Happy Birthday to Pete Domenici, 81. A good reminder that the Republican Party wasn't always a post-policy mess.
Good stuff:
1. Nice one on networks, discrimination, and job markets from Jonathan Capehart.
2. What about the ACA and full-time vs. part-time workers? Sarah Kliff has a pretty good explainer.
3. Ike and Obama, from Andrew Sprung.
4. Jonathan Chait is as dismayed as everyone by the Virginia Governor race, but is looking on the bright side.
5. And I suppose I'm obliged to link to this one. Without comment, if only because I haven't played the game.
Showing posts with label Eisenhower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eisenhower. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Melissa Joan Hart, 37. I wonder if I'll wind up eventually watching her current show (she has one -- third season about to start, apparently). We've been watching Clarissa recently; still holds up extremely well.
Some good stuff:
1. An approach to studying legislation as it moves through Congress, from Scott Adler and John Wilkerson, that looks very promising to me -- plus a great illustration of just how many separate bills wound up on the ACA. Via John.
2. Alison Dagnes seems to be having a ton of fun writing about and teaching the invisible primary.
3. Recognize this? Name the US political figure who said it? "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." What if I spotted you that it's a president? Still no idea? Carah Ong on the 60th anniversary earlier this week of Ike's "Chance for Peace" speech.
Some good stuff:
1. An approach to studying legislation as it moves through Congress, from Scott Adler and John Wilkerson, that looks very promising to me -- plus a great illustration of just how many separate bills wound up on the ACA. Via John.
2. Alison Dagnes seems to be having a ton of fun writing about and teaching the invisible primary.
3. Recognize this? Name the US political figure who said it? "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." What if I spotted you that it's a president? Still no idea? Carah Ong on the 60th anniversary earlier this week of Ike's "Chance for Peace" speech.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Oy, Bai
Matt Bai complained in the NYT Magazine on Sunday (yeah, as usual I'm a bit behind on the Sunday papers)* about the proposed Ike Memorial, saying "I mean, Ike was a terrific general, but was he really one of our greatest presidents?"
Really?
Assuming we're talking here about just the world of public affairs (so leaving aside Louis Armstrong, Willie Mays, Martin Scorsese, Bob Mould, and other great Americans from other walks of life), are your really going to top Ike? Let's see...for the twentieth century, the consensus Greatest President is certainly FDR, and there's probably something very close to a consensus that King is the greatest non-president. Both have memorials. But I think an excellent case can be made for Ike as a logical third choice.
First, his value added as president. It's pretty high. The consensus of academic and other expert surveys puts him at 5th among 20th century presidents, behind FDR, TR, Wilson, and Truman. Since I think Wilson belongs somewhere, er, below that...I think you can make an argument that Ike is in a group for #2, and it's hard to argue he's much lower than 5th. That's pretty good! But then his value added outside of his presidency is extremely high for a president. Not, I'd say, as high as King. But in a group there of the other important non-presidents of the twentieth century, along with Warren, Humphrey...I don't know; pick your favorites. Want to argue Thurgood Marshall? George Marshall? Fine, but Ike is going to be at the very least in the running for top ten -- this, again, just for outside of his presidency. No? (Remember, we're just considering public affairs, so no So we have a top-five president who may well be top-five for outside of his presidency as well. Certainly puts him above, say, Truman and TR, not to mention Wilson, at least unless you put a lot of emphasis on having a pre-political career as a political scientist.
Now, I can understand an argument that warriors should be de-emphasized in our political culture, but that would be a real change, for better or worse. And Bai's concerns about Taft notwithstanding, I don't think we've really gone overboard on twentieth century figures, at least so far. So, yeah, Ike seems like a pretty reasonable choice to me. I don't know that it's necessary for him to have a major memorial, but neither do I think of him as a marginal case to celebrate in some serious way.
[Update]:
*Sorry, couldn't find a link to it; it's just a short little thing on the one-page magazine page.
Really?
Assuming we're talking here about just the world of public affairs (so leaving aside Louis Armstrong, Willie Mays, Martin Scorsese, Bob Mould, and other great Americans from other walks of life), are your really going to top Ike? Let's see...for the twentieth century, the consensus Greatest President is certainly FDR, and there's probably something very close to a consensus that King is the greatest non-president. Both have memorials. But I think an excellent case can be made for Ike as a logical third choice.
First, his value added as president. It's pretty high. The consensus of academic and other expert surveys puts him at 5th among 20th century presidents, behind FDR, TR, Wilson, and Truman. Since I think Wilson belongs somewhere, er, below that...I think you can make an argument that Ike is in a group for #2, and it's hard to argue he's much lower than 5th. That's pretty good! But then his value added outside of his presidency is extremely high for a president. Not, I'd say, as high as King. But in a group there of the other important non-presidents of the twentieth century, along with Warren, Humphrey...I don't know; pick your favorites. Want to argue Thurgood Marshall? George Marshall? Fine, but Ike is going to be at the very least in the running for top ten -- this, again, just for outside of his presidency. No? (Remember, we're just considering public affairs, so no So we have a top-five president who may well be top-five for outside of his presidency as well. Certainly puts him above, say, Truman and TR, not to mention Wilson, at least unless you put a lot of emphasis on having a pre-political career as a political scientist.
Now, I can understand an argument that warriors should be de-emphasized in our political culture, but that would be a real change, for better or worse. And Bai's concerns about Taft notwithstanding, I don't think we've really gone overboard on twentieth century figures, at least so far. So, yeah, Ike seems like a pretty reasonable choice to me. I don't know that it's necessary for him to have a major memorial, but neither do I think of him as a marginal case to celebrate in some serious way.
[Update]:
*Sorry, couldn't find a link to it; it's just a short little thing on the one-page magazine page.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
An Old Argument, Settled
Today's Times has a largely content-free profile of Rahm Emanuel. I'd certainly say it qualifies as a beat sweetener, but presumably it only counts if Rahm thinks so, and we don't get to know that. At any rate, it brings up a fairly important historical development: the end of the old dispute about whether a president should have a chief-of-staff.
Here's the story. When presidents began to have large staffs (really beginning with Truman), Democrats tried to emulate FDR's style by having a non-hierarchical White House structure. Eisenhower, the first Republican to serve with a large staff, imported his military structure, which entailed a chief of staff to run the White House. Ike took a lot of grief for supposedly delegating the power of the presidency to his staff, but Nixon and subsequent Republicans followed Ike's example.
Neither Kennedy nor Johnson had a chief of staff. Carter tried to go without one, but Hamilton Jordan became the de facto chief of staff. Clinton did begin his term with a chief of staff, but just barely; Mack McLarty was weak by design, with Clinton once again looking to the "spoke and wheels" FDR model. Like Carter, Clinton rapidly found this structure a disaster, and he upgraded the position by moving Leon Panetta over from OMB.
Which brings us to Obama, who is the first ever Democrat to begin his presidency with a proper chief of staff. Score one for Dwight Eisenhower, now the uncontested designer of the Presidential Branch.
Here's the story. When presidents began to have large staffs (really beginning with Truman), Democrats tried to emulate FDR's style by having a non-hierarchical White House structure. Eisenhower, the first Republican to serve with a large staff, imported his military structure, which entailed a chief of staff to run the White House. Ike took a lot of grief for supposedly delegating the power of the presidency to his staff, but Nixon and subsequent Republicans followed Ike's example.
Neither Kennedy nor Johnson had a chief of staff. Carter tried to go without one, but Hamilton Jordan became the de facto chief of staff. Clinton did begin his term with a chief of staff, but just barely; Mack McLarty was weak by design, with Clinton once again looking to the "spoke and wheels" FDR model. Like Carter, Clinton rapidly found this structure a disaster, and he upgraded the position by moving Leon Panetta over from OMB.
Which brings us to Obama, who is the first ever Democrat to begin his presidency with a proper chief of staff. Score one for Dwight Eisenhower, now the uncontested designer of the Presidential Branch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
