all those irritating checks and balances do seem to keep us from running an efficient government. Why not have done with the lot? Putin really has something special going on over there, if only we could get with the program and jettison Ted Kennedy!
I mean, who care about process when you can get RESULTS instead?
The reason that senators have a harder time getting elected may have nothing to do with experience. Senators have an easily pinpointed voting record of yeas or nays that opponents can point to and attack the senator on. Almost every bill that passes through Congress is a product of compromise. So it isn't hard to find something to skewer a senator on somewhere in the record. Even if the bill the senator voted for was a bill to provide health care for poor infants and provide Christmas care packages to GIs in Afghanistan, if there was a tax increase tucked away somewhere in there, that senator is now going to get roasted by the opposition as being in favor of tax hikes.
Can't win as a Senator really...
Governors, by contrast get to propose initiatives drafted in language they picked out themselves. And if the legislation didn't pass, it's the legislature's fault!
Running as a governor means never having to say your sorry, or that you even care. It's the crap that runs downhill. It's really not about management experience.
Posted by: Seth R. | Dec 9, 2007 9:03:36 PM
Except, Seth, that most of our most influential Presidents since Lincoln had been governors (sometimes quite effective governors), and it shows: Cleveland, McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Coolidge, Reagan, Bush. Then there were governors who were busts as Presidents -- I mean in terms of influence; I don't like FDR or Wilson all that much, but you can't deny their effectiveness: Hayes, Taft, Carter, Clinton. I'll take a governor over a senator any day, if only to put someone there who DOESN'T owe the current pack of hoodlums a darned thing.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 9, 2007 11:32:05 PM
Except that Paul, like his Ronulan fans, is essentially just deranged.
Care to demonstrate your assertion?
Posted by: Irene | Dec 10, 2007 1:04:30 AM
>>>Care to demonstrate your assertion?<<<
We can start with his isolationist foreign policy, if you want. Libertarianism tout court is just as much a delusion as any other "-ism".
>>>Yes Stuart, all those irritating checks and balances do seem to keep us from running an efficient government. <<<
You misread me entirely. I endorse fully the separation of powers and like very much the idea that our government was organized in such a way that nothing gets done. My own personal program for returning to more limited government has two points:
1. Remove the air conditioning from every government office building in Washington. This will ensure that Congress and the civil service cease to operate between May and October.
2. Pay every Congressman one million dollars and every Senator two million dollars per year, then deduct $100 thousand every time they sponsor or co-sponsor a bill.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 4:50:24 AM
Hah!
Posted by: Seth R. | Dec 10, 2007 6:48:14 AM
(no mayor has ever won)
FYI, Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge were mayors -- Cleveland of Buffalo, Coolidge of Northampton, MA. Whatever their place in history (Cleveland doubtless deserves wider recognition), each was a man of strong character and clear principles.
Posted by: John Koontz | Dec 10, 2007 8:10:19 AM
(no mayor has ever won)
FYI, Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge were mayors -- Cleveland of Buffalo, Coolidge of Northampton, MA. Whatever their place in history (Cleveland doubtless deserves wider recognition), each was a man of strong character and clear principles.
Posted by: John Koontz | Dec 10, 2007 8:10:46 AM
I thought it was interesting that, until the last century, British diplomats in Washington got a hardship bonus for "tropical service".
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Dec 10, 2007 8:24:39 AM
John,
I think Tony was talking about sitting mayors. There were *former* senators who later became presidents (e.g., in the 20th century there was Truman, LBJ (who had been majority leader), Nixon). Truman was, in my estimation, a near great president. LBJ and RN were, of course, busts. I may be forgetting someone. The other Presidents who served some time in the Senate were Monroe, John Q. Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W.H and Benjamin Harrison, Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson). So, of the 15 Presidents who have spent some time in the Senate, only three, Adams, Jackson and Truman, were successful as Presidents to any significant degree. None of the greatest Presidents served anytime in the Senate and of those three I just mentioned, each had significant relevant experience outside the Senate. Jackson and Truman had executive experience, Jackson as a general and Truman as a county judge in Jackson County, Missouri. (A county judge was an administrative post in Missouri -- I believe the office is now called county commissioner. One of my great-grandfathers was a county judge in Missouri. In Jackson County, Missouri when Truman served, it would have been akin to having mayoral duties, though it was shared among three officeholders.) Adams, probably the least effective of the three, had considerable foreign policy experience, as noted by others above.
