Compare and Contrast two U.S. Presidents - Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan - Essay Example

?History and Political Science: Compare and Contrast two U.S. Presidents [Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan] The role of President of the United s is one of the most visible and demanding jobs in the world. Each new President brings to the job a different mix of character traits, experience and skills which then help to determine the style of his administration and the type of leadership that the country experiences. This paper compares and contrasts two very different President : Harry Truman (1884-1972) who was President from 1945-1953, and Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) who was President from 1981-1989. A brief summary of the historical context and main achievements of Truman and then Reagan is given, and after this, the two Presidents are compared, bringing out similarities and differences in the areas of domestic policy, foreign policy and legacy for the future. Finally conclusions are drawn which demonstrate that both men were effective Presidents, but Ronald Reagan did the better job. Harry Truman, a Democrat, became President towards the end of the Second World War. He made one of the most fateful decisions in the history of mankind when he gave permission for the use of the atom bomb on Japanese cities, in an effort to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. Having served himself as a soldier in France in the First World War he had direct experience of the dreadful casualties of trench warfare with mechanized traditional weapons, and he was reluctantly persuaded that the atom bomb would be a means to an end, pushing the enemies to surrender. The tactic was effective, but the cost in human life shocked the world, and the shadow of nuclear weapons has influenced world history ever since. After the war Truman proved to be a diligent supporter of the victims of the war. He helped put together the Marshall plan which sent aid to millions of starving people and contributed to the rebuilding of war-torn Europe. By 1950 tensions with the Soviet Union had begun to reach worrying levels, and this is the background to the ideology which the President developed and which came to be known as “the Truman Doctrine.” In a speech on the subject of the threat of Communism to Greece and Turkey, he developed the idea that the United States should actively intervene in world politics to contain the spread of Communism beyond its post war boundaries. Truman summed up this notion with the words: “I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” (Truman, 1947, quoted in Bostdorff: 2008, p. 4) The speech was carefully crafted by Truman’s advisers, and it proved to mark a definitive change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy, leading swiftly into a period of high tension that we know as the Cold War internationally. Within the United States the anti-Communist rhetoric led to the persecution of people known to have, or suspected of having, Communist sympathies. The events leading up to the Korean war show a President increasingly reliant on military force, or the threat of military force, in foreign policy. There had been qualifying statements in the original speech, spelling out that military options were not the only, nor even the main form of support that America could offer to states under threat from “outside pressure” : “I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.” (Truman, 1947, quoted in Bostdorff: 2008, p. 120) Despite this qualification, Truman found himself drawn into military options and launching into an in which America perceived itself as playing a policeman role in world politics. It may be that one reason for this turn of events is that Truman, never very eloquent or subtle in his dealing with critics and opponents, could not envisage any other path than a clear and simple resistance. Critics acknowledge the great service that Truman gave in his term of office, and his diligence in helping mop up the aftermath of war in Europe. McCullough’s biography, for example, is generally very positive about Truman, presenting him as a down to earth, ordinary man who got straight to the point on moral issues, and had a good understanding of American traditions and values. There are some signs, however, that the good natured and not very educated farm boy may have missed some of the implications of the momentous decisions that he made during his term of office. He agonized long and hard over the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in an effort to end the Second World War, and he was equally exercised about sending troops to the Korean War. The military had a strong hold over him, and he seemed unable to exert a strong influence on his generals and advisers. One can only speculate on how different things might have been if Truman had stuck to his deeply held principles and resisted some of the extreme military measures that his advisers urged upon him. He seemed to have a problem with military men and their style, and McCullough traces this back to resentments caused by his own impoverished youth: “He (=Truman) himself, in retirement, would say most generals were ‘dumb’, ‘like horses with blinders on’ and would fault their West Point Education (the education he had so wanted as a youth but was denied.) (McCullough: 2002, p. 793) Ronald Reagan was a completely different type of character than Truman. He was a Republican, and through his experience in the world of films had an easy rapport with the great and the good of America. He was at first regarded as something of a liability, because of his advancing