Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL, @VAL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:01:07 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Thoughts on the Incoming Administration ...
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
          kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

Like my friend Kerry Kilburn, I have been intrigued by the high level
of partisanship displayed about Clinton in his first days of
Presidential office on the nets, in the papers and magazines, on
radio and TV. The almost savage cries of "doom is just around the
corner" seems alarmist, without much foundation.

I've been around awhile now. As I pointed out the other day, ten
Presidents have been in office in my lifetime, I recall nine of them.
I remember Eisenhower's acceptance speech at the 1952 GOP convention,
and grew up during his eight years of "prosperity." It was an idyllic
time in many ways, but my father went a year "une,ployed" from full
time work, feeding five to six kids on part time jobs. He voted for
Eisnhower both times, as did my fiercely political mother, and I
recall a thing both said then, and many times since - "No President
has ever screwed up the country, only turned it one direction or
another."

I say that knowing that Herbert Hoover presided over economic
disaster, that Richard Nixon caused a constitutional crisis, Lyndon
Johnson and Nixon presided over the most unpopular "war" in this
country this century, and that while Carter, Reagan and Bush had
"mandates for change," none really succeeded - Carter by ineptness,
Reagan and Bush really seemed to represent one class (the well off)
over most other classes.

Yet, not one of these men "damaged" the country, though they may have
injured it in the short term. I did not like Richard Nixon, and I
grew to be quite angry with Carter's floundering; perhaps because I
had worked on his campaign, and had hopes that he would turn us away
from what I considered the excesses of his predecessor's term in
office. Yet, the country survived both men's failings as a leader and
political figure. We survived the banality and criminal behavior of
Spiro Agnew, the country actually grew in participation in the
process during the ill-starred Kennedy regime (where JFK failed in
life to get much legislation passed), and even though Nixon and
Johnson radicalized a generation, turned many away from
participation; within a half-generation, many had returned to the
process, and had hopes that men like Reagan would lead us into a new
prosperity and trimmer government.

I contend that NO President meets the expectations of the public,
completely, fractionally, or otherwise. None have in my lifetime, I
suspect none will in the years left to me. They try, they err, they
succeed in some areas, fail in others. I did not vote for ANY of the
major candidates this last election, because none represented my
views to the degree I wished (though I DID vote, I always do that, it
is my right, after all), but I do not despair that one or another man
got elected, though I personally believe Bill Clinton is not going to
harm us as much as the "right" might believe. The system has "checks
and balances," most of the time they work. Let us not cry wolf until
we have something to bemoan - two days in office does not constitute
a Presidential record. Even in the dismal regimes of Harding and
Nixon, a few positive events occurred. WE make the difference, we who
are the citizens and voters, and no leader, bad or good, can diminish
that unless "we" allow it to occur. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU