US has managed it largely by pre-existing power structures - even if Washington WAS the kind of man to seize power, fact is that everything from local political clubs to the states themselves would’ve shown teeth over it. Power structures generally resent having power taken away from them, which is why ‘checks and balances’ historically have been successful in, at least, making the assumption of power by any one group difficult.
One of my favorite Ataturk-as-president stories (no idea if it’s factual or apocryphal) is him relaxing on a boat cruise near the coast, only to see a crowd of people turning out to greet him unexpectedly. So he broke open his good stash of booze to share with them, and said something along the lines of “In the old regimes, leaders drank in secret and condemned drinking in public. In a modern and democratic regime, leaders drink openly and with their people.”
With the US it also seems that the people that ended up in the hybrid General/President role were all fighting for freedom and the kind of people who were not just bloodthirsty warriors, but people who had enough and picked up arms to defend values they believed in. Washington fought royalty, and thus, did not want to be a King (even when offered), Grant fought against slavery and to keep the united states whole, Ike fought Nazis and was goaded over and over into running for president.
I do not make any claims good or bad on their political views, actions as president or as generals, but on their strength of character and belief that they defended through war.
I do not make any claims good or bad on their political views, actions as president or as generals, but on their strength of character and belief that they defended through war.
All three men are interests of mine!
Washington was better-than-his-time, but worse than we’d generally accept today. He was a bit of a stodgy old patrician who insisted on things being done the ‘proper’ way - which says, I think, a lot about how screwed-over the American colonists felt by British policy to have even an old soul like Washington join the rebellion. He was, in the British tradition, a firm and genuine believer in democracy and limited government, a real son of the Enlightenment. His conduct as president was overwhelmingly with the view of avoiding controversy as much as possible, in a (sadly failed) attempt to establish the presidency as a neutral and mediating party in government.
Grant was probably one of the best human beings to ever become president, but his own lack of political experience and instinct - and his trust in his ‘friends’ - have given his administration a bad reputation. He was, however, strongly pro-secular, anti-racist, and for all the corruption in his administration, no one ever accused him of wrongdoing. Man died nearly penniless, even. The first anti-segregation laws and mass anti-KKK arrests were performed under his administration, as well as a (only partly successful) ‘peace policy’ which halved the number of conflicts with Native American polities of the period. Unfortunately, ‘halved’ was still ‘a whole hell of a lot’, and still largely predicated on paternalistic grounds.
Ike (and in a similar sense, Truman) was probably the best look at a ‘normal’ person finding their way to the presidency that we have. Certainly many flaws - not least amongst them many ‘normal’ views of the time, including anti-communist paranoia - but also possessed of some amount of basic human decency that forced its way through even contrary to his political views. His soldierly notion that rules were rules and had to be followed both had positive effects (such as sending in the US Army to enforce desegregation in Alabama despite privately expressing distaste for the notion of using the US military on civilians) and negative effects (such as privately objecting to the treatment of the Bonus Army when he was an officer in the 30s, but publicly supporting his superiors’ decisions) during his career.
Ataturk my slightly-pickled love 😭
US has managed it largely by pre-existing power structures - even if Washington WAS the kind of man to seize power, fact is that everything from local political clubs to the states themselves would’ve shown teeth over it. Power structures generally resent having power taken away from them, which is why ‘checks and balances’ historically have been successful in, at least, making the assumption of power by any one group difficult.
One of my favorite Ataturk-as-president stories (no idea if it’s factual or apocryphal) is him relaxing on a boat cruise near the coast, only to see a crowd of people turning out to greet him unexpectedly. So he broke open his good stash of booze to share with them, and said something along the lines of “In the old regimes, leaders drank in secret and condemned drinking in public. In a modern and democratic regime, leaders drink openly and with their people.”
With the US it also seems that the people that ended up in the hybrid General/President role were all fighting for freedom and the kind of people who were not just bloodthirsty warriors, but people who had enough and picked up arms to defend values they believed in. Washington fought royalty, and thus, did not want to be a King (even when offered), Grant fought against slavery and to keep the united states whole, Ike fought Nazis and was goaded over and over into running for president.
I do not make any claims good or bad on their political views, actions as president or as generals, but on their strength of character and belief that they defended through war.
All three men are interests of mine!
Washington was better-than-his-time, but worse than we’d generally accept today. He was a bit of a stodgy old patrician who insisted on things being done the ‘proper’ way - which says, I think, a lot about how screwed-over the American colonists felt by British policy to have even an old soul like Washington join the rebellion. He was, in the British tradition, a firm and genuine believer in democracy and limited government, a real son of the Enlightenment. His conduct as president was overwhelmingly with the view of avoiding controversy as much as possible, in a (sadly failed) attempt to establish the presidency as a neutral and mediating party in government.
Grant was probably one of the best human beings to ever become president, but his own lack of political experience and instinct - and his trust in his ‘friends’ - have given his administration a bad reputation. He was, however, strongly pro-secular, anti-racist, and for all the corruption in his administration, no one ever accused him of wrongdoing. Man died nearly penniless, even. The first anti-segregation laws and mass anti-KKK arrests were performed under his administration, as well as a (only partly successful) ‘peace policy’ which halved the number of conflicts with Native American polities of the period. Unfortunately, ‘halved’ was still ‘a whole hell of a lot’, and still largely predicated on paternalistic grounds.
Ike (and in a similar sense, Truman) was probably the best look at a ‘normal’ person finding their way to the presidency that we have. Certainly many flaws - not least amongst them many ‘normal’ views of the time, including anti-communist paranoia - but also possessed of some amount of basic human decency that forced its way through even contrary to his political views. His soldierly notion that rules were rules and had to be followed both had positive effects (such as sending in the US Army to enforce desegregation in Alabama despite privately expressing distaste for the notion of using the US military on civilians) and negative effects (such as privately objecting to the treatment of the Bonus Army when he was an officer in the 30s, but publicly supporting his superiors’ decisions) during his career.