As President-elect Joseph R. Biden completes his cabinet, the Covid-19 vaccine distribution kicks into high gear, and the Trump presidency finally and mercifully comes to its violent, chaotic close, the need for national unification couldn’t be more apparent.

With the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th by extremist supporters of President Trump, our nation has come full circle in six-months of unchecked violence too often dismissed as protected civil discourse. No amount of parsing the legitimacy of complaints and grievances that animate extremists of all stripes can justify the attacks we have witnessed throughout the nation these past terrible months. Whether it’s mob destruction in our major cities, Antifa arsonists torching an historic church, or other extremists attempting to breach the White House or storm the Capitol, these acts simply must stop, and the perpetrators must be caught and prosecuted.

Sure, there are grievances and societal inequities that are reasons for protests, but we can’t continue a cycle where partisan factions refuse to concede the legitimacy of elections. The harm this does to the Constitution and the nation are incalculable.

The right’s denial of the legitimacy of the election results is a repeat of 2016 when the left refused to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s election and mounted the “resistance movement” that even before his inauguration called for his impeachment. Hillary Clinton refused to concede and even today claims Trump’s election was fraudulent. Now, abetted and disgracefully encouraged by Trump, the right cries foul and weaves a path of destruction through the halls of Congress.

How do we get past this crisis in our democracy, to whom do we look for guidance, wisdom and leadership? Certainly not our current partisan political leadership. It’s not Mitch McConnell who just lost his senate majority or Chuck Schumer who will take McConnell’s job. And it most certainly is not Nancy Pelosi who has abetted those refusing to accept the legitimacy of President Trump at every turn. She shamed herself and demeaned the House with her childish behavior in tearing up President Trump’s State of the Union speech. She continued that behavior throughout the Russian collusion investigation and the politically-inspired impeachment proceedings of 2020. And, perhaps worst of all, she politicized the Covid-19 crisis by refusing to allow the House to vote on a relief package for Americans hard hit by the pandemic. She admitted as much when asked by reporters if she made a mistake in prohibiting a vote before the election but of allowing it now. And, finally, she rushed through a one-day impeachment proceeding against Trump which I fear will sidetrack the early days of the Biden presidency and further divide the country.

Pelosi’s self-serving actions and arrogance would stand as unique monuments to ego if not for the existence and behavior of President Trump. How we survived the past four years of this attack on our democratic institutions stands as testimony to the strength of that democracy.

And while one of these miscreants has at least temporarily left the political stage, the other–Pelosi–remains behind as a reminder of all that was wrong in those four years. By the skin of her teeth and by endangering the health of 435 House members by allowing those who had tested positive for Covid-19 to vote on the House floor for her reelection as Speaker, she will be the voice of congressional Democrats for two more years. I’m afraid the Democrats will regret not having the moral courage–the guts–to send her to the back benches now. If not for the sake of the country, then for their own political survival as their slim majority looks to be threatened by a “red wave” in 2022.

So, who is going to step forward to be the conciliator, the person who is willing to risk the wrath of the extremists in both parties by creating bipartisan coalitions that breach the current doctrinaire chasms? From all accounts, there are a few who are willing to step into this void. Those mentioned are Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Republican Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney. Led by Senator Manchin they already have come together to develop and pass the recent bipartisan Covid Relief legislation. With a 50-50 split in the Senate, these four stand to be power brokers for good government and as common-sense legislators that our new common-sense President can look to for help in threading the needle of a fractured political comity.

It would be a sad commentary, indeed, if all we had holding the middle against the tide of extremists populating both parties, were four legislators and a 78-year-old President who will be forced to summon every ounce of energy a man of his age can summon to bridge the philosophical differences that so divide us. And they will stand alone if we, the people, don’t stand with and in support of them.

Following the ugly episode at the Capitol and the violence elsewhere in the country, the vast center of our populace must give President-elect Biden a real chance to dissolve the recriminations, the anger, and, yes, the hatred that have come to represent the face of the American polity. Uniting the factions that exist in our country may not be possible but eliminating the venomous hostilities engendered by self-centered politicians, a ratings-obsessed media and extremists intent on destruction is a worthy and, hopefully, achievable goal.

​With my historical bent, I tend to look to the past for moments that mirror the present. Such a moment is the day of August 9, 1974, when Gerald Ford assumed the presidency from a disgraced Richard Nixon. The country then, too, was riven by dissent and violence. Nixon was hated with a vehemence that Donald Trump doesn’t experience on his worst day. Vietnam still raged, marches on Washington were common and the bombing of the Capitol by the Weather Underground was in the recent past. Into this morass stepped Gerald Ford.

