Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why our 'post-modern presidents' fail
NY Post ^ | March 13, 2010 | Ralph Peters

Posted on 03/13/2010 3:24:42 AM PST by Scanian

Since the end of World War II, our country has had three great presidents: Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

Their politics varied, but these giants stand in sharp contrast to our last three presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Barack Obama. The first two presided over gravely flawed presidencies; the third is on his way to outright failure.

What makes these two presidential trios so different? A recent visit to the Truman Museum and Library in Independence, Mo., made me ask what made those great presidents great.

The answer is character. The three greats were men of great character; the three recents, men of great ambition -- driven, in their different ways, by a fateful sense of entitlement.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ambition; character; hardexperience; ivyleaguers

1 posted on 03/13/2010 3:24:43 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Will we ever again have a president who didn't go to an Ivy League school, who knows what it's like to struggle -- as so many Americans struggle every day -- and who's tasted defeat, but got back in the ring with his dukes up?

Wouldn't it be a fine thing to have another president whose first serious taste of failure didn't come in the Oval Office?

We don't need presidents with exclusive academic credentials. We need presidents who know what it's like to work for a living. We need presidents who understand average Americans. We need presidents for whom the White House isn't just the ultimate résumé entry.

Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan had different visions of what was right for America -- but their concern was America, not themselves.

These profoundly different men had two other things in common: They weren't lawyers, and they had the courage to make tough decisions, from dropping the first atomic bombs to telling the chieftain of an evil empire to tear down a wall.

Our post-modern presidents can't even decide what to do with blood-soaked terrorists. I don't think that would've been a problem for Harry, Ike or the Gipper.

2 posted on 03/13/2010 3:33:44 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

exactly right


3 posted on 03/13/2010 3:36:28 AM PST by element92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Ralph Peters’ new book: “Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization”

http://www.amazon.com/Endless-War-Middle-Eastern-Western-Civilization/dp/0811705501


4 posted on 03/13/2010 3:37:48 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Scanian

Perhaps there are some who perceieve them as succeeding rather then failing and that they are the ones who really matter.


5 posted on 03/13/2010 3:39:38 AM PST by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I think the words “Post Modern” in the title pretty much sums things up.


6 posted on 03/13/2010 3:40:00 AM PST by WorkerbeeCitizen ( If Obama is the answer, it must have been a stupid question!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

What makes these two presidential trios so different?
*********

Not for nuthin’, but all three of the most recent potuses experimented with drug use. If their presidencies have one common thread, it is that “Mmmmmm, drugs are bad”.


7 posted on 03/13/2010 3:41:52 AM PST by Canedawg (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

“The answer is character.” Always is!

Character is what you are when nobodys around.


8 posted on 03/13/2010 3:43:59 AM PST by PORD (People...Of Right Do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; FatherofFive
Will we ever again have a president who didn't go to an Ivy League school, who knows what it's like to struggle -- as so many Americans struggle every day -- and who's tasted defeat, but got back in the ring with his dukes up?

Yes, Her name is Sarah and she is from Alaska

9 posted on 03/13/2010 3:48:15 AM PST by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: verga

NO!


10 posted on 03/13/2010 3:55:46 AM PST by maineman (BC EAGLES FAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The author betrays his, and unfortunately, most of his audience’s “post-modern” view of history, by making the all too common assumption, that the way we do things today is somehow different, solely because we have somehow changed from our ancestors.

The truth is, while we have changed the language of our arguments, it is only a cosmetic change. Half of our countrymen, by definition, remain “below average”. And there is no way around that.

Idealistic fools, much like today’s socialists, lived in America even before the word “socialist” was coined. And their hair-brained schemes were just as pestiferous then, or even more so, than they are now.

This “proto-socialism” was used to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Indian tribes, slavery, terrible abuse of federal power, and economic malfeasance resulting in painful national depressions.

It was always backed by the very worst in humanity: hate, greed, sloth, bigotry, superstition, misogyny, imperialism and worse.

The times it came to the fore often accompanied or precipitated disasters to our nation. And the people never learned from their mistakes.

Somehow, we got by. But over the course of more than 200 years, these people have built up so much garbage in Washington, that we cannot see our capital for the detritus.


11 posted on 03/13/2010 3:58:49 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Truman was responsible for the UN and the UN mandated
Korean Police Action.
This was the first “war” where the enemy had control and
knowledge of battles as all major troop movements were
run through Russians.
This was the first "war" where the object was not to win!
12 posted on 03/13/2010 3:59:04 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

King obuma has character, but it’s not good character. I’d characterize him as a simpering, lying, two-faced egomaniacal psychotic.


13 posted on 03/13/2010 4:00:28 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
I’d characterize him as a simpering, lying, two-faced egomaniacal psychotic.

And that's on one of his good days.

14 posted on 03/13/2010 4:07:46 AM PST by Fresh Wind ("...a whip of political correctness strangles their voice"-Vaclav Klaus on GW skeptics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maineman
And therein lies the problem. We have become conditioned to only accept "elite" candidates who obtained law degrees from exclusive colleges and who have spent their entire careers in "public service" (i.e. the non-working sector).

