The Eisenhower Era (Honors)
- How
does Eisenhower’s political leadership compare with that of other
general-presidents: Washington, Jackson, Taylor, and Grant?
- Was Eisenhower’s seeming caution and inactivity a lack of vigorous leadership or a wise prudence in the exercise of power?
- Was
the 1950s a time of American Triumph abroad and affluence at home, or
was it a period that actually suppressed many problems of race, women’s
roles, and cultural conformity?
- Which
writers and artists best expressed the concerns of American culture in
the 1950s? Was there a connection between the rise of pop-culture
figures like Elvis Presley ad Marilyn Monroe and the changes in art and
writing (like the Beats and the new southern writers)?
7 comments:
Well, Taylor died after one and a half years. Grant had a hard time dealing with corruption, but unlike Eisenhower, Grant was a little more into civil rights. He banned state laws that denied blacks the right to vote. Eisenhower pretty much did what most presidents would with war issues. Eisenhower was the first to come up with a way to get around the country (like the interstate highway). Jackson created the removal policy which had the Native Americans move from their homelands to Oklahoma and Arkansas and this policy failed eventually. Washington was the first general-president and had so much to do during his presidency. He was interested in western expansion. Washington has passed a ton of policies. Washington was given the chance to run for the third time. There isn't much of a comparison to make between these five people. They were all good presidents except for Taylor because he died before anyone could have a good opinion of him.
Eisenhowers seeming caution and inactivity was a combination of both lack of vigorous leadership and a wise prudence in the exercise of power. Most generals who are used to demanding orders and having them followed immediately fail to recognize the intrinsic difficulties that lay in the political arena. Though well meaning, he was sadly exposed as a poor leader as a President. Eisenhower's energies on problems seemed only to be directed only towards issues of foreign policy.
Personally I would rank Eisenhower's political leadership about equal to Jacksons because they were both very strong leaders and that was a key characteristic to run a huge nation like the US. Taylor died a year and a half into his term as president so he wasn't able to get as much accomplished as someone like Washington would have. Ike is definitely above grant because grant had a huge drawback in his presidency and he had to correct a corrupt government.
I believe that Eisenhower was lacking of leadership . Like Jade stated, he was a general and was accostumed to given out orders and people followed them. Once coming in the political field he was not sure how to get others to follow his orders. This led to the lack of leadership.
Im not sure what the question is asking but I don't think it was lack of leadership that made Eisenhower not react, the country was so split and anti communism had such a strong and passionate following it wouldn't have looked good either way. It would've been him joining in a witch hunt and caving to pressure or losing face and being a communist.
Its very difficult to compare and contrast the political leadership styles of these men. Washington had the most problematic of jobs before him and when he became president he passed many policies and was was interested in western exspansion like Tina stated. Taylors administration was short-lived and so he didnt get to accomplish much or prove himmself, and Grant's.. lets just say his two terms(curruption, curruption,curruption!) in office were disasterous. Jackson was tough and ruthless...and didnt give a quarter to his political enemies...and his leadership was compelling,dynamic, and hard-hitting but controversial. Eisenhower, again a magnificent general during the war...but to some a very average president
Ayy lmao
Post a Comment