Ford, much like Joe Biden, was a creature of Congress. Like Biden, he was well-liked, respected as a hard worker and an honest broker, whose word was his bond. He was not seen, however, as of presidential stature. But when thrust into office at that turbulent moment, he rose to the occasion. In a speech to the nation that day, Ford conveyed a message of hope and conciliation that Joe Biden would do well to emulate.

Ford said: “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over” … Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule…As we bind up the internal wounds…more painful and poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process and…purge our hearts of suspicion and hate.” And, most appropriate to the current moment,“ … so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers.”

Joe Biden looks to me to be cut from the same cloth as Gerald Ford. But, he can’t bridge what divides us alone. It is we who must recognize the humanity in others, who must break free from acrimony and stubborn partisanship. It is we who must purge our hearts of “suspicion and hate.” It is we who should pray for Joe Biden’s success. Either we unite for the common good or we will surely perish in the muck of discord and division that now soils our society.

​While Juliet may have been having a hard time finding her Romeo, her search pales in comparison with the quest of traditional Republicans to find a one-size fits-all definition of today’s Republican Party.
​
But by any definition, the word “conservative” must be foremost in describing each and every variant of Republicanism in 2017. And, if that point is conceded, then I posit that at present, there are three Republican parties, none of which includes Donald Trump’s personal or political philosophy, which I will describe as “Trumpism."

So, let’s look at Trumpism first. By his own description Donald Trump is a nationalist who, as stated in his speech to Congress, represents America, not the world. He neither espouses Woodrow Wilson’s lofty rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy nor Ronald Reagan’s belief that America was the leader of the free world whose might would serve as a shield against tyranny and oppression. In some ways, Trump’s nationalism can be looked at through the prism of George Washington’s admonition against becoming entangled in foreign alliances and British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s oft-repeated belief that Great Britain had “no permanent friends nor permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” But a more recent and more accurate label for Trumpism, I believe, would be “Fortress America” preached by the isolationists of the 1930s. And, we all know how that turned out.

On the domestic and economic front, Trumpism is a “clean-out-the-refrigerator-stew” of leftist dogma and tea party phobia against free-trade, lobbyists, Wall Street, an unfair tax code, and the ultimately unifying whipping boy—the “establishment.” It’s a philosophy steeped in the populist belief that the rules are stacked against the little guy, the common man. Trump either brilliantly manipulated this paranoia into support from across the political spectrum or he was manipulated by those of the “alt-right,” led by Steve Bannon and Britebart News,  into a caricature of the “Ugly American,” which he seems to have embraced.

Very little in Trumpism translates even tangentially into the commonly understood and accepted tenets of traditional republicanism such as support for a strong national defense and the willingness to use America’s might in support of its free-world allies. Nor is Trump’s economic protectionism synonymous with traditional republicanism’s belief in free and unfettered trade. It’s a bedrock principle of the “movement conservative” that American workers in the capitalist system of “supply and demand” economics, free from the strangling hand of government overregulation, will outwork, outthink and out-produce their counterparts in countries hampered by government-imposed restrictions on commerce and the organs of production. Give American businesses and American workers a free hand and free trade agreements will always redound to America’s benefit.

This “movement conservative” brand of Republicanism is founded on the beliefs of men such as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and a generous dose of everyone’s favorite political philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr and his “world as it is realism.” Their thoughts and beliefs are embedded in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and in stalwart conservative publications such as the National Review and Weekly Standard. Members of this movement conservative brand proved to be the most steadfast opponents of Trump’s candidacy and remain in that mode as his presidency begins. Traditionally, these conservative thinkers have formed the deep intellectual bench from which Republican presidents have drawn their cabinet members and White House economic, national security and foreign affairs advisers.

A second brand of today’s Republicanism is personified in Congress by the self-identified “Freedom Caucus.” This group of about 50 congressmen are doctrinaire conservatives whose mantra is small government, balanced budgets, 2nd Amendment purity and social conservatism. They are unified in their beliefs and are a power beyond their numbers because of their ability and willingness to challenge their party’s leadership on legislative initiatives which violate their principles. This “caucus” flexed its power in 2015 by ousting John Boehner as Speaker of the House because of his willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to advance needed legislation. Its ascendance and iron-clad refusal to compromise mirrors that of the Tea Party to which it continues to be beholden for electoral support. And while nominal supporters of Trump, these Freedom Caucus members may yet prove to be among his most vocal and forceful opponents over Trump’s disregard for fiscally sound legislative initiatives. Witness, their howls of disapproval over Trump’s plan to overhaul Obamacare.

