|
You ask an interesting question. First of all, I often wonder if there are any heroes in the classical sense, since human beings are so flawed, and great men and women seem to make similarly spectacular mistakes. Wise students of history recognize this, and learn from those errors as well (like the dubious domino theory in the case of the following). For this reason, I cite someone who was not perfect, or someone who I idolize, but just a decent man who did some things worthy of the admiration of people of all ideological persuasions.
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Bear with me. Don't flame me yet. He is a Republican icon and not a particularly progressive figure in history, but he did several things that I admire, which are magnified by the fact he was juxtaposed on the opposite side of the aisle. I researched him expecting to find a cold reactionary and was very surprised. Nothing pleases me more than to be proven wrong in my negative judgment of a person's character.
On a personal level, he was a fine person, not as brutally brilliant as Patton or as dramatic as MacArthur, but far better loved by his troops, because he valued more than merely military victory.
As a general, he was one prominent military officer who discouraged the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, arguing that it was pointlessly punitive to do it to an already broken nation, and not worth the American ego-trip of an 'unconditional surrender'. I believe he was right.
He was a genuine internationalist who respected other countries and cultures, as evinced in his proclamations here and abroad.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
He was one of the only presidents in the modern era with the guts to actually pursue cuts in the irrationally bloated military budget, all in the midst of Cold War arms-race paranoia. As he stated to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1953:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
He respected the separation of powers and state and local authorities, which is why he was such a passive president. Granted, this was unfortunate for the latent civil rights movement, for which his administration is justly criticized. However, he sincerely believed that at that particular time, merely changing the laws would not alter the mindset and social climate in the South, which was volatile and dangerous.
He didn't enter the office with an agenda and he didn't try to fight the legislature, which follows the Federalist ideal of the American president. Sometimes this made him justifiably appear weak, but his strategy often worked in his favor, too. He despised McCarthy from the beginning, but knew that it was infeasible to openly oppose him, so he 'gave him enough rope in hopes that he would hang himself', which McCarthy reliably did.
I love presidents with vast dreams and ambitious programs like the Great Society just as anyone here, but as the founder of the Great Society himself implied, executive power can be used to terrible purposes as well.
Finally, he appreciated the horror of war, and despite misgivings from both Democrats and Republicans, he drew a rapid armistice in Korea in a way that spared America's reputation and ceased the needless destruction of thousands of lives. It wasn't an end to our trouble with Korea, but it was the better of several unhappy outcomes. I only wish that his vice-president had followed his lead in the following decade with Vietnam - tens of thousands of Americans might still be alive.
My grandparents all voted for Stevenson, and I probably would have as well, but in the end we could have done far worse than Ike.
|