Presidential 2nd Terms: Why Are They Such a Mess?

The past few weeks have been a tough one for President Barack Obama.  Issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), particularly the inefficacy of the new website, coupled with the extremely low number of registrants, have created a perfect storm for what has been one of the President's primary achievements while in office.  The long fight to improve health care for American citizens has actually come back to bite the President in a very real and dramatic way.

Such is the case with two-term U.S. Presidents.  For whatever reason, history shows that most (though certainly not all) two-term presidents experience their greatest difficulties during the second half of their time in office.  In this respect, President Obama's struggles are hardly unique.  In fact, they are relatively mild in many respects.  Let's take a look at some of the struggles that have plagued many of our nation's presidents who have had the luxury of serving two terms:

George Washington: Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, even America's "indispensable man" as John Adams called him, faced difficulty and scorn during his second term.  As our nation's first president, if fell to Washington to set many of the precedents that the infant U.S. Republic would be required to adopt.  One of these precedents had to do with economic security and prosperity.  In the wake of the American Revolution, the U.S. faced an important crossroad: align its economic and trade interests with the French, who had, of course, been incredibly helpful during America's fight for independence, or, as crazy as it sounded to many, side with Great Britain, their former enemy and mother country.  Long story short, Washington, at the urging of Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to negotiate a deal that created an economic alliance between England and the United States.  What became known as the "Jay Treaty" proved to be an incredibly important and successful economic alliance that dramatically benefited both the United States and Great Britain.  As Historian Joseph Ellis points out in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Founding Brothers:

The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England instead of France...as being the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic (136-137).

And though it proved to be a long-term blessing, the Jay Treaty was not popular among the American populace.  Protests and rebellions broke out over what many saw as a "sell out" to their former enemy.  Even Thomas Jefferson called the Jay Treaty "the downfall of the American Republic."  For Washington, the criticism over the Jay Treaty was a low point that, in many respects, forced him out of politics once and for all. Even America's greatest hero, who repelled scorn like Teflon, was not above reproach.

Thomas Jefferson: In December, 1807, President Thomas Jefferson, who had enjoyed a relatively peaceful and prosperous first term in office, received news from his British and French ambassadors that troubled him greatly.  The on-again, off-again, on-again conflict between France and Britain had reached a boiling point, placing American trade interests at risk. Napoleon made it clear that he would stop any American merchant ship bound for British shores, and the British made the same threat for any ship bound for France.  This, of course, angered American merchants who stood to lose a great deal from this European conflict.

Instead of attempting to defend American shipping interests or trying to negotiate some sort of a deal with Britain and/or France, Jefferson (through Congress) passed the Embargo Act, which essentially grounded all American trading.  For President Jefferson, who saw the Embargo Act as "a means for keeping our ships and seamen out of harm's way," the move proved to be the greatest blunder of his presidency.  Jefferson believed that the Embargo Act would put pressure on both the French and British economy, who both benefited and enjoyed the goods that came from American commerce.  Jefferson was wrong.  British and French merchants simply went elsewhere throughout Europe to make up for the difference.  In the end, the only loser was the United States.  Needless to say, American merchants held Jefferson responsible for the blunder.

Ulysses S. Grant: Though President Grant suffered from the loss of some of his supporters, his quest for a second term proved to be relatively easy.  As the hero of the Civil War, Grant held tremendous appeal and despite some allegations of corruption within his cabinet, most Americans believed the President deserved a second term.  Once inaugurated for the second time, however, President Grant faced quite the storm.  The Panic 1873, which was sparked by the fall of the Northern Pacific Railway, sent ripples throughout the American economy.  Grant's ignorance of economic policy only exacerbated matters and led to a 5-year industrial depression.  In addition, the ongoing scandals and allegations of corruption within his cabinet grew to an unprecedented level. And though Grant was never implicated (and was likely never involved) in most of the corruption that plagued his cabinet, the brunt of the responsibility fell at his desk.  Grant's second term in office proved to be extremely problematic and highly ineffective.

