Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, May 04, 2008
David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jimmy, Bill, and Herb
by David R. Stokes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Long after nightfall on January 20, 1969, Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson arrived at their 330-acre Texas ranch.  LBJ had been an ex-President for just a few hours.  Throughout the day well-wishers had gathered – first at Andrews Air Force Base, then at Bergstrom Air Force Base in Texas.  They showed up to say thank you to the man who had ascended to the presidency in those chaotic Dallas moments more than five years before - and who less than a year before had pulled himself out of the race for a final term in the White House.

One of the first tell-tale signs that life was going to be comparatively perk-free was when they came upon their massive collection of luggage that had been left in the carport that evening, with no one around to carry the bags.  Mr. and Mrs. Johnson laughed and she remarked: “The coach has turned back into the pumpkin and all the mice have run away.”

I imagine that President George W. Bush has been thinking a lot about Crawford, Texas and his post-presidency period these days.  With polls indicating that he is increasingly unpopular, he will step down just after noon next January 20th

The U.S. Senate is sometimes referred to as the country’s most exclusive club.  But actually, that distinction better describes a group of three - soon to be expanded to four: The fraternity of former Presidents.  Reentering the atmosphere of earthly reality minus the privileges and powers inherent in our nation’s highest office has not always been an easy adjustment. 

We currently have three former presidents roaming the land.  There is the first President Bush, who has clearly managed to conduct himself with the kind of self-effacing dignity that characterized his personal style during his Oval Office tenure.   Except for the occasional jump out of an airplane to mark a birthday, he doesn’t make the news much, and it’s probably because he prefers it that way.  Will his famous son approach his exile similarly?

Then there are Jimmy and Bill – two men who seem to be determined to magnify the weaknesses of their previous service in ways that make the news on a near-daily basis. 

For a long time after Mr. Carter headed back to Plains, Georgia, after a single frustration-laden term, I often thought that he was a better ex-President than he was a President.  He was building homes for the poor, teaching his Bible class, and using his influence for the general betterment of mankind.  But frankly, I liked Habitat for Humanity Jimmy much better than the Hurray for Hamas cheerleader who has lately been conducting his own misguided and counterproductive shuttle diplomacy without portfolio. 

Bill Clinton, who had spent so much time since leaving office rebuilding his reputation in light of the scandal that clouded his final years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, seems determined to throw it all away in the pitch and toss of some of the fiercest politics of this current campaign season.  He was doing so well on his road toward a truly post-partisan elder-statesman-like retirement, but the lure of the limelight and sound byte has set him back – maybe permanently.  It was said of Theodore Roosevelt that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding he attended and the occupant of the casket at every funeral.  Mr. Clinton seems to want to be the candidate in every election.

But, in fairness, being a FORMER President must be an awkward thing. Woodrow Wilson left office a broken man – physically and emotionally - the cheering having stopped long before his White House exit. Lyndon Johnson went back to Texas and spent his final years working at his ranch and on his memoirs.    

Some former Presidents found their second wind after leaving office.  Richard Nixon made a new career for himself as a writer and thinker – and did much to rehabilitate his image and reputation after his resignation.  His funeral in 1994 (attended by all four members of the fraternity at the time) was in many ways a healing event providing a measure of needed closure. His successor Gerald Ford, by all accounts enjoyed the high esteem of his countrymen – as did Ronald Reagan, even as he entered and endured the long and sad good bye of Alzheimers Disease.  Harry Truman conducted himself well as a former president – though, sadly, he didn’t live long enough to see his complete recovery from the distinction of leaving office with the lowest ever recorded approval rating. 

But I think the gold standard for ex-presidential life and service, one that two of the three current members of that elite club will likely never have a shot at, was set by a man who for most seems to embody the very idea of an ineffective presidency. 

I am talking about Mr. 31 - Herbert Clark Hoover.

In a real sense, the presidency was the worst thing that ever happened to him.  He had been so successful prior to that, and was known for his unmatched resume and clear sense of duty and compassion.  The man pretty much saw to it that Europe didn’t starve after The Great War ended in 1918. 