The third brand of today’s republicanism is the “governing pragmatist brand.” Dwindling in numbers and influence, it is personified by senators and congressmen who still believe that the art of politics is compromise. Its leaders are senators such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, and Susan Collins. Its proponents in the House are fewer and farther between because of their fear of being “primaried”—singled out for being challenged in primaries by more conservative Republicans for the apostasy of compromising on bedrock conservative principles. Among the few “governing pragmatists” of the House are Tom Cole, Cathy McMorris Rogers and Kevin McCarthy. Not listed, but pragmatists nevertheless, are Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. McConnell, for all his bluster about opposing Obama at every turn, was still the one Joe Biden went to strike a deal. Ryan has to deal with the most recalcitrant of House Republicans to reach a caucus consensus but is the voice of reason behind closed doors.

​Make no mistake about the conservatism of this pragmatic brand of republicanism, though. These members and their peers will fight as hard as any brand for the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong and engaged national defense, individual rights and an adherence to a literal interpretation of the Constitution. But when the fight has been fought and the votes are not there, they will compromise to get the best deal possible with the least harm to their conservative principles. This is the strategy that legendary legislative Republican leaders such as Everett Dirksen, Howard Baker and Bob Dole followed and it particularly marks the successful presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. Reagan had his battles with Tip O’Neill and Eisenhower with Lyndon Johnson but at the end of the day, both were willing to take half a loaf now, vowing to come back for the other half at a later date.

Where does this Republican schism leave me and the many like me who hold dear our lifelong conservative principles but who can’t abide the gross and insulting politics of personal destruction practiced by a nominally Republican president nor the extremism that so deeply rives Congress to the point of impotence. Do we just ride out the storm and hope for an eventual return to civility and politics that put our nation’s interests first? To whom do we place our confidence that the different philosophies of the separate brands of republicanism can be joined in a consensus that works for the common good? Where do we look for guidance for an example of a leader strong enough to do what’s right because it is right? A leader strong enough to compromise for the sake of the country, political consequences be damned. As an historian, it shouldn’t be a surprise that I look to the past for such a person.

For many Republicans growing up in the 1950s, party identity was directly tied to Abraham Lincoln and his vision of a country dedicated to the principle of freedom and dignity for all Americans. In an era when the Democratic party was rife with segregationists officeholders throughout the south and had, in fact, sold its soul for electoral victories, Republicans were being led through consecutive elections by social progressives such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, and Tom Dewey. Electoral losers all, still they were men one could be proud of as the leader of the Republican party. And while Dwight Eisenhower, when he entered presidential politics, could not be labeled as a progressive, he was a man of the law and Constitution who had led his country to victory in a war fought to sustain the principles that safeguarded human rights.

As a history nerd from the age of seven when I watched my first presidential nominating convention in 1952, one moment of my childhood that made a lasting impression on me was when President Eisenhower sent troops of the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 to enforce the integration of its schools and to provide for the safety and protection of black children who simply wanted the same chance as their white classmates. In truth, Eisenhower had been a proponent of a gradual approach to school integration following the 1954 Supreme Court decision, knowing the resistance it would meet in the South. But once challenged on the law, he enforced it with all the might of the Federal government.

Eisenhower shaped my view on government as an instrument of power that should be yielded most often cautiously and sparingly, but aggressively and decisively when circumstances require it. Sending troops to Little Rock, building the national highway system, signing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 were instances where Eisenhower followed an expansive view of the use of Federal power. But perhaps his greatest achievements lie in his restraint of government. He fought continuous battles to balance the budget. Even as a man of the military, he said that every dollar spent on the military was a dollar not spent on education. In Korea, instead of expanding and prolonging hostilities, he agreed to a truce. In Vietnam, he refused to send American troops to support the French in their death battle in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu. And, perhaps in the greatest military decision of his life, Eisenhower refused the entreaties of his military advisers and others to send American soldiers to prop up South Vietnam in its civil war with the communist North Vietnamese (Would that future presidents had followed his example). And in his prescient farewell speech, Eisenhower warned against falling prey to the “Military/Industrial Complex.”  As a man of the military who entreated President Kennedy to restore his rank of five star general so that he could be buried as such, no such admonition could have had more prestige behind it.

