06-26-2020, 06:13 AM
Abraham Lincoln and FDR were both trained attorneys, too.
It is ironic that I would find Obama more similar to Eisenhower in his electoral appeal than to any other President, but the temperament is much alike (OK, both were Reactive types more pragmatic than preachy... and if it is career choice, I could hardly think of someone better suited to be a senior military officer than Obama. He is a spit-and-polish, go-by-the-book leader who recognizes that at times the book must be edited to meet the times and that the book must be bypassed under extreme situations. Eisenhower also looks like good legal material, and had he not become the superb general that he became I could imagine him as a high-ranking member of a federal or state judiciary. Note that his biggest decisions as President were to uphold decisions of the US Supreme Court.
The big difference in their political careers is that Obama was on the fast track to the Presidency and Eisenhower wasn't -- and that for Eisenhower the Presidency is the obviously the end of a distinguished career while Obama would be a very active President Emeritus if the fool now President recognized what a treasure Obama is. Think of Nixon once the sting of Watergate was gone, Carter after his bad-luck Presidency was over, and the elder Bush when the focus was on what everyone recognized that he did well: foreign policy.
The map shows largely a partisan realignment of identity between states... and that Obama and Eisenhower obviously appealed to many people similar in demographics. Eisenhower overpowered Stevenson twice in winning the votes of highly-educated people, winning both college graduates (although there were fewer, and the older college graduates of Ike's time were almost strictly associated with the WASP elite) and high-school graduates... when high-school graduation was still an above-average level of formal education. Obama did very well among college graduates, if not people with "no college"... but high-school education and nothing more is now below-average education. Stevenson did well among high-school drop-outs and people with middle-school or lesser education, which may reflect educational performance in the states that he won. Just take a look at the states that Stevenson won... and those that he lost.
Attributed to Adlai Stevenson was his contention that he was the "thinking man's candidate". The state map suggests otherwise. If I am to see a pattern among the states of those that went to Eisenhower in the 1950's but not to Obama, then aside from Texas and Tennessee that those are largely states in which livestock ranching was a big part of the economy and still is. Where energy production is big, McCain and Romney did well -- as did Ike.
It is ironic that I would find Obama more similar to Eisenhower in his electoral appeal than to any other President, but the temperament is much alike (OK, both were Reactive types more pragmatic than preachy... and if it is career choice, I could hardly think of someone better suited to be a senior military officer than Obama. He is a spit-and-polish, go-by-the-book leader who recognizes that at times the book must be edited to meet the times and that the book must be bypassed under extreme situations. Eisenhower also looks like good legal material, and had he not become the superb general that he became I could imagine him as a high-ranking member of a federal or state judiciary. Note that his biggest decisions as President were to uphold decisions of the US Supreme Court.
The big difference in their political careers is that Obama was on the fast track to the Presidency and Eisenhower wasn't -- and that for Eisenhower the Presidency is the obviously the end of a distinguished career while Obama would be a very active President Emeritus if the fool now President recognized what a treasure Obama is. Think of Nixon once the sting of Watergate was gone, Carter after his bad-luck Presidency was over, and the elder Bush when the focus was on what everyone recognized that he did well: foreign policy.
The map shows largely a partisan realignment of identity between states... and that Obama and Eisenhower obviously appealed to many people similar in demographics. Eisenhower overpowered Stevenson twice in winning the votes of highly-educated people, winning both college graduates (although there were fewer, and the older college graduates of Ike's time were almost strictly associated with the WASP elite) and high-school graduates... when high-school graduation was still an above-average level of formal education. Obama did very well among college graduates, if not people with "no college"... but high-school education and nothing more is now below-average education. Stevenson did well among high-school drop-outs and people with middle-school or lesser education, which may reflect educational performance in the states that he won. Just take a look at the states that Stevenson won... and those that he lost.
Attributed to Adlai Stevenson was his contention that he was the "thinking man's candidate". The state map suggests otherwise. If I am to see a pattern among the states of those that went to Eisenhower in the 1950's but not to Obama, then aside from Texas and Tennessee that those are largely states in which livestock ranching was a big part of the economy and still is. Where energy production is big, McCain and Romney did well -- as did Ike.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.