Category: media

Joseph A. Scotchie reviews Forrest McDonald’s The American Presidency:

Twice, in The American Presidency, Professor Forrest McDonald states that the executive office of our government “has been responsible for less harm and more good … than perhaps any other secular institution in history.” In the same sentence, he also notes that “the caliber of the people who have served as chief executive has declined erratically but persistently from the day George Washington left office.” And elsewhere, McDonald acknowledges that he is “not sanguine about its [the presidency’s] future and [does] not feel how anyone who lived through the 1992 presidential election could be.” The decline of the presidency follows the transformation of a nation. When the dreaded bureaucracy first arose, only a handful of men toiled for the state. By the 1920s, the bureaucratic machinery had exploded in size-over 120 federal units running the country and the worst was yet to come.

The author of histories on both the Washington and the Jefferson eras, McDonald devotes two chapters to the administrations of those two leaders. Again, Washington shines through as the indispensable man; the triumphant general who, unlike a Caesar or a Cromwell, did not use his military victories as a springboard for dictatorial rule. Instead, he resigned his post as commanding general of the Continental Army as soon as the Revolutionary War ended. This and other acts of self-denial convinced the Founding Fathers that Washington could be trusted with the new office, one that avoided the trappings of a monarchy, but also one that would project an image of strength and authority. Washington’s genius was that he understood the “dual nature” of the office: a president who was not only a competent executive, but also a man who performed equally important ceremonial duties. Washington guided the former colonies through the transformation from a monarchy to a republic by “serving as the symbol of nationhood …. [H]e behaved as if [his] every move was being closely scrutinized.” This recalls one of Washington’s favorite dicta, that a man must be a gentleman, as well as always give the appearance of a gentleman. This dual role worked splendidly for Washington; as such, the image of the presidency began taking shape.

Then came Thomas Jefferson, who inaugurated an activist presidency. The word “activist” has obviously changed in meaning over the years. Jefferson, of course, did not propose a welfare state, but he did pursue a forceful foreign policy. Jefferson further defined the office. He “humanized” the office both by being a “man of the people,” and by being part of a “natural aristocracy,” or what Richard Weaver would call an aristocracy of achievement. For Jefferson, being the symbol of a nation wasn’t enough. A president needed to set and control the political agenda. He needed to steer his own legislation through Congress and act decisively in foreign engagements. Thus Jefferson created the image of the president as the nation’s maximum political leader.

The idea of a strong president who can handle Congress remains popular in the public mind. Signs of weakness in the Oval Office or an inability to get legislation through Congress is often a prescription for political disaster.

The legacies of Washington and Jefferson left great burdens on their successors. Few presidents could approach Washington’s ability to combine executive competence and a strong, reassuring image. Jefferson left behind a more powerful (and jealous) Congress that would stymie future presidents. …

Throughout much of the book, McDonald details a history conservatives know all too well: government became larger and less efficient; more laws were passed, less order was found in towns and neighborhoods. Concerning alcohol, drugs and crime, Congress and various presidents felt something should be done. But the legislation passed through the decades did nothing to stop a trend towards disorder. Increasingly the job of the president became an enormous physical burden on its occupants. In the pre-Civil War era the average president’s life was a full 73 years. But in the post-Civil War era, with technology increasing life expectancies, the average presidential age is only 63 years. The social upheavals caused by the industrial and technological revolutions contributed considerably to a president’s burden, but there were other, more fool-hardy factors involved.

For years, conservatives have been told that it was Abraham Lincoln with the Civil War, the suspension of habeas corpus, the imprisonment of political rivals, the shutting down of opposition newspapers, and other dubious acts- who was responsible for the imperial presidency. McDonald acknowledges Lincoln’s extraordinary behavior, but from this book it appears that a corner was turned during the administration of Woodrow Wilson. The size of government kept expanding, but here, too, also was a president who saw himself as the “leader of the free world” on a mission to spread democracy everywhere. Wilson’s bequests were America’s entry into World War 1, the failed League of Nations and a messianic quest to remake the world in America’s image. From then on, administrations which had little success with Congress concerning domestic affairs often turned to foreign policy to conduct grand strategies (New World Order, “nation-building”), and to embark on empire-building and gain political victories through military action that increase poll ratings.

