The Next Woodrow Wilson?

Sen. Barack Obama’s Philadelphia Address was clearly crafted to stand alongside the historic documents and speeches of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. But in its amazing, quasi-messianic confidence in rousing and inspirational effects that an Obama presidency would have on the entire world, it instead arouses memories of a liberal Democratic president whom conservatives remember all too well -- Woodrow Wilson.

The point was not lost on at least one venerable mainstream political pundit. Jim Hoagland wrote in the Washington Post, “… it is naive, or extremely self-serving, of Obama followers to suggest that his very presence in the Oval Office will cause other nations to reconsider their attitudes or policies toward the United States, or open doors for him abroad closed to others. They -- and he -- will be surprised at how short the 'Obama effect' will be in international politics if he is elected.”

Obama’s “genetic makeup,” Hoagland continued, "shapes his view of the world much more than it would shape the world's view of him or the United States. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- Obama referred to them as "so-called allies" in his heralded 2002 speech opposing the Iraq invasion -- would judge him on such remarks and on what he says and does about Israel, Iran and Iraq. The back story of his multiracial, multinational parents and his rise from humble origins to success and idolatry would carry little weight at the conference table.”

The case may be put less elegantly, but a lot more bluntly: This is the kind of out-of control fantasizing that we have not seen in the U.S. presidency since a crazed Woodrow Wilson wreaked havoc across the world in his last two years in the White House, dismembering the ancient empires of Europe after World War I in the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference in servitude to a foolish and ill-thought-out intellectual principle -- national self-determination.

Wilson, like Obama, was convinced that his own life experience made him uniquely qualified to heal the political and racial wounds, not just of the United States but of the entire world. Instead, he left behind him an infernal chaos which led remorselessly to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the effective extinction of European civilization.

Wilson, it should be remembered, was also an ugly racist who re-segregated the White House and the federal bureaucracy and cried tears of joy at the repulsive movie “Birth of a Nation.”

But for those of us of Irish and British backgrounds (Sen. Obama, is not the only one who can claim an interestingly contradictory parental lineage), another example suggests itself.

For there was a British prime minister who, like Sen. Obama, was born of the most humble and even despised stock (he was illegitimate) from a race that was then marginalized (he was Scottish). And like Sen. Obama, he showed moral conviction and indeed courage in opposing a controversial war, only to rise rapidly to the pinnacle of national power not long after it ended.

His name was Ramsay MacDonald, the first ever Labour Party/Socialist Prime Minister of Great Britain. When he took power, his nation was still the largest empire the world had ever seen -- directly controlling one quarter of the population of the human race and one quarter of its territory. (The Soviet Union, even under Stalin, never managed directly to control more than one seventh or one sixth of the global population). But by the time MacDonald left office for the last time 13 years later, his nation’s defenses were stripped bare and it was a sitting duck for the Nazi air force rapidly arming across the North Sea. Extremely limited rearmament measures pursued after 1935 by the Conservative governments of Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were ferociously attacked by a still-pacifist Labour Party that MacDonald had created before abandoning it. He also led Britain into unprecedented bankruptcy in 1931.

Yet MacDonald, whom Winston Churchill memorably characterized as “the Boneless Wonder”, came back to the prime minister’s office in Number 10, Downing Street again and again. The British aristocracy came to love him. King George V revered him and thought him one of the greatest statesmen of the age. The worse times became, the more MacDonald flew above them, impelled by an endless stream of empty, beautiful rhetoric about the healing of the nation‘s wounds, the coming establishment of Social Justice and the ending of class and race conflicts that had plagued Britain (supposedly) for centuries. Is this starting to sound familiar?

It is perhaps fitting that MacDonald’s second and most disastrous government from 1929 to 1931 (Undeterred, he went on to lead a third one from 1931 to 1935) also built the most disastrous airship ever created -- the hapless R-101. Underpowered and overweight, it crashed in flames on a gentle hillside in France, killing some of MacDonald’s Cabinet members and senior officials who had built it to prove the superiority of their state-sponsored aviation over those pesky private companies that were about to come up with the single seat monoplane Spitfire and Hurricane fighters that won the Battle of Britain.

