Christian:
Complete and utterly delightful game. Combining my love of US history, policy wonkiness, and lists. OK, here're mine:
1. Louisiana Purchase (Jefferson 1803)
2. Emancipation (Lincoln 1862)
3. Decision to use atomic weapons against Japan (HST 1945)
4. Decision to escalate US involvement in Vietnam (LBJ 1965)
5. The Social Security Act (FDR 1935)
Commentary:
It's tricky to restrict it to a single discrete decision of an executive as opposed to more general policies, legislative initiatives and generalities. For example "The New Deal" or "Reconstruction" could be as important/consequential as anything else, but it's way too broad a set of policies. Since we're looking at executive decisions, there tends to be a bias towards military actions, but that's the nature of the game.
1. Louisiana Purchase: a stroke of insight, Chris. I would not have thought of this myself, but once you mentioned it I could think of nothing more momentous. You could use this almost as a talisman for all the expansionist decisions that were to follow -- the invasion of Mexico, Manifest Destiny and the like. But it was the first and set the westward growth of the US in motion. Huge -- and also an early expansion of the power of the President.
2. Emancipation: I would argue that Lincoln's decision to fight the war was all but forced. Secession was a foregone conclusion when he was elected, and there was no choice but to fight. Yes, I suppose there were accommodationists, and Lincoln could have backed down, just as FDR could have sought accommodation with Japan in December 1941. Truly, after Fort Sumpter, war was inevitable. But emancipation was a bolt of lightning that changed the war forever. When Lincoln started the war he openly disavowed abolition and the stated goal was to save the union. Emancipation changed the war into a great moral struggle for freedom and equality as well as the union, and it was by no means inevtiable.
3. Nukes: not significant strategically, but historically. We're still and hopefully will remain the only nation to deploy nukes in wartime. Per report, Truman was kind of cavalier in his demeanor about the use of the nukes, but his diary showed he was well aware of its import. What a burden to make (and live with) such a decision.
4. Vietnam: nearly 50 years later the nation is just coming to terms with it. Kennedy, the legend goes, had decided to withdraw US observers before his death, and LBJ rescinded that decision and did the opposite. One is forced to wonder what the latter half of the 20th century would have looked like without the shadow of 'Nam.
5. Social Security: I wanted to get a domestic policy in here, to counterbalance the last three military ones. The SSA was incredibly controversial at the time -- as were most of FDRs New Deal items -- and it has proven the most durable and successful of all his accomplishments. Most of the New Deal was reactionary to the times, as ARRA is today. The WPA was disbanded decades ago. But the Social Security program continues ad infinitum, and works as intended (more or less).
Other thoughts:
Monroe Doctrine -- I plead ignorance. I know what it is, but in the context of the times have no clue as to its impact.
Decision to enter WWI -- I plead ignorance. Was US involvement decisive? If so, I'd agree that it's up there. But I always had thought that US participation accelerated the resolution but not the outcome.
Decision not to launch air attacks on Cuba -- I love the fact that one of your crucial decisions is the decision to *not* do something! And rightly so.
Andrew Jackson -- Nullification. It's up there.
Civil Rights -- I would say it fails in that it wasn't really an "executive decision." Kennedy (and Johnson) had been supporters of Civil Rights for a long time, so signing it was a foregone conclusion. You could make the argument that championing it was the critical executive act. But I think that the purpose of this meaningless game we are playing more favors independent executive acts that changed the course of history, not those responding to external exigencies.
The Decision to invade Iraq -- History will tell us if it belongs on the list for good or for bad.
Enhanced Interrogation -- this, too, may be remembered by history.
Kennedy's Moon Challenge -- not a decision per se, but without that "big vision" line in a speech, it's hard to see that human beings would have walked on the moon, and that's a pretty big deal.
Interestingly, I would have expected a "recency bias" to favor a lot of modern presidential decisions, but to my surprise a lot of the "big deal" decisions of the last 40 years just pale compared to, say, the Lousiana Purchase. SDI? Don't Ask Don't Tell? You've gotta be kidding me. I couldn't think of anything the last six Presidents have done which, in the 200-year time scale, is going to be seen to have been as crucial. Maybe in hindsight, but not now. Even if Obama were to fix healthcare and make it universal it just doesn't seem as big as the historic, epic decisons that have come before. But maybe that's the inverse of recency bias, eh?
I've spent a very pleasant ninety minutes thinking about this -- thanks, Chris!
