The Mortality Gap

Conventional wisdom has it that our 3 greatest Presidents are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

I have no particular quarrel with Washington (aside from his being an owner and seller of human beings).

My only quarrel with Lincoln is that he has more American blood on his hands than any other President in our history.

And my only quarrel with Roosevelt is that he was elected president twice after he knew he was dying of cancer.

Roosevelt was surely one of the most consequential men of human history. He led the United States through two crises, either one of which alone would have qualified him as a great leader. At the end of these crises, the United States was the most powerful nation in the history of the world by any and all measures.

He did great things and he did stupid and awful things (internment of Japanese-Americans, for example). But the thing that interests me most about Roosevelt is his morality concerning his mortality and his evident belief in his invulnerability.

The conventional wisdom when Roosevelt died was that he had, in the beautiful words of a Senator at the time (in a time when Senators occasionally spoke beautiful words) "literally worked himself to death in the service of the American people." And, as with all myths, there is a healthy does of truth to this.

But there is more. In 1940, Roosevelt had a decision to make. Back then, there were no term limits for presidents. So Roosevelt had to decide if he would be the first president to break the two-term precedent set by Washington.

There were many reasons to say yes. The first crisis (the Great Depression) was still unresolved. The second crisis (World War II) was only a matter of time. But there was a reason to say no as well: Roosevelt had cancer.

Roosevelt was a cripple. He could not walk or stand unaided. The fact that he was such a great man despite this is an amazing testament. But this was only possible because he willfully concealed (lied about) his true physical condition. And he had thousands of aiders and abettors. Perhaps you can defend hiding paralyzed legs from voters. But cancer?

But, of course, it's not so simple. Roosevelt obviously had a deep conviction that he was the best, perhaps the only, man for the job. And he may have been right.

The republican who ran against Roosevelt in 1940 died before his first term would have been over had he won. So did his running mate. So if Roosevelt had not run, or lost, in 1940, the president at the height of World War II would have been the senior member of the Senate, as the rules called for. That man was 87 years old.

So perhaps it is best that FDR covered up his cancer and served a 3rd term. But in 1944, he had the same decision to make again; would he run for an un-un-precedented 4th term?

Again, there were many reasons to say yes: The first crisis (Depression) was over, largely due to government spending and full employment caused by the second crisis (War). And the second crisis was almost over. No sense changing horses in midstream.

But, again, there were reasons to say no: specifically Roosevelt's cancer had metastasized to his brain. A quick glance at the 2nd photo above this post shows his deterioration. Roosevelt and his doctors knew he could not live another 4 years. He was not an old man (62) but he was a dying man.

Yet, he ran again. Knowing he would die, his choice for vice-president obviously carried monumental import. But he based his consideration entirely on domestic political concerns, picking a centrist senator from Missouri for reasons to boring and arcane to be relevant anymore. This was a decision made by a man who seemed to consider himself immortal.

And in some ways he was, and is, immortal. Any scenario of the 1930's and 40's in the U.S. without Roosevelt would have resulted in a much different, and probably far worse, outcome for us all. Roosevelt was the closest the U.S. has ever come to having a king. Lincoln was more of an Emperor.

And just like Lincoln, Roosevelt enjoys the virtue of martyrdom, which serves to posthumously excuse sin. But imagine if Lincoln had run for reelection in 1864 knowing he would die in 1865? Seems ridiculous.

But what if JFK had run in 1960 knowing he had debilitating illnesses? Or if Reagan had run in 1984 knowing that his mental faculties were abandoning him? Or if George W. Bush had run in 2000 knowing he was clueless? Imagine that.

Where Credit's Due (or, Where Credit Dies)

The two men pictured above have much in common. Until Bush the younger, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were the only 2-term Republican presidents other than Ulysses S. Grant. And the fact that the guy's name was Ulysses indicates how long ago that was.

Other things they had in common: they were, and remain, the two oldest presidents ever elected. They both served in World War II: Eisenhower was a 5-star general, responsible for the American invasion of Nazi-occupied France; Reagan made propaganda films in Hollywood.

As president, each of these men were given credit for certain things. The problem is that they did not deserve that credit. And the larger problem is that by giving them credit, we impale ourselves on our own delusions.

President Eisenhower was largely credited with ending the Korean War. How did he do so? Most American historians insist that he made peace by threatening to use nuclear weapons. The North Koreans and Chinese, sufficiently intimidated, then chose to sign a truce.

How do we know this is absurd? It implies that President Truman, who preceded Eisenhower, never made a similar threat. President Truman, of course, remains the only person in history to actually use nuclear weapons, so it is absurd in the extreme to assert that the North Koreans or Chinese were more intimidated by Eisenhower than they were by Truman.

So why did the Korean War really end? (It would be far more accurate to ask why the Korean War was paused, as it still remains in suspended animation which could break at any moment) The Korean War really ended because Stalin died.

Stalin, as Godfather of the Communist world, was able to use his enormous force of personality to insist that the North Korean and Chinese continue bleeding the Americans. When he died, his force of personality died with him, and his Asian colleagues swiftly called a truce, something Stalin had forbid during his lifetime.

The danger in the misreading described above is the lesson we learn from it. That erroneous lesson reads thusly: if you're trapped in a quagmire, just threaten nuclear annihilation and your enemy will quit. But what if they don't? Ever heard of Vietnam?

As for Ronald Reagan, he is largely credited with ending the Cold War. Mainstream historians tell us he did this by increasingly military spending to a level that the Communists simply could not compete with.

How do we know this is absurd? Because in seeking to bankrupt the Soviet Union, Reagan damn near bankrupted the United States. And when the Soviet Union did collapse, the militaries involved played absolutely no role whatsoever; it was a political process rather than a military one.

So why did the Cold War really end? Two reasons. Firstly, communism didn't work. Secondly, the Communist bloc finally had a ruler (Gorbachev) who allowed people to state the obvious: communism didn't work. As soon as people were given political choice, most of them chose a different political system.

Again, the danger in misreading the lesson describe above is what we "learned" from it. We learned that when we are confronted by an opposing force, we simply spend that force into the ground. But what happens when that opposing force is not even trying to outspend us?

Further, what happens when there always seems to be an opposing force that pops up after the last one was spent into dust? Then we keep spending. And what happens when we keep spending? We end up with a country in debt up to its eyeballs, most of that debt incurred by building weapons we could never use.

The danger with history is that people will use it to justify what they do. So if they misread history, and draw the wrong lessons, they will inherently make the wrong decisions in the present.

When we look back at the foreign policy of this country in the last 60 years, it boils down to two tenets, both of which are based on misreadings of history: threaten to use nukes and build thousands of nukes you could never use. What's the worst that could happen?