MacDonald’s fearful example, like that of the infernal Wilson in the United States, teaches the ever-recurring lesson that, while feel-good, soaring, inspirational rhetoric certainly has its place in the political world, as great democratic leaders from Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan have all shown, it must be combined with a sound, grounding in financial and political reality. FDR, Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan all had decades of experience, achievement and controversy in administration, government and national politics before they became their nation’s leaders. Woodrow Wilson and Ramsay MacDonald did not. They won power by appealing to the higher angels of their people’s nature, but once they had that power, their incompetence and monumental vanity ensured that demons of chaos and suffering were unloosed across the world instead. As Yoggi Berra said, all we're seeing is deja vu all over again.

Martin Sieff is defense industry editor for United Press International. He has been nominated three times for the Pultizer Prize for international reporting. His latest book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East,” was published in January by Regnery.

"Yikes, Proto-Hillary/Hillary the prequel."

A brief history of Edith Wilson. You could say she was American "royalty" in that she was descended both from Pocahontas and kin to George Washington's wife, Martha's family (the Custises). But she had rotten luck in her personal life. In the space of all of 5 years, she gave birth to her only child (whom promptly died, and because of a difficult pregnancy, could never have children again) and then her husband died.

Woodrow Wilson's wife had died on him only a year in office (and by accounts, Ellen Wilson was a nice lady whom was so concerned about her husband that before she died she let it be known it was her wish he not be all alone and would marry someone else). Shortly after, Woodrow and Edith met and they got married, 14 months after Ellen's passing.

The media at the time made fun of the swift courtship and marriage with stuff like, "When the President proposed, she nearly fell out of the bed." The most infamous claim supposedly, ascribed to a typographical error, had to do with the couple on a night out on the town. Wilson got so bored with a play, he spent the evening entertaining Mrs. Galt (Edith's married name). Problem was, the typesetter had it read, "Wilson... spent the evening entering Mrs. Galt."

In any event, they'd scarcely been married not even 2 years when Wilson had his incapacitating stroke. Before that, I think she had worried greatly that the job was getting to him, especially having to contend with WW1 and the aftermath as well as a hostile majority GOP Congress that had regained power. She'd probably thought, "Oh, no. I'm going to lose another husband, and this one is the President." So she figured with the help of Wilson's physician, they'd be able to drag him less than 2 years to the finish line of his term. Limit his exposure to others (indeed, I wonder how few people saw him -- I saw film footage of when Harding took over, and he looked ghastly. A typical stroke victim). But the thing was that, she may have been demonstrating loyalty to her husband, but given the office, it wasn't her call to make.

Vice-President Marshall had not been close to Wilson and (at least during the first term) had been given almost nothing to do. He proudly wore the mantle of being a comic card. So much so that Dem leaders wanted to dump him and replace him with a serious heir apparent to Wilson in 1916, but Wilson decided to keep him, but to utilize him a bit more in a serious capacity afterwards in regards to the war effort. Marshall was considered a top notch public speaker. Now when Wilson's stroke occurred, he did not know how bad off he was (it was concealed from the public). Marshall could have, but did not press hard to assume the Presidency (at least in an active capacity) because there was uncertainty with respect to how "incapacity" could be deemed and he didn't want to establish a precedent for it (in other words, didn't want to rock the boat or attempt a power grab). He still had to fill in for Wilson at ceremonial events and the like, but he actually never saw Wilson in person from before the stroke until their last (!) day in office. No mention was made of Marshall's reaction, but I have to wonder if he thought he had made the right decision in not clearly asserting his right to declare that Wilson was far too incapacitated to continue. Marshall himself didn't run for President in 1920 and he died 5 years later. As for Edith Wilson, she outlived her husband by nearly 40 years and was present for JFK's swearing-in in 1961.

"Why do leftwing Democrats like Barry, Billy, Frank and Woody love marrying ball-busting b**ches?"