Complete and utterly delightful game. Combining my love of US history, policy wonkiness, and lists. OK, here're mine:
1. Louisiana Purchase (Jefferson 1803)
2. Emancipation (Lincoln 1862)
3. Decision to use atomic weapons against Japan (HST 1945)
4. Decision to escalate US involvement in Vietnam (LBJ 1965)
5. The Social Security Act (FDR 1935)
Commentary:
It's tricky to restrict it to a single discrete decision of an executive as opposed to more general policies, legislative initiatives and generalities. For example "The New Deal" or "Reconstruction" could be as important/consequential as anything else, but it's way too broad a set of policies. Since we're looking at executive decisions, there tends to be a bias towards military actions, but that's the nature of the game.
1. Louisiana Purchase: a stroke of insight, Chris. I would not have thought of this myself, but once you mentioned it I could think of nothing more momentous. You could use this almost as a talisman for all the expansionist decisions that were to follow -- the invasion of Mexico, Manifest Destiny and the like. But it was the first and set the westward growth of the US in motion. Huge -- and also an early expansion of the power of the President.
2. Emancipation: I would argue that Lincoln's decision to fight the war was all but forced. Secession was a foregone conclusion when he was elected, and there was no choice but to fight. Yes, I suppose there were accommodationists, and Lincoln could have backed down, just as FDR could have sought accommodation with Japan in December 1941. Truly, after Fort Sumpter, war was inevitable. But emancipation was a bolt of lightning that changed the war forever. When Lincoln started the war he openly disavowed abolition and the stated goal was to save the union. Emancipation changed the war into a great moral struggle for freedom and equality as well as the union, and it was by no means inevtiable.
3. Nukes: not significant strategically, but historically. We're still and hopefully will remain the only nation to deploy nukes in wartime. Per report, Truman was kind of cavalier in his demeanor about the use of the nukes, but his diary showed he was well aware of its import. What a burden to make (and live with) such a decision.
4. Vietnam: nearly 50 years later the nation is just coming to terms with it. Kennedy, the legend goes, had decided to withdraw US observers before his death, and LBJ rescinded that decision and did the opposite. One is forced to wonder what the latter half of the 20th century would have looked like without the shadow of 'Nam.
5. Social Security: I wanted to get a domestic policy in here, to counterbalance the last three military ones. The SSA was incredibly controversial at the time -- as were most of FDRs New Deal items -- and it has proven the most durable and successful of all his accomplishments. Most of the New Deal was reactionary to the times, as ARRA is today. The WPA was disbanded decades ago. But the Social Security program continues ad infinitum, and works as intended (more or less).
Other thoughts:
Monroe Doctrine -- I plead ignorance. I know what it is, but in the context of the times have no clue as to its impact.
Decision to enter WWI -- I plead ignorance. Was US involvement decisive? If so, I'd agree that it's up there. But I always had thought that US participation accelerated the resolution but not the outcome.
Decision not to launch air attacks on Cuba -- I love the fact that one of your crucial decisions is the decision to *not* do something! And rightly so.
Andrew Jackson -- Nullification. It's up there.
Civil Rights -- I would say it fails in that it wasn't really an "executive decision." Kennedy (and Johnson) had been supporters of Civil Rights for a long time, so signing it was a foregone conclusion. You could make the argument that championing it was the critical executive act. But I think that the purpose of this meaningless game we are playing more favors independent executive acts that changed the course of history, not those responding to external exigencies.
The Decision to invade Iraq -- History will tell us if it belongs on the list for good or for bad.
Enhanced Interrogation -- this, too, may be remembered by history.
Kennedy's Moon Challenge -- not a decision per se, but without that "big vision" line in a speech, it's hard to see that human beings would have walked on the moon, and that's a pretty big deal.
Interestingly, I would have expected a "recency bias" to favor a lot of modern presidential decisions, but to my surprise a lot of the "big deal" decisions of the last 40 years just pale compared to, say, the Lousiana Purchase. SDI? Don't Ask Don't Tell? You've gotta be kidding me. I couldn't think of anything the last six Presidents have done which, in the 200-year time scale, is going to be seen to have been as crucial. Maybe in hindsight, but not now. Even if Obama were to fix healthcare and make it universal it just doesn't seem as big as the historic, epic decisons that have come before. But maybe that's the inverse of recency bias, eh?
I've spent a very pleasant ninety minutes thinking about this -- thanks, Chris!
1 comment:
4. Vietnam: nearly 50 years later the nation is just coming to terms with it. Kennedy, the legend goes, had decided to withdraw US observers before his death, and LBJ rescinded that decision and did the opposite. One is forced to wonder what the latter half of the 20th century would have looked like without the shadow of 'Nam.To the extent that Vietnam encouraged us to think twice before getting involved in matters that we really don't have the stomach for, without it, some other conflict would have taught us that lesson. Or, alternatively, we would have realized without the loss of life, and would still be where we are now.
There are some rethinking the events of that period who suggest there really were a row of Communist dominoes and but for the resistance we put up in Vietnam the dominoes would have kept falling, but that is not my impression.
Post a Comment