Truman vs. Eisenhower

[TDAS04]

?

[President Johnson]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would actually say Truman too. He managed the post WW2 era as well as possible and made it so that our biggest enemies became some of our biggest allies and also helped create the groundwork in defending the world from communism.

[Mr. Smith]

Truman.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Truman. Eisenhower was a war hero and deserving of his praise, but his meddling in Iran, Guatemala, and Cuba to name a few left the world worse off than beforehand.

[Sir Mohamed]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

Yup, I also feel that Truman was more of a "proactive" prez who actively wanted to implement new things and move forward, while Ike was more of a reactive figure. He was more into managing the status-quo and make minor changes while Truman was a New Dealer.

[Lechasseur]

Truman

[TDAS04]

Interestingly, Eisenhower opposed the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Other than that though, there aren't many reasons from a lefty point of view to prefer him over Truman.

[RINO Tom]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

Fully agreed. Operation Ajax isn't talked about when discussing Eisenhower's legacy as much as it ought to be (and I say this as someone knowingly ignorant about foreign policy for the most part -- but I once wrote a Model UN position paper from the perspective of the Iranians and the perspective stuck with me). And although he gets credit for the civil rights progress that occurred under his administration, people don't seem to realize that he was not actually on board with much of it (e.g. referring to the federal troops in Little Rock as his worst presidential decision).

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

[dw93]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

A lot of the GOP’s ties with the religious right under Eisenhower and even Reagan had a lot to do with the Cold War . Much of the Cold War narrative was that it was the Religious Capitalist West vs the Atheistic Communist East 

[Fuzzy Bear]

They're about equal.

Truman is seen, at least in part, as a War President, and as a President presiding over an uneasy peace.  Eisenhower, for the most part, is seen as a Peacetime President, but it was his adept handling of many difficult situations that prevented problems.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

Eisenhower liked most Southern Democrats in Congress; he found them reliable allies and a counterweight to Senate Republican leader William Knowland (R-CA), who he despised.  Eisenhower was sympathetic to the Southern point of view to the degree that he believed that integration should proceed at a slow pace.  Was he wrong?  How much violence did Eisenhower avert with his slow approach?   He could likely have been bolder than he was, but the answer to how much violence we could have averted is very much speculative.  On the other hand, Ike should have realized that Civil Rights would likely have gone the most smoothly if it were ushered in by the man who won the war in Europe.  Few people have ever had the kind of standing with ALL of the American people that Dwight Eisenhower did.

[RINO Tom]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

You seem to be defining the Religious Right as conservative Evangelical Protestants here.  If so, they cannot be lumped in with Mainline Protestants of the 1920s that voted against Smith.  Evangelicals largely were not politically active before the middle of the Twentieth Century.

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

You seem to be defining the Religious Right as conservative Evangelical Protestants here.  If so, they cannot be lumped in with Mainline Protestants of the 1920s that voted against Smith.  Evangelicals largely were not politically active before the middle of the Twentieth Century.

You're right...that, too, sounds like a distinction I'm guessing the book made...my memory is pretty fuzzy about it now (and yes, admittedly I'm not very familiar with the denominations of Protestantism/Christianity - other than the geopolitical aspect of it, which slipped my mind when I wrote that post).

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

Eisenhower liked most Southern Democrats in Congress; he found them reliable allies and a counterweight to Senate Republican leader William Knowland (R-CA), who he despised.  Eisenhower was sympathetic to the Southern point of view to the degree that he believed that integration should proceed at a slow pace.  Was he wrong?  How much violence did Eisenhower avert with his slow approach?   He could likely have been bolder than he was, but the answer to how much violence we could have averted is very much speculative.  

This takes the whole "anti-BLM" schtick to a whole new level...

Let's be very clear, the politicians of the South did not want integration to occur - not just then and there, but never. You don't need to take my word for it; consider the words (and more importantly, the actions) of Southern politicians themselves ("segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever;" the Orval Faubus controversy; Massive Resistance in Virginia). Let's cut the bullsh**t. The "Southern point of view" was not that integration "proceed at a slow approach," it was that it never occur at all. Civil rights were already delayed a century after the Civil War, and even after Brown, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the South infamously tried numerous last-ditch efforts to hold onto segregation.

Whatever respect I still held for you has at last evaporated with this literal apologia for southern segregation (and no, that is not an exaggeration of what you've said - to call Massive Resistance, blocking schoolhouse doors and literally shutting down schools, record-long filibusters, a belief that "integration should occur at a slow pace" is at best a whitewashing of history). Either you are deliberately lying through your teeth, are willfully ignorant, or fail to understand basic American history.

(EDIT: And as for violence, that's utter bullsh**t too. Violence would have occurred - not by civil rights demonstrators, but by the whites who resisted integration - whenever segregation happened. The threat of violence should not have compelled the United States government to continue to bow to the South (and thankfully, in spite of Eisenhower's reservations, it did not). America should not kneel down to terrorist whether they are domestic or foreign.)

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

A lot of the GOP’s ties with the religious right under Eisenhower and even Reagan had a lot to do with the Cold War . Much of the Cold War narrative was that it was the Religious Capitalist West vs the Atheistic Communist East 

Yeah, for sure. That's why the religious right was strongly anti-Communist even by Red Scare standards.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

Eisenhower liked most Southern Democrats in Congress; he found them reliable allies and a counterweight to Senate Republican leader William Knowland (R-CA), who he despised.  Eisenhower was sympathetic to the Southern point of view to the degree that he believed that integration should proceed at a slow pace.  Was he wrong?  How much violence did Eisenhower avert with his slow approach?   He could likely have been bolder than he was, but the answer to how much violence we could have averted is very much speculative. 

This takes the whole "anti-BLM" schtick to a whole new level...

Let's be very clear, the politicians of the South did not want integration to occur - not just then and there, but never. You don't need to take my word for it; consider the words (and more importantly, the actions) of Southern politicians themselves ("segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever;" the Orval Faubus controversy; Massive Resistance in Virginia). Let's cut the bullsh**t. The "Southern point of view" was not that integration "proceed at a slow approach," it was that it never occur at all. Civil rights were already delayed a century after the Civil War, and even after Brown, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the South infamously tried numerous last-ditch efforts to hold onto segregation.

Whatever respect I still held for you has at last evaporated with this literal apologia for southern segregation (and no, that is not an exaggeration of what you've said - to call Massive Resistance, blocking schoolhouse doors and literally shutting down schools, record-long filibusters, a belief that "integration should occur at a slow pace" is at best a whitewashing of history). Either you are deliberately lying through your teeth, are willfully ignorant, or fail to understand basic American history.

God, you're a pompous ass.

"Going slow" on integration was not resisting immigration.  At no time did Eisenhower seek to frustrate the orders of the Supreme Court, which developed a unanimous consensus on Civil Rights issues that lasted through the 1970s.  Eisenhower did not push for bold Civil Rights legislation; the 1957 Civil Rights Act (which Eisenhower signed after it passed a filibuster) was a pretty weak bill; the really heavy lifting did not occur until 1964, 1965, and 1968.

Eisenhower was not responsible for the filibusters, and he NEVER supported standing in the schoolhouse door; he sent the Feds to enforce the law at Little Rock (which I, of course, support wholeheartedly).  Eisenhower sought to prevent Harry Byrd from closing Virginia's public schools, as opposed to allowing integration to proceed.  And there WAS concern for racial violence in the South.  Racial violence DID happen.  The KKK, White Citizens Councils, and other groups were more open and numerous in the 1950s and early 1960s, The goal was to bring about integration WITHOUT boatloads of Klan violence, which came anyway.  

It's NOT fair to say that "going slow" is the same as "endorsing Massive Resistance".  Southern Democrats of the day were not a monolith, and while few (LBJ, Kefauver, and Gore, Sr.) voted for Civil Rights legislation, many Southern Democrats were realistic about the law being the law and wished to implement it as slowly as they legally could, with public acceptance and public order being a real consideration.  Should Eisenhower have just told off the Southerners and lose important votes in Congress on principle?  

I'm well aware of the state of Southern Politics in the 20th century.  I read V. O. Key's Southern Politics before you were even an idea.  I worked on campaigns with people who actually participated in desegregating lunch counters before you were an idea.  I've not been for Massive Resistance on my worst day.  You're misstating of MY positions is rather crass.  I've supported all of the 1960s Civil Rights laws and I've never supported Massive Resistance to integration, period.

