In this thread, elucidator opines about the office of the President:
It reminded me of the speech given by Kevin Kline’s character in the movie “Dave.” In “Dave,” an unscrupulous White House Chief of Staff finds a double for the President after the President suffers a stroke that leaves him in a coma. The adminsitration was rfie with corruption, but the double, an unassuming temp agency manager named Dave, soon injects honesty and standards into an unwilling White House, but is overcome as his double’s scandal catches up with him. He “comes clean” in a speech to Congress, admitting to all the crimes “he” has been a part of, and then gives a moving speech about how “he” lost sight of what the job was supposed to be about.
It’s a great movie.
But in real life, I contend that the “Dave standard” is well-nigh impossible to fill. In evidence, I point to … the Presidents of the United States. How far back must we go before you find one about whom it can be fairly said that he was scrupulously honest, honest to a fault, regardless of the political consequences?
Unfortunately I haven’t yet gotten around to reading the biography yet, but I’d like to offer Truman as a man whose administration was remarkably scandal-free (at least in the “we tried to hide it, but they caught us” sense of scandal).
In the linked thread, before I could bail out of the hijack, Demorian suggests FDR.
I guess we don’t recall Clare Booth Luce’s famous line: “FDR lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it,” referring to the outright lies concerning who fired the first shots when the U.S. destroyers Greer and Kearney were attacked, as well as the secret orders U.S. warships had to conduct operations against German U-boats prior to the start of hostilities.
And then there was the famous German plan for the occupation of South America and the Nazification of Christianity - plans invented by British intelligence, and passed on as fact by FDR.
Well, a lot of people have bad memories of Carter, but I’ve never heard anyone accuse him of dishonesty, nor any serious moral failings of any kind. Yet his Admin is (unfairly, IMO) remembered as a disaster. I guess it’s not enough just to be “Dave”; as president you gotta play the hand history deals you, and sometimes it’s a crappy one.
As a local politician in Kansas City, Truman was famous for keeping himself personally honest while working within one of the most corrupt political machines in America, the Pendergast ring. FWIW. If he was not corrupt then he was enabling corruption, but it was the only game in town.
President Truman’s justification for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings – 250,000 civilians fried – was that this would end the war quickly, and an invasion of Japan would not be necessary. Invading Japan would cost some 500,000 lives, said Truman, and he cited General George Marshall as the source of that estimate.
When the Manhattan Project was declassified years later, we learned that Marshall had urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be evacuated and only military targets hit, and that he did NOT provide the 500,000 estimate. Marshall’s advice was obviously ignored by Truman, who chose not to disclose it, instead letting the public believe that the experts were in unanimous agreement.
Now, Harrison’s campaign was not a model of probity. The Whigs portrayed Harrison as a rugged outdoorsy adventurer - the Log Cabin and Hard Cider president - drawing on his success at Tippecanoe. Curious absent from the Whig propaganda was the admission that Harrison was from an upper-class Virginia family, owne a huge mansion, glibly quoted Cicero, and was known for his love of fine imported wine.
Interesting…cite? (Honestly, I’d be interested in reading about it).
The irony of this being Truman’s scandal and my posts in the other thread has not escaped me.
What? Are you seriously suggesting FDR as a president that never lied? If you don’t buy the “He lied to get us into WWII,” bit, I have others – the man was elected four times; there’s no dearth of material. But before I haul more out, tell me what you’re saying.
Truman’s administration itself was also heavily hit by corruption charges, with allegations (some true, some not) that friends and cronies of Truman were making themselves rich off of the Administration. As with what BrainGlutton said- Truman himself was never considered complict in any of these events, and was completely honest and scrupulous about his business dealings- but considered friendship and loyalty more important in associates and subordinates than necessarily honesty.
As far as “honest to a fault, damn the political consequences”, though, Truman stands pretty damn high- fighting McCarthy, the Korean War, and setting up the stage for the Cold War, Truman was very blunt and honest to the American people, and suffered mightly in the polls as a result.
