Full Version: Does the Twain Ever Meet?
I really don’t know where to post this. The Bush part is headline news, the Truman part is history. Maybe the twain does meet afterall.
By some strange coincidence, President Bush made a graduation speech at West Point in which he compared himself to Harry S. Truman just as I was getting into David McCullough’s book Truman.
I assume that material from www.whitehouse.gov is public domain, so I’ve quote all of Bush’s words concerning Truman without editing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060527-1.html
Questions for debate:
When Ronald Reagan passed away during the 2004 election, President Bush seemed to try to appropriating the legacy of Reagan. He was rebuffed by members of the Reagan family, particularly Ron Reagan.
1. Is Bush attempting to procure Truman’s legacy?
2. What similarities do you find that Bush and Truman share both in circumstance and character?
3. What differences (contrasts) do you find between the two men?
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?
As an aside, Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman Daniels, is very much alive. I would loved to have been a fly on the wall when she heard this.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/margaret.htm
By some strange coincidence, President Bush made a graduation speech at West Point in which he compared himself to Harry S. Truman just as I was getting into David McCullough’s book Truman.
I assume that material from www.whitehouse.gov is public domain, so I’ve quote all of Bush’s words concerning Truman without editing.
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War.
President Truman set a clear doctrine. In a speech to Congress, he called for military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and announced a new doctrine that would guide American policy throughout the Cold War. He told the Congress: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." With this new doctrine, and with the aid to back it up, Greece and Turkey were saved from communism, and the Soviet expansion into Southern Europe and the Middle East was stopped.
President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When Stalin tested America's resolve with a blockade of Berlin, President Truman launched the Berlin Airlift, delivering supplies to the besieged city, forcing the Red Army to back down, and securing the freedom of West Berlin. Later, Truman again responded to communist aggression with resolve, fighting a difficult war in Korea. The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.
President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. In Asia, his administration led the effort to help Japan change from a nation that had launched a surprise attack on America into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he launched the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented effort to help Germany and other nations in Europe recover from war and establish strong democracies. The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.
President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. After World War II, he led the effort to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime alliance in American history. NATO served as a military bulwark against communist aggression, and helped give us a Europe that is now whole, free, and at peace.
President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, he kept American forces in Germany to deter Soviet aggression, and kept U.S. forces in Japan as a counterweight to communist China. Together with the deployment of U.S. forces to Korea, the military footprint Truman established on two continents has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and has served as the foundation for security in Europe and in the Pacific.
President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. Working with Congress, he created the Department of Defense, established the Air Force as a separate military service, formed the National Security Council at the White House, and founded the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure America had the best intelligence on Soviet threats.
President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. At a time when some still wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, he brought Winston Churchill to Missouri, to deliver his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. And he issued a presidential directive called NSC-68, which declared that America faced an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world. This directive called on the United States to accept the responsibility of world leadership, and defend the cause of freedom and democracy -- and that's exactly what the United States did.
By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the Cold War. As President Truman put it towards the end of his presidency, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." His leadership paved the way for subsequent Presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat. (Applause.)
Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before -- and like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations for victory. (Applause.) The enemies we face today are different in many ways from the enemy we faced in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we deterred Soviet aggression through a policy of mutually assured destruction. Unlike the Soviet Union, the terrorist enemies we face today hide in caves and shadows -- and emerge to attack free nations from within. The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend. They cannot be deterred -- but they will be defeated. (Applause.) America will fight the terrorists on every battlefront, and we will not rest until this threat to our country has been removed. (Applause.)
President Truman set a clear doctrine. In a speech to Congress, he called for military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and announced a new doctrine that would guide American policy throughout the Cold War. He told the Congress: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." With this new doctrine, and with the aid to back it up, Greece and Turkey were saved from communism, and the Soviet expansion into Southern Europe and the Middle East was stopped.
