Our country’s government is said to be run by the people, for the people. In an essence that is true, since every four years we elect someone who we think will serve our best interests and lead the country into prosperity. Even though there are clearly two sides of politics, Republicans and Democrats, no two presidents are ever alike (though some are relatives of one another.) In the three essays’ I read, it’s easy to see the contributions each president made to our lasting society and government.
The last paragraph of Michael McGrerr’s essay on Theodore Roosevelt says it all. Our country is built upon many contradictions and in the early years of 1900, President Roosevelt was a perfect fit for our nation. While I think his political career leaned more toward liberalism, he could’ve been easily been embraced by conservatives as well (p. 283).
Aside from acting as the official lead to our country from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt was a character enveloped with charm and charisma. Just looking at a photo of the 25th president could give you a good indication of what kind of person he was. With a face so full of exuberant expression and an honest smile it’s hard not to like Roosevelt just from his appearance.
Roosevelt’s character was more than just skin deep. As McGrerr explains, Theodore experienced a lot in his life that helped to mold the man into the person he became as president. Roosevelt was born on October 27, 1858 to wealthy parents, as nearly all presidents have been. McGrerr dubbed his life as “storybook” like, which even today can be marveled at. He spent his younger years traveling around the world from Manhattan to Africa, where he spent a lot of his time enjoying activities like writing, hunting, and enjoying nature (p. 268-69).
I think Roosevelt felt he needed to prove himself beyond his privileged upbringing. Even though he was born into wealth, reinventing himself helped build character in the eyes of the nation. Roosevelt’s father played a part in encouraging Theodore to change. As a young man he suffered from asthma and a “’sickly, delicate’” figure, as his father described (p. 270). Roosevelt counteracted that by taking an active interest in outdoor sports. McGrerr also agreed that Roosevelt in a way washed his hands of the prejudice upbringing he had, preparing him for the position he would be filling. For some time he shied away from the wealthy norm of leisurely activities that others of his stature participated in (p. 270).
I don’t believe calling Theodore Roosevelt an “accidental president” serves him very well (p. 268). By all means, he was popular in office, dedicated to a lot of important issues of his time, and obviously left a lasting impression on the nation. Roosevelt started out by receiving laughs from friends at his mention of a political career. After the death of his wife, he spent a few years out west living the life of a cowboy. This in some ways prepared Roosevelt for his role in the Spanish-American war. Theodore led a group upper class citizens and friends known as the “Rough Riders.” Together, they lead the extraordinary charge up Kettle Hill (p. 270).
Roosevelt went on to fill a few different positions that paved the way to presidency. He was appointed by President Harrison to the Civil Service Commission followed by the job of president of the New York City Police Commission. After that, McKinely advanced Roosevelt to the position of assistant secretary of the navy. In 1898, with all these prior jobs under his belt, Roosevelt won the job of Governor of New York. At this period in time, New York was a great political machine, so his time spent in office helped him prepare for what was next (p. 271).
At this time Roosevelt was running for vice president along side McKinley. He had a love for lively debates and speaking tours. Roosevelt dabbled in arguments surrounding moral issues, which wasn’t very popular for politicians during his time. He had a love for writing and the author compared him to Thomas Jefferson. It was the overall appeal of Roosevelt’s character that allowed him to win the seat second to McKinely (p. 272).
When McKinely was assassinated in 1901, Roosevelt became the youngest president ever sworn into office. He didn’t take any time making the presidency his own. His popularity soared and he appealed to the masses. This, coupled with the split in the Democratic Party, allowed Roosevelt to sweep up the 1904 elections and continue as president (p. 272).
McGrerr stated that “the problem of business was unquestionably the central issue of Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency” (p. 273). Roosevelt wanted to keep capitalism alive and abhorred socialism. As we’ve learned in class, Roosevelt was neither an advocate nor an oppressor of trusts. He believed that some trusts could be beneficial, but that wasn’t the case for J.P. Morgan. Roosevelt attacked the Northern Securities Company and in a 5:4 victory, earned the name “trustbuster” (p. 275).
Roosevelt put into effect many Act’s that served as a beginning to protect consumers, land, and natural resources. Many of the parks we know today are there as a direct result of Roosevelt conservation efforts. Although he was an avid hunter, he understood that we needed to sanction off a bit of land for later developmental uses (p. 276).
Like trusts, Roosevelt teetered when it came to his support for unions and organized labor. He encouraged individualism and believed that power lied within each person. For the most part, Roosevelt never really sided with unions. There was one instance where he intervened on behalf of the United Mine Workers and won a subtle victory for the actual workers. It looked good for his administration though (p. 277).
