I started it's own thread, but I was actually gonna ask you as an "off-topic" within a thread.
Instead I just gave it its own thread.
Did you see my question about Eisenhower?
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/was-eisenhower-a-good-president.362400/
I wanted to hear your opinion.
Eisenhower was well liked and had solidly demonstrated competence in at least one huge arena. He was republican when he ran in 52 but it was always rumored that Truman tried to get him to run on the ticket with him as a dem in 48. Down the road when Truman's family turned over his diary to the national archives, turned out that true. So he was well liked by both dems and pubs and the country had just come through years of watching (no TV) newsreels of Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, and MacArthur.
Like most presidents some of his successes were also considered to be failures by his critics. He ended the war in Korea and saved the country from an early VietNam scenario and possibly a war with China but his opponents considered that to be a failure. Still subject to debate. Probably - my view and some others- is that his biggest failure was just the fact that the Cold War got worse every day he was in office for two terms. So the country was just on a dreary, jittery, quasi-wartime footing for an entire era. On the other hand his supporters rightfully argued that he handled it in a way that prevented war. It's not unlike where we/Joe are with China right now. Avoiding war is a good thing but there is a feeling in the air that there is a Cold War shaping up that could be jittery and dreary for a decade. So he might want to study up on that period, if he was not previously awake when he went through it.
Eisenhower was sort of "caretaker president" in that he took care of bidness without a lot big drama, major blunders, and considered the fact that there was no big news to be a desirable thing. And indeed the country was not looking for any more action. Unless it was producing babies.
His was criticized because he was not a hard core state's right guy as it was in those days and the liberals criticized him for not really taking a stand on things but just watching things play out. That is sort of true because he was not hard core southern states rights guy but he also did not think the feds had a role in a lot of the things that were shaping up. He did help pass a voting rights bill of some sort- not the 1964 one but some earlier one- and he did send federal troops into Little Rock to enforces desegregation but tried as best he could to not get involved in that type of thing. He also was sort of just a bystander on all of that McCarthyism. People thought he could have provided some leadership there, from what I have read.
He definitely was the right man for the era though I think. He reflected what the country wanted. They did not want to be drawn deeper into war, wanted to work, have families, make babies, and not be nuked by the Soviets if possible while doing that. Ike accompiished all that but he did not send any tingle up anyone's leg, although he did in the newsreels from Europe and they remembered that.
He did not do much memorable in some ways but if he had handled himself poorly he could have easily have created some more memorable events. But as a prison warden in Maine said: "My job is to keep exciting things from happening." Probably quoting a line from someone else. History always undervalues that.
Ike was sort of the last pre-TV president. TV was around but the big city newspapers still ruled the day. After that, and to this day- the country was/is wall to wall with people who have direct perceptions and views based on their own TV watching. TV destroyed Nixon, created JFK, destroyed LBJ in the end, lifted Jimmy up, took him down. Lifted Regan up because he was made for TV, etc. etc. and so it goes.
No theme there. Just some things that shook out of the tree on Eisenhower.