I think we also need to keep in mind the difference between “honest to a fault” and “honest to a Christ-like demeanor”; the former is evident in many presidents, while the latter is impossible in even regular life, let alone political.
I agree that Carter tends to fit this bill, and I’ll assert that Carter’s honesty and moral character had nothing to do with his inability to be an effective president- his inability to work with Congress, as well as his predeliction for believing (as Woodrow Wilson did) that because he was right, Congress and the nation could not help but follow his lead, had much more to do with that.
I’d also add Gerald Ford to the list; one can argue that his belief that pardoning Nixon and sparing the country further rending over Watergate was wrong, but there has never been any evidence of any sort of ‘deal’ over the pardon, and Ford probably lost the Presidency over his actions.
I gotta say, Bricker and I are significantly far apart on political issues. Yet I find myself repeatedly defending him from absurd attacks. Who’d’ve figured.
You want an example of FDR lying and acting in a reprehensible manner solely for political gain? Executive Order 9066, which ordered the internment of Japanese citizens.
FDR knew there was no military justification. Hell, J. Edgar Hoover did not believe the Japanese citizens were a national security threat. But FDR wanted Democratic votes in the 1942 Congressional elections on the West coast, and West coast popular opinion was screaming for internment.
Even worse, the DOJ and the military informed FDR that whatever “threat” the Japanese citizens posed had dissipated by the end of 1943, but FDR kept the internment going for another full year because he wanted West coast votes in the 1944 Presidential campaign (a campaign, it should be noted, in which he blatantly misled the public about the state of his health). He didn’t end the internment until December 1944, well after the votes were counted.
Have you utterly forgotten the flap over Andy Young’s meeting with the PLO, which President Carter denied - even though it was true?
I agree, and I give Ford a pass on the pardon. But Ford lied about approving Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. He and Kissenger met with Suharto, in person, and told him the US would not object; the invasion happened the day after the meeting. Both Kissenger and Ford denied approving this action for years. In December 2001, declassified documents proved the Ford lie.
I’ll second the vote for Ford (one of the biggest unsung presidents IMO) and for Carter too. Truman also I think is a good example. I don’t think the level of ‘honesty’ from the movie ‘Dave’ (btw Bricker, Dave himself was living in the central lie of the movie…i.e. he wasn’t really the president and he was involved in a HUGE deception. So even HE doesn’t fit the bill :)) just isn’t attainable in real life…and maybe its not even desire-able.
Take your FDR example of getting us into the war. Perhaps FDR did deceive (or at least hold back certain information from general distribution) the American people about moves being made against the Germans prior to WWII. He was the president after all and thats kind of what we pay him to do…to make tough decisions that HE thinks is whats best for America, sometimes decisions that wouldn’t be too popular with the population as a whole.
If we don’t agree when we do find out we boot his ass out. I’m unsure whether it would be a good thing for a president to always be completely honest and candid with the citizens in all things. Certainly there are times for that, but there are also times for them to do what they think is best for the country…even if it has great cost to themselves personally in the polls, and even if they end up losing their jobs over it.
To me, THATS the standard of a great president, not some idealized stuff from a movie…willing to do what they think is best without reguard to the polls or re-election. Like Ford, Truman, Lincoln…and even Carter I suppose.
But the debate back in the original thread has come up with an important issue; the distinction between telling the truth and telling what you think is true. There used to be joke that Ronald Reagan never told a lie because he believed everything he was saying was true regardless of the facts. And while it’s now conceded that the Iraqi WMD’s never existed, some argue President Bush’s culpability depends on whether or not he knew that at the time.
This thread’s premise arose from the idealized comments elucidator made about the office:
You’re contradicting that – saying, in essence, that the choice to lie, or to withhold certain information from general distribution – is not per se unreasonable. I agree.
