Presidential Policies and Performance Essay

Affirmative action in the United States has a long and mixed history starting with the American Civil War which was fought essentially over the question of the emancipation of African slaves. Since then, many reforms were undertaken by successive governments, some providing a more robust response than the others. This essay compares the civil rights programs and policies of the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations.

In the 1940s equal rights for Blacks was still very much a nascent concept with past prejudices and white supremacists dominating much of the popular discourse on racial equality.

President Harry S Truman’s term from 1945 to 1953 as the 33rd President was characterized by serious economic and social challenges. Prime amongst these were the actions required for improving the lot of Black America. When Congress passed the retrograde Taft-Hartley Act which effectively empowered factory owners to run their companies in whatever ways they deemed it efficient, it was deplored as a slavery bill by many labor unions.

Truman was against this act and had vetoed it which was overturned in the senate. Truman’s actions earned him the ire of right-wing America but still managed to be reelected to office in 1948. On assuming his second term, Truman’s first drive to bring inequality among races was to initiate his Fair Deal proposals (About the White House 7), which called a fair deal for every segment of the population, a call for universal health care, housing act 1949, as also the desegregation of the US armed forces.

Truman was a latecomer to the equality question but nonetheless, as the President, he ordered the desegregation of the US armed forces and appointed the first Federal Civil Rights Committee to investigate racial discrimination and was the first sitting President to address The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (Geselbracht 21).

Eisenhower, who succeeded Truman as the 34th President from 1953 to 1961 despite his personal ambivalence to the race question, gave real impetus to the civil rights movement. Eisenhower completed the Truman administration’s initiative of desegregation of the US armed forces. Eisenhower had supported the Brown Vs Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court decision and had pushed for integration of white and black children in Public schools and proposed and signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 (Pauley 64).

The 1957 Civil Rights Act aimed to give blacks the right to vote on an equal basis as the rest of the citizens of America. The Democrats opposed the bill which was then watered down and its enforcement limited. The Act however opened the door for subsequent affirmative action and modification and removed segregation in housing policies. Eisenhower persisted and signed the 1960 Civil Rights Act which expanded the authority of federal judges to protect the voting rights and establish voter electoral rolls.

While Truman and Eisenhower both supported affirmative action in their own way, their approach to the issue was decidedly conservative. The personal philosophies of both the Presidents were set in the social fabric and cultural norms of that period which limited their freedom of action. By the time Eisenhower demitted office in 1961, Black America had been awakened leading to protests and riots which invited an equally harsh response from the White conservative lobby. Race relations were strained and it was in this cauldron of turmoil that President John F Kennedy arrived with a firm view of eradicating racialism and inequality in America.

Kennedy believed in nurturing a grassroots movement to bring about real change in America. His famous speech on race relations in 1963 (Pauley 106) set the pace for the inclusion of the Civil Rights Bill (Donaldson 91) which later transformed into the groundbreaking Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed racial segregation in all walks of life. The act also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Kennedy also created the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women that paved the way for legal and official support to ensure equal treatment of women in the workplace. This initiative helped not only all women but also colored women who had previously suffered the double ignominy of being black and a woman. The only black mark in Kennedy’s sterling performance for affirmative action was his allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to wiretap Martin Luther King on the allegations that he was a communist.

The Three Presidents in their own ways steered affirmative action and ensuring that African-Americans could get their rightful place in American society. Truman, before he was the President had been a reluctant convert to the cause of affirmative action. However, on assuming office he realized the grave fallacy in the contours of American society and had thus initiated the process. Truman’s contribution is truly important because he dared to confront popular (mis)beliefs, and take the risk of losing reelection and yet force through far-reaching changes in the ways America looked at its people of color.

Eisenhower, despite his personal misgivings, honored the responsibilities of his august office and brought the civil rights process to its logical conclusion in the case of the US armed forces where he completed the Truman administration’s desegregation policies. The 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts were his contributions to the progress of the Civil Rights movement. But by far the most courageous and visionary actions taken were by John F Kennedy whose humane and idealistic approach led to the civil rights movement gaining critical mass.

Kennedy’s famous speech in 1963 where he admitted that race relations were a question of morality for the nation became an important milestone in the Civil Rights Movement. His administration pushed through the Civil rights bill that later led to the Civil Rights Act 1964 was a defining moment of his short and tragic Presidency. It is doubtless that had Kennedy not been assassinated in 1963, the Civil Rights movement would have achieved considerably more results in that period.

The Presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W Bush: A Comparative Study

In recent times, perhaps no two presidencies have generated such intense debate as those of Presidents William Jefferson Clinton and George W Bush. Each President had a unique set of challenges before him and thus had to find solutions and policies to face those challenges. This essay compares the performance of Clinton and Bush as Presidents and their respective legacies.

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served as the 42nd President of the United States while George Walker Bush, a Republican, was the 43rd President. Clinton came from a humble background, who through his intellect and perseverance earned scholarships to fund his education that included majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Oxford and a law degree from Yale. Bush on the other hand came from a well-established family with substantial landholdings in Texas and thus never had to struggle for his education.