Depends on whose balls are being busted. Edith wasn't a battle axe towards her husband. The Republicans had two world-class first lady battle axes, that being Mary Todd Lincoln and Florence Harding (although in Florence's defense, her hubby was in the class of JFK, LBJ & Clinton in chasing tail -- one such anecdote I heard was that Warren was in the closet with a young lady thumping up against the door as one would if one were in delicto flagrante -- now outside the door was a Secret Service agent. Mrs. Harding apparently walked by hearing the thumping and asked if her husband was in the closet. The mortified agent had to say "no." She obviously knew what was going on). Of course, a lot of those women devoted themselves to helping their husbands attain the pinnacle of power. Some of the Presidents were actually deeply in love with their wives, while some were little more than business arrangements.

In the case of FDR, I have to wonder if he was ever particularly in love with Eleanor. He might've been at the start, but early on, he fell for her secretary, the woman that was probably his soulmate, Lucy Mercer. Eleanor was likely going to divorce him over that, but Mother Roosevelt (FDR's mother) stepped in and put the kibosh on that. However, there was a "deal" struck at that point. FDR had two options. One, he could consent to the divorce and his mother would publicly disinherit him and any hopes or aspirations for a political career would be done. Or, two, he could stop seeing Mercer, remain married to Eleanor, have his political career. The only catch... they would never have marital relations again. He only kept part of the bargain ultimately. But from then on, they lived separate lives socially. She had close relationships with women (and you know how that goes), but eventually, FDR was back with Lucy. Only upon his death did Eleanor realize she'd been had. He was with Lucy the day he died at Warm Springs, Georgia (worse, yet, the clandestine meetings had been arranged by Eleanor & FDR's daughter -- obviously she knew whom her father loved).

"How history could be different if the media was as pervasive decades ago as it is now. Invalid Presidents during both World Wars..."

Minor correction. Wilson's stroke came after the conclusion of WW1, only during the time he was struggling to put together the UN precursor, League of Nations. FDR clearly should've stepped aside in 1944. The only problem would've been trying to figure out whom to replace him with. The Cabinet Secretaries were a mixed bag. Sec of State Cordell Hull had already stepped down, and at 73, he was too old to run (though he could've easily served, he lived until 1955). His replacement, Edward Stettinius, might've been considered, but he had no electoral experience. He was actually young (44), but would be dead from thrombosis in 5 years at 49. Stettinius also did something so incredibly stupid in office that led to his being sacked. He returned to the Soviets a found codebook that would've helped us to locate their agents operating in the U.S. Whether he was being polite from a diplomatic standpoint or whether this was willful, I don't know. But imagine his doing that as President.

Henry Stimson, the Sec of War, and Frank Knox, the Sec of the Navy were both out. They were Republicans. Treasury Sec Morgenthau was out. The party wasn't going to nominate a Jew. Attorney General Francis Biddle might've been a better consideration, he was an FDR man to the last (he was the one that gave the order for the Japanese internment camps). Frank Walker was out, the Postmaster General wouldn't ever be nominated for President. James Forrestal, who replaced Knox at Navy, was too green. Interior Sec Harold Ickes, the father of the creepy Clinton sycophant of the same name, was an arrogant ex-Chicago RINO who wouldn't have had the temperament to serve (and his previous GOP service would've made him go over like a lead balloon with Dems). The Ag Sec, Claude Wickard, was too obscure. The Commerce Sec, a Texas Tory named Jesse Jones, was too old, though he might've been like Cactus Jack Garner. Lastly there was Frances Perkins at Labor. She was a woman. 'Nuff said.

A lot of the major state Governors by then were Republican (Dewey in NY; Earl Warren in CA; Ed Martin in PA). Only Ed Schricker of IN, ex-Gov Herb Lehman of NY, seemed possible (although Lehman, like Morgenthau, was also a Jew). The Vice-President was out of the question - Henry Wallace was a Communist sympathizer. The Dems had to give him the bums' rush off the ticket in '44 and replace him with a 2-term Senator from Missouri named Truman (although he wasn't exactly unknown, he had gained notoriety for his committee exposing wasteful military spending). Although personally, if I had gotten to choose the Dem nominee, I'd have gone with former NJ Governor Charles Edison (ironically, as a Dem at the time, considered the last Conservative Governor of NJ to date -- now nearly 70 years). Edison had, prior to his term as Governor, served FDR briefly as Navy Secretary, so he would've had well-rounded experience to have stepped into the Presidency. Edison would later leave the Dems and helped found the NY Conservative Party 2 decades later.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.