"Underrated" Americans

Overrated Americans: John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson..... But we have some underrated ones, too. Several immediately come to mind. Like the overratings, the underratings are likely products of bias, of promotion (self- and otherwise), and ignorance. One of the most underrated of US Presidents is Dwight Eisenhower. He was not all about "me," like some of our most recent Presidents. In fact, one of his aides termed Eisenhower's administrations "The Hidden Hand Presidency." For quite a while, as President and after, he was seen as a nice guy, but no great shakes as President. The term that always comes to mind (at least mine) in describing him is "avuncular." Eisenhower reminded people of their favorite uncles, perhaps always joking, supplying with candy, etc. But as far as doing anything of significance? Nah, he didn't do much. What a shallow and narrow view of Dwight Eisenhower the President! One biographer noted that Ike "kept the peace." And the splended biography, Ike's Bluff by Evan Thomas, convincingly claims that he held off potential nuclear war. The Interstate Highway System and St. Lawrrence Seaway? Eisenhower projects. And he slowly, but surely defused the dangerous Joseph McCarthy, especially after "Tail Gunner Joe" went after Ike's beloved US Army. Our current leaders would do well to study how he quietly, but effectively did this. Eisenhower may not have agreed with court decisions regardng civil rights, but he felt compelled to enforce them in places such as Little Rock Central HS. It was his duty and he took and oath. He did far more for civil rights than, say, JFK. Another underrated American President is Calvin Coolidge. I have seen some historians who blamed him for the Depression! Huh? Cool Cal significantly reduced both the federal buget and taxes on Americans, still sky high after the First World War. He was very fiscally conservative, too frugal say some (but not I). He resisted attempts to expand the scope and reach of the federal government; he fought for limited government. He knew that government involvement in our lives, in the economy, etc. is not benign. Under his administration, as hard as it is to believe since they were here first, American Indians were granted US citizenship. Coolidge's speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is well worth reading. (If I recall, Coolidge is the only President to have been born on July 4th.) He claarly articulates how those twin "charters of freedom and justice," the Declaration and Constitution, guarantee and protect the rights of the individual while also providing the opportunity to pursue happiness as well as require that government power come from "the consent of the governed" (Locke). Amity Shlaes offers far more balanced biography of Coolidge than has generally appeared. Among two of the Founders, I think James Madison and James Wilson have been underrated. Although there have been a couple of recent biographies of Madison painting him in a far more important light, most people don't rank him with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and even Franklin. OK, I don't think his Presidency was great shakes, but his role in the development of the Constitution was very significant. Originally he was not sold on this new document, which threatened to create what the Americans had just fought a war to eliminate, that is a strong central government. He was astute enough to realize the Constitution was going to happen and he determined to jump aboard so he could steer the direction of it. And steer he did! Not only are his personal notes as close to minutes of the Constitutional Convention that we have (Secrecy was voted.), but he was one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers. (They are often misrepresented. They were written to explain the Constitution, in hopes of drumming up support from skeptical Americans. But many of them were published too late, after ratification votes. Still, The Federalist remains the best single source of the meaning of the Consitution.) Mostly, though, he took the lead in debates, sitting on committees, etc. that determined the foundation of the Constitution. James Madison's portrait on the $5000 bill is deserved. (Ha Ha Ha) Another Founder who is often not just underrated, but underlooked, is James Wilson. After Madison, he might well be the second most influential of the Framers of the Constitution. As much as anyone, he formed the intellectual theory, the underpinning of the document. Specifically, it was his ideas in the Preamble that led to the adoption of the principle of popular sovereignty, that all authority from government stems from the people. (I know, I know.....) "We the People" is a significant phrase, especially considering the times, the late 18th Century. Wilson also created the framework for the modern Presidency in Article II, including the Electrical College (sic). It was a unique office, far different from the previous eight presidents under the Articles of Confederation (and more if we include the presidents of the Continental Congresses). James Wilson, a forgotten Founder, shouldn't be forgotten. There are many more who have been underrated.....

