Two former presidents have recently been in the news for unfavorable reasons. Recent DNA testing showed that Republican Warren Harding, already believed to have had an extra-marital affair with at least one mistress, likely had a love child with another, perhaps confirming the second ones tell-all book about their affair written in the 1920s after Harding had died in office. Another former president, Democrat Jimmy Carter, announced that he had cancer. What do these seemingly unrelated chief executivesin both time, party, and temperamenthave in common? They were both significantly better presidents than the historical reputations they have been given.
In fact, these presidents may have been better than they themselves believed. Warren Harding famously admitted that he was unfit for the role of chief executive. In Jimmy Carters case, he has done little to try to improve the historical memory of his time in office, instead concentrating on many noteworthy humanitarian accomplishments during his post-presidencyperhaps an admission that things didnt go so well while he was in the White House. These two men were too hard on themselves.
Both of these men did have their failures, which are often highlighted by historians, but also had forgotten accomplishments that greatly exceeded their disappointments. Harding is remembered for scandals, both sex and corruption, while in office, whereas Jimmy Carter is mainly remembered for stagflationhigh inflation combined with slow economic growth.
Hardings sex scandals had even less to do with his performance in office than those of Bill Clinton (Clintons perjury in a personal matter undermined the legal system, whether or not one believes it rose to the level of an impeachable offense). In the three corruption scandals during his administration, later publicized after he died, Harding had no involvement, and the culprit in one of them was not appointed by Harding. It is never good to have corruption in a presidential administration, but historians have been selective in forgetting significant corruption in some favored administrationsfor example, they have let Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan off the hook for significant venal corruption for which the Harding administration was not excused. Also, historians focus on venal corruptionsuch as that of the Harding and Ulysses S. Grant administrationsat the expense of constitutional scandals, such as Ronald Reagans Iran-Contra and Richard Nixons Watergate, which have much more serious implications for the republic than a few officials benefiting excessively from public service.
Instead, Harding should be remembered for reestablishing what he called normalcy after Woodrow Wilsons great fiascoaltering the balance of power in Europe by the U.S. entry into World War I, which ultimately led to World War II and the Cold War. After the war, Harding rejected U.S. entry into the League of Nations, which would have usurped Congresss constitutional power to declare war and could have automatically involved the United States in many unnecessary overseas wars. Hardingand the war-exhausted American peoplewanted to avoid future conflicts. So Harding reached the first international arms control agreement, the Washington Naval Treaty, which reduced the naval tonnage of the worlds largest naval powers. The treaty was used as a precedent for future arms control agreements that saved money and made war less likely. At home, Harding successfully dealt with a war-induced recession by greatly reducing government spending and allowing the economy to right itself naturally. Hardingand his successor Calvin Coolidge, who largely continued Hardings peaceful polices abroad and fiscal conservatism at homepresided over one of the few times, since its origin in the 1850s, that the Republican Party has actually given the American people small government (the others being the one-term of Rutherford B. Hayes and perhaps the one term of Chester Arthur, both in the late 1800s).
Despite their difference in party, Jimmy Carter followed similar policies to Harding in returning the country to normalcy after the unpopular Vietnam War and Watergate scandal. Contrary to conventional wisdom, even among historians, Carternot Reaganwas the first conservative president since the Harding/Coolidge era. Carter pioneered most of what Reagan would become famous forderegulation of the economy and fiscal and monetary conservatism. Carter inherited stagflation from Nixons Vietnam War and profligate monetary policies to win re-election. In the end, Carter appointed one of the greatest heads of the Federal Reserve in American historyPaul Volckerwho austerely reduced the money supply, which ultimately dramatically lowered inflation and led to the prosperity of the 1980s, for which Reagans measly net tax cut has been given the credit. Furthermore, experts on regulation have noted that Carters full or partial deregulation of four major U.S. industries was much more consequential than Reagans reducing enforcement of existing regulations.
Finally, Carter, sensing the war exhaustion of the American people after Vietnam, had the best post-World War II presidential record of military restraint. Reagan, often given credit for a macho reputation that deterred conflict, really began the ramp up back to useless and costly overseas American meddlingby militarily provoking Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, invading the tiny country of Grenada for no good reason, and getting almost 250 Marines killed in Lebanon in support of Israels invasion of that country. In contrast, Carter only used military action once in an attempt to rescue hostages held by Iran, which he eventually got released by negotiation.
Thus, the candidates for president in 2016, both Democratic and Republican, could learn valuable lessons from the successful small government policies, both at home and abroad, of Harding and Carter; but as yet, they dont seem to be getting it.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
A candid reassessment of the presidential scorecard over the past 100 years, identifying the hypocrisy of those who promised to limit government while giving due credit when presidents lived up to their rhetoric.