These life experiences of both the Presidents impinged on their leadership styles during their respective Presidencies. Clinton won his 1992 election on a domestic platform with promises to improve the economy. George W Bush doubtfully won his election. Bill Clinton left an economy with a record surplus of $ 236 Billion (BushLies.net 1). George Bush left an economy in shambles thanks to his disastrous foreign policy initiatives. Clinton supported gay rights in the armed forces but was only successful in pushing through ‘Don’t ask Don’t Tell’ legislation in Congress. Bush, a born-again Christian has conservative views on gays and lesbians.

The Clinton administration’s foreign policy initiatives were more nuanced and balanced. Clinton pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was opposed by the Republicans. The Clinton administration was more concerned with larger issues facing the world such as global warming and conservation issues. Bush pushed through the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare initiatives which were well received by the American public. The Bush administration undoubtedly had to take a tough stance in its ‘War on Terror’ after the 9/11 attacks but went completely overboard, surrendering foreign policy right-wingers of the American society.

Bush failed to strike a balance and went along with the neo-conservatives with their arrogant and insensitive ’either you are with us or against us’ formulations. Bush’s preoccupation with War on Terror diverted his attention from domestic issues thus when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the inefficiency of the federal authorities came out in the open which further reduced Bush’s approval ratings. Bush also showed a complete lack of statesmanship and diplomacy when he openly labeled sovereign countries as ‘axis of evil’, something which Clinton had never done.

The Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified and dishonest as subsequent investigations proved that the intelligence community had deliberately ‘sexed up’ the Iraq dossier to prove that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration paid only lip service to larger issues like global warming and had been instrumental in scuttling the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration went so far as to commission scientists who claimed that there was no empirical evidence to relate man-made emissions with global warming.

Clinton’s biggest failing was his behavior. Clinton was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and later in the Monica Lewinsky affair, he was almost impeached. There had been enough evidence to prove that Clinton lied under oath. In the end, the decision not to impeach the President rested more on political considerations rather than judicial correctness or the merits of the case.

It must be highlighted that the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, had impeached the President on the grounds of perjury to the grand jury by a margin of 228-206 and obstruction of justice by a 221-212 vote, however; the Senate acquitted him voting along party lines. However, despite the Lewinsky affair, Clinton had an approval rating of 73% after his impeachment trial and he completed his tenure with an approval rating of 68% (CBS ¶4), one of the highest in the history of the US Presidencies.

In comparison, Bush displayed no such weakness for women but did display weakness in a general understanding of the world. Bush’s simplistic visions of ‘good guys and bad guys’ were exploited by his right-wing neoconservative staff who only presented one side of the story to the President. It was often reported that almost all decisions during the Bush-era were influenced by Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who in the end became so toxic that he had to be sacked. In the end, Bush demitted office with just a 22% approval rating (CBS ¶1), going down in history as the second most unpopular President after Richard Nixon.

During the Clinton era, foreign policy had a certain balance. Clintons were greeted enthusiastically everywhere they went. Clinton made a visible effort to connect with the wider world. The foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration made America the most hated nation on Earth. The policy of preemption and unilateralism was disliked even by allies who loudly decried it. The declaration of the War on Terror and its general course has been criticized by diplomats the world over. Gordon states that the “approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated”(¶1). According to Baker III & Hamilton, “estimates run as high as $ 2 trillion for the final cost of the US involvement in Iraq”(27).

In conclusion, it can be emphatically stated that Bill Clinton was a better President than George W Bush. Clinton had a better understanding of the wider world, was better read, and was more perceptive. He also had an independent mindset and could apply his own knowledge and judgment while taking decisions. Bush on the other hand displayed no such sagacity either in manner or speech. Bush, who in his first tenure earned the admiration of the American public because of his forthright and blunt way of speaking, came to be reviled as arrogant and ill-informed in his second tenure. Bush’s overreliance on his Vice President and Secretary of Defense proved to be his undoing.

Works Cited

About the White House. “Harry S Truman.” 2009. Whitehouse website. Web.

Baker III, James A & Hamilton, Lee H. “The Iraq Study Group Report”. 2009. Web.

BushLies.net. “The Clinton Record Vs Bush II.” 2005. Big Lies. Web.

CBS. “Bush’s Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent.” 2009. CBS News. Web.

Donaldson, Gary. Liberalism’s last Hurrah: The Presidential Campaign of 1964. NY:M.E. Sharpe, 2003.

Geselbracht, Raymond H. The Civil Rights Legacy of Harry S. Truman. Kirksville:Truman State University, 2007.

Gordon, Philip H. “Can the War on Terror be won?” 2007. Foreign Affairs. Web.

Pauley, Garth E. The Modern Presidency & Civil Rights: Rhetoric on Race from Roosevelt to Nixon. College Station:Texas A&M University Press, 2001.