Overated?

There are lots of "greatest" and "best" lists. They can range from "greatest Presidents" to "best all-time baseball players." They are fun to make and read and can spark lively discussion. And some of them can be thoughtful, if one considers factors going into the determination. But what about a "most overrated" list, say, of Americans? I'm not certain I've seen one of these, although I'm sure some exist. Hmmm..... And how about a "most underrated" list? For now, let's consider just "most overrated" Americans. There are probably lots from which to choose. And there are many reasons for such overrated status. Perhaps a person is his/her own greatest publicist, tooting one's own horn. Although he wouldn't be on my list of "overrated" people, William Henry Harrison represents such a self-promoting sort. At the Battle of Tippecanoe vs the army of Tecumseh (although he wasn't there and had left his men under the command of his brother, Tenkshatawana, with explicit instructions not to engage the Americans), the tide turned first one way and then the other. In the end, at best the battle was a draw, with no clear-cut winner, neither side really gaining any advantage. But the politician in Harrison yelled first and loudest, "I won! I won! I won!" It worked and about thirty years later he rode "Tippecanoe" (and Tyler, too!) into the White House. (But he only served a month, catching pneumonia or some sort of bug while delivering his Inaugural Address. He died 30 days later, the first President to die in office and the one who served the shortest term.) Others don't have to be their own publicists. The media and academics do that for them. Immediately coming to mind is Barack Obama. He could do no wrong. In fact, has he ever done anything wrong? Obamacare and its debacle, not to mention that a majority of people didn't favor it? His foreign policy gaffes? Hey, he won the Nobel Peace Prize! (For doing what?) Circumventing/Subverting the Constitution and legislative system? ("I have a phone and I have a pen" or something like that.) Blatant lies? No, he could do no wrong and will likely go down as a top-flight President. Here are a handful of my "overrated Americans." Always on my list of "overrated" is John Kennedy. I do admit my views on him have softened somewhat over the years, if only a little. It's not just his lack of morality. But ask what exactly did he accomplish? He did, admittedly, inspire Americans to do more than they thought they could. That's not a small thing and I have come to appreciate it more than I once did. "Put a man on the moon?" Is he crazy? The Peace Corps and Vista? But concrete achievements are rare, at least positive ones. He was weak on civil rights. In foreign affairs, how about the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Berlin Wall? Other than getting assassinated, what did he do that Americans really remember? Kennedy is often identified by the man on the street as "a great President." When pushed to explain why he was "great," in the end what emerges was that he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. The assassination created a legend, a myth. Franklin Roosevelt is an enigma for me. He surely was an influential President. If that makes him "great," well, so be it. To me, his achievements were largely harmful, if not in the short-run (and surely some were), certainly in the long-run. Yet, frequently he is selected as one of the three "greatest" Presidents. Check your kids' US History textbooks. They are practically hagiographies when it comes to FDR. Try to explain, with facts on your side, to someone that Roosevelt's New Deal really didn't end the Depression. These are the sources of the overrating of Franklin Roosevelt. He didn't necessarily toot his own horn, but fawning (and I think short-sighted) historians did. An early example of an American being overrated is Patrick Henry. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Words that might have moved a lot of people. "...if this be treason, make the most of it!" Well, not exactly. After breaking for the noon time meal, he was convinced it might be a good idea to return to the House of Burgesses and apologize, that is, take it back since it might be considered treasonous. But other than that, what did Henry do? He wasn't a soldier. He didn't write pamphlets. He didn't sign the Declaration of Independence and opposed ratification of the Constitution (thinking it created a government that was too strong, not a terribly wrong idea at the time). But should we lump him with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, et al? Douglas MacArthur? Paul Revere? Woodrow Wilson? Lots of others come to mind, too. Who are your most "overrated Americans?"