age, and his lack of substance, but he became one of the most popular Presidents at home and abroad. This was no doubt helped by the fact that he survived an assassination attempt in his first year of office in 1981. Reagan was a supreme communicator, and his skill on the campaign trail is legendary. He also fostered a deep and lasting understanding with British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who once noted in admiration that Reagan “won the Cold war without firing a shot.” (Thatcher, quoted in The Reagan Diaries, p. xii) The diaries are evidence of these two leaders calling each other and consulting on issues like free trade, the Falklands War, American action in Grenada, and many other issues. Some scholars have noted that Reagan’s presidential style was not exactly dynamic, and if anything more reactive than proactive: “Reagan was more dependent on staff than any other recent president… Reagan initiated nothing, gave no orders, decided nothing except in the sense of choosing among options presented to him by his advisers…” (Pemberton: 1998, p. 113) In his published diaries, Reagan notes in the second entry for the period of his Presidency that he had meetings on terrorism with representatives from key organizations like the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the Secretary of State for Defence and that he has “ordered they be given back their ability to function.” (Reagan: 2007, p. 1) This highlights his “hands off” approach to managing his team. In contrast he notes a few days later with reference to a visit from the Prime Minister of Jamaica: “I think we can help him & gradually take back the Caribbean which was becoming a ‘Red’ lake.” (Reagan: 2007, p. 1) Pemberton highlights as Reagan’s major achievements as being his contribution to the defence of the American value system, his championing of free market economics on the global stage, the maintenance of a conservative judiciary, and a commitment to federalism. (Pemberton: 1998, p. 210) Opinions differ with respect to his “evil empire” rhetoric in relation to the Soviet Union, but on balance he managed to manipulate the Soviets between the threat of an unthinkable nuclear war on the one hand and the threat of capitalist domination on the other. Reagan played a significant part in the downfall of the socialist system across Eastern Europe and into Soviet territories, not least because he gathered world opinion with him in his crusades against states that harboured terrorists (such as Libya). Reagan, too, has a doctrine named after him, and it is the “Reaganomics” doctrine which was his answer to problems of slow growth, high unemployment and rising inflation in the U.S. economy during the 1970’s. His introduction of large tax cuts, along with huge investment in military proved popular with Republicans and Democrats alike. In order to sustain this level of investment, however, the rhetoric of the Cold War had to be used as a justifying argument. The strategy worked, and although the benefits of tax cuts were much greater for the richer members of society than for the poorer ones, and many services and government departments were cut, the economy came out stronger as a result. Some critics point out that the lowering of wages at home, in order to improve the competitiveness of American goods on world markets, and a neglect of the environmental consquences of industrial expansion are weaknesses of President Reagan’s administration. Ackerman notes, for example that Reaganomics claimed that it “did an outstanding job of addressing the frustrations of the late 1970” while in fact it stored up an economic slump for a later date. These two very different politicians demonstrate opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of management style. Neither were particularly well trained in matters of law and politics, but both operated on the basis of genuine popularity at the grass roots level and an ability to inspire trust. Truman was a micro-manager, fussing about tiny details, and agonizing over his decisions, while Reagan relied upon his advisers to do the bulk of the work and consulted widely at home and abroad. Both Presidents advocated a strong military basis from which the United States could influence world politics, especially in relation to the task of containing Communism, which both believed in. Of the two Presidents Reagan is the one who has left the most lasting legacy. The Truman Doctrine led the United States into many an expensive military campaign of dubious benefit to those involved, and to the people at home. His policy of supplying aid to other states only increased their dependence on outside influence, albeit of a positive kind. President Reagan’s initiatives on controlling inflation, and improving America’s trading position in the world, however, presented a more helpful model for solving many problems at home and abroad. It promotes self-reliance and responsibility, both for individuals and for nations, and this is the reason why his legacy is overall better for America. References Ackerman, Frank. Reaganomics: rhetoric vs. reality. Boston, MA: Southend Press, 1982. Bostdorff, Denise M. Proclaiming the Truman Doctrine: The Cold War Call to Arms. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2008. Cox, Michael. “From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Detente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research 27 (1) (1990), pp. 25-41. McCullogh, David. Truman. New York: Touchstone, 2002. Pemberton, William E. Exit with honor: the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998. Reagan, Ronald. The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Read More