President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When Stalin tested America's resolve with a blockade of Berlin, President Truman launched the Berlin Airlift, delivering supplies to the besieged city, forcing the Red Army to back down, and securing the freedom of West Berlin. Later, Truman again responded to communist aggression with resolve, fighting a difficult war in Korea. The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.
President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. In Asia, his administration led the effort to help Japan change from a nation that had launched a surprise attack on America into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he launched the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented effort to help Germany and other nations in Europe recover from war and establish strong democracies. The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.
President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. After World War II, he led the effort to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime alliance in American history. NATO served as a military bulwark against communist aggression, and helped give us a Europe that is now whole, free, and at peace.
President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, he kept American forces in Germany to deter Soviet aggression, and kept U.S. forces in Japan as a counterweight to communist China. Together with the deployment of U.S. forces to Korea, the military footprint Truman established on two continents has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and has served as the foundation for security in Europe and in the Pacific.
President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. Working with Congress, he created the Department of Defense, established the Air Force as a separate military service, formed the National Security Council at the White House, and founded the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure America had the best intelligence on Soviet threats.
President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. At a time when some still wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, he brought Winston Churchill to Missouri, to deliver his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. And he issued a presidential directive called NSC-68, which declared that America faced an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world. This directive called on the United States to accept the responsibility of world leadership, and defend the cause of freedom and democracy -- and that's exactly what the United States did.
By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the Cold War. As President Truman put it towards the end of his presidency, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." His leadership paved the way for subsequent Presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat. (Applause.)
Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before -- and like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations for victory. (Applause.) The enemies we face today are different in many ways from the enemy we faced in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we deterred Soviet aggression through a policy of mutually assured destruction. Unlike the Soviet Union, the terrorist enemies we face today hide in caves and shadows -- and emerge to attack free nations from within. The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend. They cannot be deterred -- but they will be defeated. (Applause.) America will fight the terrorists on every battlefront, and we will not rest until this threat to our country has been removed. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060527-1.html
Questions for debate:
When Ronald Reagan passed away during the 2004 election, President Bush seemed to try to appropriating the legacy of Reagan. He was rebuffed by members of the Reagan family, particularly Ron Reagan.
1. Is Bush attempting to procure Truman’s legacy?
2. What similarities do you find that Bush and Truman share both in circumstance and character?
3. What differences (contrasts) do you find between the two men?
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?
As an aside, Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman Daniels, is very much alive. I would loved to have been a fly on the wall when she heard this.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/margaret.htm
1. Perhaps to some extent, but it seems to me that the main purpose of this speech is to make an analogy between the Cold War and the War on Terror. This seems obvious in many ways throughout this speech, but this phrase really struck me:
There are several places in this speech where it seems as if a comparison is being made between Truman's Cold War policies and the War in Iraq.
(An admission of the cost in human lives of the War in Iraq, and a prediction that all will be for the best.)
(An admission of the cost in dollars of the War on Terror, and a prediction that it will be worth it.)
It's worth noting that this speech deals only with Truman's foreign policy.
2 and 3. Their circumstances are vastly different. Truman was thrust unexpectedly into the White House by the death of FDR, after having been selected as Vice President only as a result of internal politics within the Democratic Party.
Link
Bush has been groomed for the Presidency.
Another important difference in circumstances is that Truman faced a Congress dominated by the opposing party, while Bush has both the House and the Senate under GOP control.
As far as character goes, that's more subjective. They both seem to have been firm/stubborn (pick one) but that's almost mandatory for the Chief Executive. Truman seems to have been more down-to-earth, more salty in character. Although Bush is not as obviously patrician in character as his father, his "I'm just a Texas cowboy" routine has never been entirely convincing to me.
Not much was expected of Harry S Truman*. He has since generally been ranked by scholars as one of the "top ten" Presidents.
Link
It is too early to discuss a ranking for the current President, but he seems unlikely to reach this level of respect by future historians.
4. I don't think this speech will have much effect one way or the other.
*I prefer to list Truman's middle initial, which does not stand for anything, without a period. In this respect, I find myself nearly alone.
