While people have been sorting through candidates in America, Americans have had much consideration of where they went dead wrong during the last eight years. Amongst the dialog, there is one blog comment that caught my attention because one commenter made a comparison between Roh Mu-Hyan and Barack Obama that caught my eye:
. . . If anyone bothers to learn about the rise and fall of the political honeymoon of the just retired ex-President of South Korea, you will be astounded.
Read on to consider the fellow’s view on understanding what makes for good leadership. Are Americans today like the Korean public, five years ago?
72 Comments
For the record: I see Barack Obama as being more like “Moon Kook-hyun” than “Roh Mu-Hyan”.
Whether or not Americans are like Koreans five years ago, Barack Obama is not like Roh Moo-hyun because Obama is backed by many solid members of the Democratic Party establishment, who will keep him and his idealistic inner circle from veering too far to the left. It’s more likely that he’ll be co-opted, rather than lead a revolution. The cold, stark realities of ballooning budget and trade deficits, health care spending climbing to 20% of GNP, and Iraq will keep his head out of the clouds and his feet on the ground.
Gimme a break. Roh’s downfall was not his lack of experience. It was his amateurishness, perverse jealousy of the movers of progress and - let’s face it - lack of intelligence.
In the US the real threat to national security is McCain - a man who never met a war he didn’t love, who is just as happy as a pig in mud to place our soldiers in situations that are not just deadly, but absolute quagmires that threaten the very stability of the US domestically and abroad.
In Obama, however, you have a person who is sensitive to the need for a domestic agenda- a focus on the welfare of working Americans, enhancing the economy, and scaling back military adventurism in favor of true national security.
The greatest national leaders lacked significant leadership experience, but governed through strength of character - something Bush, McCain and Roh all lack.
Ummm…Heck no. Silly comparison…
I think not entirely a silly comparison. A president who promises the moon and stars and is “kept on the ground” by his party is no different than the previous pres who promised anti-abortion and anti-gay laws if only he won…
Hmm. First, before beginning deep political analysis, you might want to learn to spell the candidate’s name.
Also, the words of the commenter:
“His inexperience, his poor handling of the media, his overly frank and open dialogue with the public, and his choice of his cabinet, etc. were considered as his mistakes…This is not a beauty pageant, or a debating contest or another exercise of using media to brain-wash people paid by fat and powerful interest groups to fool and confuse the public.”
I don’t see where any similarity lies. Sure, Obama is getting hit with the “inexperience” crap, but in fact:
– He has more time in political office than Hillary.
– He went to college. Haaaah-vahd, in fact. And was head of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. No one doubts his sterling academic credentials – isn’t that what they constantly got on Noh’s ass for? That he didn’t go to college?
– Noh was sharply criticized and even ridiculed for speech flubs and making statements without having seemed to have thought them out much. Obama’s recognized strength is his rhetorical and oratory power. That’s even Hillary’s attack strategy – “Yeah, he talks great game, but I have the experience.” How is that like NMH, again?
– He has held up talking specifics and going to the mat with Hillary, who is no slouch, again and again. He’s talked specifics, he’s had every opportunity to put his foot in his mouth. But most newspapers and the public seems to conclude that he at least matched, if not bested her in the debates. So, how is this like the foot-in-mouth ex-President of Korea, again? “Poor handling of the media” - what? What Obama are we talking about here? The Zobama from the Bizarro world of opposites?
R. Elgin – what did you see about this pretty idiotic comment that was worthy of a post here? Is it reflective of what a lot of Koreans think? (I didn’t see any such patterns in the Korean press, but maybe you did?)
What is this besides a random comment from some random asshat? Do YOU actually believe this comparison to be a sound one?
One may not like Obama, but I highly doubt that, if he were elected president and his administration ended after a single failed term, that it would be any parallel to Noh. If anything, it would be another Carter.
And don’t even get associative by saying Noh=Carter=Obama, because then we’d just be getting stupid.
Surely you’re not arguing that attendance at Harvard Law School means alakazam! — Obama’s suited to be President. Because that’s ridiculous. All it means is he’s not a dummy.
“Experience” means time in elected office, handling problems of the type a President might reasonably be expected to encounter. Obama’s state Senate experience ought not to count, nor should Hillary’s experience watching Bill. (And don’t get me started on Hillary’s claims of “35 years’ experience”.) My Dad’s a heart surgeon, let me do your bypass!
Michael, first, you need to get off your NY-attitude; that crap does not help anyone and might explain why you catch so much grief from people out in the street. If you were to try that way of dealing with people back home, I think you know what would happen.
Secondly, it was amusing and strange to read of some guy in Texas, making such a comparison. If I mention it, it is purely to provoke discussion and not because I agree with the fellow. Please re-consider the very first comment and check my spelling therein.
“My Dad’s a heart surgeon, let me do your bypass!”
Except that politics is not heart surgery. Bad analogy. Exceedingly bad analogy. The entire experience debate is a red herring, a logical fallacy, soundly discredited by history.
Experience is not the determinant of greatness, and is probably the least relevent factor. If this were not so, the upstart US would never have become the greatest of nations. The greatest world leaders lacked experience in the areas in which they excelled. Among US presidents, Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Truman, Roosevelt, Reagan (although I dispute his greatness as a president, he did exhibit great leadership qualities).
Character, talent, genious and judgement matter a great deal more than mere experience. When Obama stood steadfast against the war while running for office at a time when the war was extremely popular, this was an indication of character.
Obama’s skills in the bully pulpit - which is a huge piece of what the presidency is about - are something that has been missing since the time of Kennedy. Why has Ban failed so miserably to accomplish anything as UN Secretary General? Because he can’t talk - and therefore can’t lead.
Obama’s judgement in running the campaign as brilliantly as he has speaks volumes about his leadership, as well as the fact that his authority comes from inspiration, not fear, the most bankrupt form of “leadership”.
There is such a thing as greatness, and Obama has it. Of course, McCain does as well, but McCain is past his prime and in descent while Obama is riding the wave of progress. McCain appeals to the regressive instincts of fear mongering, the failed tactics of Bush. Following in the footsteps of Bush, he is in the most likely position to escalate the decline of America’s world and economic power begun under Bush. Out-of-control spending, cronyism, the continued dissolution of our military strength., national security and our moral standing, the degredation of human rights, worsening of the economic stagflation that is beginning to surface, the decline of the value of the dollar, evaporation of global economic influence - how can these trends be reversed?
By more of the same? No, to reverse a trend, vision, courage and genious are needed, not experience.
Conservative, liberal or independent, one must either acknowledge reason and logic or succumb to fear and superstition, and The choice is clear: progress means repudiating men like Bush, McCain and Roh, and empowering great natural leaders like Obama and Lee.
