View Single Post
  #15  
Old 11-10-2016, 11:22 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Grant, who was a drunk, aside from having absolutely no non-military administrative experience or background in elected office.
I agree that the numerous generals who were elected in the 19th century because they were generals had no good background for the Presidency. Being a general is a kind of executive experience, required to amass and move men and materiel, but being able to order people is not politics. Eisenhower, who was more of a staff and logistics general than a field commander and spent most of his war in Washington, probably qualifies more than Grant.

But while Grant drank heavily in times of stress and depression, he was more of a binge drinker than a continuing alcoholic. And what's interesting is that most of the accounts of his being a drunk end when he cut his drinking down during the war. There's not much of his being a drunk as President. Both periods coincided with his being a winner and seemed to have reduced his need for alcohol forgetfulness.

I'd say Eisenhower had the least experience in politics of modern presidents. Second is George W. Bush, who political career consisted of six years as governor of Texas, which is a highly visible position but Texas has a weak governor system.