America has often relied on it’s war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different.
I believe he would be able to bring both sides together–no matter what party he allies with–due to his background and record of achievement. He would also be the only one that could even possibly reign in the massive spending at the DOD.
He would need a VP with a solid economics & government background (i.e a Senator, Congressman, or non-crazy Governor) to balance out that potential weakness.
I really don’t know much about his opinions on social issues, economics, or anything else–that what this forum is for. He would be 64 if elected, 72 after two terms. As healthy as he is he could keep up.
Here’s hoping that’s post-war. I’m not sure I would count on that. And in any case the U.S. hasn’t elected (or nominated) a general since Eisenhower won in '57. Given the way opinions about war have changed, I don’t think history would be with him. I do think Qin Shi Huangdi would be with you even though Petraeus is about to become part of the Obama administration.
Eisenhower was the most famous man in the country, with the possible exception of Truman himself. I’m not going to spend even a minute discussing his role in WWII and how he was perceived. Before Eisenhower, the last president who was a general was Harrison. And we were in the middle of the Korean War in 1952, which the public wanted Eisenhower to solve.
Eisenhower was the ultimate special case. Modern America wants a civilian leader over the military.
That’s in addition to the political skills needs to wage an endless campaign though primaries and caucuses. Does any career military man have that? Eisenhower didn’t bother to campaign in 1952 in the modern sense. He hadn’t declared any pledge to run when supporters entered his name into the New Hampshire primary. He won there, but nominations were still won at the conventions.
Can anyone see the American people dragging Petraeus into office?*
The silly season for 2016 has officially begun.
True, Eisenhower was secretly in the crowd helping with the dragging. But that was a different world.
Nobody said there wasn’t. I said it hasn’t happened in 50-odd years and Exapno Mapcase said it’s happened once in the last 120 years, and the one time it did happen, circumstances were so different they were hardly comparable. I think the days of people asking retired war heroes to govern are long over.
Six out of 44 is hardly a precedent. Also, it’s a stretch to call Harrison or Jackson a post-war president. True, they were elected after wars had been fought, but it wasn’t an immediate thing.
Foggy, you should talk to a qualified professional. Whether you do that or not, you’re welcome to post about your feelings and your problems in the right venue, and this isn’t it. Please don’t do this again.
I don’t think military men are particularly suited for politics. A guy like Petraeus is used to giving an order and seeing it carried out. Put him in the White House and he’d quickly learn that it doesn’t work that way.
Could he bring the political factions together? As a Republican, maybe. As a Democrat, no way. Republicans are interested in cooperation with the president if and only if he’s of their party. If not, they would much prefer that the ship of state sail straight into the reef so that they could control the wreckage.
I think the general is an impressive guy, with a lot of accomplishments.
I think he’s probably too good for politics.
But do Generals make good presidents? Meh, not so much. Ike was a decent president, probably seriously underrated, but most people remember him for that WWII thing he did.
Grant was a great General and an awful president. Jackson was a great president, but would never be tolerated today. Then you have the “also a general” guys who followed Grant, who were generals, and really, only the history majors remember them today.
Then you have “Old Rough and Ready” and “Old Tippecanoe”- guys who got elected and died in office. I guess that’s the problem when you have the word “Old” in your name.