You’re talking about GWB, right?
many similiarities actually
obama is a great politician (NOT)
he has all those morons thinking he can deliver promises of “change”
i think roh ran his mouth in similar ways a lot back in 2002
meanwhile lets see some of his biggest backers are long time washington insiders john kerry and ted “jack and coke” kennedy
of course its bad to be the old school washington boys when republicans are involved but wonderful when they are liberal fools
the only promise i see him keeping is meeting with the worlds worst tyrants and talking how we can appease them
obama was voted most liberal senator in 2007 so him saying he is going to unite anyting is an absolute farce
bush did not divide this country
obama will not unite it either
the country is the way it is and has been that way for some time bottom line.
Mcain never saw a war he didnt like???
liberals never see a war they do like
thats their basic problem…
Character, talent, genious and judgement matter a great deal more than mere experience. When Obama stood steadfast against the war while running for office at a time when the war was extremely popular, this was an indication of character.
another argument for bad if a republican stands by his beliefs and principals
but ok if a liberal stands up for his
you do not hear obama speak of the stability in iraq over the past 7-8 months all he keeps focusing on is the withdraw of forces and if iraq becomes unstable he will send troops back
what a moron
we sat by idol from 92-00 while slick willie rode the dot com boom ecomony to fame
while at home and abroad islammic nuts became bolder and bolder in their attacks
fear mongering????
i think not, far from it
obmama is part of the blame america first crowd, and we are the evil and wrong doers
his wife says she as an adult has never been proud of her country
and yeah i dont by the spin or retraction of what she really meant
#3 This is the greatest threat to America!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
mcnut: apt name.
#12: Nice one. Obama the national security candidate–NOT.
Leadership is McCain sticking with his commitment to an unpopular war until the situation on the ground turned around.
History looks kindly on leaders like him, while it looks dimly on surrender advocates like Obama and most of the Democratic Party. Just look at how history has treated McClellan’s 1864 end-the-war platform.
Leadership is also having the good sense to avoid quagmires and diversions from the fight against terrorism, such as Iraq. W’s mistake has jeapordized our country’s security and is now beginning to produce stagflation, undermining America’s position as a global leader. Balance of power/realist type security policy served us quite well in the middle east until W came along- invading simply served to unite Sunnis and Shiite against us. And, the two groups will resume their struggle after we leave as well. Our fight should be strictly with the group that attacked us on 9/11- El Quada. And, staying in Iraq just serves to bring more recruits and money to El Quada. Obama called this correctly from the start, and I have no doubts to his judgement or intelligence. He’s young, so foreign leaders may try to test his resolve, as Kruschev did with Kennedy - but I’m sure he’ll be more than ready for them.
“mcnut: apt name.”
Wedge as well, statement, with his whopper of a statement which history firmly puts to rest. He seems to have “forgotten” that among the great historical presidents, there was but a single Republican represented -Lincoln, while the rest were Democrats.
But then, to thruw out a lie and leave it there to win over the most gullible and vulnerable is a common tactic among nutso right wingers.
Of course each of these “arguments” (read unsupported assertions) could be categorically deconstructed, but why bother? You can’t argue with illogic, and it’s remarkable how intellectually dishonest right wing rhetoric in America has become.
The same can be said of the left wingers who took over Korea and ran it into the ground, much as Bush’s “neocons” did for 8 years.
hoju
mizar
refute something? make an argument???
why i am not surprised
Oh what the hell? Why not demolish McNut?
“the only promise i see him keeping is meeting with the worlds worst tyrants and talking how we can appease them”
Can you support “appease them” claim? Where and when was this ever suggested?
“obama was voted most liberal senator in 2007″
This has already been reputiated.
“bush did not divide this country”
Where have you been? At any rate if you can support the statement, go ahead.
“liberals never see a war they do like
thats their basic problem…”
They rose to the challenge of two World Wars, the Korean conflict, Vietnam…”
Except for Lincoln, what Republican president has prosecuted a just war for the security of the nation?
“another argument for bad if a republican stands by his beliefs and principals
but ok if a liberal stands up for his”
Prove it.
“you do not hear obama speak of the stability in iraq over the past 7-8 months all he keeps focusing on is the withdraw of forces and if iraq becomes unstable he will send troops back”
Again, where have you been?
“we sat by idol from 92-00 while slick willie rode the dot com boom ecomony to fame”
The economy boomed under Clinton, and there was a balanced budget for a change. Fiscal responsibility. It is statistically accurate that Deomocrats have had better economies.
“while at home and abroad islammic nuts became bolder and bolder in their attacks
fear mongering????”
This happened under Bush, remember?
“obmama is part of the blame america first crowd, and we are the evil and wrong doers”
Again, where have you been? Can you support a single argument?
“his wife says she as an adult has never been proud of her country.”
Is she running now?
“and yeah i dont by the spin or retraction of what she really meant”
And you read minds?
R. Elgin - Kiss my “NY attitude.”
I was just making legit criticisms of your post, in terms of the content. The comparisons are dumb, and I call it the way I see it. I simply asked a question, a pointed one, yes, but a question: why do you think this post is worthy of any special note? Does it represent a prevailing opinion? Is it your opinion? You still haven’t answered the question.
And your linking me being critical of a post to your imagining of it having anything to do with me walking around in real life and somehow deserving being verbally or physically assaulted – well, gotta flip you a big fat bird while telling you to stop acting like a fucking baby if you’re going to post then cry when someone actually makes perfectly reasonable criticisms related to the CONTENT of your post; my comment was pointed, but not rude, as your response is.
Implying that my reaction to your post exemplifies how I deserve to be assaulted in the street is just a cheap shot and totally uncalled for. Answer the goddamn question and address what I said, and stop acting like a pissy little girl about it, acting like someone was out of line when nothing about that comment in fact was.
And on a totally different point, the Hah-vaaahd mention was merely to contrast the fact that Noh was constantly dogged and mocked by the public for not having gone to college and being a “촌놈” while Obama’s qualifications are never called into question and generally highly respected. It was just a point I was making to show that the Noh-Obama comparison is silly, not that going to Harvard qualifies Obama to be a leader.
And back to R. Elgin – yeah, I am serious when I say that someone who wants to make armchair analyses about political candidates should learn to spell their names correctly – to wit, I actually DID go and make sure Hillary had two “L’s” before going to town on her on my blog.
And if that makes me an asshole for making that point, then I guess I’m an asshole. Won’t be the first time I heard it, won’t be the last.
I don’t know about this one… I mean, if not for the Watergate scandal, I think that Nixon probably would have gone out as one of our more respected presidents, having extracted the US from Vietnam and begun an engagement policy with China. Is Eisenhower treated any less kindly by history because he ended the Korean conflict rather than storming the peninsula and pushing on into China? So sure, “history” has treated a “surrender advocate” poorly when ending a war would clearly have been a poor decision. But what about ending a war when it would be the right decision? If we really want to intelligently discuss Obama’s platform on Iraq, shouldn’t we be discussing whether or not it would be the right thing to do, rather than discuss whether or not history will see it as a ’surrender?’
#12: Nice one. Obama the national security candidate–NOT.
“Leadership is McCain sticking with his commitment to an unpopular war until the situation on the ground turned around.”
