View on the news

Searching for Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan

Christopher Curran
Posted 4/30/15

Anyone who has the temerity to believe they hold the talents to be president of the United States must necessarily have such a high degree of presumed self-confidence that they think the planets have …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Searching for Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan

Posted

Anyone who has the temerity to believe they hold the talents to be president of the United States must necessarily have such a high degree of presumed self-confidence that they think the planets have aligned to propel them to become the leader of the free world. Of course, those who are truly deserving of the endorsement of millions of Americans are few. Yet, many within and without of the Washington Beltway have assumed they are worthy of such adoration, support, and responsibility. In this upcoming general election, one candidate in particular believes with certitude that she is the inevitable heir to the throne.

The objective of capturing a political party’s nomination in a presidential primary race is a seemingly insurmountable task. The necessary accumulation of money through contributions is daunting, as are the organizational complexities involved, and the mere stamina to spend every waking moment over a period that now well exceeds a year is beyond the grasp of many aspiring politicians.

Nevertheless, several candidates on the Republican side and a handful on the Democrat side have either already declared or intend to do so imminently. In our quest to realize a better future as citizens, we want to find a candidate that we can believe in rather than meekly accepting the lesser of evils. We want to truly know and respect our candidate. We want our candidate to possibly reflect the giants in our history who previously occupied the Oval Office. We are searching for Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. However, in recent years we have had to choose from substandard substitutes who pale by comparison to the presidential greats of the past.

The known names thus far of this upcoming presidential primary season can be divided into varied levels of recognition, gravitas, capaciousness and political baggage. Some are famous, while others are vague distant names you may have heard somewhere, but they all have one trait in common. They believe they deserve to be our president and that despite the obstacles involved, they think they can achieve their goal.

Predominate in every Democrat survey regarding the most likely nominee of the party is former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Well financed, well positioned, and well known, Clinton has a great advantage over any Democrat competitor. Yet despite her former positions as Arkansas first lady, United States first lady, New York senator and secretary of state, Hillary is haunted by malingering lies.

Clinton has been a consistent practitioner of prevarication. Virtually every cable news political pundit has stated that Hillary’s largest exploitable problem is what they term “her baggage.” Hillary’s trouble with the truth has reared repercussions in her past political campaigns, and there is no reason to think that factor would be different this time around.

As first lady during the presidency of her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, it was discovered that Hillary had misrepresented the couple’s investment dealings regarding the Whitewater Development Corporation when Bill was governor of Arkansas. Then the first lady fabricated an account of the actions of employees of the White House Travel Office in order to affect a shift in personnel. The 2000 Special Counsel Report regarding the affair stated that Clinton had made “factually false” statements. Then when challenged about her husband’s alleged infidelities with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, she said the supposed affair was the contrivance of the “vast right wing conspiracy.” However, later this was revealed to be an outright false deflection of what she apparently knew was her husband lying to the American people.

Furthermore, when visiting overseas at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996, she claimed to have been under sniper fire when she was actually being greeted by children with flowers. During the 2008 primary campaign, she claimed to have been attacked by political opponents because of her gender when genderless issues were what she was targeted about. Also, she misrepresented her actions as secretary of state regarding the murder of four Americans at the United States Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Additionally, often Clinton’s conversational style when challenged is prickly and defiant, as if disagreeing with her is an affront to her intellect. Somehow her quite respectable academic accomplishments have convinced her she should not be questioned about her reasoning or actions regarding her public service. The most glaring example of this was her vehement retorts when being questioned in congressional hearings regarding the tragedy at Benghazi. Her defense was not particularly explanatory, on the contrary, her answers where condescending and pugnacious.

Despite this performance and many like it, she still holds broad support from Democrats.

Also, consider that her only possible opponents for the nomination at this time are former Secretary of the Navy and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Neither of those candidates is well known or well financed. So, barring any health issue or new blockbuster negative revelation, Hillary will likely be the nominee.

Her demonstrated character hardly holds the honesty of a Lincoln. Nor does her geopolitical skills compare to that of a Wilson or an FDR. Neither does her temperament or public presence rate in comparison to a Kennedy. Regardless of her varied experience, she falls short when it comes to the issue of credibility.

Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton may rise to become president to a great degree predicated upon the novelty of becoming the first woman president. Not unlike Barack Obama’s electoral success, many voters may be driven to be part of an “American First” regardless of her character or apparent lack of veracity.

On the Republican side of the ballot in the primary race is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Young, handsome, gregarious and engaging, Rubio calls to mind the days of Camelot when an era of promise was galvanized by President John Kennedy. As a former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and a first term United States senator, Marco Rubio has a great deal of domestic legislative experience. Serving on the Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation and on the Committee on Foreign Relations, Rubio has built an impressive resume for someone only 43 years old in his first federal term. His domestic standpoints have been more akin to Ronald Reagan regarding the downsizing of government and the need for deregulation. Although his foreign policy stances are more reflective of the FDR of the 1930s, such as his reluctance toward the interventionist doctrine of George W. Bush, his overall statements of restraint and prudence yet maintaining a strong military for defense might mirror the Woodrow Wilson prior to 1917.

Also in Rubio’s favor are his personal story of his parents’ immigration from Cuba and his realization of the American Dream. If he can capitalize on his personal narrative, he could engage most Americans and especially the growing Hispanic vote.

Second to Rubio in current polls is George’s little brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Jeb has concentrated a great deal of his identifiable political personality on education reform. Also, as an entrepreneur, Jeb was involved in the oil business, the computer business, the professional sports business and banking. With the dynasty name of Bush, Jeb could either alienate or endear himself to the voters. This remains the most vexing question in regard to his impending candidacy.

Yet, due to his business experience and his efforts in education, the past president he might be most reflective of is Herbert Hoover, who happened to be president during the start of the Great Depression. Or perhaps, he might be reflective of another businessman turned education advocate, our 25th president, William McKinley.

Also likely in the race will be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Cocky, corpulent and callous, Christie speaks bluntly and offensively. Yet, he does appeal to a certain sliver of the electorate who confuse the ill mannered with the courageous. One cannot help but wonder whether his brand of blunt political speech will sell outside the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Additionally, his poll numbers in his home state are low and he is haunted by the legacy of the still unresolved “Bridge Gate” in which he is accused of impeding motorists just to teach an unsupportive local mayor a lesson. In appearance but not temperament he is most reflective of President William Howard Taft. In pettiness, he is most akin to Warren G. Harding or perhaps Richard M. Nixon.

Bring up the rear in current poll numbers are potential Republican candidates former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who appeals to the religious far right, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Paul is a Libertarian Tea Party Republican who wishes to shrink the federal government to a Lilliputian size. Neither of these two politicians would carry a majority of Americans in a national election.

Although Huckabee may reflect Ronald Regan’s affinity for the erstwhile Moral Majority, he lacks Reagan’s communicative skills. In regard to Mr. Paul, I am not sure he is reflective of any man who ever resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In recent years, we citizens have had to endure substandard substitutes for the real thing, a president we could all be proud of. Bill “Pants Down” Clinton, the intellectually incurious and recklessly impetuous George W. Bush, and the unctuous, unqualified and uncooperative Barack Obama have all fallen well short of the mark. We long for someone with the talents and resolve of a Lincoln, a Wilson, a Roosevelt or a Reagan. We want a leader who serves the needs of the people, not a self-possessed parading peacock more concerned with political optics than policy and pragmatism. Whether that person is known to us at this point remains the most pertinent question!

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Justanidiot

    Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan

    Let's see, a country bumpkin lawyer, an academician with no sense of the real people, a member of the 1% elite, the son of a rum runner, and a B movie actor.

    I bet we could find some of them today.

    Friday, May 1, 2015 Report this