Woodrow Wilson: At the conclusion of the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity to create an international coalition that could prevent the atrocities that had nearly crippled Europe from ever happening again.  The League of Nations, which Wilson vehemently believed was in America's best interests, became an important cause during his second term in office. The only problem is that Republicans in Congress opposed American membership in the LoN and favored neutrality.  Wilson campaigned passionately in favor of American involvement in the LoN. He tirelessly toured the country, giving speeches and working out compromises with members of Congress.  Wilson worked so hard that he eventually had a stroke in September of 1919, which dramatically limited his ability to defend his position on the LoN.  Unfortunately for Wilson, Congress voted against joining the League of Nations; a failure that Wilson believed would plunge Europe into war yet again.  He proved to be right.

Harry Truman: As the man who coined the phrase, "The Buck Stops Here," Truman was forced to swallow the very difficult pill that was the Korean War during his second term in office. The escalation of the conflict, which eventually led to nothing more than a glorified stalemate, was laid almost exclusively at Truman's feet.  Truman's passionate belief that the "world must be protected from the evils of Soviet communism" convinced the President that the cost of war was worth the price and loss of life.  Truman's decision to remove General Douglas MacArthur, a decision that was extremely unpopular with the American public, caused the President's approval ratings to plummet.  The frustrating stalemate in Korea, which led to the deaths of over 30,000 American troops, proved to be too much for Truman, who saw approval ratings as low as 22% during his second term in office.

Lyndon Johnson: It was on Johnson's watch that American involvement in the Vietnam War was escalated to an unprecedented level.  Johnson, who like many previous presidents, believed in the "Domino Theory" (the notion that if one nation fell to Communism others would as well), felt that American involvement in Vietnam was essential for the containment of Communism.  As the body count began piling up, Johnson eventually came to see his insistence on victory in Vietnam as an unavoidable curse that plagued his second term.  As he stated:

I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved...if I left that war and let the Communists take over, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser, and we would find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe. 

Richard Nixon: Watergate.  Need I say more?

Ronald Reagan: With his absolute annihilation of Walter Mondale in the Election of 1984, President Reagan appeared to be sailing calm seas during his second term in office.  In the summer of 1985 all of that would change.  The sale of illegal arms to Iran and the funding of Nicaraguan Contras became a scandal that Reagan was never able to shake.  The Iran-Contra Affair became a black stain on a presidency that had, for the most part, been seen as a success.  Reagan's second term also brought with it a $1 trillion dollar increase to the national debt.  This was an additional black eye for a president who had insisted that "Reaganomics" would reduce the national deficit.

Bill Clinton: As the first president in over 50 years to leave behind a debt surplus, most would think that Clinton's second term would be a celebrated success.  Only one problem: Monica Lewinsky.  As we all know, the President was ousted in front of the entire world for being a liar and a cheat.  The Lewinsky scandal eventually led to the Clinton Impeachment Hearings, which were a tremendous blemish and embarrassment on a presidency that had otherwise been successful.  As Clinton himself later stated: "I fought two battles during my presidency: a political and a personal.  I won the former but lost the latter."

George W. Bush: With his successful bid for a second term secure, President Bush believed that the success of the military surge in Iraq would prove to vindicate his decision to take the nation to war in that part of the world.  He was wrong.  In addition, federal response to Hurricane Katrina, which proved to be highly ineffective, fell at the feet of President W.  And if this wasn't enough, the financial collapse and subsequent bailout of 2008 let to George W. Bush receiving the lowest approval rating numbers of any standing president in American history.

Of course, not every two-term president faces difficulties.  And it is just as certain that one-term presidents face severe trials as well.  But for whatever reason, the "Second-term Curse" seems to be a real phenomenon.  One can only wonder what would be the legacy of Abraham Lincoln had he served a complete second term.  Perhaps he wouldn't be seen as the hero he is today.