How and when is this debacle on the ground supposed to “turn around”? Because if you’re referring to “the surge” then you are sadly misinformed. Fact: The entire campaign in Iraq has done more to build terrorist forces than any other event in American history. The US started with an enormous amount of international support and sympathy after 9/11 and could have built a strong international coalition to do something effective against terrorism, but instead, the Bush administration deliberately let the real enemy, Bin Laden go free.
Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein, who had NOTHING to do with 9/11. As a result, Al Quaida is much stronger today than it ever was, due to the motivational influence of our invasion. We are responsible for building their ranks in Iraq, Pakistan, and now, apparently, in Afghanistan as well. The surge may have minor temporary impact on the violence in Iraq, but in terms of the war on terrorism, it is meaningless.
How is McCain a man of character? He is a long-term political insider with the usual close ties to lobbyists and a military adventurist, who on one hand faults Obama for being idealistic and on the other, proposes an economically and militarily unsustainable goal of remaining in Iraq for 100 years.
“History looks kindly on leaders like him, while it looks dimly on surrender advocates like Obama and most of the Democratic Party.”
Were you aware when you made that argument that the only president in American history to ever surrender to an enemy was a Republican, Richard Nixon? Were you aware that virtually every American president who successfully defeated an enemy in war was a Democrat?
How can you support the groundless and arbitrary statement that history looks dimly on most of the Democratic Party?
As an independent, I see through the nonsense on both sides, and let me tell you, your side is in deep denial of the facts, and intends to spread this moral amnesia like a virus.
“But what about ending a war when it would be the right decision? If we really want to intelligently discuss Obama’s platform on Iraq, shouldn’t we be discussing whether or not it would be the right thing to do, rather than discuss whether or not history will see it as a ’surrender?’”
Let me take this one step further. How about analyzing and implementing the correct strategy, rather than arbitrarily declaring a unilateral strategy and then propagandizing its “success”.
What Clinton shares with Bush is that her stance is black and white - total withdrawal on a timetable. Obama’s is much more nuanced and pragmatic.According to his web site, he will have all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months and will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will, however, keep some troops in Iraq for security and if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the UN until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation, use his leadership to surge diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact, and take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.
McCain had better come up with a plan real soon, other than bomb them back to the stone age.
I am not American. Disclaimer in place, I continue:
You Americans are custodians of a set of ideals that many outsiders want to see you uphold well: rule of law, transparency, open debate, equality of all before the law.
You find yourselves now in this situation: “Gee, our president is a retard. He’s also a serial liar who tramples on our civil liberties; he’s dangerously aggressive and a threat to world peace; but he’s a nationalist who makes me feel good about being a citizen of a powerful country.”
Well, this is nothing new. Many countries have rulers like this. But America leads the way in open discussion of such a situation. We’ve found that lots of Americans are willing to accept a retard as president, as long as he’s a strong retard that makes them feel strong as a nation. Fine. The citizens of many countries have been willing to swallow nationalism ahead of liberty, but they have been unable to debate it. Americans can. That is valuable in itself.
It’s the trampling on the ideals that really disappoints me as an outside observer. America has some really great ideals. Your separation of powers, your Declaration of Independendence, your checks and balances, your devotion to rule of law - all are sublime contributions to humanity. What the retard has done in terms of torture, rendition, preventive war, eavesdropping, Gitmo, etc. are all sacrificing the ideal for the nationalism. Many swallow, others spit. Debate flourishes.
I haven’t followed the whole history of each politician in your race for president to pick apart who has been the most consistent about blah blah for his or her political lifetime. That doesn’t matter to me. The leader of America, from my point of view, needs some panache, some eloquence, some stage presence. They have to stand up for the ideals that countries of like mind share. Their job is chief marketer for liberal democracy.
I think Obama is your man.
I don’t want to speculate based on imperfect information, and the Obama-Roh comparisons at this point are too premature.
But it appears that “Mizar5″ requires an urgent history lesson.
He claims: “among the great historical presidents, there was but a single Republican represented–Lincoln, while the rest were Democrats.”
This is a most inaccurate and even strange claim.
First, how to define the “great” presidents? Let us take the most recent bi-partisan survey of scholars I am aware of: the Wall Street Journal survey in 2005. On its list of top 6 Presidents included: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, TR, and Reagan.
Now with the exception of Reagan, I think most agree that this a good list. So let’s look at their party affiliation.
Lincoln was a Republican, as Mizar5 conceded. But he neglects TR who was also a Republican.
Further, Washington (whom Mizar5 concedes was a great President) was hardly a “Democrat.” While he was himself above party, his administration mostly learned toward the Federalists, with Hamilton as its de facto “Prime Minister” in some eyes. Suffice to say that Washington’s views cohered closer to those of the Federalists than those of the Democrats.
So that leaves two great Democratic Presidents out of the five–equal to the Republican two (and if we are going to employ the inaccurate but still useful Conservative-Liberal paradigm from the founding of the Republic, it “Republican” three versus Democratic two).
I meant to say “his administration mostly leaned” not “learned”!
Brilliantly, spoken, Linkd.
Let’s now deconstruct the political lie that Obama is the most liberal US politician. First of all this is statistically skewed.
National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because Obama was on the presidential campaign trail, he missed a third of those votes. According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of 82 votes. In years where he voted more, his ranking was much lower - 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006. If you look at the list of 99 Senate votes the National Journal weighed to get its rankings, Obama and Clinton only voted differently on two votes(Obama missed 33 votes while Clinton missed 17.)
Now, what is this “liberal”? As it turns out, just another meaningless political epithet.From the internet:
“In the year 2000, a devastating blow was dealt to conservative ideology. They were at long last given simultaneous control of all parts of government, and a chance to implement their philosophies.
The outcome proved, of course, to be a fiasco of monumental proportions. From budget surpluses to record deficits; unchecked pork; a tide of corruption, both moral and legal, that thinned their ranks like smallpox; mismanagement of even basic government tasks, such as emergency response capabilities; a national economy constantly teetering between mere sluggishness and outright recession; the entrance into a quagmire of a war, one with unclear initial purpose and even less clear strategies for exit. And those are just the highlights…”
To this point, one wag wrote about the conservative stages of grief, taken from Kubler-Ross, about the conservatives’ moments of understandable despair over actually having finally been given the unfair opportunity to “put their signing pens where their mouths have been, as opposed the previous years of merely erupting, geyserlike, on Fox News every evening about what they could do if they were in charge.”
“Stage 1: JOHN MCCAIN.
In the McCain stage of grief, a conservative is mentally aware of their surroundings but unable to emotionally process the information. The result is a mental short-circuit. Sufferers are especially prone to thinking that the Iraq War is going spectacularly well; they may even wander open-air marketplaces in which they are protected by a hundred or more fully armed United States soldiers, with helicopter gunship support, and remark aloud at how normal and stable and safe their location obviously is. Denial may also exist over the state of the economy, of their own party, or, especially, their own past actions.
The McCain stage of grief is known to last years or even decades. Fortunately, the sufferer usually loses all concept of time, such that they cannot differentiate between any particular six month period, and will eventually declare them all to be “a hundred years” long.”
. About John McCain, this is what he had to say.
US historians do not judge favorably Kennedy’s and LBJ’s escalation of involvement in Vietnam. On the other hand, Truman, who left Korea at a stalemate after three years of fighting, is regarded as one of the top ten US presidents.
One reason why we haven’t won a war since 1945 is that none of them were defensive wars in response to direct attacks on the US, save for the invasion of Afghanistan to oust Al-Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban. Had we not spread our resources so thinly by invading, occupying, and fighting the insurgency in the country next door, we would have less of a mess to clean up.
In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we are, like the fox versus the rabbit, running for our dinner, not for our lives.
“Lincoln was a Republican, as Mizar5 conceded. But he neglects TR who was also a Republican.”
TR was a “Bull Moose” candidate, remember?
But granting you TR, and using the poll you cited, that makes two.
Even if you stretch it to 3- 4, my point here was missed. I am not quibbling over a partisan position, being independent myself. Rather I am calling Wedgie out on his odd statement that history looks dimly on…most of the Democratic Party.” Where is the support for this claim?
#27, gee it’s a nice change to see someone arguing the facts instead of advancing rhetoric as a pale substitution for a valid position. Thanks, Sonagi.
On Wedgie’s statement that “history looks dimly on most of the Democratic Party,” here are my rankings of good recent presidents:
Democrats:
1. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
3. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
4. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
5. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
6. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Republicans:
1. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
3. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
4. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Democratic-Republican
1. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
2. James Madison (1809-1817)
3. James Monroe (1817-1825)
4. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
Presidents history “looks dimly on” would include:
Republicans:
1.Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
2. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
3. James A. Garfield (1881)
4. Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885)
5. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
6. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
9. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
10. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
11.Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
12. Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
13. George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)
14. George W. Bush (2001-present)
Democrats:
1. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
2.Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
3. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
4. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
5 .Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
George Washington had no party affiliation.
I think it’s clear that the world is at a crossroad with 10,000 decisions to be made. Decisions that need to be made “quickly.” It’s not like anyother time in history. We’ve got huge problems. And I think even the least educated person knows this. I should think that wisdom counts for something. A person with a nice personality and a way with words with little experience is a problem. Wisdom takes time to develope in a person. I don’t think the world needs leaders that are still “teething.” On the otherhand, I don’t think all of the problems were now face can be fixed by one man teething, or 10,000 wise men trying…
No, the modern conservative-liberal paradigm does not apply to the Federalist versus Democrats and Republicans in the early days of the republic. The aptly named Federalists favored a strong national government while modern Conservatives have advocated less big government and deregulation (Bush’s establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security was not faithful to this professed ideal). Federalists were tax-and-spenders, raising tariffs and other taxes to pay for wars and feed the growing federal government. Conservatives profess to love free trade and tag liberals with the tax-and-spend label. Federalists were conservative in one key respect: strong support for big business and industry.
Washington was a supporter of Federalism. He was a republican, but not a “Republican” in any modern sense of the word.
Mizar, your list of Demos in the top 5 all include War Presidents, in fact all were major wars. Your guy Obama better wage his own world war to make that list, according to your list, which betrays your thought pattern, I’m sure.
You’re also intellectually dishonest. Nixon ranking so low makes no sense at all. JFK died too early to accomplish anything, he is overrated, and in fact, it was under his helm that the Soviets got a commy stronghold very close to the US. Truman is hated quite a bit from old school South Koreans. I believe it was under his watch that the nuke blue prints were handed to the Soviets, by Obama-like people.
If anything,
You guys didn’t need to look that far for this original thought.
I was the one who said in the Hole,
“if Hillary Clinton is Kim Dae Jung,
Then, Barack Obama is Noh Moo Hyun”
If anything, Obama is full of flowery ideas and he seems quite stubborn. He was milking the racecar against Hillary Clinton, from my viewpoint. Whatever Clinton said, it was racist to him.
Did you like the part where he said, he will reserve the right to re-enter Iraq to fight IF Al-Qaeda establishes a threat in Iraq?
His campaign promise is bull-shit. He’s staying in Iraq. Or, he’ll do a Clinton, and just air bomb it day and night. Just like Bill did to Serbia. Who cares anyway, right? No American blood. Just pilots dropping bombs.
I’m still waiting for the Vietnam War movie, where the Viet-Cong troops question themselves whether or not communism makes any sense at all, given their greater casualties, 30 years of being setback in modern development, being China’s proxy war ground, and not having electricity in 2008 in certain regions. And embracing capitalism in 2008. LOL.
Chinese Imperialism and its sins: North Korea, Indo China, Sudan. Boycott Beijing 2008, starting today. Stop capturing North Koreans who fled to China.
Miss Sonagi,
I am well aware of the difficulty of superimposing founding era Federalist v. anti-federalist/Democrat paradigm on top of the current Republican v. Democrat paradigm. Also, as a political theorist by training, I am obviously cognizant of the difference between “Republican” with a big “R” and “republican” with a small “r.”
My restricted point was simply as follows:
First, it appears that Washington’s political theory, for a lack of better term, was closer to those of Hamilton than those of Jefferson/Madison. Second, given that the latter founded the Democratic-Republican party which morphed into the current version of the Democratic Party, it is more reasonable to term him a “Republican” than a “Democrat”–which was what Mizar5’s original post implied.
Moreover, I would strenuously disagree that Federalists were conservative in today’s sense only in their pro-business orientation. Perhaps more germane to the issues of today, the Federalists were also for most part supporters of a vigorous exercise of executive power. I would refer you to the famous debate between Hamilton writing as “Pacificus” and Madison writing as “Helvidius” for an example par excellence. And you guessed it: Washington, as usual, followed Hamilton’s policy recommendation.
Of course, this is simplifying things a bit. As the historian Forrest MacDonald has written, there is an element of self-serving rhetoric here, because both Republicans and Democrats have tended to argue for a robust executive when their men were at the White House. In this connection, I find it most ironic that Arthur Schlesinger, JR., the #1 fan of an expansive executive power in the New Deal and Kennedy years, has now somersaulted into a campaign manager for fettering the executive. In fact, as everyone knows, Jefferson himself appeared to have become a convert of a strong executive once he became President.
You’re illogically restricting the choice to either Republican or Democrat when neither is applicable. Both of you are incorrect in trying to align Washington to either party.
Yes, they were. However, both Democratic and Republican presidents have exercised strong executive power. Among them:
Andrew Jackson -D- success in pushing legislation through Congress, treatment of Native Americans
James Polk -D- acquisition of large territory in southwest through treaty with Mexico
Abraham Lincoln -R- admission of West Virginia, suspension of Habeas Corpus, among other wartime acts
Teddy Roosevelt -R- regulation and development of industry, Panama Canal, gunboat diplomacy
Woodrow Wilson -D- expansion of role of federal govt. in economy, foreign policy
Franklin D Roosevelt -D- arguably the most vigorous exercise of presidential power with his New Deal programs and wartime suspension of rights provoking numerous constitutional challenges.