Wilson’s messianic visions have been shared, more or less, by most succeeding presidents-Harding and Eisenhower come to mind as exceptions. Something had changed with the office. Now the image of a president as a mighty commander-in-chief and as the “most powerful man in the world” was born. In an era when foreign affairs dominated the agenda, there was plenty of eccentric thinking from both the Left and Right. Liberals, for instance, liked the idea of a strong presidency when Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy were in power, but soon complained about an “imperial presidency” when Richard Nixon came to office. Similarly, Robert Taft conservatives sought to disengage the country from overseas commitments (opposition to NATO, foreign aid programs), but during the Reagan Administration many conservatives complained about “535 Secretaries of State” micro-managing foreign policy, when in fact, this sphere was the domain of the commander-in-chief.

With the Cold War over and with a public less interested in foreign affairs, the presidency, it seems, might make its way back to its original role as custodian of the constitution. But one chapter, “lmages and Elections, Myths and Symbols,” underscores McDonald’s earlier pessimism. It is fine for a president, as George Washington understood, to project a noble image, to be a “living embodiment of the nation.” But in an age of mass media, all this has been taken to extremes. A president is still expected to be demigod who can singlehandedly save the nation. Sound bites, consultants, pollsters, obligations to fund-raisers-it has become impossible for any man to speak with much candor and sincerity about the nation’s problems and win a national election. To be sure, in the primary season some candidates do come forward with straight talk about economic and social decline. But in every instance, such candidates are savaged by the media as either bigots or flakes. Not only that, they run into fierce opposition from their party’s hierarchy, who prefer “experienced” politicos that pose no threat to the status quo. And so, we are left with issues determined by endless polls and “study groups” among ordinary citizens. It takes a clever man to make it to the top and an equally clever administration to keep a president in power for more than four years. Yet all of this has little to do with a declining standard of living and a cultural revolution that is separating the country from its Western heritage. Modern presidents are happy just to survive their terms.

Jonah Goldberg expresses an interesting opinion about what’s wrong with the Republican Party that has nothing to do with positions on issues:

While I have my sympathies and positions in all of these fights, I’ve long argued that regardless of what policies Republicans should offer or what philosophical North Star they might follow, one thing the GOP could definitely use is better politicians.

Ronald Reagan’s cult of personality remains strong and deep on the right, and I count myself a member of it. But what often gets lost in all the talk of the Gipper’s adamantine convictions and timeless principles is the simple fact that he was also a really good politician. Barry Goldwater was every bit as principled as Reagan, but Reagan was by far a better politician. That’s at least partly why Goldwater lost in a stunning landslide in 1964 and why Reagan was a two-term political juggernaut. Reagan won votes from moderates, independents and lots of Democrats.

To listen to many conservative activists today, we need a candidate as principled as Reagan to save the country, but you rarely hear of the need for a politician as good as Reagan.

Unfortunately, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go into elections with the politicians you have, not the politicians you want. So the question isn’t how to find better leaders but how to make the leaders we have better.

One answer is really remarkably simple: Tell better stories.

In July, Rod Dreher, author of the memoir “The Little Way of Ruthie Leming,” wrote a deeply insightful essay for the American Conservative on how the right has largely lost the ability to tell stories. Worse, many of the stories we continue to tell “are exhausted and have taken on the characteristics of brittle dogma.”