In the end, the "Second-term Curse" proves that President James K. Polk (arguably the most successful one-term president ever) may have been right when he said: "If you cannot accomplish everything you want as president in one term, then perhaps you aren't fit for the job."

The Reality of "Reaganomics"

We've all heard it before. Crazy uncles at family reunions, co-workers around the water cooler, and fellow worshipers you sit next to in your church's congregation all invoke his name. "I'm not a Republican" they say, "I am a Reagan conservative." The declaration is usually followed up by a lecture on the evils of taxation, government spending and the overly-complex economic policies of Washington. "Reagan was for the people" they say, as they speak his name with reverence and conclude with the petition: "I want my country back." Yes, it is safe to say that the most conservative elements of modern day conservatism have a love affair with all things Reagan.

Or do they?

As crazy as it might be to suggest, I maintain that most "Reagan conservatives" know next to nothing about the actual presidency of Ronald Reagan (I have blogged about it before here). Reality is that Ronald Reagan was far from your modern day Tea Party disciple. Reagan opposed torture, was against military action against terrorists, and actually supported amnesty for illegal aliens. But setting all of those points aside for now, I want to focus on what is arguably the most popular component of "Reagan conservatism", that being "Reaganomics."

If you were to ask your average Reagan disciple what "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down" economics are all about, chances are you would hear a lot of rhetoric about cutting taxes, eliminating government oversight, creating jobs, privatizing industry, experiencing indescribably Utopian prosperity, yadda, yadda, yadda. In short, you'd get a lot of hot air with little actual history behind it, almost like a talk radio pundit. Funny thing about those political pundits, isn't it. They really don't like ACTUAL history, do they?!?

The truth about "Reaganomics" is that Ronald Reagan didn't have a whole lot to do with it. Ronald Reagan’s tax plan actually had its roots in the 1970s, with economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer originally drew up his ideas on a restaurant napkin and shared them with an advisor to President Ford. His idea outlined the obvious paradoxes that exist whenever tax rates approached 0% and 100%. Laffer suggested that raising taxes too high would reduce business activity, while lowering taxes would result in dangerously low revenue (really nothing all that profound, even to the layman). Ronald Reagan liked Laffer’s basic approach to economics, and consulted with him and others on his staff regarding how best to implement it. The difference, however, was that Reagan (unlike many on his staff) pushed for a much lower tax rate initially than did his advisers. According to many member of his staff, Reagan seemed to be oblivious to the idea of needed tax revenues, and enchanted with the idea cutting them. In David Stockton’s words, it seemed as though Reagan “had only the foggiest idea of what supply side was all about.” Stockton warned Reagan repeatedly that a large tax cut would spell doom to the national deficit, unless cuts in spending could be implemented. Even during the campaign of 1980 George Bush, Reagan’s opponent for the Republican nomination and eventual vice-president, called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.” Eventually, Reagan would realize the error of keeping such low tax rates in place, and as a result, raised taxes on four different occasions during his administration. Not exactly the type of facts you hear from self-proclaimed "Reagan Conservative" Sean Hannity!

Reagan’s economic philosophy embraced the idea that by lowering taxes, the people would end up with more money in their pockets. Reagan called his plan a “new beginning” for Americans, and a sure-fire way to economic recovery. This idea was, in part, fulfilled. While the majority of Americans experienced little or no actual economic prosperity, the top 1% of Americans blossomed. The net worth of the 400 richest Americans quadrupled under Reagan's presidency, and corporate CEO’s made, on average, 93 times as much money as did the common American.