QUOTE
. . .an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world.
There are several places in this speech where it seems as if a comparison is being made between Truman's Cold War policies and the War in Iraq.
QUOTE
The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.
(An admission of the cost in human lives of the War in Iraq, and a prediction that all will be for the best.)
QUOTE
The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.
(An admission of the cost in dollars of the War on Terror, and a prediction that it will be worth it.)
It's worth noting that this speech deals only with Truman's foreign policy.
2 and 3. Their circumstances are vastly different. Truman was thrust unexpectedly into the White House by the death of FDR, after having been selected as Vice President only as a result of internal politics within the Democratic Party.
Link
QUOTE
In 1944, Hannegan was Democratic National Chairman. Roosevelt wanted to replace Henry Wallace as Vice President because he was considered too liberal. James F. Byrnes of South Carolina was initially favored, but as a segregationist he was considered too conservative. Hannegan offered Truman in what was dubbed the "Missouri Compromise" at the 1944 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Bush has been groomed for the Presidency.
Another important difference in circumstances is that Truman faced a Congress dominated by the opposing party, while Bush has both the House and the Senate under GOP control.
As far as character goes, that's more subjective. They both seem to have been firm/stubborn (pick one) but that's almost mandatory for the Chief Executive. Truman seems to have been more down-to-earth, more salty in character. Although Bush is not as obviously patrician in character as his father, his "I'm just a Texas cowboy" routine has never been entirely convincing to me.
Not much was expected of Harry S Truman*. He has since generally been ranked by scholars as one of the "top ten" Presidents.
Link
QUOTE
These standings vary, though three Presidents—in chronological order, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt—always are ranked at the top of the known lists. Normally ranking just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. The remaining "top 10" ranks are often rounded out by Andrew Jackson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and James K. Polk. In recent polls, James Madison, James Monroe and Ronald Reagan have sometimes been ranked in the top 10.
It is too early to discuss a ranking for the current President, but he seems unlikely to reach this level of respect by future historians.
4. I don't think this speech will have much effect one way or the other.
*I prefer to list Truman's middle initial, which does not stand for anything, without a period. In this respect, I find myself nearly alone.
QUOTE
He once joked that the S was a name, not an initial, and it should not have a period, but official documents and his presidential library all use a period. Furthermore, the Harry S. Truman Library has numerous examples of the signature written at various times throughout Truman's lifetime where his own use of a period after the "S" is very obvious.
Questions for debate:
1. Is Bush attempting to procure Truman’s legacy?
This whole speech is of course 100% propaganda. It is meant to counter some of the negative views and feelings a large part of the American population has in regard of their current president. To me it seems a weak attempt of Bush to restore his credibility and competance. "Maybe you disagree with me now, but in the end you will all agree I was a visionary." This seems to be his main point .... he went from a war president, towards a misunderstood leader. FUnny thing, the same occurred in Holland, where our unpopular government was trying the same thing: "We have great plans, but we have problems explaining them to the people!"
Questions 2 and 3 are not really relevant, in my opinion that is. Comparisons between a current president and a past president are always crooked. Different times, different mentality, different circumstances.
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?[/b]
I hope not, I hope everybody will see what it is : propaganda. The only real comparison between Bush and Truman is that both were presidents. After that all comparisons are fabricated and crooked.
1. Is Bush attempting to procure Truman’s legacy?
This whole speech is of course 100% propaganda. It is meant to counter some of the negative views and feelings a large part of the American population has in regard of their current president. To me it seems a weak attempt of Bush to restore his credibility and competance. "Maybe you disagree with me now, but in the end you will all agree I was a visionary." This seems to be his main point .... he went from a war president, towards a misunderstood leader. FUnny thing, the same occurred in Holland, where our unpopular government was trying the same thing: "We have great plans, but we have problems explaining them to the people!"