(It is no wonder that in the C-SPAN 2017 poll of 91 historians Dwight Eisenhower was ranked as America’s fifth greatest President).

This concept of restrained and limited government balanced with the certain knowledge that there are circumstances and events when the forceful exercise of the full authority of government is both justified and necessary, is this conservative’s governing philosophy.

The belief in the concept of the common good is as old as Plato and the need to compromise for the common good is at the heart of the “separation of powers” in our Constitution. The willingness to pursue this accommodation to political reality is, to me, a strength to be wished for in our public officials, not a weakness.
At the end of the day, all of us—Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals—must recognize that maybe, just maybe, we don’t know all the answers or have all the wisdom. Maybe the other side has a legitimate point or two. We should be looking for politicians such as Dwight Eisenhower who understand and share those beliefs and who are strong enough to say, “I’m willing to compromise on this issue because it is the right thing to do.”

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

​​When considering the question of leadership in both the Republican and Democratic parties in 2016, one must concede that neither party is in a traditional leadership mode. The Democrats at least have a semblance of a traditional structure with President Obama serving as both the real time and soon to be titular party chief. The Democrats also can claim a hierarchy of support, however tepid it may be, for their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. And while it looked for a time that Bernie Sanders’ firebrand rhetoric had put the torch to the Democrats’ strategy of running on a referendum of Barack Obama’s record, the party has surprised me in how quickly the Clinton and Sanders factions coalesced into a seemingly unified front in the face of the Donald Trump evisceration of the Republican party.

But in developing a cohesive ideological platform with top-down leadership, the Democrats had to pay respect to the Sanderistas and their version of “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.” Just because Bernie Sanders played the good soldier and compromises were made for the sake of party unity, Democrats as well as Republicans are faced with the fact that leadership in both parties has bubbled up from the disaffected masses. Attention must be paid.
​
However, as much as vox populi—​the voice of the people—​presents a problem for Democrats, for a real nightmare let’s take a look (reluctantly for me) at the Republican Party, circa 2016.
​
Given the debacle that characterizes the current state of the Republican party, one is left to wonder if anyone is in charge or if it is a perfect personification of what the late Jimmy Breslin titled his book on the Nixon administration, “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.” Nobody seems to be in charge. There is no cohesion among Congressional Republicans, let alone a unified voice of support for Donald Trump. In fact, both House and Senate Republicans standing for reelection have been told by their congressional leadership that they are released from any bonds of party loyalty in their efforts to stay afloat amid the high level of political disdain for Trump. Daily, increasing numbers of Republicans rebel with revulsion at the prospect of supporting, much less voting for Donald Trump. Among the intellectual elite occupying the suites of conservative think tanks, non-support of Donald Trump is the badge of honor worn by most. And while finding a viable third-party true conservative candidate continues to resonate with these ABTs, “Anyone But Trump,” intellectuals of the Right, the reality is that the next President is going to be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

So, while the causes of the leadership vacuum are many, the result is a party in free-falling chaos. Split between “movement conservatives,” guided by the fading but still vibrant echoes of the Goldwater and Reagan mantras of individual responsibility and constrained government, and the simplistic populism of the tea partiers and their demagogic leader Donald Trump, the party has, in effect, ceased to be a party. In the simple, homespun language of Will Rogers, who when asked in the 1920s to which political party he belonged, he answered, “I don’t belong to any political party. I’m a Democrat.” Substitute Republican for Democrat in 2016, and I think you have an accurate reflection of the chaos of present day Republicanism.

But what caused this disaffection with the leadership of both parties? In this age of instant communication is there a need for recognizable party leaders? Is the “establishment” such an anathema in both parties that identification as a leader of the establishment an automatic disqualifier for a leadership role? Do the anti-establishment wings of both parties have something to say that is important and worthwhile? Populism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries sprang from the disaffected “Grange Movement” members of the mid-west whose champion was William Jennings Bryan and from the poor whites of the south who were championed—​I would say, used for political advantage—​by demagogic politicians such as “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, and Eugene Talmadge of Georgia.

The disaffected of today, I’m sad to say, bear a resemblance to their forebearers of a hundred years ago. On the left are the struggling members of the lower middle class and the poor whose good-paying blue collar jobs which sustained their fathers have disappeared overseas. College is a pipe dream and a nice home and a car increasingly becoming one. Who to blame? Politicians, trade deals, banks, globalization, and a technological revolution that has eliminated the need for unskilled labor.