Abraham Lincoln

Happy Birthday, Abe! He'd have been 212 years old today. Coincidentally, I finished Abe a recent biography by David Reynolds of our sixteenth and best President. It's quite the tome, 900+ pages not including end notes! And it's on the expensive side, $40. All that said, I still recommend it, although waiting for the paperback might be a good thing to do. I've read more than 50 books about Lincoln and would rate this one in the top five or six. Its insights into what made Lincoln, well, "Lincoln," are incisive and plentiful. It examines the cultural, social, economic, and religious as well as political aspects of the Ante-Bellum and Civil War years that influenced Lincoln. Despite my studies, I gained an even deeper understanding of the man. I was grabbed by Reynolds early on, in the Introduction, with a quote from none other than Karl Marx. Lincoln was one "of the rare men who succeeded in becoming great without ceasing to be good." Yep. Reynolds shoots down many of the criticisms, contemporary and otherwise, by pointing at the record. By the mid- to late-1850s Lincoln had developed some radical ideas, quite radical for his times. "All men were created equal," including blacks. Freedom and respect for individual liberty had to be meshed with that equality. Justice was there for all. Slavery and all oppression are wrong! Indifference toward that is de facto support for them. Lincoln was wise enough to heed Walt Whitman's words, "Be radical! Be radical! Be radical! But not too damned radical." Part of Lincoln's political genius was that he learned to be radical, to work to bring the radical changes that were needed, but without sounding so. He constantly worked to mold popular opinions, to redirect them toward what he thought were just and fair. This would take time. The calls for immediate abolition, for instance, of William Lloyd Garrison and others either fell mostly on deaf ears or, often, resulted in violent reaction against them, even in the North. Lincoln knew peoplw would not listen to ideas they weren't ready to hear. Jesus was killed for pushing the greatest message the world has ever heard, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." People, Romans, Gentiles, and other Jws weren't prepared to hear that. So Lincoln bided his time, molding often in little steps attitudes that would support abolition, black citizenship, and voting rights for blacks. One instance where Lincoln demonstrated this was with the legacy of John Brown. Brown was excoriated in the South and in much of the North as well for his violent abolitionist actions--Bleeding Kansas, Harper's Ferry. Many of those Southerners and even Northern Democrats likened all abolitionists and the Republican Party to Brown. Lincoln recognized this and, to win support for his radical ideas, distanced himself from Brown's actions while, philosophically and politcally, embracing them--until the time was right. (Reading this section of the book I couldn't help but make a comparison to today, how the Democrats and their lapdog media have been so quick to accuse all Trump supporters and Republicans in general of guilt for the January 6 debacle. I don't know what else to call it, but I won't use "insurrection," not with Mr. Viking Helmet leading the charge.) While I'm at it, here was an important fact I didn't know. Lincoln and his supporters strongly felt the 1858 Senate seat in Illinois was "stolen" from him. It was widely alleged that the Democrats/supporters of Stephen A. Douglas recruited Irish workers, brought them to Illinois and granted them instant citizenship. These new citizens then voted. It wouldn't be hard to imagine which party they favored. I guess Lincoln would be "canceled" for that today, for making such a suggestion. In this way, Lincoln "never went beyond the people" as one his lawyer friends explained. And that was because, in his own view, Lincoln was one of "the people." His long-time friend William Herndon echoed that. "As a politician and statesman, he took no steps in advance of the great mass of people... He made observations, felt the popular pulse, and when he thought the people were ready, he acted, not before." Of course, he worked tirelessly to make the people ready. There is far, far more that feeds my admiration of Lincoln. I've written about some of that before. But Reynolds notes Lincoln's speeches as pivotal. He was generally not a long-winded speaker. He had the gift "to explain much with little." Far from the only two, but The Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address were highlighted. At Gettysburg, in about 200 words, not many more, Lincoln succeeded in redefining the ideals of this American experiment. With the Second Inaugural, using fewer than 700 words, he outlined a post-war path to re-unite such a divided nation. Frederick Douglass, in attendance that afternoon, told Lincoln, "That was a sacred effort." What the President did was give a speech that might have fallen "from the lips of [William Lloyd] Garrison." Talk about radical! And many people were now willing to listen. It's too bad most of today's so-called "leaders" know so little of Abraham Lincoln. Happy Birthday, Lincoln! (That's what he preferred to be called.)

