I love these essays. They show how history is directly applicable to the world in which we live. I teach very part-time through a state university. I know I can find ways to incorporate these essays into US history. That said, it is my Modern World History Students who are the thinkers. I will look for opportunities there as well.
Do you think the “new” tradition of European Royalty abdicating to a younger generation is significant in regards to today’s essay. Yes, they are constitutional monarchies. However, it might be a good example of giving up power and glory with grace.
Grooming successors as opposed to putting younger admired people in a position to succeed are related but are really different, especially when it comes to the transfer of power and with that power comes the legitimate use of force to conform others to one’s own will that exists in the presidency. Hence a difference between the political and the corporate worlds, and the delicate balance under constitutional checks and balances.
Among George Washington 's legacy to the then young nation that is now 235 years old (I date from the adoption of the ratification of the Constitution) lies in his commitment to establishing a democratic system within the republic where the people, not the president, chose their leader. I realize that then that selection was indirect, because electors were then chosen by the states’ legislatures without the apportionment based on the popular vote later created with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment. Although he might have had personal preferences, I do not believe he ever publicly expressed them. But nevertheless Washington set a crucial precedent for peaceful transitions of power that endured for over two centuries. We are now gathered at a time testing whether those precedents and principles will endure.
Anointing a successor is best left to the business world and kept out of the political realm, less we give voice to political bosses as opposed to corporate bosses.
Professor Brands, I also am sincerely grateful for your essays. This one strikes at a theme I have been passionate about for a long time. Despite the justified groans that could arise by using a sports metaphor I think one is apt here. There is a time for an athlete to play a sport. Particularly at the height of their physical and mental capabilities to do so. But, in time, the greater value of that athlete is in their experience especially as their athletic prowess wanes. For many, the shift to the coaching side often becomes invaluable as they translate that former athletic prowess and experience gained from past success into new, maybe even greater success. In the game of politics (translated to the wielding of power), this concept is persona non gratis. And yet, we see without a shadow of a doubt the negative effect of holding on to power until and only unless one's grip on it grows stone cold dead: unimaginative, non-innovative or just completely absent leadership vs. the endless push of ideology. The framers of the Constitution themselves felt they'd done the best they could do with the intellects of their time and left it to future minds and intellects to (using another sports metaphor, sorry) pick up the ball and run with it. And yet for far too many, the insistence is to use their old reading glasses to read the signs of our times; clinging to power instead of coaching new talent.
I am deeply skeptical of almost all politicians. They pontificate about doing "the work of the people" but to a person, it is really about power. We haven't seen true statesmen in nearly 40 years. Neither of the blowhards we are likely to be stuck with this go-round are in it for anything but power and grift.
Great comments, professor, which reminds me of two of your biographies:
>Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace
If I recall correctly, Grant almost came out of retirement over the disappointment of how black civil rights were being undermined in south, something 300 thousand of his soldiers had died for.
Roosevelt strikes me as someone who WANTED the presidency and wanted to do some good in role and found that he could, which is why he stayed on for a third and fourth term- his work wasn't done given the climb out of the depression and the war. But he failed to groom his successor properly, although Truman in the end was up to the task.
Biden strikes me as more in the FDR mold. He ran for president so many times because he wanted it as a culmination of his life in politics and I think dually wanted to do some good. In my view he attained the office at the right time. Had he won in previous attempts I don't think the impact would be as notable.
His likely opponent however strikes me as someone who just wants whatever he can get. There's no real goal there but to obtain and hold that which he covets.
I think FDR had work to do. He wanted to see it through. Moreover, he was in denial about his health. That said, he erred tremendously with Truman. That is also where I see Biden failing. He should be training Harris for the job. Something he seems to have stopped doing after her early trip to South America. Protégés make mistakes. They are students. but one shouldn’t throw out he baby with the bath water so to speak. I also think that there is something in the psyche of American Presidents, where two terms seems to be the measure of ultimate success. That is cultural within the office as well as in the public mind. How can it be changed?