I think a lot of people take for granted Roosevelt’s morals and values during his time. The author suggests that Roosevelt had a compassion for educated women and their rights, but never did anything politically for them. Some people today may view this as sexist, but I think for his time, to even acknowledge women in their own right and importance was a step in the right direction (p. 279).
Roosevelt also believed in segregation. Of course, this isn’t a popular idea today, but back then a racial hierarchy was the norm. People honestly believed that some races were superior to others. So when Roosevelt acknowledged that segregation was a good thing, he wasn’t going against the grain. When he asserted that Native Americans should be separated from American culture, he was actually going against assimilation and wanted to keep the Indian culture intact (p. 279).
McGrerr claimed that Roosevelt fell short in the areas of social issues and foreign policy. He was coined as the president to rule with a “big stick.” Theodore was quoted as saying, “Speak softy and carry a big stick, you will go far” (p. 281). In a sense he meant to threaten other countries with the US’s power. He proved this under many circumstances. He wielded his “big stick” by presenting the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, which “allowed the [U.S.] to do its ‘duty’ and intervene to stop any ‘general loosening of the ties of civilized society’ in the Western Hemisphere” (p. 281).
Like many of Roosevelt’s decisions while in office, the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in a war, scream contradiction (p. 282). The author clearly points out in quite a few different ways, how Roosevelt’s opinions and decisions often came into conflict with his personal beliefs (p. 283). I believe this to be true and history does speak for itself. On the other hand, regardless of all that Roosevelt came out on top and was a breath of fresh air for the country and the turn of the century. His lively presence and charisma really paved the way for importance of character in future presidential elections.
Over 50 years later a man came into office that shared the same charismatic appeal as Roosevelt. John F. Kennedy’s presence is still overwhelming today. This essay, written by Michael Kazin, is probably my favorite of the few that I read. All the credit can’t go to the author though. Kennedy’s life in itself reads sort of like a manuscript for something out of Hollywood. He was born on May 29, 1917 to wealthy immigrant parents. His father strived to maintain that he was an American citizen. As stated before, a privileged upbringing was the norm for U.S. presidents. Unlike Roosevelt, Kennedy didn’t do much to distinguish himself from his prominent roots. The author details the young life of JFK and the authoritarian style of parenting his father used (p. 399).
Joseph Kennedy made something of his name long before his son took position in the oval office. He was a graduate of Harvard who accelerated in the business world, earning himself millions. The description of how he treated his nine children shocked me a bit. He and his wife expected so much from their children and had high aspirations for John at a very young age. The author strongly suggests that Joe did have an undying love for his children and probably stressed their success only for their own good and betterment (p. 399).
Along with his rigorous child rearing tactics, Joseph engaged in politics, paving the way for his son’s future career. Joseph held office under FDR, which allowed for him to introduce John to a political crowd and offer him new opportunities. JFK traveled to London as an ambassador and while there was sparked with interest concerning the British government’s status of being unprepared for war (p. 400). There’s a lot I didn’t know about JFK, other than his physical charm and beloved character. It sort of sent me through a loop to discover that much of his writing was created by someone else; though I am sure it is evident in history that many speeches and such are prepared by someone other than the president himself. It also amuses me that the success of “his” book was partially due to the fact that his father bought up a ridiculous amount of copies (p. 400). I suppose it was all done to further his political career and not just out of parental pride. Of course that wasn’t the last time someone would pen a prestigious book for the soon-to-be president. While in office (not as president), JFK earned a Pulitzer Prize for the book under his name, but authored by others (p. 401).
I think regardless of how his father set up him for political gain, it is an amazing story of a rise to power. JFK was the first, and only (I think?) Catholic president. It was only the 1960’s and not too far off from when people loathed Catholics.
Kennedy’s overall appeal certainly didn’t hurt his career. Kazin likened him to a Hollywood actor and I don’t think his persona could’ve been expressed any better. JFK was a beautiful man in all aspects; charming, educated, well groomed and from a prominent family. His time spent in the navy only added to his celebrity appeal. Rescuing a sailor by the teeth, literally! With the help of his father that detail made the pages of Reader’s Digest (p. 400).
As did I, I think most people are blinded by Kennedy’s charm and forget how close the presidential race between he and Nixon actually was. As recent elections mimicked, there were questions raised about the accuracy of voting in certain states that decided who would take the seat as president. It is detailed in the essay that JFK rallied the support of black voters by helping to secure the release of Martin Luther King from prison (p. 402).