While it is true that Reagan’s economic policy gave relief to the problems of the 70s (a fact that Republicans should be very proud of), Reagan also managed to impact the federal deficit as well, which soared from 700 billion to 2.7 trillion during his eight-year tenure. Reagan’s commitment to military buildup created a conflict with his desire to lower taxes. Many began questioning where Reagan planned to find the money. To increase revenue, Reagan signed legislation that created “sin taxes” on alcohol and tobacco (isn't Glenn Beck against those taxes?). Reagan also increased social security taxes, and forced the burden of funding various programs onto the states, who in turn raised taxes as well to fund the programs. In essence, “Reaganomics” was hardly the tax-cutting phenomenon that so many conservatives celebrate today. In fact, President Clinton had a lower tax rate than did Reagan!

Despite many of the problems he faced, Ronald Reagan should still be celebrated for the many successes he enjoyed. Though managing to raise the deficit, Reagan also helped the nation overcome the financial problems of the 70s, and build up a military that the Soviet Union was incapable of matching. Reagan’s ability to relate to the common man inspired many, who, despite never really benefiting from “Reaganomics” rallied behind their Commander-in-Chief. Reagan became the epitome of patriotism and American greatness. No matter how far the gap between the rich and the poor grew, he will probably be remembered, for many years to come, as one of America’s most beloved leaders, and as proof that a successful modern presidency, at least in the eyes of the masses, rests more with presenting a pretty picture than actual facts and figures.

Great Moments in Presidential Election History

In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen went head-to-head with George Bush Sr. and Dan Quayle for the presidency of the United States. During the campaign (which was the first presidential campaign that I actually paid attention to...I was ten years old) I recalled a couple of occasions when both sides delivered a pretty solid strike against their opponent. And thanks to Youtube, I have been able to see them again. I remember seeing them both live as a kid and recall how they helped to kindle my interest in American politics. Here they are:

Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look like a chump:


And Ronald Reagan's fantastic response:


In the end, I suppose both Bentsen and Reagan were right. Quayle was far from being anything like JFK and Dukakis was hardly the next Thomas Jefferson.

SHOCKER!

Do "Reagan Conservatives" Follow Reagan?

Another Example of History
Being Misrepresented

Let's get right into it. Do "Reagan Conservatives" actually follow Ronald Reagan?

The quick answer: NO! Very few "Reagan Conservatives" today would be able to tell you very much about the man and his policies as president. Of course they are more than able to spew the rhetoric they've gleaned from their "Holy Trinity" of conservative doctrine (the Limbaugh, the Hannity and the Holy Beck), but beyond that, few have bothered to take an honest look at what "Good Ol' Dutch" actually stood for.

Why? Because if they did they would realize that Reagan himself would detest the tea-bagging, Paul Revere wannabe, doomsday rhetoric of 21st century neo-conservatism, which is more interested in twisting history, inflating a false sense of patriotism and making simple-minded stupidity a virtue (remember Joe the Plummer?). The conservatives who summon Reagan’s ghost for use in today’s arguments usually use him as a stand-in for doctrinal purity. Why? Because they have no real doctrine themselves.

Now, before you de-friend me on Facebook or start labeling me an evil, fascist, Nazi, Obama socialist hear me out. I am not trying to level an attack on Reagan here, nor am I saying that conservatism is a bad thing. As a person who generally favors conservative principles (i.e. fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc.) I believe that most RATIONAL Republicans embrace sound government principles that are far superior to those of their tax and spend, larger government opponents. Now, I say this in the general sense because I realize that there are Dems who favor less taxation and government, just like there are Republicans who are downright insane and stupid (Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.). In addition, I also recognize that Ronald Reagan was a successful president who did a lot of good for this nation. However, I do NOT believe that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I share the sentiments of the "Reagan Conservatives" who embrace the man as the Messiah of truth, justice and the American way. I also think it's silly for these "Reagan Conservatives" to hold the man up as something he was not. How do I know they are wrong? See for yourselves:

When speaking with a "Reagan Conservative" you will typically hear something in line with the following:

"I am not a Republican. I am a Reagan Conservative who stands for the principles which Reagan embodied, those being lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, zero tolerance for terrorism, Christian values and immigration reform. In short, I believe, with Reagan, that government isn't the solution to problems; government is the problem." ~Sean Hannity, Conservative Victory, 2010

Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in American history...He slowed the growth of domestic spending by vetoing spending bills and by shutting down the federal bureaucracy. In fact, Ronald Reagan proved something that to this day economists, elite economists do not believe. Ronald Reagan lowered inflation during the midst of one of the most unbridled economies and its growth period in history. No economist thought that possible, but he did. He brought inflation down to 4.8% from its double-digit figure when he took office, and significantly. ~Rush Limbaugh, June 7, 2004.

