By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
What an utterly ridiculous question!
Yes, he was.
You really need to work on your offerings.
Parky60
Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
<<[Eisenhower] could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House.>>
Your author, like you, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Eisenhower Warned Of Becoming 'Captive Of A Scientific-Technological Elite' otherwise known as technocrats who would run a technocracy.
AuntiE wrote:
What an utterly ridiculous question!
Yes, he was.
You really need to work on your offerings.
I also believe he was and posted the offerings of an author who made a case for him being so.
Despite the undue criticism, Dear Lady, thanks for reading.
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
Trump was the last great President.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
slatten49 wrote:
I also believe he was and posted the offerings of an author who made a case for him being so.
Despite the undue criticism, Dear Lady, thanks for reading.
Truthfully, I found his ending somewhat wishy-washy on being a firm yes.
AuntiE wrote:
Truthfully, I found his ending somewhat wishy-washy on being a firm yes.
I get your point but think that he was being realistic about the general populace's probable view of Ike.
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
He was president when I was a little kid . Every body around me loved him . I sure had a friends named Dwight .
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
To be sure, the true greatness of a president can't be reckoned until long after the term of office.
Horrible modern presidents left us with things like:
Socialism- FDR
Great Society- LBJ
Federal Reserve System- Woodrow Wilson
Great presidents left us with things like:
National Parks and forests-T Roosevelt
Interstate highways - D D Eisenhower
Peace through strength- RWR
IKE was a great president at the time.
However, his lack of understanding of the consequences of deviate moral behavior and its encroachment on American culture by the "left", cannot be ignored.
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
I rank him at the top with Reagan.
slatten49 wrote:
By Jim Langcuster
It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.
He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.
Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.
After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.
All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.
No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.
Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.
Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.
Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.
To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.
By Jim Langcuster br br It is an interesting ques... (
show quote)
If you count honesty and morality as greatness,Truman was the last one.
David L wrote:
Trump was the last great President.
Ohhh PULEEESE...HOW can any sensible adult think that. At best he was a little better than GW Bush.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
