Pundit needs to know that Harding was bold and enlightened on civil rights & civil liberties and ushered in peace, prosperity, bipartisanship, cautious internationalism, and innovative management
Show me the slightest reverence toward Wilson and I will assume nothing coming from you is of any value. Khan will certainly not accept any criticism of his holy idols.
Does the "you" in the first sentence refer to me, specifically, or to "you" as a synonym for "one" or "someone." From the wording, it's ambiguous whether you're criticizing my article or Kahn's or both. I think I know the answer, but let me know.
Just finished Jon Meacham’s bio of Andrew Jackson. Don’t know if Meacham is full of “high-blown gibberish” - could be, or not, nevertheless, I was amazed at the parallels between Jackson and Trump. Both fighting for the people and against the entrenched elite, both determined to dismantle the central bank, and both accused of being uncouth ruffians when what they really were/are are men dedicated to truth, justice and the American way. Supermen!
Historians who write in the passive voice weaken their argument, especially when they fail to identify the actor. Kahn does this consistently: "three Presidents deemed failures"--by whom? "how it was seen at the time"--by whom? "usually interpreted as"--by whom? It's the historian's equivalent of the politicians' "Mistakes were made."
Fascinating read. Much enjoyed. From a historical perspective, we live in the most interesting of times. If we throw off the New Deal (whether the creation of Hoover or FDR is irrelevant) the US economy may be poised for an astounding run.
as a side note, Ben Hecht , who was a foreign correspondent for a Chicago paper, says that when he returned to the US in the mid 20s from Germany, sorry for this run on sentence, He had a meeting with Coolidge. A. he was very surprised to find that Coolidge was following what was going on closely. B. He wanted to know what Hecht thought since he had been there for a number of years. So much for one of our underated Presidents.
One of the best reviews of the weaknesses of the New Deal is Amity Schlaes's "The Forgotten Man." She argues that the cause of the "depression within a depression" in 1938 was regime uncertainty. No one could make long term plans when FDR and his party kept changing the rules in the middle of the game. She also wrote a fine biography of Calvin Coolidge.
It's amazing how thoroughly Harding's reputation was trashed. I recently read Joe Posnanski's otherwise excellent "The Baseball 100," and in one of his vignettes he takes a gratuitous swipe at "the horrible President Harding" (or words to that effect). Completely irrelevant to the story he was telling, and had an "as we all know" wink to it.
A lot of the success of the Harding and Coolidge administrations were due to Herbert Hoover, we were taught in school. So much of the modern USA was codified and administered in the 1920s: Communications, Highways, Air Transportation. Perhaps when Hoover was elevated to the Presidency he was an example of the Peter Principle: you are promoted until you reach a level where you become incompetent....
Great stuff as usual. I’ve always thought that Warren Harding was unfairly criticized. And his Interior Secretary, Albert Fall, the original ‘fall guy’, and the whole Teapot Dome affair, is worth a column, too.
Terrific piece; the idolatry of Wilson over the years is truly baffling. IMO, the single most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history was involvement in WW I.
Amity Schlaes's biography of Coolidge makes similar points re the pre-Hoover '20s.
Very good. Wilson was an evil genius, unfortunately for the country. And would that Teddy Roosevelt had just rested on his laurels and let Taft have a second term. Much bad stuff cold have been avoided.
Show me the slightest reverence toward Wilson and I will assume nothing coming from you is of any value. Khan will certainly not accept any criticism of his holy idols.
Does the "you" in the first sentence refer to me, specifically, or to "you" as a synonym for "one" or "someone." From the wording, it's ambiguous whether you're criticizing my article or Kahn's or both. I think I know the answer, but let me know.
Sorry for the poor wording; if you did adduce Khan, you are correct. If I have a criticism for you, it is that you treated him too kindly.
I'm a kind fellow--much like Warren Harding. :)
Just finished Jon Meacham’s bio of Andrew Jackson. Don’t know if Meacham is full of “high-blown gibberish” - could be, or not, nevertheless, I was amazed at the parallels between Jackson and Trump. Both fighting for the people and against the entrenched elite, both determined to dismantle the central bank, and both accused of being uncouth ruffians when what they really were/are are men dedicated to truth, justice and the American way. Supermen!
Historians who write in the passive voice weaken their argument, especially when they fail to identify the actor. Kahn does this consistently: "three Presidents deemed failures"--by whom? "how it was seen at the time"--by whom? "usually interpreted as"--by whom? It's the historian's equivalent of the politicians' "Mistakes were made."
Fascinating read. Much enjoyed. From a historical perspective, we live in the most interesting of times. If we throw off the New Deal (whether the creation of Hoover or FDR is irrelevant) the US economy may be poised for an astounding run.
as a side note, Ben Hecht , who was a foreign correspondent for a Chicago paper, says that when he returned to the US in the mid 20s from Germany, sorry for this run on sentence, He had a meeting with Coolidge. A. he was very surprised to find that Coolidge was following what was going on closely. B. He wanted to know what Hecht thought since he had been there for a number of years. So much for one of our underated Presidents.
One of the best reviews of the weaknesses of the New Deal is Amity Schlaes's "The Forgotten Man." She argues that the cause of the "depression within a depression" in 1938 was regime uncertainty. No one could make long term plans when FDR and his party kept changing the rules in the middle of the game. She also wrote a fine biography of Calvin Coolidge.
Shlaes's books are masterpieces. And, yes, she also focused on Hoover's proto-New Deal and the havoc it caused.
It's amazing how thoroughly Harding's reputation was trashed. I recently read Joe Posnanski's otherwise excellent "The Baseball 100," and in one of his vignettes he takes a gratuitous swipe at "the horrible President Harding" (or words to that effect). Completely irrelevant to the story he was telling, and had an "as we all know" wink to it.
I'd have torn out the page, but it was an e-book.
A lot of the success of the Harding and Coolidge administrations were due to Herbert Hoover, we were taught in school. So much of the modern USA was codified and administered in the 1920s: Communications, Highways, Air Transportation. Perhaps when Hoover was elevated to the Presidency he was an example of the Peter Principle: you are promoted until you reach a level where you become incompetent....
Great stuff as usual. I’ve always thought that Warren Harding was unfairly criticized. And his Interior Secretary, Albert Fall, the original ‘fall guy’, and the whole Teapot Dome affair, is worth a column, too.
Terrific piece; the idolatry of Wilson over the years is truly baffling. IMO, the single most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history was involvement in WW I.
Amity Schlaes's biography of Coolidge makes similar points re the pre-Hoover '20s.
I wonder how many people know much about Calvin Coolidge besides that Lina Lamont made more money than him. ("PUT TOGETHER!")
Very good. Wilson was an evil genius, unfortunately for the country. And would that Teddy Roosevelt had just rested on his laurels and let Taft have a second term. Much bad stuff cold have been avoided.