I have not blogged in a while, to be honest I had thought about just not bothering full stop. There is a certain self importance that I attach to blogging that assumes that other people might want to know what I think. Why would they? If I was that insightful I’d get paid by Sky News to give my wondrous points of view on election night, I’m not paid by Sky News so I’m guessing I’m not exactly the next Shane Greer or Danny Finklestein. I have however decided to start blogging again, because it does make me feel slightly saner after having vented on the keyboard and into the great depths of the internet device thing, so here we go again…
I have been giving a lot of thought to the Presidential race in the U.S. recently, not just about the election but also about the incumbent George W. Bush, a man who signally sparks either ferocious vitriol or excited admiration from members of the general public. There was a piece in the Independent newspaper a few weeks ago asking, “Did we get him wrong”. That question coming from such a renowned liberal paper as the Indy is quite something and set my brain going, how are Presidents remembered after they leave office and who truly excelled in the post? Let’s start by looking at Clinton, a man whose final days in office were a joke, so much so that Aaron Sorkin had to write a seven season show displaying a witty, elitist Liberal as President, a man who would never look at any other woman than his first lady Stockard Channing. Clinton is also remembered for his fudged first 100 days and the gays in the military agenda which stalled his education and health policies and ensured that he could get next to nothing past a GOP Hill.
Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, a one term President who had also been CIA chief earlier on in his career before becoming the Old Gipper’s VP, is remembered as a wise Foreign Policy wonk. His domestic agenda success doesn’t seem to flash in neon years later and as I was only nine years old when he lost the White House I have no recollection. (Despite great temptation I’m not going to go through Wikipedia and list everyone’s successes and failures, largely because I cannot be bothered).
Prior to Bush Snr. was the man of the ’80s Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Thatcher’s best mate and the man who demanding Gorbachev bring down the Berlin Wall. Reagan was certainly a political heavy weight and his historic importance cannot be overvalued, he fought the Commies, he steered the US through a horrible economic era and he did revitalised a party which only five years earlier was in serious trouble thanks to a character we’ll pick up later.
Carter didn’t seem to do much of anything; I’m sure if this is because he didn’t or because no one remembers, he is another one termer and is now just remembered as another US President who sat in the White House doing not much. Oh yes, sorry, he was there when the Iranians had that crazy party in 79′, what a huge success story Carter’s policy (was there a policy…? He seemed to just twiddle his thumbs quite a lot) turned out to be there.
Nixon should be next, but Tricky Dicky had to leave the Big Brother White House early due to some irregularities that were dug up by two pinko Liberal Washington Post press men, Bernstein and Woodward. Instead we are onto Gerald Ford, a man who did two things, firstly he made sure his former boss couldn’t go to jail and secondly he helped stop the meltdown of the GOP. Pretty impressive to say that he was only in half a term, there was something else I think, yes that’s right he oversaw the withdrawal of US troops from the biggest Foreign Policy blunder in the Democratic Parties history, Vietnam.
Nixon spent his years cultivating relations with the East, China to be exact and helped bring this Communist regime onside. He also started peace negotiations with North Vietnam (even though the US was never technically at war with the North) and in his spare time bugged (allegedly the Democratic Party Headquarters prior to elections). In my view a very sound man. He also did the unthinkable and turned his back on nearly 30 years of economic policy, reigniting an overspent economy which required serious reform. SOUND.
Now we come on to LBJ, what can we say… he got the job because Kennedy needed a Southern man on the ticket to have a cat in hells chance of beating the better man for the job, Dick Nixon (VP under Ike) and after Kennedy got shot in the South (in my book that is ever so slightly ironic) LBJ inherited the estate. Johnson did four things as far as I can see, he did make quite a lot of progress on the Civil Rights movement, he swapped the Automatic M16 issued to G.I.’s going to fight in Vietnam with the Semi-Automatic version (they kept using all the bullets at once and then got killed when they ran out…), he introduced a fascinating new weapon to large scale warfare NAPALM! and single handedly sparked the creation of three of the all time greatest war films – Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Apocalypse Now!
Kennedy seemed slightly more restrained after winning the 1959 General Election, he calmed down a bit after accusing his rival of stirring up public fears about his Catholicism… Seemingly unfounded by the way, JFK was the man banging on about it. Anyway, back to the point… what was the point…? Ah yes, Kennedy’s legacy and what he actually did. Well, he avoided nuclear war when most around him were advising an attack on Cuba, he introduced the Peace Corps (say what you like about it being a club of anti-war Liberal pacifists but it wasn’t a bad move) and he made a nation fall in love with him, despite having blatently stolen the election. He is the pin up of American liberalism and thusly be always loved by the left, admired by the moderate right and hated by those further to the right.
I’m not inclined to go any further with this as I think that the point is a President is usually only remembered for the one of two biggest events of their time in office and how they dealt with them. Bush has arguably had the roughest ride in the White House since FDR. The advent of the USA being subject to a violent and graphic coordinated attack seven years ago, the response to it and of course in recent weeks the finance crisis. Will Bush be remembered as the war monger and a financial dufus or will history look upon his foreign policy as being what seemed to be necessary at the time? (Referring to the wider foreign policy of co-operation on security matters – extraordinary rendition and use of foreign intelligence services being two of the most hotly debated). Only time and those who right our history will tell. I for one am off to bed, it’s 00:39…
P.S. – I have three words for you – Kitchen sink debate. Nixon rocked!