Impeachment?

I hesitated to read it, but a Free Press op-ed's headline claimed "No legal argument against a Trump impeachment trial." First and foremost, the Constitution clearly states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  It does not read, "ex-Presidents" or "former Presidents."  The authors (Is it enough to note that one of them was Obama's "ethics czar?????") make the spurious argument that Congress established a precedent in impeaching William Belknap in 1876; Belknap was no longer the Secretary of War. That Congress has never made a mistake, passed a ridiculous resolution or piece of legislation, etc. throws this argument flat on its bejabbers. They also write, "...the Constitution makes clear that impeachment serves two important goals, removing a bad actor from office and forever disqualifying him or her from holding any office....." Hmmm. I don't think I found that it the first sentence of this paragraph, that is, in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution itself. What they have done is translate a political action by a 19th Century Congress into Constitutional law. I don't think so, Tim. Second and foremost, how can one be "removed from office" if one doesn't hold that "office?" Logically, it is impossible. If it is possible within the law, as the authors claim, then what Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist makes great sense, "The law is a ass, a idiot [sic]."  Third and foremost, how is this going to help us "unite," "come together," etc.?  If anything, it will drive people further apart.  Fourth and foremost, how much time, effort, and money are being spent on this fruitless impeachment?  I've quoted Nobel Laureat Milton Friedman many times on this, "It's easy to spend other people's money." Members of Congress of both parties, especially Democrats, have become quite good at this. Fifth and foremost, what about all those Democrat members of Congress whose speech could easily be suggested has led to violence over the past couple of years, including attacks on the federal, state, and local governments?  Federal court houses and other property, police headquarters, etc. were burned, bombed, and otherwise destroyed.  Law enforcement officials at every level of government were injured or killed.  Even members of Congress were shot, beaten, etc.  Why are these not "assaults on our democracy" incited by Democrats?

I'm a Sap!

So, it looks more and more that college loans for students are going to be "canceled." Color me a sap in many ways. There have been several articles in the newspaper recently about this, "forgiving student debts." I certainly agree that many students have overly onerous loans to pay back. But there is much wrong with canceling student debts. I paid off my college loans, on time, when the default rate was about 60-70%. That is, most people who had student loans didn't pay them back. To put my kid through school, I worked four and five jobs so he wouldn't have a heavy debt post-graduation. (Yes, I really was drawing paychecks from five different employers at one time in the '90s.) I'm raiding my retirement savings (about 15% so far and he's only a sophomore) to pay for my grandson's college; he has a loan now, but it's minimal and I may pay that off at the end of this semester. I'm not at all complaining. No. It was and is my chosen responsibility. To me, it was and is the right thing to do. Again, I'm not complaining about what I did, but about this stupid plan to forgive college loans. So now, according to Biden, Schumer, and other leading Democrats, student loan "forgiveness" is a priority? A few blogs back, I posted about the government's "Three Stooges Approach to Solving Problems," problems they created. Here is another one. College costs are out of control. There are many reasons, from far too many administrators to professors only teaching a course or two. And a large part of the spiraling costs of the past few decades has been federal government involvement in student loans. If you want to see how that resulted in higher college costs, necessitating more loans for students, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." Simply put, when colleges saw that they were going to get their money thanks to government guarantees, it was a license to jack up the price of a higher education. What about those loans that won't be repaid, that is, which will be canceled? Somebody is left hanging with the bill. Is it government which paid the college costs, but now won't be reimbursed? So, it is really the taxpayers who are left holding the bag--again. And, of course, there are private lenders, too. What signal is being sent by this? You can borrow money, but don't have to really pay it back? I believe it was President Herbert Hoover (I know, quoting him might be a stretch!), who once responded in opposition to suggestions that First World War European debts to the US be forgiven, "They hired the money, didn't they?" Then pay it back! (Most didn't. Finland and a couple of other nations repaid us, but that was about it.) "Yeah, lend me the money. Sure I'll pay you back." Wink, wink, wink. If college seems out of one's financial possibilities, there are options. Go to the local community college for a year or two. From what I've seen and heard, the education we (Yes, that's me, a community college professor talking.) provide is equal to the one received at the four-year schools. There is also work. Students can work while going to school. They may take longer to finish their degrees, but they won't have the heavy loans to repay. More and most personal to me, those of us who either repaid our loans or saved/sacrificed to avoid loans are saps. Will those who acted responsibly be repaid their tuition, room, board, and other expenses, expenses paid out of their own pockets? Ha Ha Ha. I believe Elizabeth Warren during the Iowa caucuses was asked this by a farmer who had acted responsibly. "What about me? I worked hard and saved to avoid the loans. Will I be reimbursed for doing the right thing?" Or something like that. Warren, in her arrogant elitism dismissed such a notion. "Of course not," Her Arrogance replied. No, Mr. Farmer, you are a sap. In your own words, you get "screwed" for acting responsibly and sacrificing. Once again, government has given people reasons to act irresponsibly. The doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") encourage bad behavior, once again even punishing good behavior.