His election in 1928 was the one of the most inevitable political events of those times.  It was a no-brainer.  The Great Engineer had an unsurpassed resume.  He was probably the most qualified man ever to hold the office.  But we all know the rest of the story.  The economic catastrophe of the age happened on his watch and he seemed to be unable to deal with it and watched his reputation as a great man unravel.

It’s interesting to note, as American’s try to figure out what a Recession is, and whether we’re actually in one or not – that Hoover wrestled with what to call his crisis.  Up to that time, massive financial reverses had been referred to as PANICS.  But Hoover didn’t want to scare folks, so he made sure the obviously more benign term – DEPRESSION – was used.  Of course, he didn’t foresee the adding of the enduring modifier GREAT to it.

Mr. Hoover was swept out of office by a promise of change including the “yes we can” of the day: “Happy Days are Here Again!”  Of course, the truth is that Franklin Roosevelt didn’t really change that much, adopting and continuing many of Hoover’s policies and approaches.  But his frenetic first hundred days and his savvy use of the media of the times made sure that people “felt” like things were changing.  FDR was, in many ways, the father of the post-modern politics of meaning.

Hoover lived for more than thirty-one years as a former President.  He wrote sixteen books (including one entitled: “Fishing for Fun – And How to Wash Your Soul”), and eventually was able to serve his country again with great distinction.  I say eventually because he was banned from the White House during FDR’s lengthy administration.  In fact, the relationship between President’s 31 and 32 was probably the worst ever between two former chief executives.  For all of FDR’s purported charm, he also had a capacity for brutal pettiness.

In the early days of Harry Truman’s presidency, he invited Hoover back to the White House – something both men felt was long overdue.  And as Europe struggled to recover from the ravages of World War Two, Mr. Hoover was dispatched by the President to tour Germany – using Herman Göering’s old train car - to investigate the food supply there. Hoover told Truman that the situation was dire, and this was the catalyst for an extensive program that provided food for millions of school children. 

The 40 tons of food were described by the beneficiaries at the time as Hooverspeisung – Hoover Meals.

Soon another assignment came from Truman – asking Hoover to serve on a commission to reorganize the executive departments of the federal government.  He was elected chairman – and it came to be known as the Hoover Commission.  When Dwight D. Eisenhower became President in 1953, he asked his most recent Republican predecessor to serve as chairman of another such commission. 

And by the time he died at the age of ninety in October of 1964, having lived out his final years in an apartment at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City, he had proven himself to be a dedicated and constructive former President of the United States.

It seems to me that former Presidents have two good options if they want to preserve or enhance their legacies.  They can go to the ranch like Lyndon.  Or they can wait to be called on to serve, like Herbert. 

When former Presidents take too much initiative to seize the moment, they are forgetting that they already had their turn.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David R. Stokes is a minister, writer, and broadcaster. His weekly talks at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia and host of Loud on Purpose, heard Monday to Friday in Washington, D.C. on WAVA 105.1 fm.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Plural trouble
Great article. I can only nitpick the punctuation. Why are so many people these days having trouble making ordinary words plural with an s? Why put an apostrophe before the s when it doesn't belong there? The author means Americans and Presidents but writes American's and President's. Dave Barry had a name for this peculiar tendency, but I can't remember what it was. He said an apostrophe used this way means, "Look out everybody, here comes an S!" And let's don't even get into the it's problem, which is like his, hers, and its being turned into hi's, her's, and it's. It's turning punctuation on its head. Sorry, fellow reader's. Just venting some petty frustration's about the tendencie's of modern writer's to screw up the mechanic's of their writing's.

Plural trouble - from DRS
Jaybird: You, sir, are absolutely right. I was in a rush to get it done. A few staff members proofed the piece for me, but we were in a rush...my bad. Thanks for pointing that out - I actually appreciate that kind of thing. Go figure. - DRS

An objective look
...would acknowledge that Jimmy Carter will be compared with Hoover for the very admiral redemptions of their respective legacies. Both were one-termers who suffered from enormous earth shaking events that were beyond their powers to "fix". For Hoover--you described that pretty well. For Carter--the international oil crisis with ensuing economic damage, and Iranian revolution; any president may have looked beatable dealing with all that.

Much as you seem to disagree with his politics, Carter's record with respect to international election monitoring and peacemaking efforts culiminating in the Nobel Peace Prize has ensured his Hoover-like rep is earned.

Also missed but worthy of note is the exploitation of the office for personal gain carried out by Ford, Reagan and Clinton, who made millions for speeches and appearances. Admiration of their politics shouldn't excuse such shameless crass behavior.

Otherwise, thanks for the effort.


Hoover *deserved* his ignominy
--
Contrary to Mr. Stokes' assertion that Hoover's reputation suffered merely because "The economic catastrophe of the age happened on his watch and he seemed to be unable to deal with it...."


Hell, Hoover had substantial responsibility for having caused that depression in the first place.

Though the Federal Reserve Corporation idiotically created a liquidity crisis by fiat-ing their way to a monetary contraction, Hoover policies struck the real deathblow to the American economy.

First, Hoover's administration was responsible for major tax hikes, including having jerked the top income tax rate from 25% (where Andrew Mellon had set it in 1921 to successfully address an earlier "panic") to 63%, pulling even more liquidity out of the productive [read "private"] sector.

Second - and most horribly - Hoover initiated and strongly supported the infamous Smoot-Hawley trade
act, which raised import tariffs to an average of 59% on more than 25,000 products. More than sixty countries retaliated by slapping new restrictions on imports of U.S. products.

As new trade restrictions were imposed around the world, trade plummeted. By 1933, world trade was down to just one-third of the 1929 level.

And that was Hoover's fault, not the responsibility of that pustulent paralytic FDR (who, despite having promised *LESS* government meddling in the economy during his 1932 campaign, ramped up the dirigisme by at least a whole order of magnitude, effectively turning Hoover's depression into a decade-long chain of economic disasters we now call the Great Depression).


The lesson to be learned from Herbert Hoover's catastrophically horrible single presidential administration is that the *LAST* thing you need in the Oval Office is a "King Stork" clown with a nickname like "The Great Engineer."

Hands off, you megalomaniac presidential putzes.

Laissez-faire, and to hell with you.

--

my 2 cents
In the fall of 1928 President-elect Hoover went on a friendship trip to Cental and South America aboard the U.S.S. Maryland and my dad who was a reporter for th new York Sun at the time went along. I have a picture of my dad standing next to Mr. Hoover and the caption is "Happy New Year From Mr. McManus and Friend."

It is one of my prize pictures.

Roosevelt vs Hoover
Roosevelt didn't just adopt Hoover's bad policies (increasing taxes, restricting foreign trade, regulating business), he put them on steroids. The Depression happened on Hoover's watch, but it was Roosevelt who kept a bad situation going that should have been cleared up in, tops, a year and a half for nigh on to nine years. Heck, Roosevelt's bad policies even made a depression within the Depression in 1936.

I mention this because those very policies compose the cornerstones of our Democrat[ic] candidates' campaigns today.

cholly - Yeah, but it was Hoover...
--
...who enabled FDR to tattoo "Null & Void" all over the GOP for the next sixteen years, and who gave us Eisenhower's "Dime Store New Deal" administrations so justly despised by American conservatives like Barry Goldwater.

Hoover's Republican predecessors slammed into a Democrat-fueled recession in 1921 (when real national output fell 9% in a single year and unemployment rose to 11.7%) and handled it by getting to hellangone out of the way and letting the market fix itself.

Which it managed expeditiously. The economic output recovered completely by the end of 1922, and unemployment rates fell to 6.7% in that year and dropped to 2.4% in 1923.

Laissez-faire.

It was Hoover's interventionist clusterpuck that empowered FDR, and it was against the image of Hoover's fumbling stupidity that Roosevelt was able to run for re-election in 1936.

Hoover tainted the Republican Party, both externally (in the perception of the American electorate) and internally, by aligning the GOP with the principles of interventive "big government."

From which today we're experiencing the economic breakdown we can lay - without equivocation - at the feet of the Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican presidency.

"Big government" Republicans are every bit as damaging to the economy as "Liberal" Democrats, and until American conservatives intervene to cut out the cancer of Hoover's legacy, the GOP is doomed.

As it deserves, damnit.