Posted by: GL | Dec 10, 2007 8:37:58 AM
Thanks, GL, I did mean "sitting mayor". As you've noted, plenty of ex-senators have been elected President, along with plenty of ex-governors, ex-congressmen, vice presidents, and so forth. Nixon was an ex-congressman when he ran in 1960, but in the public's mind he was primarily a vice-president. Eight years later, nobody was thinking too hard about his time in Congress, sixteen years before.
What's really striking is to note the last office held by the Presidents since Cleveland in 1892 (including the second-last, for Cleveland himself, a special case, and for those who rose to the presidency by the death of a president):
Cleveland (President/Governor)
McKinley (Governor)
Teddy (Vice President/Governor)
Taft (territorial governor)
Wilson (Governor)
Harding (Senator)
Coolidge (Vice President/Governor)
Hoover (Commerce secretary)
FDR (Governor)
Truman (Vice President/Senator)
Eisenhower (General)
Kennedy (Senator)
LBJ (Vice President/Senator)
Nixon (Vice President)
Ford (Vice President/Congressman)
Carter (Governor)
Reagan (Governor)
Bush Sr. (Vice President)
Clinton (Governor)
Bush Jr. (Governor)
The only people on that list without executive experience are Harding and Kennedy. Both good looking, both womanizers; but that's coincidental. Probably.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 10, 2007 9:21:31 AM
>>>Nixon was an ex-congressman when he ran in 1960, but in the public's mind he was primarily a vice-president. Eight years later, nobody was thinking too hard about his time in Congress, sixteen years before.<<<
Nixon's stature was elevated by the fact that Eisenhower had suffered a debilitating heart attack during his second term, so that for several years Nixon took a far more prominent role that most previous vice presidents. FDR, for instance, kept Harry Truman completely out of the loop, so that he had to be briefed on the Manhattan Project upon taking office. This, in spite of the fact that FDR had been in failing health at east since the second half of 1943.
On Hoover, his management of relief programs in Europe after World War I elevated him to public prominence and demonstrated his abilities as a manager/executive.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 9:49:45 AM
>>>Hah!<<<
My other modest proposal would be repeal of the 19th amendment. John Lott has recently published a detailed study of the correlation between female suffrage and the increase in the size of government. He found that within 30 years of women getting the right to vote, the size of government begins to increase geometrically. This is true not only of the Federal Government, but of the various state governments that accorded women the right to vote in the 19th century.
Lott attributes this to different attitudes on the part of women, which tend to differ based upon the marital and family status of women. Single women are half again more likely to favor expansive government social programs as men. But when women marry, that gap closes significantly, and if these women have children, their attitude towards government social programs is almost indistinguishable from that of men. But divorced women revert to the attitudes of single women, and single mothers are even more likely than other single women to favor government entitlements. Thus, a woman's political positions are directly related to her marital status and likelihood of divorce--simply as a matter of self-interest. The collapse of the family in the 1970s has therefore tended to make women as a voting bloc much more liberal than men, and the need of politicians to pander to the women's vote invariably drives the expansion of entitlements.
The conclusion is inescapable: if we rescind the 19th Amendment, the expansion of government will halt and eventually reverse itself. I've shown this to my wife and several other women, all of whom agree that losing the right to vote is a small price to pay for putting a stake through the heart of liberalism.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 9:59:08 AM
>>>The only people on that list without executive experience are Harding and Kennedy. Both good looking, both womanizers; but that's coincidental. Probably.<<<
Is it? Need I point out that Harding was the first president elected AFTER the ratification of the 19th Amendment?
As for Kennedy, is it coincidence that he was elected in the first widely televised campaign? OK, so Papa Joe had to buy Illinois, but still, without the women's vote, where would Kennedy have been?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 10:01:25 AM
So why didn't Harold Stassen ever win?
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Dec 10, 2007 10:25:17 AM
Actual, Eisenhower had a job between retiring as general and becoming President which should have disqualified him from any high office: he was a college president (Columbia). ;-)
Posted by: GL | Dec 10, 2007 10:48:02 AM
Stuart,
If there is a serious study on this is it published? Book form? Who do I order it from? I'd be interested to see if it draws a connection between government as a substitute husband and single women. Also, you may force me to switch from Thompson to Hunter with a comment like that. I really like Thompson's' written work but he's so far done poorly on TV of all the weird things.
Irene,
Ron Paul seems to be genuinely committed to his cause and is by all accounts a nice man. He comes off very grandfatherly to me and I'd probably happily have him over to discuss politics. However, as per Stuart, I think his positions are dangerously isolationist. His flirtation with the gold standard is also...well...odd. He also doesn't know the constitution half as well as he claims to. In particular he should pay careful attention to what navies were historically used for prior to the signing of the constitution and why that would affect the presidents war powers.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 10, 2007 1:07:35 PM
I would be skeptical of Lott's claim for the following reason: The states that granted women the vote in the nineteenth century or early twentieth century were generally frontier states. If the size of government in Wyoming Territory (state from 1890 onward) expanded dramatically between 1869 and 1899, a likely reason is that there barely was such a place as Wyoming Teritory in 1869, and the next thirty years must have seen the construction of a great deal of post offices, courthouses, town halls, roads, jails, public schools, etc., and a greater need for officers to run all these places. An ardent libertarian, of course, would say that many of these places should not be government-funded, but they were sort of things that even government in the nineteenth century did fund. Frontier Wyoming had no Social Security or Aid for Families with Dependent Children.
To make the study complete it would be necessary to compare Wyoming with a neighboring area that granted women's suffrage at a later date (like Nevada or Colorado) and see if the rate of growth in Wyoming was really greater in Wyoming than in the others.
Also, I believe that contrary to received opinion, Nixon actually carried a majority of the women's vote in 1960.
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 10, 2007 2:30:15 PM
One final nitpick on the original post: Charles Evans Hughes had been Governor of New York before he was a Supreme Court Justice or a presidential candidate.
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 10, 2007 2:34:28 PM
It's also worth noting that recent years have seen a number of candidates who attempted to defy history and ran for their party's nomination without having held elective office. Three who did relatively well were Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes, but none could break the curse. (Alan Keyes was another such candidate who did quite poorly.)
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 10, 2007 2:37:47 PM
I'd be happy to cede the point of isolationism if someone would be willing to DEMONSTRATE such a claim, not merely bandy it about like George Bush and "defeatist." It takes a careful, thoughtful person to read what he has written, watch videos of his speeches (before and during this election season), and engage with his foreign policy rather than dismiss it as isolationist simply because he doesn't agree with undeclared, illegal wars the end of which is spreading our way of life, not some vague ideal of "freedom," which we don't even enjoy.
Stuart, last time I checked, Paul is running as a Republican, not a Libertarian.
Posted by: Irene | Dec 10, 2007 3:17:20 PM
A thought experiment:
How would it be if we voted instead by households, thus:
1. Single people, unless they are widows or widowers, are not households, though they may be considered as dependents in households.
2. Households receiving direct assistance from the government do not qualify.
3. Each household designates one person as its official voter. The designation will remain unchangeable as long as the household is intact.
4. The votes of each household will be weighted according to the number of people in it. So: the vote of Mr. Jones, married with nine children, will count for 11.
5. The party found at fault in a divorce loses the franchise.
6. Single widows and widowers retain the franchise, if they are living alone.
I think political discussions would change overnight ...
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 10, 2007 3:28:50 PM
Since Giuliani is also not a sitting mayor, it seems that the actual criteria Tony used here is highest office held prior to becoming presdient.
In terms of non-elective office, Americans have also avoided the judiciary for presidential candidates. While one president and one also-ran made their way to the Supreme Court (Taft and Hughes), the only judge ever to run for president was Parker in 1904.
If one is willing to overlook its highly left-wing slant, Irving F. Stone’s “They Also Ran” is an entertaining read for unsuccessful presidential candidates up through 1944.
As for Ron Paul, I’ll refer folks again to the link I posted on the “Rudy and the Evangelicals” thread:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 10, 2007 3:50:17 PM
We'll we'll start with undeclared illegal wars. Congress granted permission for Iraq therefore it is all very legal. Quibbling over what they called that permission is exactly that, quibbling. Congress also granted additional kinds of permission under the War Powers Act. You can argue that such an act is bad law, but it is within congress' constitutional powers to grant permission. I'd love a citing proving otherwise (not to mention you completely blew by the historical use of the navy).
