Reevaluating Woodrow Wilson...

I began A. Scott Berg's new biography of Woodrow Wilson (called eponymously and simply "Wilson") and in its initial chapter Berg (Pulitzer winner for a bio of "Lindbergh" I read and liked some twenty years ago) presents WW "on the boat," the "George Washington" appropriately, to Europe in Dec 1918 a month after the "armistice" and on his way to "make the peace" that was to "end war."

Wilson would not return to the US for six months, a rather remarkable thing at a time when he was also the first president AS president to LEAVE American shores during his presidency! He was also the first prez since Jefferson to appear in person regularly before congress not just to give the constitutionally required "state of the union" but to advocate his own "program" which he got through in record time by the way, including the federal reserve system, the graduated income tax, a "tariff" reform (big deal back then), direct election of US senators and other "progressive" measures undoable by even such a charged up "bull moose" as TR hisself.

Wilson: "What I am interested in is having the government of the United States more concerned with human rights than about property rights" -- well even Eugene Debs could agree with that eh.

Berg seems one of those biographers I will admit who has well maybe a little "fallen in love" with his subject but then Wilson's reputation has corroded over the years what with guys like say Nixon and Kissinger praising his precedents and Gore Vidal practically demonizing him (see his odd but interesting novel "The Smithsonian" is it?) as "the root of all (American) evil" and of course he is the bete noire of the rising libertarian right with its satan on earth the federal reserve which many lefties also view as THE "capitalist tool" hmm.

So "you ought to give Iowa a try" MEREDITH Wilson says so I'm gonna give WOODROW a "try" as I often am attracted to what I'm not supposed to like, just to see if I've missed something huh.

I'll return to this as I read on and of course I invite "questions and comments" as they say and yes I AM aware of the "bad" Wilson and we can sure discuss "him" too. (Freud detested WW you may remember and even wrote a devastating psychological "analysis" while violating the analyst's requirement to actually INTERVIEW the "patient" but Freud was an Austrian as well as a Jew and lost a son in the war eh...)

Well, you're used to me by now, Michael, so all I'll say is that I'd rather watch paint dry than waste time on that self-righteous racist SOB. Or, as Rick would say, "Don't hold back, Harry".

Psychoanalysts don't have to interview politicians. It's in the Vienna Bible.

You're in "the club" above and it's hardly exclusive but yeah that's one reason "why" I'm interested in him -- BECAUSE he was once virtually "worshipped" AND hated at the same time, like Lincoln huh, and unlike L, STILL IS! (Controversial after one hundred years -- there's something in that!)

You needn't "hold back" and needn't bother reading this either if you don't want of course but I'm going to "waste my time" nevertheless...

Do go on, M, we can handle it. Rather trust you and your opinions than read the book myself.

I shall TRY to be "fair" I assure you and I shall have dare I say fun! reading about WW. (You know my "tastes" as you said.)

By the way NPR this morning had a feature on "The Book of Matt," talking to its author and he made a good and reasonable "case" for his thesis...

NPR!

I'm going to have to side with Harry on this one; Wilson was an important President, but in no way was he an admirable or particularly likable one.

Oh I think the "important" part sure is correct but he was at the time actually very much admired and "liked" (women -- really! -- found him appealing); however as per "controversial" prezes (Kennedy too for one) MANY detested him, especially Theodore Roosevelt who called him a "coward" for not entering WWI when TR wanted him to, and of course Wilson's nemesis, the Massachusetts Republican senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

Re TR when Wilson DID (at last huh) ask for the declaration, Roosevelt wanted very much to repeat his Spanish American war experience, i. e., lead another volunteer regiment, and he went to the white house and very politely and charmingly presented his case. Wilson had to turn him down; it wasn't THAT kind of war anymore and after all one couldn't have a former US president dead on the fields of France. (TR's sons went however and his most beloved Quentin died in aerial combat.)

Wilson said after the meeting that you know "it's hard to dislike him," Roosevelt. It wasn't I admit so "hard" to dislike Wilson but he was not as rigid and insensitive as now seen -- at least not ALWAYS; he was like most of us a "flawed" human being?...