Anybody who ever had dirt under their fingernails and who hasn't spent the past 20 years speaking in well-scripted platitudes and giving "educated" non-answers on "Meet The Press" need not apply.

We have become conditioned to only accept well-coiffed, smooth, oily, telegenic politicians who memorize talking points and never had an original thought in their lives.

Everybody else, we will make fun of and ridicule, should they ever dare run for public office. We will brand them as "unqualified", "inexperienced" and "unfit" to hold public office. We shall chortle along with the Dave Lettermans and Jay Lenos of the world as they trash these upstarts on their late-night shows and we shall accept whatever cardboard cut-outs they want to shove down our throats.

15 posted on 03/13/2010 4:08:05 AM PST by SamAdams76 (I am 2 days away from outliving Jim Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I usually agree with most everything that Ralph Peters says, but I believe that George W. Bush was and still is a man of character. I thank God that he was POTUS during and after 9-11 and that he had the courage of his convictions to do what had to be done to keep us safe throughout the remainder of his presidency. Even though I did not agree with all of his policies, his policies have nothing to do with a lack of character or personal integrity.


16 posted on 03/13/2010 4:15:49 AM PST by srmorton (Chose Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srmorton

I agree. In fact, that to my mind is exactly why he suffered in polling, the fact that he had core principles that he was not willing to compromise for political expediency.

Also take note of the fact that the author names Harry S Truman as a president with character. He was reviled during his tenure.


17 posted on 03/13/2010 4:42:20 AM PST by turfmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PORD
“The answer is character.” Always is!

Character is what you are when nobodys around.

Peters could have extended his argument to include glancing shots at Nixon, LBJ and Carter but I guess he didn't want to beat a dead horse.

Character is always revealing and, in the case of a presidency, foreshadows what's to follow. I look at the Bushes with a mixed point of view: both grew up extremely privileged and with a great safety net. But Bush 41 paid his dues in WWII and was a good public servant in various capacities before running for the Presidency. But you could see that he was far from being a Reaganesque character. W also had the privileged upbringing but there was certainly more character there than Clinton or Obama, especially after W's bout with alcoholism.

18 posted on 03/13/2010 4:50:27 AM PST by ReleaseTheHounds ("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I never thought of GWB as ambitious. And I don’t get what makes Truman great.


19 posted on 03/13/2010 5:00:24 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

And didn’t Ike give us a very liberal SCOTUS?


20 posted on 03/13/2010 5:00:54 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srmorton

Agree totally with your opinion...was going to post much the same thing until I read yours. You also did a better job than I would have.


21 posted on 03/13/2010 5:28:02 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "P" in democrat stands for patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
Peters could have extended his argument to include glancing shots at Nixon, LBJ and Carter but I guess he didn't want to beat a dead horse.
Johnson went to a teacher's college, Nixon to Whittier College, and Carter to Anapolis. Since none of them went to prestigious universities, taking "shots" at them would have done nothing for Peters' thesis.

. . . and attacking Nixon's character can be overdone. Seeing that he refused to contest the 1960 election, which was a squeaker - and that he could have fought impeachment, and resigned instead. The fact that his own party was tending to support impeachment only reflected the fact that Nixon belonged to a party with more character by far than the one Bill Clinton belonged to.


22 posted on 03/13/2010 5:35:31 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2nd Bn, 11th Mar
Thanks! I really appreciate your kind words. I just get so tired of hearing so-called conservatives bash President Bush, especially when I think of the failings of the one who replaced him!
23 posted on 03/13/2010 5:39:47 AM PST by srmorton (Chose Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: maineman; verga
Will we ever again have a president who didn't go to an Ivy League school, who knows what it's like to struggle -- as so many Americans struggle every day -- and who's tasted defeat, but got back in the ring with his dukes up?
Yes, Her name is Sarah and she is from Alaska 9 posted on March 13, 2010 6:48:15 AM EST by verga
NO!
Draft Palin!

24 posted on 03/13/2010 5:40:25 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
We have become conditioned to only accept "elite" candidates who obtained law degrees from exclusive colleges and who have spent their entire careers in "public service"

We have become conditioned to only accept well-coiffed, smooth, oily, telegenic politicians who memorize talking points and never had an original thought in their lives.

"We" have not really been so conditioned. Not anymore. Maybe when there were three networks, no cable and the messaging much better controlled, but not so much anymore. The MSM and the political party establishments have pushed these sorts of candidates because this is what they know and what they can control. We out here in "flyover country" are sort of an enigma. Yes, there is a whole industry in image consulting for those in politics and they are coached and polished. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see through it.

Until the last year or so, the populace really didn't pay all that much attention. Now that the people are awake, don't be surprised if the silver tongues and such aren't enough. Workers aren't as dumb as the Ivy League wants them to be.

25 posted on 03/13/2010 5:45:16 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PORD

In my opinion, Obama has no character, he has a mental disorder and that is why he was selected by whomever has plotted to overthrow the US government. He was put in office to steal our freedom, destroy our Constitution, wreck our economy, and embolden our enemies.

There is a plot unfolding. Find the traitors and try them for treason. There are enemies within and our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must know it.


26 posted on 03/13/2010 7:17:34 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead (Clean the RAT/RINO Sewer in 2010 and 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson