Jake's Query for March 2009

[Jake Patterson]

This isn't a very deep question, but I think it could be thought-
provoking.

By most standards, Jimmy Carter is considered a pretty crappy
president. But since getting out of office he has used his clout to
do more good for people than most other retired persons. My dad is by
no means a fan of Jimmy, but even he said once that he is the "best ex-
president we've ever had."

After Bill Clinton got out of office he was offered to host a talk
show. Public opinion came out that a talk show host is not a
dignified enough position for ex-presidents, and the offer fell
through.

So what is a proper role for an ex-president? Consulting? Quietly
return to normal life? Should it matter? Does an ex-pres have to
wear that badge for the rest of his life or should he be permitted to
slip into obscurity? What are your thoughts on this?

[Scott Nesler]

I think it would be cool if an ex president became a supreme court
justice. This is a distinguished honor. Historically, the number
of SCJ's have changed several times. I propose ex presidents be
offered a designated hitter rule. Let them come and go as they
please. As far as partisanship goes, all living ex presidents can
participate. I'm not too fond of W., but I figure he can't do too
much harm in the majority rules process of the the Supreme Court. H.
and Clinton are reasonable men. I'm a Carter fan as well. Too bad
Ford wasn't still around, I was impressed with the complements he
received at his memorial. Heck, even Nixon would have brought
something to the table. That's it for presidents that I have a
conscious of.

Jake like you, I appreciated what Carter has done with his ex
presidency credentials. Though I would claim the ultra right would
not agree, they dislike him now as much as ever.

My following comments are partisan and opinionated. I voted for
Jimmy Carter in my 7th grade history class. He may not have been an
effective president, but as always much of the problems were handed to
him. The Democratic congress did not rally around a single
ideology. Ed Kennedy pretty much divided the party making it
difficult for Carter to get much done. I was impressed how Carter
related to the people. One of the first things he did was get rid of
his expensive Lincoln limousine and insisted on being driving in a
middle class Chevrolet. I also like his scientific vision for the
country. Pushing people to cut back on energy was pretty exciting
to me, but this did not ride well with some. As far as the Iran
hostage situation, Reagan was given a gift by having them released
within a few days of his first term without doing anything. As for
effectiveness, I would put Carter and Ford in the same boat, though I
have much respect for both of them.

Just like W., I was not a fan of Reagan. I never felt either of them
were president. There was always this feeling that they were just a
spoke of a larger wheel. W. never conveyed any intelligence.
Reagan was an actor and a poor one at that. His speeches felt
contrived. I feel history will illustrate that these two were the
most fiscally irresponsible presidents. More so than Hoover,
Harding, Coolidge, or FDR.

[houseo...@gmail.com]

We don't mean to sew discord, Scott, but you don't have to be cautious
when you share opinions that might be controversial. Discord is the
seed of discussion; conflict is the root of understanding.

[Scott Nesler]

Jake, I don't know if conflict is the root of understanding, but it is
an effective motivation.

In a world of media that spins politics with terms like no spin zone,
I feel a little honesty is needed. My approach might of been
cautious, but it is factual the later part of my previous post was the
subject of my opinion and many would find partisan. The other
factor why I started this section off this way was to provide a
separator. The top half was directly related to your topic, the
second half was tangent. Which leads back to my monthly post.
Current internet tools such as blogs and forums provide little
incentive for staying on topic.

Please continue on with the role of ex-presidents. It is a very
interesting thought.

[Adam Webster]

I think ex-presidents should be just like ex-anything else. They should
move as their convictions direct. I know this is the easy answer, but I
truly believe it. Presidents have given everything they've promised to
our nation, and we have fulfilled our promises to them as well. We owe
them nothing more, nor they us. Let them be free.

[Brett Kraus]

If this sounds absurd, sorry, but it is an amalgamation of ideas,
regarding expectations from without and personal duties. Although we
as a people have no right to expect ex-presidents to do anything (or
their staff for that matter), which is the center of Adam's post, what
should they do as a matter of self respect.

A famous comic book quote: "With great power comes great
responsibility." It is sad to say, but ex-presidents are pretty
powerful people. They can use their muscle and push things through
that not everyone can. They hold great responsibility as they have
developed ties to world leaders, and been the public face of the
American government for so long. They should do something with those
skills and talents.

Now we have no right to demand that they accomplish anything. We
should not expect them to start the next Salvation Army, or anything,
nor do we have the right to. We should have no right to complain if
they do nothing, but if they are able, they should do something.

Again, that is what I feel we should expect of all those with power to
exert. Adam, in my opinion, has the most power to exert of any of us.
The molding of young minds changes people for life. Does he not have
the duty to make a difference. Granted, he is paid to accomplish this,
and it is expected of him in his job title, but that power and
influence alone should create an imperative for the person to act.
However, those acts should be willingly done and not forced on them by
society's ideas, but based on their careful (and dare I say it,
prayerful) consideration. As a result I both agree and disagree with
Adam's post on their roles.

As a side note, Scott, there is one U.S. President who became the
Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after leaving office: William
Howard Taft, 27th President and 10th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court.