In 1972, my first vote for president was for George McGovern.
President Nixon had governed with little regard for the law or civil liberties. He desperately imposed wage-and-price controls and embraced Keynesian economics, declaring “we’re all Keynesians now” and making the economy worse. His promised “plan” to end the Vietnam War was nonexistent.
His and his surrogates’ rhetoric stoked division and resentment. Anything to win re-election. And he used “executive privilege” to stonewall congressional investigations. Nixon was bad for the country.
McGovern was not ideal;
he’d abandoned his fi rst vice presidential pick, and his foreign policy ranged from plausible to idiotic.
But McGovern, a Democrat from South Dakota, tried to solve national problems, not just manage their political consequences as Nixon had. McGovern had the character of a leader.
I thought that as president, McGovern would learn. The rest of my car pool, a lieutenant colonel and three captains just back from Vietnam, vehemently disagreed.
But they humored the lieutenant for comity on our hour-plus commute between our Maryland homes and downtown D.C.
Liberal and 24 years oldor conservative and 64, I believed and believe the president’s character as a leader and his commitment to the Constitution are requirements for a successful presidency.
The essential fi rst success is protecting our God-given liberties, the reason governments exist according to the Founders.
As Reagan showed, prosperity and innovation follow the fl ourishing of personal and economic freedom.
Despite President Barack Obama’s appealing personal qualities, he lacks the character of a leader.
He is Nixonian in his secrecy, contempt for law and a willingness to say or do anything for re-election.
Like his immigration decree, Obama’s waiver letter on welfare reform promises fl exibility where the law provides none.
Romney’s ad claiming Obama is gutting welfare reform might or might not be accurate. The nature of the waivers granted will determine whether the bipartisan, Clintonera welfare reform is “gutted” or merely illegally modifi ed. The governors’ letter Obama defenders cite requested legislative change, not an imperial fi at.
Obama’s actions fl out the separation of powers by arrogating to himself the legislative function.
For this administration, the law and the Constitution are insubstantial cobwebs to be brushed away. The secretary of health and human services unilaterally defi nes what religious practice is. The president makes recess appointments when Congress is in session. He conducts a war on Libya without congressional approval. He lives by Nixon’s infamous dictum, “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
Obama and his surrogates create and exploit division, as did Nixon. Before minority audiences and sometimes from the White House, Obama solicits racial division, as in prejudging the Professor Gates aft air and choosing a racially biased attorney general.
Obama also divides by class, belittling smallbusiness owners and stigmatizing them as “the rich,” while leveraging government grants and contracts to exploit the avarice of rent-seeking big corporations for campaign money.
An appeal to class envy, if based on truth, might attract voters beyond a few ideologically blinded Americans. But few Americans begrudge, for example, the Kennedy family’s inherited wealth, however questionably it originated. Americans generally want to improve our own living standards a bit and our children’s a lot. Until now that’s been the reality.
“In fact, the median American family is twice as rich today as it was in 1960, if one takes into account changes in family size, government and employer benefi ts, and rising immigration,” said Scott Winship, a fellow at the center-left BrookingsInstitution. He carefully analyzes statistics to show all income levels have enjoyed absolute gains for decades.
Statistics, however, are irrelevant to families still jobless or under-employed because of the Bush-Obama recession and the Obama non-recovery.
To divert from that reality, Obama demagogues. Thus the character assassination, such as the “Understanding” ad, falsely implying Romney is to blame for a woman’s death. Obama refuses to condemn the lie, because it’s his: Even NPR cites evidence of illegal coordination with top Obama campaign off cials.
Lacking the character of a leader, Obama can’t even act on his own debt commission’s recommendations, honestly address Medicare’s nearing insolvency, or get one member of Congress to vote for his budgets.
After McGovern left the Senate, owning his own business taught him how government burdens entrepreneurs and job creation, but he remains a proud liberal.
Still, if it were Nixon vs. McGovern today, I’d sadly vote for the leader from South Dakota.
BUDDY ROGERS IS A RETIRED ARMY OFFICER WHO LIVES IN ROGERS.
Opinion, Pages 17 on 08/26/2012