Eisenhower or McGovern?

[Mechaman]

McGovern

Obviously Ike,  a real leader, not an academic theoretician.

The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?

I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?

I remember reading a conservative criticism of Kennedy that was published in 1962 or so that said that many Southern Democrats had a high opinion of Kennedy and would've thought he would be one of the best candidates for office due to how he was, at the time, handling the controversial segregation issue.  However, for the life of me I don't think they went as far as to suggest that Kennedy should run as the VP for a hypothetical Dixiecratic ticket.

[Mechaman]

McGovern

Obviously Ike,  a real leader, not an academic theoretician.

The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?

I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?

I remember reading a conservative criticism of Kennedy that was published in 1962 or so that said that many Southern Democrats had a high opinion of Kennedy and would've thought he would be one of the best candidates for office due to how he was, at the time, handling the controversial segregation issue.  However, for the life of me I don't think they went as far as to suggest that Kennedy should run as the VP for a hypothetical Dixiecratic ticket.

Surely you'd agree that what you mentioned is hardly an objective source about Kennedy's civil rights record, no?

Of course.  I'm just saying that even from the most conservative sources I cannot find something as incredible as what Cathcon suggests.

And this isn't to entirely excuse Kennedy's handling of the issue in the 1950s, but even the most adamant Kennedy critic must acknowledge that it would've been much harder for a Catholic Democrat to successfully come out as pro-civil rights leading up to his nomination than it would for a white protestant.  Even with Kennedy's moderate heroistic acrobatics many Southern Ds still did not trust him.  While the country (including the South) had progressed past the 1928 campaign's open anti-Catholic campaign, running as a Catholic with a pretty liberal Civil Rights record would've been a very hard sell for Kennedy to pull off in an era where the Democrats needed the South to win and you had a war hero as President who was real popular.  Yeah he could've been less of a spineless dweeb about everything, but then he probably wouldn't come near the presidency in 1960.

If his name was John Franklin Kendall and was an Episcopalian this probably wouldn'tve been an issue.  This is kind of like how Obama was anti-gay marriage in 2008, but to a greater extent.