Questions 2 and 3 are not really relevant, in my opinion that is. Comparisons between a current president and a past president are always crooked. Different times, different mentality, different circumstances.
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?[/b]
I hope not, I hope everybody will see what it is : propaganda. The only real comparison between Bush and Truman is that both were presidents. After that all comparisons are fabricated and crooked.
I'm not going to try to answer the questions point by point but only generally in my discussion.
Historically, I have some disagreements with Truman's actions (using the atomic bomb, failing to make clear that South Korea would be defended, and going to war without a congressional declaration of war), but he was straight forward and honest about what he did and for the most part competent. You always knew he was in charge. He also worked effectively with a Republican Congress to establish a bi-partisan foreign policy for a difficult period. His war was also truly mutilateral and declared by the UN.
Bush, on the other hand, has been deceitful about the reasons for invading Iraq. The invasion was basically a unilateral act and violation of the UN Charter. Bush also has botched the struggle with terrorists and increased their number and appeal. He has also botched the occupation of Iraq time after time. He has ignored the Congress in his foreign policy even though it is totally controlled by his party. One is always uncertain about who is in charge. (It often seems that the Vice President is). To cap it off, he has ballooned the deficit leaving a rotten legacy for future generations and governments. In short, he has been incompetent!
Historically, I have some disagreements with Truman's actions (using the atomic bomb, failing to make clear that South Korea would be defended, and going to war without a congressional declaration of war), but he was straight forward and honest about what he did and for the most part competent. You always knew he was in charge. He also worked effectively with a Republican Congress to establish a bi-partisan foreign policy for a difficult period. His war was also truly mutilateral and declared by the UN.
Bush, on the other hand, has been deceitful about the reasons for invading Iraq. The invasion was basically a unilateral act and violation of the UN Charter. Bush also has botched the struggle with terrorists and increased their number and appeal. He has also botched the occupation of Iraq time after time. He has ignored the Congress in his foreign policy even though it is totally controlled by his party. One is always uncertain about who is in charge. (It often seems that the Vice President is). To cap it off, he has ballooned the deficit leaving a rotten legacy for future generations and governments. In short, he has been incompetent!
1. Is Bush attempting to procure Truman’s legacy?
I'm not sure. To be honest I would bet if confronted he wouldn't know what Truman's legacy is. I've read the neo-con handbook and I see a big difference between that and fighting aggressive communist states.
2. What similarities do you find that Bush and Truman share both in circumstance and character?
Other than they both have had horrible poll numbers? Not much really. In fact, Truman had on his desk "The Buck Stops Here" and this administration is the farthest from being accountable for ANYTHING that has happened under their watch.
3. What differences (contrasts) do you find between the two men?
One tried to prevent non-provoked invasions by large aggressor states, the other initiated them.
One was a self-made man, the other rode the coat tails of his father.
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?
I doubt it. Not only aren't people that gullible, most people aren't that deep of thinkers. You can't mess everything up then come back with "I'm like Truman".
Bush and his crew are big on appearances. It's important when you lack a lot of substance or are trying to hide what you REALLY stand for.
I'm not sure. To be honest I would bet if confronted he wouldn't know what Truman's legacy is. I've read the neo-con handbook and I see a big difference between that and fighting aggressive communist states.
2. What similarities do you find that Bush and Truman share both in circumstance and character?
Other than they both have had horrible poll numbers? Not much really. In fact, Truman had on his desk "The Buck Stops Here" and this administration is the farthest from being accountable for ANYTHING that has happened under their watch.
3. What differences (contrasts) do you find between the two men?
One tried to prevent non-provoked invasions by large aggressor states, the other initiated them.
One was a self-made man, the other rode the coat tails of his father.
4. Will invoking the name Truman help Bush politically?
I doubt it. Not only aren't people that gullible, most people aren't that deep of thinkers. You can't mess everything up then come back with "I'm like Truman".
Bush and his crew are big on appearances. It's important when you lack a lot of substance or are trying to hide what you REALLY stand for.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.