News
Character and the American Presidency
by Aliyya Haque
News Staff Writer

American presidents have often faced political, economic, social and even cultural moments of crises during their terms in office. However, it is the way in which they have dealt with these crises that separates the truly great presidents from the rest. On October 28th, 2003 in front of a packed house in Kresge Auditorium, historians David Kennedy and Michael Beschloss joined moderator Michael Krasny, KQED radio personality and "Forum" host, to discuss the effect certain crises had on several presidents. They concentrated specifically on how a president's character dictated his actions during these specific crises, which in turn clearly defined his presidency.

Both David Kennedy and Michael Beschloss have extensive background experience concerning the American presidency. Professor Kennedy is the Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History here at Stanford and won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 2000. Mr. Beschloss is an award winning historian and expert on the American presidency.

Both Professor Kennedy and Mr. Beschloss emphasized the fact that a president's character was one of the most important elements that influenced his actions during a moment of crisis. On presidential character, Professor Kennedy explained, "the most important ingredient in a president's character is clarity." He divided this clarity into three parts: clarity of conviction representing a president's beliefs and who he really is, clarity of vision describing the historical situation and background of the president, and clarity of communication or a president's relationship with his electorate.

However, to the public it is often only in looking back on the past that a president's character and the motive for his actions are truly revealed, sometimes twenty to thirty years after the fact. Mr. Beschloss stated, "Often with current presidencies, we lack a lot of information that would clue us in to the reasons behind a certain president's actions. We only hear what's said in public speeches." He continued, "It's only in hindsight, when diaries and other private papers are released many years later, that we can fully understand the character of a president."

At times, presidents would hide their actions from the public for fear of negative reaction and intense criticism. Mr. Beschloss cites the example of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt to illustrate this point. In a time of American isolationism and neutrality, Roosevelt had to face the danger of both Hitler and the Japanese, thus going against popular opinion, he followed his convictions and secretly conducted negotiations with the allies. "In retrospect, historians will cut FDR some slack, even if he lied to the American people and perhaps broke the law, because his actions were for a good cause and for the benefit of the country," says Mr. Beschloss.

Often, presidents are faced with crises that could harm their popularity ratings and possibly jeopardize their chances of re-election. However, Mr. Beschloss remarked, "most people would want a president who believes that the issues themselves are more important than popularity or re-election." He also stated, "If FDR had any desire for re-election, he would have done the popular thing and stayed isolationist, but if you had asked FDR what his decision was, he would have said that the defense of the country was more important than his re-election." Both historians also mentioned the example of former President John F. Kennedy and the civil rights bill he supported soon before his death, which led to a drop in his approval ratings particularly in the Southern states, and the danger of losing the next election. "There is no doubt he [Kennedy] did the right thing," Mr. Beschloss commented. However, not all presidents have acted in this morally strong manner. In fact, a few actually lacked much clarity in their character, including former President Richard Nixon. Concerning Nixon's presidency, Professor Kennedy stated, "Nixon failed all three categories of clarity, especially in communication because he was lousy in convincing the American public about his policies." This weakness in character was readily apparent in the election of 1968, in which the Vietnam War was the most pressing issue. "Nixon was elected under false pretenses," Mr. Beschloss remarked, "He allowed people to think he was dovish and would immediately get the US out of the war. Because of this, demonstrations against war that occurred after his election were especially bitter."

Both historians also commented on the difficulty of obtaining presidential data that would shed light on current presidents' characters for a variety of reasons. Although now a vast amount of presidential information is available, finding reliable and pertinent data, in particular concerning controversial presidential actions, is a formidable undertaking. "Even though the bulk of information is greater, the quality is lessened," said Prof. Kennedy. Kennedy and Beschloss also both lamented on the lack of personal data as "presidents now write less and try to keep as little of a paper trial as possible for the information could alternatively be leaked to a newspaper or subpoenaed in court." Remarked Mr. Beschloss, "We may now have to write history from press releases."

Professor Kennedy and Mr. Beschloss concluded their discussion with a projection on the actions and characters of both presidents in the recent Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Although both historians stressed the need for hindsight when discussing these matters, of Clinton they noted, "His presidency can be considered a great squandering. Although he was a great politician and had clear communication skills, Clinton never had the opportunity to fully realize his vision."

On George W. Bush, both historians noticed that rudiments of a narrative are emerging about the Bush presidency, and they predicted that 9/11 would be considered the turning point of his presidency. Whether the risks Bush has taken are justifiable and will pay off in the end will not be be decided until the end of the War on terrorism, thus again the focus on hindsight. "Bush might bring peace and democracy to the Middle East and might stop other dictators, such as in North Korea, but we will see in twenty-thirty years whether this occurs or not," said Professor Kennedy.

Remarked Mr. Beschloss, "Some comfort can be taken when we view great events to see which presidents measure up or not. It's where we see what democracy is really all about."

Page last modified on Thursday, 02-Mar-2006 00:26:28 MST.