Mr. Paul has argued that he is not isolationist, instead he is only opposed to interference. This is of course hogwash. The minute you trade you've interfered. The minute you've pursued open markets you are supposing a policy that does not exist in most of the world and has to be defended (if not forced), as the British did, with a navy to back up the foreign policy. Paul cites Jefferson and then conveniently forgets the The First Barbary War.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 10, 2007 3:50:19 PM
James,
I don't know if that article addresses the problem correctly. Paul, as a libertarian, believes that anybody is free to say anything they want at any time no matter how crazy. He may be opposed to neo-Nazi's, but he'd sure defend their right to speech and free association with his campaign. I don't think he is ideologically capable of returning the money. The article seems to imply he's Nazi friendly instead. His ideological blindness, of course, is exactly why he shouldn't be president.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 10, 2007 4:00:45 PM
James,
C.E. Hughes was a Supreme Court Justice before he ran from President. He was appointed by Taft as an Associate Justice and resigned his seat to run against Wilson. He was appointed by Hoover as Chief Justice, succeeding Taft.
You are, of course, correct in your clarification on Tony's intent, as Rudy is no longer mayor. The point, I would take it, is that no one has gone from being a mayor to being President without having achieved a higher office than mayor before ascending to the Presidency. Mayor of N.Y. is the highest office Rudy has ever held. Despite the fact that I don't care for the man at all, I would have to admit that being mayor of N.Y. is probably, at least in many ways, better preparation for being President than being governor of a state, especially a small one such as Arkansas.
All,
I can't help but note that no one has ever challenged my assertion here or on previous discussions on this site that Jefferson is overrated *as a President*. (Again, I don't dispute he was a great man for his accomplishments outside the White House, just that his performance in the White House is overrated.) I certainly believe he was better than average as a President, but not one of the top half-dozen, at which level he is almost always ranked. Is there anyone here who disagrees with that assessment? I thought there would be a Jefferson defender out there, but maybe you all agree that he is overrated. Just curious.
Posted by: GL | Dec 10, 2007 4:24:08 PM
Nick,
I don't deny Ron Paul's right to his own beliefs and free speech. And I don't think the article implies he's "Nazi friendly." What it does is to point out that:
a) his views attract extremists such as neo-Nazis, which neither the views of mainstream Republicans or Democrats do; and
b) that the Ron Paul campaign not only makes no serious effort to disavow such extremist support, but attacks those such as Michael Medved who call attention to such support. (Michael Medved -- "discredited"? Apparently Ron Paul supporters don't just stop with advocating decriminalization of drugs....)
I think those two factors are quite sufficient reason to call Ron Paul into question. He may not be Nazi-friendly, but I don't cotton to someone who turns a blind eye to it in order to keep money either.
And I quite agree with the other points made in your most recent post.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 10, 2007 4:26:51 PM
>>>If there is a serious study on this is it published? Book form? Who do I order it from? <<<
Go here for the original article:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 4:33:14 PM
>>>I can't help but note that no one has ever challenged my assertion here or on previous discussions on this site that Jefferson is overrated *as a President*.<<<
I would put the period after "overrated". But then, as compared to Washington, everyone is overrated.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 4:40:07 PM
I believe Ronald Reagan once asserted his right to keep a donation from the John Birch Society (or maybe it was even a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan) with the statement, "If they give me money, then they're buying into my ideas, not the other way around."
Posted by: James Kabala | Dec 10, 2007 4:40:20 PM
as compared to Washington, everyone is overrated.
I pretty much agree, though I think Lincoln is just about as great as a President as Washington. (I await Joe Long's rebuttal. ;-)) Lincoln's accomplishments before becoming President, however, pale in comparison to Washington's. No one in American history, and few in world history, compare to Washington.
Posted by: GL | Dec 10, 2007 4:47:48 PM
I admit to not being a huge fan of American History (even though I studied it at the AP level all the way back in HS) until later in life. Now, looking back, I repeat everyday that we were so unbelievably lucky to have had Washington. Comparing him to anyone else, even Lincoln, is so unfair. A weaker man would have crushed the spirit of revolution that the original post refers to.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 10, 2007 5:11:13 PM
>>>I pretty much agree, though I think Lincoln is just about as great as a President as Washington. (I await Joe Long's rebuttal. ;-)) <<<
Lincoln's only a genius if you think the Civil War was inevitable in 1861. Probably because of his inexperience, Lincoln was noticeably ham-fisted in his handling of the secession crisis, in the process making war inevitable, and thereby setting the stage for his own brilliant career. Dying before reconstruction was also a good career move--it created all sorts of "what if?" fantasies that enhanced the Lincoln legend in contrast to Johnson's ineptitude.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 10, 2007 5:56:25 PM
we were so unbelievably lucky to have had Washington.
I assume you mean "blessed," not "lucky." With that, I would agree.
Posted by: GL | Dec 10, 2007 6:36:54 PM