When Kennedy took office in 1961, he wasted no time spewing out his promises of changing foreign policy, something Roosevelt wasn’t particularly concerned with. Kennedy was brought into office during the cold war, so it made sense that he should be dealing with these issues (p. 403). It seems that a lot of these events played out like a well scripted Hollywood fiasco, probably because so many movies have been dedicated to the life and times of JFK. The lot of assassination attempts on Fidel Castro rivals any Tom Clancy novel today.
Fidel was an underestimated pain to the Kennedy administration. Every American was aware of communists and it was a scary thought to watch Castro evolve into what the U.S. was so strongly against. This led Kennedy to sponsor an attempt to overthrow him and his “government”. The U.S. armed and prepared Cuban exiles for battle, but their attack was unsuccessful. As the essay stated, this blunder in no way negatively affected Kennedy’s popularity (p. 403).
The ordeal I remember most from Kennedy’s brief reign was the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a nail biting two weeks in American history where we were involved in a battle of threats with the Soviet Union to unleash nuclear bombs which would cause mass destruction and devastation. Coming to an agreement, the U.S. promised not to invade Cuba and discreetly withdrew missiles from Turkey (p. 404).
The presence of the U.S. in Vietnam has always been a confusing point in history for me. JFK had troops in Vietnam to stop he progression of Vietcong communists that were trying to take over the government previously set up by the U.S. It is stated that Kennedy didn’t always agree with policies and procedures carried out by the government, but he did stand by what said about stomping out communism (p. 405).
As cited in the essay, Kennedy “had signed no major piece of domestic legislation” before his untimely death (p. 397). That being said, JFK had an interest in expanding funding to allow federal aid for education and health insurance for the elderly (p. 405). It is explained that Kennedy offered a large tax cut for everyone and encouraged businesses and unions alike to only slightly raise their wages and prices. His vision for the future of this country led to things like Medicare and the War on Poverty. Even posthumously Kennedy’s predecessors tried their best to ensure that what Kennedy wanted done was accomplished (p. 406).
What may have been the turning point in Kennedy’s presidency was his stand on civil rights. He wasn’t always a firm supporter of black rights, but more “concerned about the harm that racist violence did to America’s image abroad.” The author shrugs this attitude off, labeling Kennedy a “prudent politician” (p. 406). JFK eventually turned out to be a public supporter of civil rights. It’s a shame that at that point in history, the majority of the nation didn’t agree with his liberal thinking. Statistics from the book show that his approval rating dropped significantly and even suggested that had he not been assassinated, that he would’ve lost reelection to a conservative republican (p. 407).
On the fatal day of November 22, 1963, JFK was traveling in downtown Dallas to support his civil rights views. It was during this parade that a Fidel fanatic, Lee Harvey Oswald, fired two rifle shots, ending the JFK and his presidency (p. 398.) The details surrounding his death could keep a conspiracy theorist awake for weeks. The book mentions possible alternative killers as: “the CIA, the FBI, the military, the Mafia, leaders of the Teamsters Union, Fidel Castro, Cuban exiles, oil magnates, and even Lyndon Johnson himself” (p. 407).
America literally fell in love with JFK and continues do to so every generation. My mom knows nothing about U.S. government and politics nor does she recall the complete events of my birth, but she can tell you in disturbing detail the exact location, time of day, and weather from when JFK was assassinated. I think the author did an excellent job by quoting Garry Wills in the end of his essay, saying that “Kennedy ‘did not so much elevate the office [of president] as cripple those who help it after him. His legend has haunted them; his light cast them in shadow’” (p. 408).
The years that followed Kennedy’s presidency were filled with war and corruption, which led to a lot of doubt and mistrust among the American people. A southern peanut farmer by the name of Jimmy Carter was hoping for the democratic bid. He didn’t really have much of a background in politics, but did spend one term as governor of Georgia, his home state. Carter came off as a man with morals. He wasn’t fond of the power the government currently held and that appealed to the people, who felt betrayed by Washington in the aftermath of Nixon and Watergate (p. 455).
The political setting surrounding the elections that year obviously played a huge role in Carter’s winning the presidency. His opponent, republican Gerald Ford, was bruised by the ties he had with Nixon and even nearly 40 years later the country still remains weary of scandals like that. In the beginning Carter held a distinct lead in the polls, but as voting time drew near the gaps began to close in. It makes one wonder if there had been sufficient competition, would Carter have ever become president (p. 455-56).
Jimmy Carter did end up winning 297:240 by what the book calls “the narrowest electoral victory since 1916,” though obviously with recent election results that statement doesn’t seem as powerful (p. 456).