I've put myself in Eisenhower's position.  I've not endorsed every action of his, but your characterization of my post is something you thought up without reading it.  He wanted to keep order, he needed Southern Democrats to support his initiatives, and there were more issues besides Civil Rights in the 1950s that were of pressing national importance that needed consensus support, and Eisenhower, whatever you think of him, was a consensus President.  Should he have been bolder in his legislative proposals?  Perhaps, but they would have been bottled up in committee.  (It wasn't until 1961 that the Rules Committee was expanded to the point where Civil Rights legislation would not be bottled up in committee.)  Should he have sent in the troops earlier?  Perhaps, but where?  And what would the outcome of sending troops to every Southern state to integrate schools be?  (There would also be question of whether or not such action was Constitutional, and Eisenhower pretty much left the Constitution the way he found it.)

[Schiff for Senate]

[snip]

I'm not criticizing Eisenhower's actions per se, although the fact remains that he, on a personal level, was no strong supporter of civil rights.

My issue is with your characterization of southern politicians as wanting to go slow on integration when the simple and clear fact of the matter is that they vigorously opposed it altogether. The same people that opposed the weak 1957 bill, filibustered it with all their might, stood equally strong against the 1964/1965 legislation, and (for the few that were still in office) were still against establishing MLK Day in 1982. Their goal was to stop it for as long as they possibly could, ideally forever.

Yes, Eisenhower did not filibuster, or stand at the door of the schoolhouse, or support Massive Resistance. But those are all actions that southern segregationist politicians undertook. Most of them were not, in fact, reasonable moderates on civil rights - that group would only emerge long after Eisenhower left office.

They were very much segregationist. My issue is that you've taken the history of their words and actions and whitewashed it to "integration should proceed at a slow pace."

As for the violence, yes, as you said, violence would inevitably erupt by the white supremacists, no matter when it occurred and at what pace. It was going to face massive resistance at every step. Does that mean it should not have been pursued all the more vigorously? No, it does not. That absolutely does not mean that it was not a goal worth pursuing, or that the federal government could not easily have managed the lawlessness. What you're essentially arguing - and there's really no better way of describing this - is giving up on civil rights out of fear of white backlash.

[Fuzzy Bear]

[snip]

I'm not criticizing Eisenhower's actions per se, although the fact remains that he, on a personal level, was no strong supporter of civil rights.

My issue is with your characterization of southern politicians as wanting to go slow on integration when the simple and clear fact of the matter is that they vigorously opposed it altogether. The same people that opposed the weak 1957 bill, filibustered it with all their might, stood equally strong against the 1964/1965 legislation, and (for the few that were still in office) were still against establishing MLK Day in 1982. Their goal was to stop it for as long as they possibly could, ideally forever.

Yes, Eisenhower did not filibuster, or stand at the door of the schoolhouse, or support Massive Resistance. But those are all actions that southern segregationist politicians undertook. Most of them were not, in fact, reasonable moderates on civil rights - that group would only emerge long after Eisenhower left office.

They were very much segregationist. My issue is that you've taken the history of their words and actions and whitewashed it to "integration should proceed at a slow pace."

As for the violence, yes, as you said, violence would inevitably erupt by the white supremacists, no matter when it occurred and at what pace. It was going to face massive resistance at every step. Does that mean it should not have been pursued all the more vigorously? No, it does not. That absolutely does not mean that it was not a goal worth pursuing, or that the federal government could not easily have managed the lawlessness. What you're essentially arguing - and there's really no better way of describing this - is giving up on civil rights out of fear of white backlash.

Governors and Mayors have a responsibility to maintain order in the here and now.  I grant you that this goal comes in conflict with enforcing basic civil rights at times, and that's what makes the job.

The Southern Democrats were not monolithically "Bitter Enders" on Civil Rights.  The Bitter Enders would be Eastland and Stennis (MS), Thurmond (SC), Russell and Talmadge (GA), Byrd and Robertson (VA).  But you had LBJ (TX), Gore, Sr. and Kefauver (TN) that actually voted for the 1957 Bill.  You had Long and Ellender (LA), Hill and Sparkman (AL), Holland and Smathers (FL), McClellan and Fulbright (AR) and Johnston (SC) that were not bitter Enders; they never voted for a Civil Rights Bill, but they did not actively obstruct.  Governor's, too, were a mixed bag, but every state did not have a massive resistance program (though they did seek to delay as much as possible).

There's a lot of blather about "democracy" here, but in the South, the electorate supported segregation by a large margin.  If you hypothetically allowed all blacks in the South to vote in the 1950s, and they all voted for pro-integration pols, it is likely that there would be effective segregationist majorities in Southern state governments.  Southern Governors knew this; many took positions on the issue, but avoided active resistance because that was the most their constituents would tolerate.  And there was a difference between the Deep South and the Border South (except for Virginia). 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Truman