Presidential Peaks and Valleys - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Presidential Peaks and Valleys

 
Presidential Peaks and Valleys

I was watching an interview of former President Bill Clinton the other night and throughout the clip I was astounded by just how much I'd forgotten about his presidency. Both on a political level and a person-behind-the-title level. I remember watching a documentary on PBS (?) about Black Hawk Down and how it had a butterfly-effect on the rest of his time in office. It was quite interesting.

Anyways. Here's what I'm suggesting. In this current political turbulent time -no matter what side you're on in the American landscape, it all seems turned up to level 11 no matter the debate- I thought it might be interesting to do some retrospective thinking.

Going back maybe 30 years (if someone would like to chime in from later than that, I'd be happy to hear it), let's find the Peak and the Valley of each presidency. I'm also not opposed to branch this out to other countries, if people are so inclined.

Purpose of this: If someone like myself wants to go back and dig into a President's term, I'd like to be able to start on major feathers in the caps, or major blunders. I considered just doing the Peaks, but that oftentimes turns into a blowhard thread. I also think that there's going to be times when the two are intertwined, so context is important. Feel free to break it down by term as well, if someone served multiple times.

What I don't want to happen: Witch Hunts. In our world of hyperbole, it seems that one or two things define a presidency. However, there's nuance and context that typically gets left out. I think when a Peak or Valley is offered, please offer context if possible.

What I'd like to see happen: I wonder if the critical thinking would prompt some people to look at a President (or Prime Minister, etc) in a different light. If you strongly opposed them while they were in office, maybe there's a redeeming quality that can help you look at that leader differently now.

I'll post a post at the top of this thread with ones as we come up with them, that way if someone would like to debate for/against one, they know where it's at.

I'm hoping this is an interesting practice but I understand that it might be too strange for it to be a multi-posted thread.

I'm (very slowly) reading The Invisible Bridge right now. Actually, I pick it up and read a few pages then put it down for two weeks.

Anyway, it's a history of the fall of Nixon and the rise of Reagan. One thing it brings up is Reagan's "loose" relationship with facts and his perception as not very smart. He would regularly claim things that were false, or questionable at best. As President, he would embarrass himself at press conferences somewhat regularly. One of the reasons he wasn't blamed directly for Iran Contra is that people bought that he was so dense and dumb that he could have missed it altogether.

During his campaign to be governor of California, he started verbally attacking leftists at Berkeley for resorting to violence, saying he would like to smack them if he could, etc..... Many of his campaign aides tried to get him to stop, because they were worried that a man who was seen as an intellectual lightweight shouldn't be attacking higher education. He was seen as an outsider, in part because of perceptions about his intelligence, but this part of his campaign seemed to resonate with people. The book suggests that attacking is what brought him up in the polls and got him his victory.

For myself, I wonder if he is the spark for the modern anti-intellectualism among our presidents, especially on the right. Bush 1 was perceived as an intellectual man, but both Republican presidents since then (Bush 2 and Trump) are not known for their intelligence or wit, and I think maybe we can lay the blame (or credit) at Reagan's feet for setting precedent.

So you're suggesting (or perhaps the book is) that Reagan's weakness defined his campaign in the positive? Using my own experience, I remember that Clinton was considered 'hip' by most standards and thus used that to his advantage. Reagan's intelligence and Clinton's coolness weren't really traits that a polical party could quantify, but it seems they both ended up being a factor.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 06:19:57pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status