In the beginning of his term, Carter seemed to be breath of fresh air. His inaugural address was considered by the New York Times to be a “therapeutic moment of tranquility” (p. 457). He wanted a calmer, gentler government that was more in the hands of the people. The author of this essay lists many things that Carter did to appear more in line with the citizens of America. He axed nearly a third of the White House staff, he made cabinet officers drive their own cars. He ceased the playing of “Hail to the Chief” at public events and held little town meetings in obscure places around the U.S. Probably my favorite thing about Carter was his Mr. Roger’s approach to communicating with the people. He actually wore sweaters in televised “fire side chats” (p. 457).
I think it must be mentioned that Carter’s popularity was secured for the moment by a 75 percent approval rating. Carter’s appeal to the people may have been more than just a clever political stunt. Maybe Carter was a little too much like the people, for to some it seemed as though he didn’t have a thorough understanding of how politics worked. That being said, Carter didn’t really feel the need to consult congress with any of his decisions. He forked over a load of legislation pertaining to “energy conservation, government reorganization, changes in immigration policy, social welfare reform, food stamp revision, and an overhaul of election procedures” (p. 459).
Tip O’Neill is a reoccurring antagonist throughout the essay and one of the many people quoted speaking out against the president at the time. Carter caught criticism from his own party, which gave the Republicans a chance to laugh at the democrat’s inner conflict (p. 459).
Carter’s administration was already troubled by a fast growing deficit. Inflation was on the rise, which proved to be a major concern for many Americans (p. 459). To counter the worries of the people, Carter purposed lessening government spending and handed congress a budget that cut many important domestic programs. Again, Tip O’Neill quipped in by saying, “I’m not going to allow people to go to bed hungry for an austerity program” (p. 460).
This part of the essay made me cackle and draw in a sarcastic gasp. To think, people were upset with the gas price hike that sent prices soaring just above the dollar/gallon mark?! It was a pressing issue at the time, as it still is today. Carter held strong beliefs about the rise of oil prices and voiced his concern, but it wasn’t enough to sooth the public’s seething rage. It’s interesting to read that the president retreated to Camp David and sought the company of “religious leaders, politicians, poets, and psychiatrists” (p. 461). Upon his return he recycled the majority of his cabinet, which seemed like “a desperate act of a president unable to control his administration.” At that point his approval rating spiraled down the drain (p. 461). Facing some of the same troubles as Kennedy, Carter worried about tensions evolving from the cold war. In 1979 he wanted to sign the SALT II treaty, which would “establish strategic parity between the United States and the Soviet Union” (p. 462). It didn’t work out so well and again more disruption within the party. In his essay, Gillon said that “Secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, believed that Vietnam had exposed the fallacy of using a superpower context to shape policy toward regional problems” (p. 462). Brzezinski saw the Russians as people out to test the post-war U.S.
The essay did highlight a moment of clarity for Carter when he finally touched on, what I think, is his true calling. The Camp David Accords are noted as a period of time where Carter invited the Egyptian President and Israeli Prime Minister to come to Camp David for moderated discussions. He worked as a middle man and eventually an agreement was reached which was represented by a treaty that put to end decades of conflict (p. 463).
Toward the end of his term Carter found a resurgence of popularity. Tension in the middles east provided an opportunity for Iranian nationalist to take over the U.S embassy and capture 53 Americans. It’s easy to imagine the horror that the nation must’ve felt at the time, since today we are faced with the constant threat of terrorist kidnappings. As the hostage crisis unfolded, the Soviet’s also invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to take over. (A lot of the events that followed paved the way to our war now.) Carter enacted the tentatively named Carter Doctrine that pretty much said anybody who tries to mess with the Persian Gulf might as well be messing with the U.S. and we will come and try to stop you (p. 464).
This little regain in public favor couldn’t save Carter from his ultimate demise. Ronald Regan was a well known actor and republican looking for a seat in the oval office. After the election was over Carter retreated back to his peanut farm that was now in ruins. It was after his presidential years that Carter did his best work as he played the roll of humanitarian and mediator. My memory may fail me, but I believe I remember him having a meeting with Fidel Castro. To think back in brief history to when Kennedy plotted to assassinate him, to the point where Castro kept an American president in good company is just amazing in some ways.
It’s incredible what less than four years can do. There seems to be a bit of bias when it comes to the essay’s I have read, but that is be expected. Carter I fear was depicted in a less than favorable light, but maybe I’m biased because he was the president when I was born. Kennedy is beloved by nearly all of America, so it is hard to paint too many clouds over his term. Roosevelt is a colorful historical figure with far too much good to outweigh the bad.
Even though some president’s may have fewer pages in the history books, they’ve all contributed some sort of lasting impression on today’s government and society.