If the Republican Party can't return to the limited-government principles articulated by Goldwater, it will simply become completely irrelevant in American politics.

A "bipartisan" coterie of Democrat-lite collaborationists in the great conspiracy to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

--

royinoslo
I am sure that the peanut man enhanced his reputation certifying the results of mugabe's corrup[t election. The peanut man's affinity for every tinpot dictator around the globe certainly makes him a giant amongst diplomats.

He has also endorsed arafat, castro, kim jong mentally ill and chavez as enlightened leaders of their people.

His nobel prize was given only as a means for the nobel committee to poke a finger in pres, bush's eye over their disapproval of the iraq war.

Hailing old jimmah as some type of preferred role model has always been the left's attempt to cover up his failed presidentcy and his even more disasterous post presidentcy.

His recent attempts to meet with the terrorists in the m/e only points out his long record of failing to find peace but mearly facilitating dictators and killers around the world while always painting america as the worlds greatest problem

Herbert Hoover
Mr. Stokes,

This commentary hit the nail right on the head. President Herbert Hoover, who, as you point out, had an impressive resume prior to moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, suffered the misfortune of being the right man at the wrong time. He served well as a former president and there are lessons that have not been learned by Democratic successors Carter and Clinton. GHW Bush learned the lessons and he, more than the others, could have gotten more involved than necessary simply due to the fact that the current Commander in Chief is his own son. Almost like young children, former presidents should be seen (at state funerals), but not heard (except at the behest of the current leader).

Sanford Horn
Alexandria, VA

wildwest
The liberals love Jimmah because he is doing their bidding.He was laughed at when he was president and was thought of as just a hick from Georgia.As long as he defies the Bush Administration,they will love him.

The left agrees with having lovefests with the enemy.This 'why can't we just get along'?mentality is just what Carter believes.Our enemies only respect and fear strength.

He is a pitiful old man,past his prime.He believes if he could just settle one conflict,he would have a respectable legacy,instead of that of a failed presidency.

Obsessed
is what I believe is wrong with Jimmy. He's so focused on redeeming his so called legacy
he doesn't care if it harms the United States. I think he's also got a burr under his saddle because the great American unwashed (Obamas bible totin', church goin', pistol packin' clingers) rejected him. He hasn't been able to deal with that for over 20 years. We thought he was a fool, now there's no doubt.

Jimmy Carter's Mother...
always said that Jimmy's brother was the smartest of the two men.

Looking at Jimmy Carter's record during the last 10 or 20 years, I KNOW she was correct.

Gray Ghost
You are correct.Billy had 'street smarts',which is common sense.You cannot accuse Jimmah of that.

Yank Peanut's passport
The Secretary of State should yank Jimmy Carter's passport and send him back to building Habitat homes and teaching Sunday School.

Royinoslo
You give way to much credit (or perhaps better said, don't give enough blame) to Carter. Although he may have been given some lemons, he never learned how to make lemonade.

First, the oil embargo--Jimmy did everything he could to screw the pooch on that one with the gas rationing and windfall profit taxes to name just a few. And the Iranian crisis was his problem from the get-go. He's the one who turned his back on the Shah and let it fall into the hands of the fanatics (starting us down the road we are still on with the Islamists and with Iran on the verge of having a nuclear bomb).

When the Iranian "Students" took our embassy, which is the sovereign territory of the US and is tantamont to attacking the US, he did nothing. His one attempt was the very lame rescue fiasco.

Finally, Carter gave away the Panama Canal which can now be used to choke off our trade and our warships traveling between oceans. But let's not dwell on his failure too much!

Rowly writes about Jimmuh
"He is a pitiful old man,past his prime".

Well, in 1976, he was pitiful (the US soon found this out) and middle-age; in 1980, just add four years to 1976.

As far as his prime--when did he actually hit that?

TO ANYONE STILL READING THIS THREAD

May I suggesttwo excellent books?

The first is: *FDR'S FOLLY: HOW ROOSEVELT AND HIS NEW DEAL PROLONGED THE GREAT DEPRESSION* by Jim Powell and the second is: *THE REAL JIMMY CARTER* by Steven F. Hayward. Both of them are well written and well researched.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.