On the right are the same struggling members of the poor and lower middle class who lost their jobs and can’t find new ones with dignity and fair pay. They see as bleak a future as their counterparts on the left and blame many of the same politicians and institutions, but with the added poison of xenophobia abetted by Donald Trump. It’s not just the corrupt establishment, it’s the “illegal” Hispanics flooding America from the south. It’s the dangerous, murderous Islamists, both beyond our borders and homegrown. It’s the Chinese, beneficiaries of unfair trade deals. It’s the African-Americans who take more from the treasury than they give. It’s anybody and everybody who are easy targets of blame for those who no longer accept individual responsibility for their plight.

In short, there is a combustible polity in America that must be addressed. It is a problem that is bigger than one party or one President. It must be addressed by both parties and the American people working together for the common good. It is certainly a problem that cannot be subjected to the simplistic gingoism of Donald Trump. America experienced its anti-immigrant Know Nothing party in the insular 1840s. Today’s America cannot suffer such ignorance and hatred. That is why I, a lifelong conservative, am voting for Hillary Clinton. I wish she were more conservative. I wish she were as conciliatory as her husband and as open to compromise, because America will not be brought together by someone who has all the answers. I wish that she were deemed more trustworthy by her fellow Americans. I wish that she was Ronald Reagan and that Tip O’Neill was the leader of the Democrats and that partisanship ended at 6pm over cocktails. But if only one wish comes true, it will be that Hillary wins the election and that Donald Trump is consigned to the dustbin of history with all of his preceding demagogues.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

Boobus Americanus. H.L. Mencken’s term for Americans who fall prey to politicians, con men, and snake oil salesman in general.
​
As a lifelong conservative who has voted Republican in every Presidential election but one since 1968, I am front and center in saying that if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz wins the Republican nomination, they will have one less vote to count on in November.

As a conservative whose governing beliefs are founded in the philosophy that a representative government works best when men and women of good intentions argue forcefully, passionately, and yes, even angrily for their positions, their party, and their constituents and that they then come together through compromise to fashion policies that serve the common good, I realize that some issues leave no room for compromise, causing stalemate or the rough domination of a narrow majority. And I realize that, in the rough and tumble of debate, words can be spoken that batter and bruise opponents. It has been ever such in American politics, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are absolved from blame in this context.

But it is one thing to wage political war over principled positions, while it is quite a different matter to demonize the opponent who holds those principles. And that is what political discourse has come to at this point in our history. Factions within both parties have taken the holier-than-thou position on everything from health care, to immigration, to economic fairness, to the size and scope of government. Each of these issues deserves to be examined and discussed in the full and healthy light of reasoned discourse, but in today’s political environment they can’t even garner reasoned discussion within the parties where extremists would rather torch the house than compromise for the common good, let alone their party’s good.

Trump is a nativist, a boor and a bully, arrogant, and culturally ignorant. All of these are what I abhor in an individual and enough in themselves to keep me from voting for him. Added to this list of disqualifying personal attributes is the fact that Trump is not a conservative. He’s not a conservative in support of a strong military nor the use of it. He’s not a conservative when he advocates raising taxes, the result of which will be an increase in the scope of government. Trump is not conservative when he is on the record for replacing Obamacare with a single payer—the government—health care system. Trump is not conservative when he pipe dreams that terrorism, a Middle East on fire, and an expansionist Russia can be brought to heel by personal diplomacy with a man he admires, Vladimir Putin. That “reset” has been tried. It didn’t work.
Ted Cruz has all of the attributes of Donald Trump but with a self-righteousness that trumps Trump. Cruz is called the true conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, when I think the appropriate appellation is the “true chameleon,” witness his position on illegal immigration where he was in favor of amnesty before he was opposed to it. Or, on support for defense and the military, when he voted against the defense budget then said on the campaign trail that he would unleash the strongest military in the world on ISIS to see if the “desert glowed in the dark.” Cruz also has the unique attribute of being able to alienate putative friends as well as real enemies. He is known as the most disliked man in the Senate and this just by his fellow Republicans. One is left to wonder what Democrats think of him.

While the Republicans lead the field this year in candidates beyond the pale of rational discourse, the Democrats don’t get a pass on this type of behavior when Bernie Sanders tries to convince the party faithful that European-style socialism really works and that America should give it a try. Poor Hillary Clinton. She must think she is in the midst of a year-long nightmare in which she is constantly forced to pander to the far left of her party who appear to be immersed in a 60-year fog of amnesia about the utter failure of socialism in one European country after another.

