Of all the U.S. Presidents, in all of the White Houses, in all of our lifetimes [so far], the one I’d judge least qualified to have a library—you know, one of them booky thingies with “facts”and “documents” reflecting “thinking” -–is  George W. Bush. And I’m not alone in saying that. Recently [April 2013], when the George W. Bush Presidential Library opened at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, political cartoonists expressed in pictures what a lot of us were thinking. Here’s a gallery of some of their observations:

The post George W. Bush’s Library: Political cartoon fodder appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As Bill Clinton reflected upon his presidency, he said that the biggest obstacle to making good policy decisions was operating with unceasing sleep deprivation. This is the same Bill Clinton who as a young man was remarkable at running on empty. His all-nighters at both Georgetown while an undergraduate and at Yale Law School were renowned. As a semester trudged on and many students were slaving away night after night, Clinton found a variety of ways to have a good time, ranging from thoughtful discussions with colleagues to serious partying. But if he had a paper due the next day or was scheduled to take a final exam, the night before he would create his own “hermitage” and often do a semester’s worth of work in one night. Fatigue was not a problem if he was taking a final the next day; his academic record shows consistently high grades.

Hundreds of Big Macs and who knows what else later when Clinton was president, he was under constant pressure. Much of this was self-imposed and extremely tiring, in contrast to his successor, George W. Bush, who seemed to glide through the presidency while maintaining an early-to-bed routine. But unlike Bush, Clinton had a voracious appetite for information. He wanted to go into meetings with the most knowledge of anyone in the room. He read reams of background information and took copious notes. His work time may have been expanded because he was one of the latest baby-boom adopters of the internet. His work habits meant that he was often working four or five hours after George Bush would have gone to sleep. Clinton was already high-strung and temperamental, but when sleep-deprived, he was particularly challenged in being a good listener and a collaborator. Following his presidency, he wishes that he could have made more time for sleep.

Barack Obama became a serious student in college, reading far more books than was ever assigned to him. He continued his scholarly ways, even while he was working long hours as a community organizer on Chicago’s south side. If he wasn’t sleep-deprived at that time, it certainly happened in his early 30s when he wrote “Dreams of My Father” on his off-hours as an Illinois state senator. He often did not go to bed until 2:00 AM or 3:00 AM. Since his wife, Michelle, was an early riser, especially after the children came along, she was none too pleased with her husband’s nocturnal work habits. He always apologized and then continued working.

Biographer David Mendell essentially shadowed Barack Obama when he was running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois from 2002- 2004. Obama had a day-job as a state senator, working in Springfield, IL, nearly 200 miles from home. He was also campaigning in every corner of Illinois to prove that he was a viable candidate to citizens from all backgrounds and of all political persuasions. In one eleven day period, he was in Boston for four days highlighted by his keynote speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention followed by a seven day bus tour zigzagging across and up and down Illinois. He returned to Chicago as a grumpy, irritable, and exhausted famous man. He was able to catch a little sleep and time with his family.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has said that his lukewarm performances in the early debates that he entered were due in large part to fatigue. His handlers were able to provide him with more rest time prior to the Oct. 11 debate at Dartmouth College, although some observers felt that he slept through the debate. In any event, running on or near empty is not good for one’s health or performance. We as the American people are often enablers to politicians and office-holders by expecting them to be all things to all people at all times.

In the spring of 2008 when Barack Obama was fiercely campaigning against Hillary Clinton in the Indiana primary, he made appearances in dozens of cities and towns. A reporter asked a citizen of Kokomo (population 45,000) for whom he would vote in the primary. The man said that he didn’t know how much Obama cared about Kokomo because he had not visited the “city.” Once this was widely publicized, Obama sacrificed several hours of his precious and minimal “down time” to visit Kokomo. It is reported that he then received the man’s vote.

During the first century of the United States, presidential candidate rarely traveled to make appearances. As recently as 1896, Republican William McKinley campaigned from his front porch. Even though this was pre-radio, pre-television, and pre-internet, he felt confident that the newspapers would cover his speeches and spread the word. He was right and he won.

We are a nation of fatigued people. In 2001, the median amount of sleep was seven hours per night, a full hour less than in 1942. We tend to be demanding, of both ourselves and others, to fit in as much work or leisure time as we can. Many Americans believe the adage that ninety percent of life is showing up.

President Obama is admittedly sleep-deprived. He has been so fatigued that once in his 2004 Senate race that according to Mendell, he nodded off (and quickly recovered) in his own speech. All citizens deserve the best possible performance of their leaders. All leaders deserve simple courtesy from the citizens they help govern.

The structure of our political process has made healthy sleep nearly impossible. Candidates need to visit each state at least once for its caucus or primary. Appearances in all forty-eight contiguous states need to occur in general elections. Fund-raisers require candidates to constantly follow Jerry Maguire’s mantra, “Follow the Money.”

Here’s a proposed solution to the problem. Each of us as citizens can act in a passive-aggressive manner towards candidates. If a candidate is coming to town, don’t go to hear or see him or her. If a candidate wants you to attend a fund-raising event, tell him or her that you’re busy alphabetizing your socks.

We need to remove the demands that make candidates feel that they have to be anywhere and everywhere. We need to encourage politicians to first and foremost do their day jobs. These jobs are exhausting enough. If we want better leadership, we need individuals in positions of responsibility who are alert and energized. As odd as it seems, maybe William McKinley and his predecessors had it right. Campaign from home and get a good night’s sleep.

The post Our leaders need more sleep appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 1952 and 1956 presidential elections between Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson might stand as the last time that the American people had a choice between two capable candidates with clear and reasonable philosophies of government.  During World War II, Eisenhower had been Commanding General, European Theater of Operations.  Somewhat like Colin Powell following the Vietnam War, Eisenhower did not have an affiliation with a political party and both the Democrats and Republicans were ready to hand him their nomination in 1952, almost regardless of his views.

Eisenhower did not declare himself a Republican until shortly before entering the presidential race in 1952.  Ike and the GOP seemed like a good fit.  It may be hard to understand now, but back then, Republicans liked their candidates to be reserved, cautious, thoughtful, deliberate and amiable.  That was Ike.

Democrats preferred a cerebral spark.  Franklin Roosevelt inspired Americans with unorthodox policies in the New Deal. Harry Truman “gave ’em hell” while steering America back to prosperity.  Adlai Stevenson had been a reformer while governor of Illinois and was ready to protect, preserve and continue the New Deal.

The 1952 election was of an era very different from today.  It was two years before Brown v. Board of Education and 12 years before meaningful civil rights legislation.

For most Americans, 1952 and 1956 presented a choice between two fair and competing philosophies of government.  Each in its own way reflected viewpoints that characterized the approaches of previous presidents.

Eisenhower won handily in both 1952 and 1956.  As an affable paternal figure, it was more than coincidental that he received the electoral endorsement of the American people three years after the “Father Knows Best” program became a popular radio show and before it became a mainstay of American television.  Ike was the battle-tested grandfather; America had a long history of electing military generals.  His victories made him the last in a line of 12 former generals elected to the Presidency.  Perhaps this is part of the reason why the 1956 election reflected the end of an era.

In 1948, four years before the first Eisenhower-Stevenson election, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had walked out of the Democratic convention and formed a third party, the Dixiecrats.  The signature issue of the Dixiecrats was racial segregation.  The party actually carried four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina).  But the South came back into the Democratic party in 1952, and we had an election that essentially reflected the two prevailing lines of political thinking in the U.S.  Republicans presented cautious compassion with fiscal restraint.  Democrats were more fervent in their compassion and saw an activist federal government as the key to meeting people’s needs.

The Eisenhower-Stevenson races presented clear-cut choices, very capable candidates, and connection by both parties with mainstream thinking in America.

In 2010, the concern is that the third-party aberrations of 1948 and 1968 may soon become the norm.  The 2010 Florida senate race pitted Tea-Party backed Republican Marco Rubio against Independent Charlie Crist (the  moderate governor who left the Republican party after losing the primary to Rubio) and progressive Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek.

What is happening to the stability of our two-party system of the 1950s?  Quite possibly the problem is that 1956 was the last time that America was presented with two personally stable candidates with clear agendas that were compatible with America’s mainstream.

Beginning in 1960, each election seemed to have at least one candidate with significant character flaws, serious intellectual limitations, or ideas that were too radical for America.  Here’s a quick list:

1. 1960: Richard Nixon
2. 1964: Barry Goldwater
3. 1968: Richard Nixon and George Wallace
4. 1972: Richard Nixon and George Wallace
5. 1976: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION – Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter
6. 1980: Ronald Reagan
7. 1984: Ronald Reagan
8. 1988: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)
9. 1992: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)
10. 1996: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION – Bill Clinton (pre-Monica) vs. Bob Dole
11. 2000: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)
12. 2004: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)
13. 2008: John McCain (with Sarah Palin as V.P.)

Many saw the presidential election of 2008 was as a mandate for resuming the progressive agendas of the New Deal and Great Society.   President Obama has chosen to govern more from the middle of the road.  But his desire for harmony may well have planted the seeds of intense discord.  President Obama has  tried to make his move to the center a reflection of bi-partisan cooperation and collaboration.  But the Republicans wanted no part of that, partly because their goal number one was to see President Obama fail.  The situation is exacerbated by the frustrations of difficult economic times in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  These factors coincide with the latest incarnation of a new anti-government, anti-intellectual, anti-collaboration party, the Tea Party.

What Florida 2010 represented was a somewhat lop-sided three-party system:

1. Intense, fervent, rigid conservative candidate with Tea Party support (Rubio)
2. Middle of the road “mushy” candidate with no solid base (Crist)
3. A progressive candidate who was abandoned by many in his “home party,” the Democrats, because his chances of winning were slim.

If the lessons of history prevail, the Tea Party will come and go.  But these are different times; our electorate may have more apathy and less critical thinking skills than ever before.  So an intense right wing party could be with us for a long time.  The “centrists” who Charlie Crist represented may actually have a strong following, but currently they have no anchor.  The so-called moderate or even liberal Republicans can’t even buy a seat at the table of the Republican Party and the Democrats will probably continue their standoff between “Blue Dogs” (moderate to conservative Democrats) vs. progressives.  Progressives no longer see the Democrats as their anchor party.  They are looking for ways to regenerate their energy.  The biggest asset Progressives have is that they have the most reasonable and cost-effective solutions to the nation’s problems.

Our electoral system, with the Electoral College, is designed to keep a two-party system intact.  But we seem to currently have three very different philosophies of governing, each with a significant number of followers but no clear base within a party.  We may have to go through the dysfunction and chaos of a three party system for the foreseeable future.  If we move back to a two-party system such as in the 1950s, the jury is out on which of two of the current three parties will survive.

As an unabashed progressive, I would gladly trim my sails to return to the world of 1956 with a moderate liberal Democrat vs. a stable, mainstream Republican.  How we would return to such a scenario is difficult to determine; definitely fodder for more discussion.  In the meantime, we would do well to spend a little time reviewing what may have been the last “good election,” 1956.

The post 1956: A presidential election to remember appeared first on Occasional Planet.