Well, that sounds good to me too. Only one problem: It's not really true. Ronald Reagan didn't embrace these things like the "Reagan Conservatives" think he did. Here's what Reagan really believed:

Taxation and Spending
We've all heard the rhetoric about how AMAZING Reagan was with taxes. If you listen to the pundits its almost as if nobody paid any taxes of any kind during the "Glorious 80s." Sadly, the truth is something very different. As economist Paul Krugman points out:

Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

[...]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was a huge increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent more in taxes than they did under JFK, Johnson and Carter.

In short, the man actually RAISED taxes when he knew it would benefit the country. That is one major reason he was a successful president. Reagan, like his idol FDR, knew that you had to be flexible with the economy. Sometimes you need to spend, other times you need to save. In short, Reagan understood that no fixed political position would solve problems. One needed to be willing to admit that the "other guy" had a point as well.

And how about fiscal spending? Wasn't Reagan the most fiscal president in the history of history? Isn't that was Rush and the like tell us?

Not so fast. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, Ronald Reagan's presidency incurred the third highest level of deficit spending in American history:
And though I recognize that Reagan's deficit spending was not as bad as some might think (Reagan and his advisors knew that they could outspend the Soviets into oblivion) this chart illustrates the fact that Reagan was not the anti-spending guy that the tea-nut "Reagan Conservative" crowd believes. Anti-spending? Anti-taxes? Not ol' Dutch!

Military and Terrorism
Ok, on this one we need to clarify a few things. One of the main reasons Reagan spent so much $$$ was to create a strong military. That's a reality. Sadly, the "Reagan Conservatives" seem to believe that this simple fact means that Reagan was for increasing ALL aspects of the military. Not so.

On page 222 of his "book" Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity, the self-anointed founder of "Reagan Conservatism":

We must be committed to retaining our position as the world's greatest superpower, by maintaining the world's strongest military and supporting our troops on and off the battlefield. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons, we can never return to a world without them.

So "brave"; so "Patriotic", Sean. Only one problem. Here's what Reagan had to say on the issue:

Let's make no mistake. Reagan HATED war. He was from the WWII generation and knew first hand the horrible nature of it. In consequence, one of his primary goals was the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons. In December 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, which "requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force." Not only did Reagan want to control the Soviet nuclear stockpile but of ours as well!

As for terrorism, "Reagan Conservatives" are usually the first to uphold torture as a responsible, reliable practice:

On nearly every issue since the war on terror bean, Democrats have stood for the wrong principles and policies and have proved incompetent in carrying out their own policies as well...They [terrorists] have declared war on us and we're fighting a war and we know there is about 60-some odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield. Why for the first time ever would we give rights to enemy combatants?...Waterboarding is a safe and effective tool for intelligence gathering." ~Sean Hannity on Fox's Hannity, broadcast Mar. 10, 2009.

Waterboarding is not torture. It's a horrible experience that does no harm." ~Glenn Beck, January 17, 2008.

Now let's see what Reagan had to say about torture. When speaking of the United Nations convention on torture he said:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture; a practice he detested. In fact, Reagan prosecuted those who were found to be practicing waterboarding, including this Texas Sheriff. So clearly it is impossible for a "Reagan Conservative" to approve of torture...that is...if they truly want to emulate Ronny boy.

These are just a few of the MANY obvious differences that exist between Ronald Reagan and the "Reagan Conservatives." If you want to see more, follow this link (which was one of the many sources used for my post).

