The Presidency and Generals: An American Tradition?

[Seneca]

When George Washington was inaugurated as our first president in 1789, he set many precedents. He voluntarily served two terms before stepping down. He created a cabinet to help with deliberation and maintenance of the executive branch.

He also began the peculiar American 'tradition' of former generals getting elected president.

The usual reasons given are that Washington was the hero of the Revolution, and that his selflessness and sacrifice made him a natural leader - a leader who would be king, if some people had had their way.

Washington, to his credit, refused a crown, which set the most important precedent of all.

Admirers of Washington felt the former general was a natural for becoming the first constitutionally-mandated commander-in-chief.

Subsequent generations would come to feel that way about many more generals to follow. Natural leaders. War heroes. Commanders.

The record is mixed on generals as presidents, and the only lesson we have learned from history is that we can't know until they govern.

The first general to capture the White House after Washington was Andrew Jackson. Riding on the coattails of the Battle of New Orleans, he served two terms as the first Democratic president, and is best known for handling the nullification crisis, and destroying the National Bank charter. Then there is the Trail of Tears. Interstingly enough, he was the last president to get the national debt paid off. Our current total began under his administration.

The next general was William Henry Harrison, who was the oldest man elected at age 68, until Reagan broke that record many years later. Harrison gave the longest inaugural speech in history - over four hours!! He caught pneumonia as a result, and died just under a month later- serving the shortest of all terms in this high office. Essentially, he had no legacy.

Zachary Taylor became the third general to ride into the White House on his credentials as a general. He just very recently fought in the Mexican War - a war nearly as divisive as Vietnam in its day - but nonetheless, he was elected narrowly by an electoral margin of 163-127. The nation was severely divided by slavery and "state's rights", and we came close (and not for the first time) to civil war. In his brief 16 months as president (died in office), the Department of the Interior was created. To his credit, he didn't compromise over California's admission as a free state, and that would come to pass after his death.

Republican Ulysses S. Grant was the victorious general of the Union Army of the Civl War. Not 4 years after the conflict did he ascend to power. He was in over his head. A principled man himself, he was weak in preventing the croniness and scheming of a greedy and ethical wreck of a cabinet. He did serve two terms, although they were fraught with corruption and difficulty. He hated his time in the White House, and he leaves only a weak and bitter legacy.

It would be 76 years before the next, and so far, latest general would be swept into the presidency. Dwight Eisenhower's role in commanding the Allied Forces over Nazi Germany assured him much popularity, as he was courted by both parties, and won over by the Republicans. He served two terms, and is argubaly the only general besides Washington to have maintained a popular rule, even as great challenges arose. His leagcy includes sending troops to Little Rock to uphold the SCOTUS decision on school desegregation, a stable and prosperous economy, and on the downside, growing Cold War tensions, nuclear proliferation, and putting Nixon only one heartbeat away from office. Eisenhower DID have a heart attack during his tenure.

So with only one general serving as president in the 20th century, it calls into question whether it truly is an American tradition. If so, it has mixed results, and 'character' seems to matter little, as Grant's troubles attest. Two served too short to really discern their effectiveness as presidents.

Which brings us to Wesley Clark.

Clark's resume is solid, no doubt. He is a Democrat, which is not the usual province of modern generals. The Kosovo campaign is not rich in the public imagination as was World War II or the Civil War (notice that no Vietnam-era generals have ever come close to the office). In what defies odds, he is the second Arkansas Democrat and Rhodes Scholar to make a run in a 12 year span.

Despite what we know about him, whichever way one's opinion runs, history proves that we will truly NOT know whether he will make an effective, decent president of this republic. But like the other generals before him, and all of the other present candidates as well, he has the right to pursue his opportunity and prove himself.

This is offered as a sincere cautionary tale. I am not analyzing what kind of campaign he may run, or whether his stands on the issues (some of which I wholeheartedly agree with) are questionable, or whether his character is beyond question.

I also acknowledge that his service does provide some armor against those who would employ the tired canard of Democrats being "anti-military".

So what makes America turn to generals in the White House? Is it perceived heroism? Their ability to administer? Is it during times we need reassurance or certainty as a nation? Why have no admirals made it? Does experience with the highest-ranking corridors of military power improve one's effectiveness as a civilian commander-in-chief?

Ironically, it was Eisenhower himself who warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Will Clark fulfill, or break, with this seemingly fulfilled farewell prophecy of the last general ever to take the oath of the highest office in the land?

As with all of the candidates vying for the Democratic nod, I wish him good luck.

Your thoughts on why generals do or do not pass presidential muster in this era with you are appreciated.