I've read to the beginning of Wilson's presidency and now I have to return the book because it's "on hold" at the Tempe library.

I meant to write a more "detailed" piece re Wilson (so far) but I wasn't able to get to the library and use one of the computers for a while so I'll just make some (relatively!) "short" remarks.

Wilson comes across much better and much more "progressive" or "liberal" than I think his rep is now -- at least for those "on the left." He was also a great teacher, popular with his students and ever urging them to "think" and analyze rather than just regurgitate. Wilson's lectures on history and politics were always well attended by those who weren't even enrolled in his courses.

As governor of New Jersey he got through a Repub controlled state senate and Democratic house a "corrupt practices act," a workman's compensation act, a bill establishing a public utilities commission as well as a railroad commission and all within his first year as governor. He also kept his word to oppose the reelection (in the state legislature at that time) of the Democratic "boss"-senator "Sugar Jim" Smith and he effectively blocked that election, breaking Smith and his "machine."

He was an excellent public speaker usually, explaining concisely and clearly his ideas in language that was understandable to people and yet made them feel he was primarily addressing their "moral sense" and well as their economic benefit.

His "campaign manager," later sec'y of the treasury AND his future son in law William Gibbs McAdoo, the president of the Hudson & Manhatten Railroad Company, helped establish transit tunnels under the Hudson river to connect NY and NJ for which he drew only his salary, $50,000, an unusual "accomplishment" when public utilities were riddled with graft.

"McAdoo was a beacon of progressivism," Scott Berg writes, "advocating growth over profits and even equal pay for women." Wilson and McAdoo both agreed that regulation of big business was vital; McAdoo expressed a "Wilsonism" when he said "that the vital idea of the Democratic party is PEOPLE and the vital idea of the Republican party is PROPERTY."

The impression I have is that Wilson was quite the "logical" choice for prez in 1912, emphasizing policies over "personality" as per Theodore Roosevelt. President Taft had of course been disappointing to progressives although Taft was NOT a rigid "conservative" but it was Wilson who really revitalized the progressive movement, bringing in a Democratic congress with his election and ensuring that progressive measures wouldn't be stifled as they oft were when TR was in office with a Republican congress controlled by "the Old Guard" like senators Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island and John Spooner of Wisconsin.

Oddly enough the man who had spent his adult life in academia was a helluva politician -- persuasive, low key yet insistent on "action" and willing to work with legislators to develop specific legislation and not just "propose."

The great Wilson bugaboo of course is race, no doubt. He was a southerner as per his racial attitudes although he respected a kind of Booker T. Washington (who attended his inauguration as president of Princeton) "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" approach. His cabinet, while "progressive," was dominated by southerners who were not so "progressive" re racial issues either.

I guess one would say that Wilson was a "man of his time" and the "time" unfortunately was not yet as "sensitive" to racial issues as it would become. But as I say re presidents "you takes what you kin git" and in 1913, one hundred years ago, Wilson was pretty good at that...

Can you compare him to Obama? Or how would you compare him to Obama?

He was more liberal in a sense but NOT as per race hmmm.

Remember after he asked for the war declaration he WEPT; he didn't want it (if it could be avoided and he obviously felt it couldn't any longer) and he even appointed William Jennings Bryan his first sec'y of state -- Bryan was a pacifist, of sorts. (Wilson said that it didn't really matter who was at state -- when some dissented re Bryan -- because he, WW, would concentrate on domestic politics and foreign policy wouldn't "matter." THAT turned out well you know.)

Obama then isn't the "moralist" Wilson was but then I don't think we've had a moralistic prez since well Hoover. One of Wilson's "problems" was that as he said he'd LISTEN to anyone but "knew" HE was "right." USUALLY (I think) he was but the difficulty is when he may not be eh.

Obama thinks he's USUALLY "right" too but he's willing to be "wrong"...

thanks, good capsule

It's easier (for me) to compare Obama to Eisenhower I think than to Wilson although one realizes that both O and WW were academics and "intellectuals" while Ike was neither. Wilson's "morality" (his strength AND weakness) seems "sharper" and more "distinct."

ALL prezes (as you've indicated!) however have their "good results" and then their not so. That much "unites" them...