President Day message- Mike Rowe

GON

$175 Site Donor 2026
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
12,406
Location
White Sands, NM
Thought to share a President's Day message from Mike Rowe. The message is centered on a president making a very unpopular decision, thus giving the President an extremely low approval rating.

" Most of what I know about the firing of General Douglass MacArthur happened because I watched an episode of M*A*S*H, wherein General MacArthur visits the 4077. In that episode, called "Big Mac," Hawkeye meets the General and says that the General had “Truman’s footprints all over his backside.” I remember asking my Dad, who was over there at the time, what Hawkeye was talking about, and learned from him about the extraordinary tension between the President and the General in 1951, that ultimately led to MacArthur’s dismissal.

In short, MacArthur – the most beloved General in modern times, and a genuine hero of the second world war, had assured President Truman that the Korean War would be short-lived and that the American troops would be home by Christmas. MacArthur was initially successful in driving back the North Korean forces over the 38th parallel but got sideways with Truman when he pushed the North Koreans further north, and then then argued, publicly, that America should start bombing cities in China that were aiding the North Korean troops.

President Truman’s main concern was saving as many lives as possible, even if that meant signing a ceasefire along the 38th parallel. General MacArthur did not think a ceasefire was an appropriate solution. The two men clashed. For Truman, the war represented an opportunity to stop the spread of communism into South Korea. For MacArthur, the war was an opportunity to liberate the North from communist control. On April 11, 1951, President Truman had enough.

“With deep regret," he wrote, "I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government. Military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution.”

The reaction to MacArthur’s dismissal was unlike anything the country had seen in a very long time. The public was outraged. Overwhelming disapproval led to many protests, with polls showing 69% of Americans supported MacArthur, and favored a war with China. Within 48 hours, 44,358 telegrams sent to Congress by concerned citizens. Only 337 supported the firing. That's less that a 1% approval! Republicans and Democrats fiercely criticized the decision, with some calling for impeachment. The backlash was so severe that Truman's approval rating sank lower than Richard Nixon's at the height of the Watergate scandal.

Today, of course, Truman's decision is remembered differently. In spite of the fallout, it's considered by many historians to be an act of extraordinary courage that might well have avoided another world war. On the other hand, regarding fallout, Truman's decision to end the second world war with atomic weapons six years earlier, appears to be aging in a different direction. At the time, 85% of Americans said the decision to drop the atom bombs was justified.

Today, it’s just 35%.

"Public opinion is a mysterious and invisible power... There is nothing more fickle, more vague, or more powerful."
— Napoleon Bonaparte

“Presidentin’ is hard!”
- Will Farrell, (as George Bush)

"The buck stops with me."
- Harry Truman

"Happy Presidents Day!"
- Mike Rowe
 
Sounds similar to Patton after WW2-he wanted to drive on Moscow! Ol' George met the same fate as MacAthur...
How very different the world might be today for billions of people and for three prior generations had GEN MacArthur and GEN Patton had their way. Supplemental, how different the world will be in just five +/- years from now.

Staying 100 percent out of politics, being a president is a most underpaid, thankless, and yet most necessary job.
 
Today, of course, Truman's decision is remembered differently. In spite of the fallout, it's considered by many historians to be an act of extraordinary courage that might well have avoided another world war. On the other hand, regarding fallout, Truman's decision to end the second world war with atomic weapons six years earlier, appears to be aging in a different direction. At the time, 85% of Americans said the decision to drop the atom bombs was justified.
Today, it’s just 35%.
Revisionist history. The further we get from an event in history, and when people become more than one generation removed from the event, the perspective changes. Current moral beliefs are applied to past events, without any attempt to understand why people looked at things differently 70-80 years ago.
 
Duty, Honor, Country

Perhaps the most stirring speech ever given; West Point 1962. I once met a retired army colonel who was a cadet and present at that historic oration. He suggested I watch it.




Youtube
 
  • Love
Reactions: GON
How very different the world might be today for billions of people and for three prior generations had GEN MacArthur and GEN Patton had their way. Supplemental, how different the world will be in just five +/- years from now.

Staying 100 percent out of politics, being a president is a most underpaid, thankless, and yet most necessary job.

There's no way to know what the World would be like today if MacArthur and/or Patton had been given the green light. Would they have succeeded? failed? be allowed to continue once they started? We'll never know.

One thing I know, is that the Armistice allowed my Dad to come home physically unharmed, with the exception of some hearing damage. He met my Mom a few years later, and they started a family.
 
You could simply sum this up by pointing out a basics civics lesson. All US leadership is civilian. Full stop.

Civilian leadership reports to we the people, and generals serve at the pleasure of the commander in chief. If a General doesn't carry out the commander in chiefs direction then he 100% deserves to be dismissed. If a President doesn't follow the will of the people they also will be replaced.

For once I might agree with Mike Rowe.

As for the Japanese nuke thing - we would have had thousands of aircraft flying thousands of sorties on Japan within a couple months. Japan would have been carpet bombed into submission. Using Nukes allowed them to surrender sooner (no possibility to overcome). In the end it was best for everyone - much of Japan remained in tact, unlike Germany. It was 100% the correct decision.
 
Strongly agree here. At the time of the atomic bombs, the Japanese still had 5 million soldiers. Over 95% of their forces on Okinawa & Iwo Jima fought to the death, rather than surrender. At least that many would have done so with a conventional invasion or bombing of Japan.