[happyslug]

1. Must exclude Washington and Jackson

While both were Generals, their were Politicians BEFORE their were Generals. Thus unlike Tyler, Grant and Eisenhower, these two (Washington and Jackson) should be compared with other politicians of their time period who had military service NOT with career Generals like Tyler and Eisenhower (Grant is in many ways a special case himself, while he was West Point Graduate and did extensive Military Service before he became a General, he had left the Army twice and tired, and failed, to be a businessman. Grant himself considered himself more a businessman than a professional soldier).

Eisenhower also is a Special Case, he was also a product of West Point and WWI, but like Robert E Lee prior to the Civil war, Eisenhower was tied in with Washington assisting the Politicians in Military Policy more than Commanding military units. As MacArthur said about Eisenhower, "The best staff officer I ever had".

That leaves Tyler as the sole True Commander of Troops in Combat. He was heading the Country till Civil War as President and his death lead to the Compromise of 1850 (Which delayed the Civil War for ten years, ten crucial years, for the Railroads spread across the nation in those ten years and without the Railroads the North could NOT have conquered the South).

Thus the issue is Wesley more like Tyler (Career Leading of Troops in Combat) or Eisenhower (a Career assistant to Washington Politicians and thus more a politician himself than a Military leader).

[ComerPerro]

3. Taylor

Zachary Taylor, not John Tyler. But I am nitpicking.

[Seneca]

4. question

First, thanks for replying.

How was Washington a politician before taking office? I don't have a bio handy, but wasn't the presidency almost forced on him? No doubt he had the ego - and Hamilton's urging - to take up the offer, but Washington, even if a politician beforehand, had extensive field experience with troops. In fact, his career as a general was largely a failure until late in the war - lots of retreats and endless waiting. Trenton arguably saved his career.

Now for Jackson, his career as a lawyer definitely was an asset in getting lected, plus he was in both houses of Congress, and provisional governor of Florida.

But I think my larger point is that no matter their backgrounds, it was their stints as generals that appealed a to a large part of the public imagination, no?

I like contrasts you offered to supplement mine. Thanks again.

[theboss]

9. Washington was always a soldier

He fought in the French/Indian War. And he tended (or at least pretended) to look down on "politics." He had a genius for reluctantly agreeing to political and military post and for stepping down at the perfect moment.

[Wwagsthedog]

5. Dupe

n/t

[Wwagsthedog]

2. Other pertinent info

1. James Garfield, 20th President, 1881. Rose to Major Gen 1862 but left during the Civil War to go into Congress. Apparently, the fact that he was a former general had little to do with his short presidency. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jg20.html

2. Dwight Eisenhower. One additional upside was that the interstate highway system was approved and developed with his backing during his admin. A possible downside was that stage for the Vietnam war may have been set in the 1950s after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Were the Dulles brothers the original architects of the resulting national tragedy?

[Seneca]

8. Garfield

I knew several of those Republicans in the post-Reconstruction era were officers in the Civil War, and I overlooked Garfield actually making general.

I think you are right, in following my original thesis, that his role as general played little part in becoming president.

But following that rule, he too served too short a term as you said to be effectively rated. Thanks for covering my omission, and I am glad it didn't detract too much from my points.

As for the Dulles, I think John Foster was much more the architect behind many Cold War failures in policy than his brother. A case can be made that Truman should have never ignored Ho Chi Minh's requests for aid. Enough blame to go around.

I do know that Eisenhower sometimes felt hemmed in by the recommendations of the generals under him, which probably prompted his warning in the farewell speech.

[wuushew]

6. --

.

[ComerPerro]

7. Good analysis

I think a lot of it has to do with the popularity of the war at home and the press recieved by the General. Washington won independence, Taylor and Jackson led campaigns against the "savages" and the British, Grant prevented a revolution (thats how he was percieved, I don't want to start a flame war), and Eisenhower won WWII.

Part of the appeal of Generals, I believe, is the implied heroism and bravery. But more importantly is the percieved moral resolve that comes with leading the American troops against the forces of evil (once again, public perception). Bear in mind that, at many times, Generals are very qualified for this office because they are used to managing large staffs and thousands of men. What is important is that they surround themselves with the right people (something Grant did not do).

I think we will find that Clark would be a viable candidate (depending on how he does in the debates for me) because of the political climate right now. We live in a time of fear and looming war on several fronts. People have been trained by the current administration that we need a military man (which is ironic, considering Bush and Cheney's record of cowardace) to lead us against the "terrarists".

The bottom line is that when warfare is present in the minds of voters, having experience leading troops does not hurt a candidate.

I am personally of the opinion that Clark would be a very strong and appropriate VP selection for Dean, Graham, and Gephardt, maybe Kerry. As for the other five candidates, I don't see him fitting with their personalities (lets be honest, can you picture a Kucinich/Clark ticket?).

[Seneca]

10. excellent reply

Great points - our climate is most certainly receptive to looking for someone in a time of uncertainity and national pride on the line. As long as questions about Iraq linger, Americans will listen to someone they perceive as having credibility on military matters. Thanks Comer.