The Myth of the Hero President --- Lonestartimes.com

[giester2]

taken from lonestartimes.com


The Myth of the Hero President
by hamous | 12/14/2007 11:45 am | Alert moderator

As the 2008 presidential election has heated up I have noticed an unusual phenomenon I have not noticed before – the longing for a hero president. I've seen this expressed numerous times by LST commenters. "Where is our John Wayne?", they ask. I suppose it's because of our general disappointment in our current president and, with few exceptions, the bleak choices we have to replace him. In addition, the institution known collectively as Congress is even more disappointing, if the polls are to be believed. But are we asking too much? Let's look at a few presidents from the last 100 years.

FDR is arguably looked upon as a "Hero President". He was elected during the worst economic crisis our nation had ever experienced. We recovered from that crisis during his tenure. He led the nation during a terrible war where Americans alone lost close to a half million soldiers. We can debate the effect his policies had on recovering from the depression and waging the war but we made it through both periods under his leadership. But the image of FDR was manufactured. Very few people knew he was wheelchair bound. Very few knew he was a philanderer. The press was complicit in keeping this information from the public. Was it relevant? Given what we faced as a nation, probably not. Would he have been the president he was had he been elected today? Given the tabloid nature of journalism and our insatiable appetite for scandal, probably not.

Truman, the accidental president, was by most accounts benign. Barely elected in 1948, he would have faced overwhelming defeat in 1952 had he chosen to run. Interestingly, Democrats and Hollywood have elevated him to semi-hero status in recent years.

Eisenhower, the hero General, was elected during the post war boom and benefited from history. It would have been almost impossible to screw those eight years up. But as we will see later, it can be done.

Then along came John Fitzgerald Kennedy. These days even Republicans get wistful when talking about JFK. He was the first president born in the 20th century. He was young with a beautiful young wife and family. The rest of the world adored Jack and Jackie. The success or failure of his presidency will never be known because on November 22, 1963 he was assassinated and the myth of "Camelot" was born. He became an instant hero. In hindsight this hero status is undeserved. As with FDR, the hero persona was a facade. JFK was in poor health and in constant pain, probably due to Crohn's Disease. He was also a philanderer. The close election in 1960 probably should have went to Nixon, but thanks to Joe Kennedy's mob connections and LBJ's political machine in Texas, the election was most likely stolen. The only success that can be attributed to Kennedy was standing up to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a side note, the assassination of JFK also spelled the beginning of the end of the classic liberal Democrat. Since then the Democratic Party has moved steadily left to where now they are basically socialists (if you don't believe me listen to a John Edwards speech). The only classic liberal along the lines of JFK left in politics today is Joe Lieberman.

LBJ. What can be said about this man? Regardless of his intentions he almost single-handedly created the entitlement mentality that exists in America today. Any one who would classify LBJ as a hero is seriously delusional and should probably seek professional help.

Nixon was elected as our nation was undergoing a social upheaval. The useful idiots of the anti-war movement were so successful in moving our country to the left that people like Tom Harkin and John Kerry are now considered elder statesmen of US politics instead of the treasonous miscreants that they are. Stalin would be proud. Nixon was given the impossible task of mending the nation. Unfortunately he felt he was above the law. There have been attempts to repair his legacy but he's still a crook.

Gerald Ford was another accidental president and merely a blip on the political radar.

Then along came Jimmy Carter. The nation was longing for a hero president. The Vietnam "conflict" was winding down. Watergate was behind us. We wanted a nice guy, a father figure, to come in and take the reins. He was America's Sunday School teacher. Instead we got a bumbling fool incapable of making hard decisions. Unlike Eisenhower, Carter managed to blow a perfect opportunity to lead our nation into prosperity. We ended up with 21% mortgage rates, high unemployment, high inflation, a decimated military, and as he described it, a "malaise" and a "crisis of confidence". Other than a brokered peace between Israel and Egypt his foreign policy was a disaster. Strangely enough, Democrats are so hungry for heroes they are attempting to elevate this doddering old fool to hero status now.

Ronald Reagan has probably been the closest to hero president at least in my lifetime. After the dark years of Carter his optimism was contagious. Of course he had the rising leftist doomsayers nipping at his heels for eight years. Thankfully the American people ignored them for the most part. He was a great leader and got things done. He was able to do what Jimmy Carter should have done – give Americans back confidence in ourselves and our country. But, although he was a great president, even Reagan wasn't a hero. The Iran-Contra scandal was clearly unconstitutional. In the last couple years of his presidency he was most likely suffering from Alzheimer's.

I consider George H.W. Bush an accidental president as well. The only reason he was elected was because Democrats were totally inept and nominated Michael Dukakis.

In 1992 we were in the latter stages of a recession. Jimmy Carter's malaise was slipping back into the American conscience. Bill Clinton was much like JFK in that he represented a generational shift in politics. He was the first post-World War II president. As we quickly learned, he was like JFK in other not-so-flattering ways.

By 2000 I had come to the realization there was no such thing as a hero president. I did not vote for Bush in the primary but had no qualms about voting for him in the general election. His lack of fiscal conservatism was a disappointment almost immediately. Other than his tax cuts his domestic policy has been no different than Clinton's. Given the choices in 2000 and 2004 I would still vote for him every day of the week and twice on Sunday, though. After 9/11 he probably missed a golden opportunity to pull the nation together as Reagan did but that may have been difficult for anyone to do with the near-treasonous actions of Democrats attempting to undermine his decisions at every turn.

So that brings us to where we are today. We are still searching for that hero president. We want a knight in shining armor to come riding in on his white horse and save us from ourselves. I first noticed this in Fred Thompson's flirtation with the race. The most extreme example has been the Ron Paul phenomenon. Well folks, he isn't coming. That hero does not exist. What's more, he never has. The best we can hope for is a man or woman of principles that has the courage to stand up for what is right for America. We are never going to find a perfect candidate. We are never going to find a hero. Heroes are the stuff of legends.

Note: These are the ramblings of Hamous.
There are purposely no links because these are my opinions and mine alone. As the saying goes, YMMV.
Digg! | Permalink | 56 comments | Email This


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to take a look at the comments go to

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/14/the-myth-of-the-hero-president/#comments

[Teresa]

sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yep... hero's are probably not going to come in the form of a president. But we can only hope that the one that gets in there will have AMERICA (USA) on the top of his list.

Thanks for posting that. It was a good read.