In conclusion, I want to make something clear. Ronald Reagan was an effective president not because he clung to some rigid political dogma like the tea-baggers, but because he understood that different situations require different solutions. Reagan could effectively read America's economic and political barometer better than most, and as a result, he knew when to spend and when to save; when to tax and when to not tax. In short, he knew when to be more conservative and more liberal. Contrary to today's idiotic political division, which insists on complete and total subjugation to one rigid form of government (all of which claims to be the supreme guardian of American patriotism), Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism knew when and how to adjust. It was a living, breathing and evolving idea, not a cold, dead and rigid fiction.

So, to the "Reagan Conservatives" out there I only ask one thing: will you follow the REAL Reagan? Or will you continue to believe the myth? Perhaps Reagan's own words best apply. Instead of the word "liberal" I will use "Reagan Conservative":

The trouble with our Reagan Conservative friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

The (Socialist) Pledge of Allegiance

In today's political world, words like "socialism," "fascism" and "communism" have become popular "scary words" used by extremists to vilify their political rivals. These "scary words" have been used in such a way that it has become extremely difficult to separate the true meanings behind these words from the nonsense associated with them. After all, when idiots like Glenn Beck label everyone from Obama, Alexander Hamilton, Stalin, Hitler, McCain, Oprah, etc. as "socialists" it becomes very difficult to take anything these extremists say seriously. Usually it is these same extremists who insist that the very fabric of America's "Christian" heritage is eroding below our feet, thanks to the "evil, fascist, Nazi, Maoist, socialist" meany-heads that are now in power. Often they appeal to obscure and random quotes from the Founding Fathers (or Ronald Reagan) to prove their point, which usually invokes a powerful emotional response from fellow radicals (tea-baggers) who quickly rally behind some misspelled and misinformed protest sign:


Yes, truly Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert will never run out of material so long as the tea-baggers keep pretending that they are modern day Minutemen and Sons of Liberty!

But when it comes to dramatic demonstrations of public devotion to God and country, the "tea parties," political rallies and even Glenn Beck's daily nonsense circus take a back seat to the "crown jewel" of patriotic liturgy: the Pledge of Allegiance. And though I am a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance, I do find it ironic that these same tea-bagging, sign-waving, Obama-hating, socialist-loathing, intellectually challenged "MORANS" are at the vanguard of supporting such a socialist institution. Yep, you heard me right, the Pledge of Allegiance is...wait for it...SOCIALIST!!!

Or at least its creator was. In 1892, in commemoration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' "discovery" of America (whether Columbus deserves his own holiday is a topic for another day, one that I have written about here and here), Francis Bellamy, a popular Baptist minister and Christian socialist, was asked to draft words for a flag pledge that would be used to bolster the schoolhouse flag movement. The recitation of the pledge was also to be accompanied by the "Bellamy Salute" (as depicted in the picture at the top of this post), but was later changed during World War II to simply placing ones hand over their heart for obvious reasons.

The original words to Bellamy's first pledge are very interesting and would surely horrify every wannabe Paul Revere tea fanatic:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with equality and fraternity for all.

Equality and fraternity are a noteworthy selection of words. After all, they are two of the three words (Liberté, égalité, fraternité) used in the national motto of France; a motto that originated in their revolution. In addition, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were also key words (scary words to the tea-sippers) in the Christan socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Bellamy was a passionate voice for socialism and advocated for complete government control of education in America. In addition, it was his hope that the pledge would become a standard practice in all public schools. His wish was granted in 1940 when the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis ruled that all students, including Jehovah's Witnesses who detested the pledge on the basis that it was idolatrous and made a graven image out of the flag, were required to swear the pledge.

Now, it should go without saying (contrary to what some of those tea lovers may say) that the phrase "under God" was not a part of the first pledge. In fact, "under God" was not officially added to the pledge until 1954, when President Eisenhower and Congress passed a joint resolution making it the official pledge of the nation.