I see no connection between party affiliation and the exercise of executive power, which seems to reflect individual leadership styles and the challenges faced during tenure. Wars especially favor a strong executive.
Miss Sonagi,
“You’re illogically restricting the choice to either Republican or Democrat when neither is applicable. Both of you are incorrect in trying to align Washington to either party.”
Really, you are ripping my words out of its all-important, determining context.
Here is my original statement:
“So that leaves two great Democratic Presidents out of the five–equal to the Republican two (and *if* we are going to employ the inaccurate but still useful Conservative-Liberal paradigm from the founding of the Republic, it “Republican” three versus Democratic two).”
I understand that, as a native Korean speaker, my English skills (as some Marmot posters have derided in the past) are poor, but do you not see the “if” there (as well as the fact that the relevant phrases are nestled within a parenthesis too!)?
Once again, I am aware that Washington sought to be above party and cannot be easily fitted into a Procrustean bed of “Republican” or “Democrat” camp. The excerpted statement from my original post implies as much.
Instead, my comment that Washington is closer to a “Republican” than a “Democrat” emerged *only* in the context where Mizar5 *already implied* that he was a “Democrat.” That is, my position is qualified by the understanding that we are going to play that confessedly ahistorical or anachronistic game of placing Washington either in the “Republican” or the “Democratic” camp.
I understand that sometimes I write too quickly (esp. given my lack of fluency in the language), and complex issues cannot be easily captured in a few-paragraph Blog comment. So my comments are bound to cause misunderstandings. But here, I really wonder whether you are not just trying to be argumentative, referring to my “illogical[ly]” position when I already conceded that the line of inquiry I will pursue in the manner of Mizar5 is “inaccurate.”
Also, Miss Sonagi, You then claimed: “However, both Democratic and Republican presidents have exercised strong executive power”–after which you listed various Democratic Presidents who exercised vigorous presidential leadership (all of whose examples I am aware).
But again, this does not contradict my position and merely echoes what I already implied or assumed! Did I claim that Democratic Presidents have not been vigorous executives? Again, quite the contrary: I already anticipated your position by pointing to MacDonald’s book on the history of American presidency, as well as presenting the example of Jefferson’s somersault.
Again, this is my original statement:
“Moreover, I would strenuously disagree that Federalists were conservative in today’s sense only in their pro-business orientation. Perhaps more germane to the issues of today, the Federalists were also for most part supporters of a vigorous exercise of executive power.”
To rebut this position, you’d have to show me not that “liberals” today advocate a strong executive more so than their conservative counterparts. And I don’t think that position is tenable at least since the days of Nixon (though that may change if the Democrats re-acquire the kind of near-death grip on the White House they had during the FDR-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson years).
Your all ignoring the influence of money. This isn’t a dictatorship, its a democracy.
Obama will most likely pull out of Iraq, he does not align with AIPAC at all, although he gave them that impression in the beginning. Unfornuately for AIPAC its too late to label him anti-semitic.
FYI Iraq is not about oil. Oil production since 2003 has dropped.
I’ll turn it back to you to prove that conservatives advocate a stronger executive. Among modern conservative presidents from Nixon to GW Bush, only the last has sought significant expansion of federal power as a reaction to 9/11.
??? So your argument is that your identification of Washington as a Republican was less wrong than Mizar’s identification of Washington as a Democrat. Okay, so maybe you were less wrong than Mizar, but still wrong. Why make an invalid argument? It would make more sense to refute Mizar’s claim the same way I refuted yours by showing why Federalists were not proto-Republicans.
Please skip the false modesty about language. Your vocabulary is sophisticated enough to cause blogger Joshua at OFK to reach for a dictionary, and there isn’t a single grammar error or even a typo in any of your comments. English may not be your first language - it wasn’t the great orator William F. Buckley’s either - but you are most definitely a highly educated, native-like speaker of English who is fully capable of debating others in that language.
Miss Sonagi,
Let me respond to each of your three main points in separate posts, given my congenital long-windedness.
#1 “I’ll turn it back to you to prove that conservatives advocate a stronger executive. Among modern conservative presidents from Nixon to GW Bush, only the last has sought significant expansion of federal power as a reaction to 9/11.”
To begin with, what are you trying to prove by claiming that “only” George W. Bush “has sought significant expansion of federal power as a reaction to 9/11”? Of course, that is the case, because 9/11 happened during Bush’s Presidency! If on the other hand, you are trying to imply that prior Republican Presidents would not have acted in the manner that W. did if 9/11 occurred in their watch, I am skeptical. In particular, Nixon’s understanding of executive power appears to have been almost wholly unbounded by law and in fact synonymous with law. (There is a notorious NY Times interview he did on this very issue; I will e-mail you the citation, if you want).
Next, more germane, I don’t think it is necessarily the best methodology to employ presidential behavior as the sole criterion to represent either the conservative or liberal view of executive power. As I have already alluded via the reference to McDonald’s findings, presidents are human, all too human, and they may act contrary to their original beliefs when confronted with temptations of power. In other words, self-interest may distort original ideology.
So instead, I would instead put more emphasis on two other criteria: the opinion of the intellectuals and the opinion of national politicians (esp. Congressmen).
I begin with intellectuals, because that’s the area where I know best; in fact, a book manuscript I have been working on for a while is closely related to this topic (though my precise topic has more to do with what Western political philosophers from Plato to Locke have thought about executive power in theory, and not what modern Presidents have done in practice). In this context, if you read the relevant recent literature (literally pick up any major text on executive power or emergency power, and it will likely offer a survey of the current fault lines), you will see that the support for/opposition against executive power closely mirror the conservative/liberal dichotomy. For instance, consider the political theorists/legal scholars who have recently written major monographs on the topic. Those who support a strong executive have mostly been prominent conservatives or Republicans: e.g., Harvey Mansfield, Jr. (perhaps the leading political theorist in the country at Harvard), John Yoo (of U of California Law School and a prominent member of the Bush Justice team), Richard Posner (former U of Chicago Law Professor and perhaps the leading conservative jurist outside the Supreme Court). In contrast, the leading intellectuals within political theory departments and the law schools who have opposed executive power have been liberals: e.g., Harold Koh (Dean of Yale Law School and a former Clinton appointee), John Hart Ely (perhaps the leading “liberal” legal academic and the former Dean of Stanford Law School), Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (a New Frontier intellectual and a long-time Harvard faculty member). Of course, there are counter-examples, but they are few, and the picture I have drawn will not be controversial to those who have followed the intellectual debates.
As for the Congress, and here I am less well-informed, but my understanding is that most of the relevant legislations that have attempted to cabin the President in the relevant years we are talking about have been inspired by Democrats—with the most outstanding example obviously being the War Powers Resolution.
#2 “So your argument is that your identification of Washington as a Republican was less wrong than Mizar’s identification of Washington as a Democrat. Okay, so maybe you were less wrong than Mizar, but still wrong. Why make an invalid argument? It would make more sense to refute Mizar’s claim the same way I refuted yours by showing why Federalists were not proto-Republicans.”