I love these essays. They show how history is directly applicable to the world in which we live. I teach very part-time through a state university. I know I can find ways to incorporate these essays into US history. That said, it is my Modern World History Students who are the thinkers. I will look for opportunities there as well.
Do you think the “new” tradition of European Royalty abdicating to a younger generation is significant in regards to today’s essay. Yes, they are constitutional monarchies. However, it might be a good example of giving up power and glory with grace.
It's a start. But I'd like to see a prime minister follow the example.
So good, sir!
Grooming successors as opposed to putting younger admired people in a position to succeed are related but are really different, especially when it comes to the transfer of power and with that power comes the legitimate use of force to conform others to one’s own will that exists in the presidency. Hence a difference between the political and the corporate worlds, and the delicate balance under constitutional checks and balances.
Among George Washington 's legacy to the then young nation that is now 235 years old (I date from the adoption of the ratification of the Constitution) lies in his commitment to establishing a democratic system within the republic where the people, not the president, chose their leader. I realize that then that selection was indirect, because electors were then chosen by the states’ legislatures without the apportionment based on the popular vote later created with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment. Although he might have had personal preferences, I do not believe he ever publicly expressed them. But nevertheless Washington set a crucial precedent for peaceful transitions of power that endured for over two centuries. We are now gathered at a time testing whether those precedents and principles will endure.
Anointing a successor is best left to the business world and kept out of the political realm, less we give voice to political bosses as opposed to corporate bosses.
Professor Brands, I also am sincerely grateful for your essays. This one strikes at a theme I have been passionate about for a long time. Despite the justified groans that could arise by using a sports metaphor I think one is apt here. There is a time for an athlete to play a sport. Particularly at the height of their physical and mental capabilities to do so. But, in time, the greater value of that athlete is in their experience especially as their athletic prowess wanes. For many, the shift to the coaching side often becomes invaluable as they translate that former athletic prowess and experience gained from past success into new, maybe even greater success. In the game of politics (translated to the wielding of power), this concept is persona non gratis. And yet, we see without a shadow of a doubt the negative effect of holding on to power until and only unless one's grip on it grows stone cold dead: unimaginative, non-innovative or just completely absent leadership vs. the endless push of ideology. The framers of the Constitution themselves felt they'd done the best they could do with the intellects of their time and left it to future minds and intellects to (using another sports metaphor, sorry) pick up the ball and run with it. And yet for far too many, the insistence is to use their old reading glasses to read the signs of our times; clinging to power instead of coaching new talent.
I am deeply skeptical of almost all politicians. They pontificate about doing "the work of the people" but to a person, it is really about power. We haven't seen true statesmen in nearly 40 years. Neither of the blowhards we are likely to be stuck with this go-round are in it for anything but power and grift.
Great comments, professor, which reminds me of two of your biographies:
>Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace
If I recall correctly, Grant almost came out of retirement over the disappointment of how black civil rights were being undermined in south, something 300 thousand of his soldiers had died for.
Roosevelt strikes me as someone who WANTED the presidency and wanted to do some good in role and found that he could, which is why he stayed on for a third and fourth term- his work wasn't done given the climb out of the depression and the war. But he failed to groom his successor properly, although Truman in the end was up to the task.
Biden strikes me as more in the FDR mold. He ran for president so many times because he wanted it as a culmination of his life in politics and I think dually wanted to do some good. In my view he attained the office at the right time. Had he won in previous attempts I don't think the impact would be as notable.
His likely opponent however strikes me as someone who just wants whatever he can get. There's no real goal there but to obtain and hold that which he covets.
I think FDR had work to do. He wanted to see it through. Moreover, he was in denial about his health. That said, he erred tremendously with Truman. That is also where I see Biden failing. He should be training Harris for the job. Something he seems to have stopped doing after her early trip to South America. Protégés make mistakes. They are students. but one shouldn’t throw out he baby with the bath water so to speak. I also think that there is something in the psyche of American Presidents, where two terms seems to be the measure of ultimate success. That is cultural within the office as well as in the public mind. How can it be changed?