A First Step?

The new administration has been mouthing words such as "We have to come together" and "We must unite." The President today said, "We are not enemies. We are neighbors." I say "mouthing" because until I see something other than empty words, I can't take these Democrats very seriously. How often they say one thing and do something quite different. (Isn't that lying?) Do "We have to come together" and "We must unite" include trying to expel Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz from the US Senate for challenging the Electrical College vote, something Pelosi's own choice of impeachment manager wanted to do, the exact same thing, in 2017? For that matter, how can we take any of these talking heads or newspaper editors spouting "togetherness" and "unity?" I haven't seen anything remotely resembling such suggestions. But I'm not really surprised; are you? I often don't know what or who to believe any more; there are liars on both sides. ("Character? Is that still around?") But I've heard things such as "deprogramming" and "re-education." Again, true? I don't know. But such talk should frighten everyone. "Hey, it can't happen here!" Who'd a thunk, a year ago, government could force thousands of businesses to close, schools to shut to the extreme detriment of our children, people to wear masks everywhere, etc.? (I am reminded of one of Sinclair Lewis's lesser known novels, "It Can't Happen Here." Lewis created a Depression-era scenario when the US becomes a fascist state. Opposition, such as the editor Doremus Jessup, is silenced--imprisonment without trial, disappearing, etc. It's well worth reading, particularly in light of how readily many/most Americans have given up their rights to autocratic governors today.) But back to my point. If Biden is serious, here's a suggestion. Wait a while, maybe a month?, and invite Donald Trump and Melania to the White House for dinner, purely as a social affair. Of course, if he does that, I might be so shocked that I'd have a heart attack! (But I'd survive. My days will be ended by "a bus" or "a bazooka." My physician told me that.) But it would be a start. And the Trumps might well decline. It would be a step, action instead of more empty rhetoric. Biden could also ask the House to withdraw its impeachment. If that's not possible, to take back the charge, they he could urge the Senate to vote against removal--unanimously. (I think it's unconstitutional, if not utterly stupid, to "remove" a guy from the Presidency if he is no longer the President. I know there are some Constitutional questions about banning Trump from ever running again, but I'd think that would be sorted out by the Supremes.) I suppose my suggestions are predicated that Biden really wants to unite Americans, other than "uniting" all under the Democrat Party banner. I am not sure he does; in fact, I doubt it. But if he is serious..... Then again, maybe Biden is just a puppet, strings being pulled by others with their own agendas.

"Selective...."

Several dictionary sites have chosen "pandemic" as the Word of the Year 2020. It would be tough to argue with that. The virus has destroyed 2020. Everyone's life has been affected by it. Yes, no complaints from me about "pandemic" other than I just plain don't like the word. Similarly, I believe it was the annual Lake Superior State University review that included "We're all in this together" as a phrase they'll be glad to see go. Me, too, since it's obvious to all but the unseeing that we are not all in this together. More evidence today--people are "jumping the line" to get their vaccine shots. It doesn't matter than some people might be more vulnerable, might need the shot more. After all, those "Old people, why do they need the vaccine? They're going to die anyway." So, "If I can cheat and get the shot instead of someone who might need it more, so what?" I'd really like to see which people are doing that. "We're all in this together," except when we're not. I have another candidate for a word that has played an important role in our society, but not just 2020. This started several years ago. I'm not sure how often people actually use the word, but it does describe much of how they act. "Selective." People have become very selective in their lives. It seems we have selective morality, selective outrage, selective principles (Does that make them really not principles then?), selective concern, and more. Some "experts" have dismissed this, that "selective" merely is employed to attack political, philosophical, and other opponents. I'm not quite so quick to dismiss it, but am willing to accept a different term if it fits. I suppose "hypocritical" can worm its way into the discussion. So can "self-serving." Perhaps frivolous, but a good example was an article in the newspaper the other day. The sports writer noted how the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others are kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their performance-enhancing drug use. OK, if Hall electors (sports writers, veterans' committee, or whoever) want to take a stand on that issue, fine. But, then, how can these same electors have inducted former commissioner Bud Selig to the Hall? Wasn't it under his watch (or non-watch?) that the whole PED thing exploded? Wasn't it sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned? (Actually, that, Nero fiddling, isn't true, but you get the point.) Why, then, are the players who used PEDs not selected while the man who looked the other way is? Why is Donald Trump roundly criticized for infidelity to his marriage(s), but Bill Clinton's similar escapades overlooked? Where was the National Organization of Women on that? Oh, Clinton was impeached (as was Trump, but over a far different "issue"), but he remained very popular despite being a scumball. Why are Trump's lies brought up at every turn, but most people ignored Barack Obama's untruthfulness, deliberate untruthfulness? It seems to me Obama's lies had more of a direct impact on lives than Trump's. "Follow the science" is another example of being "selective." If we are to "follow the science," shouldn't we consider all of "the science?" But we don't. We only "follow" what suits our agendas, our purposes. I'm old enough to remember the Time Magazine cover story of the '70s, "A New Ice Age?" Oh how we were warned! Fewer that 20 years later, it was "global warming" that was going to destroy our planet (and us). Well, maybe it's not really global warming, but "climate change." Remember the "acid rain" fears heaped upon us? Our lakes would be dead, all the plant and animal (fish) life killed off. The "science" told us that. Perhaps in part due to some societal changes we made, it never happened. The same thing is true of CoVid. Selective science is applied, science that supports some politicians' motives and agendas. They pick and choose what they use to set policy, to inform the citizenry. Oh, they trot out "experts," experts who say the "right" things. But why don't they (or the media!) also listen to or even publicize opposing views? "The science says....." Well, not all of the science says what is purported. Some very well known and respected scientists, including Nobel winners, have disagreed with the science that has been accepted. How "selective" we are in our outrage over the protesters. Those in DC, although only a very small fraction of those who were there, were "assaulting our democracy." Yep, I heard that from all of those lame-brained politicians, media pundits, and their "experts." So, it must be true, right? Why would they lie to us? Heh Heh. But all those summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," even against federal and state government buildings, police and fire stations, other government property, not to mention private homes and stores, was not an "assault" on anything, I guess. I remember nary a peep from these same people when cities were being burned last summer. Our outrage is "selective" when it affects us in a bad way, but if others face bad things, that's OK--we're not angry at all. There are many more examples. I, for one, am getting very, very tired of it. I suspect more and more people are, too.