You could simply sum this up by pointing out a basics civics lesson. All US leadership is civilian. Full stop.

Civilian leadership reports to we the people, and generals serve at the pleasure of the commander in chief. If a General doesn't carry out the commander in chiefs direction then he 100% deserves to be dismissed. If a President doesn't follow the will of the people they also will be replaced.

For once I might agree with Mike Rowe.

As for the Japanese nuke thing - we would have had thousands of aircraft flying thousands of sorties on Japan within a couple months. Japan would have been carpet bombed into submission. Using Nukes allowed them to surrender sooner (no possibility to overcome). In the end it was best for everyone - much of Japan remained in tact, unlike Germany. It was 100% the correct decision.
 
Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb was well justified. My grandfather was a Marine in the 1st Marine Division and lived with us at the end of his life. He started to open up about the experiences. He served on Guadalcanal, was wounded, and returned to participate in Okinawa. I learned some of what I share below during those last few weeks of his life.

To give a sense of the scale of casualties, on Okinawa the US Marines suffered about 15k killed and 35k wounded. Iwo Jima was not as bad but still horrendous - 7k killed, about 20k wounded. Japanese casualties on Okinawa were about 250k. Keep in mind each of these campaigns was about a month. Think about the scale of death in that time. It's simply horrific.

During this time, Japan was run by fanatical lunatics. (On Guadalcanal the Japanese used to leave the heads of American Marines who were killed or injured on sticks to try to scare the advancing Marines. These were sick, fanatical people.) The above figures leave out the number of sailors and airmen on both sides being killed futilely as Japan lashed out with the kamikaze campaign. Fleet carriers like the USS Franklin and USS Bunker Hill were knocked out of action and horrendously damaged by kamikazes, as was the legendary USS Enterprise, whose main aircraft elevator was blown hundreds of feet into the air by one such hit. Think about the casualty figures on ships that were crowded with sailors - about 3k men, full complement.

Point of all this is that the US estimated that US casualties invading Japan would be at least 500k soldiers. Forget about the number of Japanese civilians. And now the USSR wanted to "help" in the campaign, meaning that portions of the Pacific would now face the same type of permanent occupation that was seen in eastern Europe.

80 years later, as we reside comfortably in universities and homes in a world where the US is the sole superpower and no nation in its right mind would attempt to attack the US, it is tempting to castigate Harry Truman as a war criminal. But the world that our grandparents and great grandparents inherited was far less secure, and a few years before, the survival of the west was in serious question. I am not a liberal in any sense, and it's not that I want to put Harry Truman on Mount Rushmore, but rest assured almost any American, and American President at that time, would make the same decision as Truman did, and it was the correct decision then, and still is. This is one of the reasons I would hesitate to see my teenage boys serve in the military today - my grandfather cautioned that war should only be reserved for the most serious situations, but once war began, there was a need to win through to "absolute victory", as FDR put it. We seem to have forgotten that today. Large segments of our society have become too soft to realize this.
 
Duty, Honor, Country

Perhaps the most stirring speech ever given; West Point 1962. I once met a retired army colonel who was a cadet and present at that historic oration. He suggested I watch it.




Youtube

Thanks for posting the video. Very relevant and timeless message.

On a non-related note, GEN McArthur was a master of pause and timing during the speech. It's not only what the content of what is being spoken counts, but the delivery is part of the speech. I have learned working OCONUS, that a person pausing and speaking slow, yet has very limited English-speaking proficiency, is easy to understand than a more proficient speaker of English that speaks fast.
 
I did an insurance claim once for a Korean War veteran. I don't know how we got on the topic but he said he was a radio operator.

During the battles he stated that the North Koreans rush them and turn back multiple times, and on the 4th time they'd go all the way towards the Americans and fight. It was very tiring having to endure those tactics and he said the losses were bad.
 
Staying 100 percent out of politics, being a president is a most underpaid, thankless, and yet most necessary job.
Yes, I've often reflected on that. In my mind, there are only one of two reasons any sane person would want to be President of the United States. The more virtuous is that the person is a true patriot, and knowing that whatever he does, he will never please much more than half the people. But he wants to be president anyway, because he loves our country.

The second is that, it is nothing more than a major ego trip, to be one of the most, if not the most powerful man in the world.
 
Yes, I've often reflected on that. In my mind, there are only one of two reasons any sane person would want to be President of the United States. The more virtuous is that the person is a true patriot, and knowing that whatever he does, he will never please much more than half the people. But he wants to be president anyway, because he loves our country.

The second is that, it is nothing more than a major ego trip, to be one of the most, if not the most powerful man in the world.
YES>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Yes, I've often reflected on that. In my mind, there are only one of two reasons any sane person would want to be President of the United States. The more virtuous is that the person is a true patriot, and knowing that whatever he does, he will never please much more than half the people. But he wants to be president anyway, because he loves our country.

The second is that, it is nothing more than a major ego trip, to be one of the most, if not the most powerful man in the world.
My assessment is a bit different than yours.

There are two just two types of people who want to be president:
  1. A person who wants to do great things for the nation
  2. A person who wants to say they have been president on their biography

That is, it. Not a complex subject IMO.
 
Revisionist history. The further we get from an event in history, and when people become more than one generation removed from the event, the perspective changes. Current moral beliefs are applied to past events, without any attempt to understand why people looked at things differently 70-80 years ago.
I totally agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom