Topsy-Turvy History

Russ Roberts of EconTalk hosted Bruce Bueno de Mesquita recently and offered some views on revered presidents that were the opposite of what one might expect.  He starts with the general idea that presidents are rated in esteem depending on how many people were killed while they were in charge.  Harding's brief presidency saw no war and virtually no death yet he is ranked among the worst presidents.  Lincoln saw over half a million Americans die in the Civil War and is rated among the best presidents.  How does that work?

Mesquita argues that presidents are mostly going to make decisions that will benefit themselves and their voters or increase their re-election chances.  He proposes that Washington was a land speculator in a region where King George had reserved for the Indians.  Great wealth beckoned via revolution.  He paints a picture of the Founders as the billionaires of their day who led a reluctant people to sever ties with England.  He further outlines this alternate history in which the colonies go along with the rest of the British Empire in abolishing slavery decades sooner and avoid a Civil War entirely.

 

Speaking of the Civil War, Lincoln is to blame.  His 1858 house divided speech was a brilliant ruse to split the Democratic Party in the 1860 election.  Sure enough, the Democrats were so fractured that Lincoln won with a mere 39.8% of the popular vote.  As the Republican Party was established to abolish slavery, Lincoln's election was essentially a declaration of war on slave states.  This was part of the plan.  With the South gone, amendments to abolish slavery could now pass in Congress.  Once the South was conquered, the new amendments were imposed.  Better yet, Lincoln was re-elected, which was also part of the plan.  Wow, Lincoln was pretty nefarious.

 

JFK risked nuclear war with Russia over Cuban missiles that made no real difference in the Cold War.  JFK thought a show of strength would be beneficial for re-election, even at the risk of nuclear war.  Self-interest outweighed the risk of WWIII.

 

Nor was he keen on Obama's handling of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  Leaving Iraq was a good political decision for his re-election campaign (he had promised to get out of Iraq) but a disastrous foreign policy decision.  Mesquita even argues that Obama's failure to enforce his redline in Syria is what convinced Putin that he could annex the Crimea and eventually put forces in Syria to prop up Assad.

 

Of course, he was perfectly happy with LBJ.  Oh, he admitted that LBJ was ambitious and ruthless but he was really trying to do good.  RED FLAG!  After the thrashing he gave Lincoln and Washington, it is unthinkable that he could be so supportive of LBJ.

 

Much of this seemed like crazy talk but I am intrigued.  War presidents are usually well-regarded by historians and are almost always re-elected.  Perhaps when the book comes out in a more affordable paperback version, I'll check out the full story.