The Pendragon's Hall

So, carrying on from yesterday, if Mort Zuckerman's basic historical premise--that America is at its strongest when led by a centrist, non-polarizing president--is wrong (and it clearly is since after giving it a lot of thought, even Millard Fillmore was polarizing enough that his party didn't want him to run for a second term) then is he also wrong that it is desirable to have such a president in charge? Like all of you, I've grown up with the idea that what we really want is a "nice" president, someone who doesn't tick people off, who unites the entire country together, and who never dares to offend people. But there is something inherent in the office of the Presidency that makes the man holding it automatically a polarizing figure. Even the unbelievably popular Reagan and Nixon, both re-elected in 49 state landslides, alienated people in mainstream media and academia--they just happened to be popular with the people who count at the polls. Andrew Jackson could lay claim to be the most polarizing public figure of his day. His opponents called him "King Andrew I" and "the great volcano of corruption." George Washington faced similar charges from a hostile press during his second term in office. Jefferson's fights with Alexander Hamilton are the stuff of legend. New England threatened to secede from the Union during "Mr. Madison's war." Even after his assassination, southern newspapers said of Lincoln, "the pity is somebody didn't do it sooner," and up till that point he certainly was the most hated public figure of his time. U.S. Grant annoyed everybody by his "corruption"-ridden administration yet he won two overwhelming elections and was nearly considered for a third term but the Republicans decided to run a less polarizing figure, who ended up being assassinated anyway. McKinley was assassinated. TR was mocked in the press and in European drawing rooms of his day. Wilson was laughed out of the halls of Congress and the opposition party won overwhelming control when he tried to push his treaty in 1919. FDR was certainly popular with the average voter but his ambitious social program led to severe reprimands, not only from political opponents but also from the Supreme Court. JFK was worried his own party would not renominate him...and then he got assassinated. Nixon...well, you know about him. Immensely popular with the people, he ticked off the pro-communist establishment and bang! A minor incident sends him into the darkness. Reagan was absolutely hated by the media. The first Bush fared somewhat better but Clinton was no uniter of hearts and minds. So, all in all, I don't really think it is desirable to look for a presidential candidate who can "unite" the country, because if he can, there's got to be something wrong...like maybe he really doesn't have any beliefs or convictions in the first place.