Come on, Miss Sonagi: You have never played the Devil’s Advocate and tried to refute someone on their own ground, even though those that ground itself was rather unstable or invalid? Again, you are just being nit-picky in ignoring that it was just an “if” and a “parenthetical” argument. My God!
#3 “Please skip the false modesty about language. Your vocabulary is sophisticated enough to cause blogger Joshua at OFK to reach for a dictionary, and there isn’t a single grammar error or even a typo in any of your comments. English may not be your first language - it wasn’t the great orator William F. Buckley’s either - but you are most definitely a highly educated, native-like speaker of English who is fully capable of debating others in that language.”
Another “mon dieu!” point. I cannot believe we are having this exchange yet again! Yet let me try once more.
1. A “sophisticated” vocabulary—which I do concededly possess—is not always a sign of mastery of a language. In fact, many people who are imperfectly fluent in a foreign language make a show of displaying their vocabulary as a cover for their fundamental linguistic deficiencies. I know I used to do this in college! In fact, didn’t you say you taught ESL? I am sure you have frequently encountered precise behavior I am highlighting here.
2. The following assertion is plainly wrong:
“There isn’t a single grammar error or even a typo in any of your comments.”
In fact, literally the first sentence of my last post contains a grammatical error!
“Really, you are ripping my words out of its all-important, determining context.”
Shouldn’t it be “their… context,” not “its… context”?
This is a rather typical error that occurs frequently unless I re-read my writings over and over again—an effort which I find it not worthwhile in the context of a Blog comment.
In fact, as I have told you before, a major part of the reason why I don’t post here much is to save myself of this kind of embarrassment. And they occur frequently. In fact, I can even give you links where a certain Marmot commenter has mercilessly made fun of my grammatical sloppiness (in e-mail, because I do not want to publicly identify this person and have a row with him).
3. I find the accusation of “false modesty” absolutely hilarious, and I think anyone who knows me well in person (and there are many lurkers and at least one frequent commenter at Marmot who fits this description) would find it even more comical. Modesty—whether false or genuine—is not a trait usually associated with me, and whenever I profess lack of confidence in something, it’s really, because there is a deficiency there!
“save for the invasion of Afghanistan to oust Al-Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban. Had we not spread our resources so thinly by invading, occupying, and fighting the insurgency in the country next door, we would have less of a mess to clean up.”
Iraq is not next door to Afghanistan. It is two countries over, and together they form an Iran sandwich*.
*This may mean Iran is about to get f—ed.
While we’re assigning retroactive party affiliations and making other such arguments, let us not forget that Lincoln would not have been embraced by contemporary Republicans.
For that matter, Reagan was arguably a poor president and has only recently made his way the “best presidents list” due to the conservative bias of some contemporary scholars. The nostalgia for Reagan aside, his presidency was riddled by scandals including Iran Contra and his greatest talent was his “teflon” personality. Many people considered him to be generally “out to lunch” as one diplomat phrased it. It was exceedingly kind and a bit wry of me to concede his “greatness.” However, I did accord him good marks for the detant strategy in which the US engaged the enemy ala Obama. However, the argument that he brought down the Soviet Union is absurd.
So much of this is largely subjective and subject to idiological bias. My point here was solely to demonstrate how particularly irrational the idiological bias is among the political neanderthals who represent themselves in the US today as “conservatives.”
So where does this leave our tally of “great presidents?”
Removing Reagan (controvercial) and Lincoln (#2 but not Republican in the contemporary sense) from the 2005 Wall Street Journal list, we are left with the following top 15: Washington (1), FDR (3), Jefferson (4), TR (5),Truman (7), Eisenhower (8), Polk (9), Jackson (10), Wilson (11), Cleveland (12), Adams (13), McKinley (14) Kennedy (15), Monroe (16) LBJ (17)… a single Replublican?
Anybody who can throw around the word “Procrustean”, can no longer plead the, “I’m hamstringed by a second language” card. Dude, you can hold your own.
The prophet Baduk hath done spake… It’s going to be Obama as the first American black President. Stop your bickering. It’s going to be interesting.
So how do we attempt to filter out idiological bias? The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey attempted to do so by asked historians to represent whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues while judging the presidents. The two groups had small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. On the top 10 lists, liberals
listed 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans among the top 10, while Conservatives listed 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....dent_polls
“You’re also intellectually dishonest. Nixon ranking so low makes no sense at all. JFK died too early to accomplish anything, he is overrated, and in fact, it was under his helm that the Soviets got a commy stronghold very close to the US.”
So right you are. Kennedy was a second stringer who parlayed his looks and Camelot image. Nixon was actually a better statesman who unfortunately got caught. Obama is a Black JFK who’s only idea is change and surrender. If my country is stupid enough to glom on to his empty promises, we get the government we deserve. G-d help us!
Jesus, Mizar5. I know you are a smart guy and usually a reasonable guy to boot. And yet you come up with such a ridiculously-slanted position and expect people to take it seriously?
Come on!
I simply cannot believe the lengths you are willing to go to preserve your original position that there have not been too many “great” Republican Presidents:
1. You arbitrarily excised many “great” Republican Presidents from the 2005 WSJ list.
Ok, so I can accept you striking off Reagan, because he was too recent, and greatness requires time to judge properly.
But you are willing to disavow that Lincoln was a Republican, because some of his views do not mesh with those held by the current leadership of the Republican Party. First of all, to expect ideological cohesion across the issues from men who stand almost 150 years apart is fatuous. But again if (see the “if,” Sonagi?) you want to play that game, why not strike off other Democratic Presidents who held views that do not mesh with those of the current leadership of the Democratic party as well? For instance, Jefferson was an unabashed elitist (he liked an egalitarian society ironically because he thought it would enable the “natural aristoi” to rise to the top), as well as a far-out racist even for his time (take a look at his Notes on Virginia). Andrew Jackson? Jackson was contemptuous of the judiciary and probably would have preferred to have the Supreme Court stripped of the judicial review. And as Miss Sonagi has already alluded, good ole Hickory could care less about racial minorities.
And TR? Did you actually claim that TR is not a Republican President, because he later ran as a third party candidate? Do I even have to try to refute this silly stance?
Finally, you have yet to give a reason why you don’t consider Eisenhower Republican.
2. You are willing to extend the life of the Democratic Party back to the origin of the American Republic to its genesis in the Democratic-Republican Party, and yet you won’t do the same for the Republican Party, whose origin can be arguably traced to the Federalist and the Whig Parties. So the upshot is that an elitist racist like Jefferson can count as a “Democrat,” whereas Adams cannot count as a “Republican.”
Is the double standard not oh so transparent here?
@#44
Thank you for your humorous correction of my geographical error. I knew that back in 6th grade when I had to do daily geography drills.
If you can show me that these men advocated a stronger executive while Clinton was in office without an elected successor, I’ll loudly, clearly, and gladly concede the point to you.
RE: the grammar error - that is a minor, careless error that a native speaker could make. I myself have often immediately followed my own comment with a correction of a typo, missing word, or some other careless error. Maddlew nailed it in comment #46.
. . . so it is wrong to compare Obama to Roh I take it?
P.S. Reagan was one of the worst presidents, ever, considering the savings and loan debacle, the long-term affects of airline deregulation, the number of innocent people that died in South America due to his ideologically-driven actions, the Iran-contra debacle which abrogated almost any law I could consider and the national deficit, which he ran up, much like the current holder of the office of president. Reagan was only charismatic and living proof that the American public can be subverted by the worst, only if the style and delivery is right.
wjk: “Mizar, your list of Demos in the top 5 all include War Presidents, in fact all were major wars. Your guy Obama better wage his own world war to make that list, according to your list, which betrays your thought pattern, I’m sure.”
Whatever you might mean by this, very few presidents have not been involved in military engagements. My rankings are based on various analyses of historians, and it would appear only logical enough that presidents who have led the country through periods of crisis would make the list.
“You’re also intellectually dishonest. Nixon ranking so low makes no sense at all. JFK died too early to accomplish anything, he is overrated, and in fact, it was under his helm that the Soviets got a commy stronghold very close to the US. Truman is hated quite a bit from old school South Koreans. I believe it was under his watch that the nuke blue prints were handed to the Soviets, by Obama-like people.”
No, intellectually dishonesty is arguing such assertions without providing a scintilla of support for any of them. They are all mistaken but, of course, they’re your statements, so the burden of proof to support them is yours.
“If anything, Obama is full of flowery ideas and he seems quite stubborn. He was milking the racecar against Hillary Clinton, from my viewpoint. Whatever Clinton said, it was racist to him.”
What planet are you on? I’ll admit that I hail from Mizar5, but I am at least aware of the rudimentary facts relating to the 2007 presidential primary campaign. To the contrary, Obama has been credited with avoiding bringing race into the campaign despite Bill Clinton’s attempt to bait him.
“Did you like the part where he said, he will reserve the right to re-enter Iraq to fight IF Al-Qaeda establishes a threat in Iraq?”
Again, welcome back to earth. Obama did not say that; this was McCain’s calculated mischaracterization of Obama’s position. Obama states that he will place troops wherever necessary to meet the Al-Qaeda threat, which would include leaving some troops in Iraq if needed.
Al-Qaeda are not currently a real presence in Iraq, but in Pakastan and Afganistan.
“His campaign promise is bull-shit. He’s staying in Iraq…”
You are claiming omniscience?
It was in fact GW Bush’s promise that was bull-shit. Were you in orbit when that happened too?
Allow the people of earth to fill you in: After promising to go after Al-Qaeda in Afganistan, Bush instead began to waste US military resources on his dad’s old nemisis, Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands of unnecessary lives.
Had he followed through on his stated objective in Afganistan, instead of diluting American miliatry and political capital in Iraq, we would have already have established the goal of national security against terror that Republicans are illogically blaming Democrats for attempting to erode, the economy would not be in such dire straits, US international influence would not have waned so precipitously, and we would not be debating the need to continue to waste resources we can no longer afford to commit.
Completely agree, so let’s all stop comparing apples and oranges.
Hey! A view I can agree with! It’s pathetic that neo-cons keep idolizing that senile old fuck.
“Jesus, Mizar5. I know you are a smart guy and usually a reasonable guy to boot. And yet you come up with such a ridiculously-slanted position and expect people to take it seriously?”
Of course not. I was just having a bit of fun.
“I simply cannot believe the lengths you are willing to go to preserve your original position that there have not been too many “great” Republican Presidents”
That was not my position. Recall that I was merely having a bit of fun with the “procrustean” conservate who stated that history has not looked kindly on Democrats.
“1. You arbitrarily excised many “great” Republican Presidents from the 2005 WSJ list.”
I excised only Reagan, which you accept, and Lincoln for satirical reasons, at the expense of the crustacean. So would you lighten up?
“And TR? Did you actually claim that TR is not a Republican President, because he later ran as a third party candidate? Do I even have to try to refute this silly stance?”
As you say, I was being silly. I thought this was apparant enough.
“Finally, you have yet to give a reason why you don’t consider Eisenhower Republican.”
I never said that, but then again, you also have yet to give a reason for crediting me with the statement that Washington was Democrat.
“You are willing to extend the life of the Democratic Party back to the origin of the American Republic to its genesis in the Democratic-Republican Party…”
Whoa boy, I did not commit said atrocity.
“Is the double standard not oh so transparent here?”
Yes, that was in fact my point.
Miss Sonagi,
Damn, you want me to work, don’t you? Given that I now lack access to Westlaw/Lexis, I can only give you cites to material I have in my personal possession (because most law review articles are not available via the web).
*Professor Yoo is the easiest case, because he began his academic career around the time of Clinton’s inauguration and immediately began to make a name for himself as a leading pro-executive legal academic, esp. in regard to the war powers debate.
Here’s a useful footnote from an essay I wrote almost a decade ago. I produce it in its entirety (you will see, among other things, that leading conservative jurists such as Judge Bork, Justice Scalia are listed in the pro-executive camp, albeit the cites were not from the Clinton years; the Yoo cites are at the very end, and they are all from during the Clinton Administration):
The legal literature regarding the proper allocation of the war powers clause is enormous. For the leading articulations of the pro-Congress view see John Hart Ely, War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and its Aftermath (1993); Louis Fisher, Presidential War Power (1995); Koh, supra note 5; W. Taylor Revelry III, War Powers f the President and Congress: Who Holds the Arrows and Olive Branch? (1981); William Van Alstyne, Congress, the President, and the Power to Declare War: A Requiem for Vietnam, 121 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1972); Arthur Bestor, Separation of Powers in the Domain of Foreign Affairs: The Intent of the Constitution Historically Examined, 5 Seton Hall L. Rev. 527 (1974). Alexander Bickel, Congress, the President and the Power to Wage War, 48 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 131 (1971); Lofgren, id.; William Michael Treanor, Fame, the Founding, and the Power to Declare War 82 Cornell L. Rev. 695 (1997).
For the leading expositions of the pro-executive view see Philip Bobbitt, War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely’s War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and its Aftermath, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 1364 (1994) (book review); Robert Bork, Foreword to The Fettered Presidency: Legal Constraints on the Executive Branch at ix (L. Gordon Crovitz & Jeremy A. Rabkin eds., 1989) [hereinafter Bork, Foreword]; Robert Bork, Erosion of the President’s Power in Foreign Affairs, 68 Wash. U. L.Q. 693 (1990); Henry P. Monaghan, Presidential War-making, 50 B.U. L. Rev. 19 (special issue) (Spring, 1970); Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, 858-60 (1989) (arguing that since “when those prerogatives were to be reallocated in whole or part to other branches of government, or were to be limited in some other way, the Constitution generally did so expressly…. [one could] infer, therefore, that what was not expressly reassigned would—at least absent patent incompatibility with republican principles—remain with the executive.”); Robert F. Turner, War and the Forgotten Power Clause of the Constitution: A Review Essay of John Hart Ely’s War and Responsibility, 34 Va. J. Int’l L. 903 (1994); John Yoo, The Continuation of Politics by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 167 (1996) (hereinafter Yoo, Continuation); John Yoo, Clio at War: The Misuse of History in the War Powers Debate, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1169 (1999) (hereinafter Yoo, Clio).