And while I revere the pledge for its basic principles of devotion to God and country, I cannot help but chuckle at the fact that so many fanatics, who find socialism lurking under every rock in the same way that McCarthy found communism in the 50s, support the pledge with such blind loyalty. You'd think that the pledge of a devout Christian socialist would turn them off. Heck, even their fearless "brainiac" leader, Glenn Beck, has convinced many to leave churches for the preaching of "social justice." Just imagine what Beck would think of Bellamy's "Jesus the Socialist" and "The Bible Teaches Socialism" sermons.

Now, in fairness to Bellamy, there's a lot of crap out there on the net which suggests that Bellamy "inspired" Hitler and the Nazi Party. This is simply spaghetti being tossed at the wall to see what sticks. There's no evidence for such a stupid conclusion, so please spare us the socialist, Marxist, fascist, Nazi conspiracy theories. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Here are a few video clips of the PoA from the past. Notice what has changed? What is missing?

Ronald Reagan and the "Year of the Bible"

Christian conservatism has, in recent years, evolved to become an ardent supporter of the "Christian Nation" thesis. Ever since the emergence of leaders like Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and others, Christian conservatism has effectively fused the sacred and secular arenas together, all of which has, for the believer, added to the legitimacy of the "Christian Nation" argument.

And the MESSIAH of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was apparently a devout believer in the Christian Nation as well. In 1983, President Reagan drafted an official proclamation (Proclamation 5018), which sought to officially make that year (1983) the "Year of the Bible." The presidential proclamation reads:

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.

Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies -- a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.

The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

For centuries the Bible's emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.

Many of our greatest national leaders -- among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson -- have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country's development. The plainspoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than "the rock on which our Republic rests.'' Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called "the best gift God has ever given to man . . . But for it we could not know right from wrong.''

The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the "Year of the Bible.''

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to reexamine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.

Ronald Reagan

In conjunction with Reagan's signing of this proclamation, Congress drafted the following resolution (which predated the one above) acknowledging the Bible as "the Word of God." It reads:

97th Congress Joint Resolution

[S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211
Public Law 97-280 - October 4, 1982

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982.

I'm no Reagan hater. In fact, I think he was a pretty decent president. Sorry, conservo friends, I don't think Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I believe he truly represented my preferred brand of conservatism (for myself, I like Ike). With that said, I do have a bone to pick with this whole "Year of the Bible" nonsense that Reagan embraced.

First off, it is completely and totally inappropriate (in my opinion) for the President to advocate for such a proposal. Just imagine a president declaring a "day of the Qur'an" or a "Day of the Torah." Simply put, it seems like such a blatant violation of the church/state separation.

Second, Reagan's declaration is chalked full of historical inaccuracies. For example, the statement that the teachings of the Bible influenced the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is silly. Where do we find Biblical principles in either document? Besides, Jefferson made it clear that he did not rely on the Bible when writing the DOI. Rather he used Locke, Cicero, Algernon Sidney and others. In addition, the Constitution does NOT mention God except for a very brief and formal notation at its conclusion.

And then of course there are these comments from the Founding Fathers themselves:

"The government of the United States is not IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian Religion"
~John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States"
~George Washington to the Swedenborgians, 1794

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported."
~James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
~James Madison

"Christianity never was a part of common law."
~Thomas Jefferson

Now, I want to be clear that I am not a Bible hater. Quite the contrary. I agree with the founders when they said that the Bible was one of the best (if not the best) books on earth and that mankind would live a happy and prosperous life by learning from its teachings. This, however, is not the issue at hand. The problem I have with the "Year of the Bible" is that it used government to sanction one religion over another. As a result, it obscured and offended that delicate balance between church and government. Simply put, Reagan should have known better.

But alas, presidents always have, and always will, do things based on their political clout. Heck, Reagan wasn't even that much of a believer!