This is a problem not just for Republican politicians but for conservatives generally. For roughly 99.9% of human history, nearly all of human wisdom was passed on in stories. We are a species that understands things — i.e. morality, politics, even religion — in terms of tales of heroism, sacrifice and adversity. Yet so much of what passes for conservative rhetoric these days isn’t storytelling but exhortation. Whatever the optimal policy might be, if you can’t talk to people in human terms they can relate to, you can’t sell any policy. The war on poverty, for instance, has been an enormous failure in so many policy terms, but it stays alive because of the stories liberals tell. …

As Dreher noted, conservatives have largely abdicated their role in “tending the moral imagination,” which Russell Kirk defined as “conservatism at its highest.” Too many on the right don’t even claim what victories there are in the popular culture, which is far richer and more rewarding than many older conservatives are comfortable acknowledging.

Many historians will tell you that the secret of Reagan’s political success was his gift for storytelling. By all means, Republicans, be more like Reagan — but don’t tell his stories; tell your own.

Between Reagan’s retirement as California governor and his successful run for the presidency, Reagan did syndicated radio commentaries that ran as far east as Iowa. The subject frequently was abuse of and by government. And well before that, Reagan toured U.S. General Electric plants giving speeches.

The Hoover Institution has the script (with corrections) of one:

I’d been asked to write a letter for a “time capsule” which would be opened in Los Angeles 100 yrs. from now. It will be The occasion will be the Los Angeles Bicentennial & of course our countrys tri-centennial. It was suggested that I mention some of the problems confronting us in this election year. Since I’ve been talking about those problems for about some 9 months that didn’t look like too much of a chore.

So riding down the coast highway from Santa Barbara–a yellow tablet on my lap (someone else was driving) I started to write my letter to the future.

It was a beautiful summer afternoon. The Pacific stretched out to the horizon on one side of the highway and on the other the Santa Ynez mt’s. were etched against a sky as blue as the Ocean.

I found myself wondering if it would look the same 100 yrs. from now. Will there still be a coast highway? Will people still be travelling in automobiles, or will they be looking down at the mountains from aircraft or moving so fast the beauty of all I saw thiswould be lost?

Suddenly the simple drafting of a letter became a rather complex chore. Think about it for a minute. What do you put in a letter that’s going to be read 100 yrs. from now–in the year 2076? What do you say about our problems when those who read the letter will alr know what we dont know–namely how well we did with those problems? In short they will be living in the world we helped to shape.

Here’s another:

Some of these broadcasts have to be put together while I’m out on the road traveling what I call the mashed potato circuit. In a little while I’ll be speaking to a group of very nice people in a banquet hall.

Right now however I’m looking down on a busy city at rush hour. The streets below are two colored twin ribbons of sparkling red & white. The colored ones Tail lights on the cars moving away from my vantage point provide the red and the headlights of those on the opposite side of the street those coming toward me the white. It’s logical to assume all or most are homeward bound at the end of the a days work.

I wonder why some social engineer hasn’t tried to get them to trade homes. The traffic is equally heavy in both directions so if they all lived in the end of town where they worked it would save a lot of travel time. Forget I said thator & dont even think it or some burocrat will try do it.

But you I wonder about the people in those cars, who they are, what they do, what they are thinking about as they head for the warmth of home & family. Come to think of it I’ve met them–oh–maybe not those particular individuals but still I I feel I know them. Some of our social planners refer to them as “the masses” which only proves they dontknow them. I’ve been privileged to meet people all over this land in the special kind of way you meet them when you are campaigning. They are not “the masses,” They are individuals. or as the elitists would have it–”the common man.” They are very uncommon. individuals who make this system work. Individuals each with his or her own hopes & dreams, plans & problems and the kind of quiet courage that makes this whole country run better than just about any other place on earth.

Goldberg’s theme could be more broadly defined as the GOP’s ongoing need to communicate itself better. That is content, but it’s also delivery. Reagan was a master at delivery, which is why conservatives pine for Reaganesque candidates, because Reagan was so comfortable delivering the conservative message regardless of audience or medium.