Truman vs. Eisenhower

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

Fully agreed. Operation Ajax isn't talked about when discussing Eisenhower's legacy as much as it ought to be (and I say this as someone knowingly ignorant about foreign policy for the most part -- but I once wrote a Model UN position paper from the perspective of the Iranians and the perspective stuck with me). And although he gets credit for the civil rights progress that occurred under his administration, people don't seem to realize that he was not actually on board with much of it (e.g. referring to the federal troops in Little Rock as his worst presidential decision).

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

You seem to be defining the Religious Right as conservative Evangelical Protestants here.  If so, they cannot be lumped in with Mainline Protestants of the 1920s that voted against Smith.  Evangelicals largely were not politically active before the middle of the Twentieth Century.

You're right...that, too, sounds like a distinction I'm guessing the book made...my memory is pretty fuzzy about it now (and yes, admittedly I'm not very familiar with the denominations of Protestantism/Christianity - other than the geopolitical aspect of it, which slipped my mind when I wrote that post).

[Schiff for Senate]

Easily Truman.

Eisenhower is somewhat overrated in my view. Especially giving green light for Operation Ajax and his relatively weak response to the civil rights movement. I think Truman was a much better president and rightfully is ranked near the top.

From everything I have read, I have never seen an overly convincing argument that Eisenhower actually was "weak" on civil rights ... I mean, sure, he is a naturally conservative and pragmatic guy and he didn't support things he saw as un-Constitutional, but in instances where he DID feel he had that authority (such as sending troops to intervene in Little Rock), he did so.

Iirc, he sent the troops with great reluctance and later referred to it as his worst decision as president (can't remember the exact language he used, but it was words to that effect).

Eisenhower liked most Southern Democrats in Congress; he found them reliable allies and a counterweight to Senate Republican leader William Knowland (R-CA), who he despised.  Eisenhower was sympathetic to the Southern point of view to the degree that he believed that integration should proceed at a slow pace.  Was he wrong?  How much violence did Eisenhower avert with his slow approach?   He could likely have been bolder than he was, but the answer to how much violence we could have averted is very much speculative.  

This takes the whole "anti-BLM" schtick to a whole new level...

Let's be very clear, the politicians of the South did not want integration to occur - not just then and there, but never. You don't need to take my word for it; consider the words (and more importantly, the actions) of Southern politicians themselves ("segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever;" the Orval Faubus controversy; Massive Resistance in Virginia). Let's cut the bullsh**t. The "Southern point of view" was not that integration "proceed at a slow approach," it was that it never occur at all. Civil rights were already delayed a century after the Civil War, and even after Brown, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the South infamously tried numerous last-ditch efforts to hold onto segregation.

Whatever respect I still held for you has at last evaporated with this literal apologia for southern segregation (and no, that is not an exaggeration of what you've said - to call Massive Resistance, blocking schoolhouse doors and literally shutting down schools, record-long filibusters, a belief that "integration should occur at a slow pace" is at best a whitewashing of history). Either you are deliberately lying through your teeth, are willfully ignorant, or fail to understand basic American history.

(EDIT: And as for violence, that's utter bullsh**t too. Violence would have occurred - not by civil rights demonstrators, but by the whites who resisted integration - whenever segregation happened. The threat of violence should not have compelled the United States government to continue to bow to the South (and thankfully, in spite of Eisenhower's reservations, it did not). America should not kneel down to terrorist whether they are domestic or foreign.)

[Schiff for Senate]

Truman. While I consider Eisenhower to be a good President on balance, his stock as President as really fallen for me in recent years. Truman IMHO was also dealt a much tougher hand than Eisenhower was and Truman, despite having more to lose politically, pushed for Civil Rights a hell of a lot harder than Eisenhower did. Ike was also the first President to actively pander to the religious right.

This is a very good point I forgot to consider. God's Own Party (which I read about two years ago) fleshes out Billy Graham's strong support for Eisenhower and how he was the first president actively supported by the religious right (other than Hoover, but Hoover didn't court them - it was mainly out of anti-Catholic bigotry).

A lot of the GOP’s ties with the religious right under Eisenhower and even Reagan had a lot to do with the Cold War . Much of the Cold War narrative was that it was the Religious Capitalist West vs the Atheistic Communist East 

Yeah, for sure. That's why the religious right was strongly anti-Communist even by Red Scare standards.

[Schiff for Senate]

[snip]

I'm not criticizing Eisenhower's actions per se, although the fact remains that he, on a personal level, was no strong supporter of civil rights.

My issue is with your characterization of southern politicians as wanting to go slow on integration when the simple and clear fact of the matter is that they vigorously opposed it altogether. The same people that opposed the weak 1957 bill, filibustered it with all their might, stood equally strong against the 1964/1965 legislation, and (for the few that were still in office) were still against establishing MLK Day in 1982. Their goal was to stop it for as long as they possibly could, ideally forever.

Yes, Eisenhower did not filibuster, or stand at the door of the schoolhouse, or support Massive Resistance. But those are all actions that southern segregationist politicians undertook. Most of them were not, in fact, reasonable moderates on civil rights - that group would only emerge long after Eisenhower left office.

They were very much segregationist. My issue is that you've taken the history of their words and actions and whitewashed it to "integration should proceed at a slow pace."

As for the violence, yes, as you said, violence would inevitably erupt by the white supremacists, no matter when it occurred and at what pace. It was going to face massive resistance at every step. Does that mean it should not have been pursued all the more vigorously? No, it does not. That absolutely does not mean that it was not a goal worth pursuing, or that the federal government could not easily have managed the lawlessness. What you're essentially arguing - and there's really no better way of describing this - is giving up on civil rights out of fear of white backlash.