I also corresponded with Prof. Yoo when I was writing this paper, and I believe that was also during the last year of the second Clinton Administration.
*Mansfield is another easy case, because he has long history of defending an outsized, sometimes even extra-legal executive, regardless of who is the President. His two most famous works in this respect are Taming the Prince and Machiavelli’s Virtue. The latter was published during the Clinton years, the former was re-issued with a new Preface (which pillories “superdemocrats” who see no need for the virtuous, discretionary executive) during the Clinton years.
*As for Posner, none of the half a dozen or so books written by him I have in possession discusses executive power, except Not a Suicide Pact, which was indeed written after 9-11. But given that he is perhaps the leading proponent of legal pragmatism today, I would be shocked if he did not always espouse pro-executive views (and though he is a prolific writer—esp. law review writer—I currently lack access to either Westlaw or Lexis).
Mizar5,
If you were indeed parodying your extremist interlocutors by mimicking them, then I throw up my arms. But you must realize that the context of an online exchange in general makes it very difficult to distinguish between a parody and an earnest effort?
Also, in legal academic circles, a strong executive view is usually identified with the “unitary executive theory.” The two legal academics most often associated with it are Yoo and Steven Calabresi.
You can see that both of them originated the theory during the Clinton years (look at the dates of “Law Review Publication” subsection on the “Reference” of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....ive_theory
Won Joon Choe:
“Mizar5,If you were indeed parodying your extremist interlocutors by mimicking them, then I throw up my arms. But you must realize that the context of an online exchange in general makes it very difficult to distinguish between a parody and an earnest effort?”
Of course. Regardless, of course, it appears that in our cases (and I include Sonagi) it is indeed an earnest effort. I greatly appreciate your contributions.
I would like to make a feeble attempt to answer the question posed in the original post. Are there parallels between Roh and Obama?
I guess we can safely say they are both men, they had parents and at one time and they were both boys. One is very well educated, one not so much. One seems to be a fairly polished orator, the other… I have a Korean friend who says Roh talks as if he has a big toe where his tongue should be.
They are both liberals? To say liberal in Korea is swimming in different waters than those of American politics. The inhabitants are also alien to one-another. Whether they brandish their shoes similarly is something I wouldn’t know. Sorry about any mixed metaphors. Sonagi said apples and oranges and I think that is very, very apt.
Someone put forward that they have both broken campaign promises. You’re joking, right? All politicians make promises and then break them. If you can name one that hasn’t I’m all ears. To quote Bullworth or paraphrase, “I basically told you what you wanted to hear and then once I was in office I took all those pieces of legislation and bottled them up in committees while you weren’t looking.”
To say that Obama has broken any campaign promises and use them as a comparison is ludicrous. He hasn’t served a day as president, yet. However, if he is ever elected I guarantee you he will. He’s a politician. It defines them. He may sincerely try but he’ll fail. Somewhere he’ll fail.
My sister, who is a politician, wrote me that there is now more prejudice against women in politics than blacks. She sent me an article by Gloria Steinhem to support this theory. While this may or may not be true generally speaking, (She’s probably equiped to know), I don’t think this is the problem that Hillary Clinton is experiencing. I don’t think voters see her as a woman. I think they see her as an experienced man. Experienced as in having, (once again with the water metaphor), spent many years swimming in Washington waters. She is connected. Experience to the voting public has become a very negative thing, expecially in the 21st century. We see it as connected to lobbyists and old boys clubs and rich feeding, shaking hands and rubbing elbows with others who merely look to benefit themselves and one-another.
What the voting public wants is a lack of that experience. They want someone to put Washington on its ear. They want a bull in a china shop, someone to throw these self absorbed assholes into a snowdrift in their underwear or less.
In the last few years Obama has gained connections and will continue to do so. But the voting public still PERCIEVES him as less tainted and more apt to entertain the crazy idea of ripping the black, self-absorbed heart out of American politics.
some would say, it’s much, much easier to get into Occidental, then transfer to Columbia, and even get into Harvard Law,
vs
passing ROK sabup goshi.
But, that’s their opinion.
I wouldn’t know.
My dad failed twice. He went to Koryo bup dae, too.
Oh, that “black heart” refence was probably a bit PI. I should have said cold instead. Nothing racial was inferred. Sody!
Look at the percentage of Republicans voting compared to the number of Democrats. Democrats are turning out in record numbers where Republicans are showing almost record apathy. I don’t think “Stay the course” is working. These tax rebated checks aren’t lifting up anybody’s skirts anymore. I think even the miserly would gladly pay a bit more tax to see the economy bounce back and a bit trimmed from the national deficit.
my sole point is that Roh Moo Hyun isn’t as stupid as you make it out to be.
It didn’t technically end with High school diploma, in a Sang Go, where students are expected to enter the work force.
He and 2mb are similar in that aspect.
No one who went to a korean university outside of Seoul would say
“I’m actually smarter than Roh Moo Hyun”
simply because Moo Hyun passed sabup goshi.
Obama is smart.
But, he’s misleading and stubborn.
He shows a true lack of understanding in matters when he says
1/ US will pull out of NAFTA.
2/ US will just leave Iraq.
3/ by using the rich people’s money, US will give govt jobs to survive the recession by building highways.
i wouldn’t be surprised if he was a dunce in these specific matters.
If I were him, I wouldn’t run with Jonathan Edwards as VP candidate.
Then, he seals it.
To lose.
No, Roh certainly isn’t stupid. He wouldn’t have gotten elected if he were. He made a horrible miscalculation in creating an adversarial relationship with the press. People believe what is written in black and white here. He not only got them on his bad side he saw signs of it going bad and then kicked them all out on top of it. Bad move on top of bad move.
He’s really not much of a public speaker. When the cameras roll and there’s a national TV audience, well, he doesn’t turn into Nixon, but he’s not good.
Oh, yeah, I want to make you put out, Won Joon.
In comment #55, were you referring to the same John Yoo who called Clinton an imperial president and criticized his uses of executive privilege? Isn’t John Yoo the guy who liked the Foreign Intelligence Services Act before he hated it?
You’ll get no argument from me that the strongest supporters of a strong executive are arch-conservatives, but there is a self-serving nature in their support, for conservatism has dominated since 1980. Even Clinton was a centrist, not a liberal in either the classical or modern sense of the word, and his candidate wife either has cut off her very liberal early roots or buried them from view. Conservative enthusiasm for a strong executive was tempered during the Clinton years.
As for the Unitary Executive Wiki entry, I had read that before. I noticed that GW Bush got a long write-up and Reagan and Bush Sr weren’t mentioned at all. Recall that I stated in an earlier comment that GWB had strived more than any president in modern history to legally expand executive powers.