At a time when America desperately needs a President who can bring us together in words and deeds, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders will only widen the rift in political comity that threatens the very fabric of American representative government. None of those candidates has the background, the personality, or the instincts to forge intraparty, let alone interparty, compromise or consensus. None of the three is possessed of the qualities of leadership that allowed political opposites such as Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, and Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to find common ground for the common good.
​
As much as I fear for the health of our political system, I do feel encouraged by the fact that there are two electable candidates who do possess the attributes necessary to return sanity and reason to the political arena. Both occupy what remains as the “middle” of their respective parties and both have shown an ability to work with those in the opposition to forge sound governing policies.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio has shown an in-depth knowledge of domestic and international affairs and was part of the bipartisan coalition that supported President Obama on the trade pact as well being a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that tried to put together effective immigration reform. Rubio may be too “right” for Democratic tastes, just as he is too “left” for the “purity conservatives.” To my way of thinking, that makes him “just right.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, although not quite the political pragmatist of her husband, has shown an ability to form bipartisan friendships that made her one of the most popular senators in her years in the Senate. Known to be more of a practitioner of real politik than President Obama and certainly more hard line on defense and the use of force than he, Hillary should be far more effective in forging political compromises than the often aloof Barack Obama ever was. The left of the Democratic Party maligns Clinton as being a handmaiden of Wall Street, as too confrontational in foreign affairs, as too passive in the class warfarism that is dominating Democratic Party conversation. So while her moderation, her centrism, are anathema to radical liberalism, they seem just about right to me.
​
Given the choice of Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, I’ll stay true to my lifetime allegiance and vote Republican. Make that choice between Donald Trump or Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, and I’ll vote Clinton in a heartbeat. Self-respect trumps (sorry, I couldn’t resist) blind allegiance to a hijacked political philosophy. And I’ll cross my fingers that the outbreak of Boobus Americanus that has stained political discourse this election cycle will recede as Americans realize that who they vote for reflects who they are as Americans.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

One of my favorite passages in Doris Kearns Goodwin's “Team of Rivals,” is where Abraham Lincoln describes his irascible Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, as someone who is “never so perfectly happy unless he is thoroughly miserable.” The original quote comes from Lucius Crittenden's  “Recollections of President Lincoln and His Administration,” 1891. As an aphorism, it comes as close as anything to describing the personality of contrarians. The only thing I would change to complete the contrarian analogy is that they are never so perfectly happy as when they make “everyone else” thoroughly miserable.

While Abraham Lincoln had the skills and force of personality to mold an effective leadership team from men who just months earlier had been his rivals for the presidency, not everyone is a Lincoln. But every leader can apply the lessons learned from Lincoln's success in handling men whose views and agendas were often contrary to his own.

Be confident enough in your leadership ability to welcome brilliant, competitive people into your leadership circle:
Lincoln brought William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates, Simon Cameron and, later, Edwin M. Stanton into his cabinet. All had opposed him for the presidential nomination.

Identify those who place organizational goals first as opposed to those whose personal agenda takes precedence:
All of the above listed cabinet members had reservations about Lincoln and actively pursued independent agendas that, in some instances, were nearly insubordination. Lincoln gave them wide berth because of their dedication to winning the war but when pushed to the tipping point by Cameron and Chase, he fired them.

Countenance opposition and argument but not incompetence or disloyalty:
Lincoln bent over backwards in his support of the procrastinating but politically popular General George B. McClellan only to have McClellan continually castigate him for incompetence and treasonous behavior. Finally, it was McClellan's continuing battle failures that gave Lincoln the public support he needed to fire him.

Stop trouble in its tracks. Dissidents and the dissension they sow will sap your energy and that of the organization. Be quick and be ruthless in eliminating those who can't or won't work toward the common good.  Anything less is a dereliction of your duty:
Lincoln failed this test with McClellan but quickly and ruthlessly removed his first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, who had proved to be inept and overwhelmed by his responsibilities. Lincoln fired him but allowed Cameron to give him a letter of resignation and then gave Cameron the face-saving appointment as ambassador to Russia. Leavening ruthlessness with humanity costs you nothing and saves you the animus of another enemy. Lincoln repeated this maneuver with Salmon Chase in 1864 when he, to the surprise of Chase, accepted his letter of resignation but then appointed the bitter Chase to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

On a decidedly smaller scale than Lincoln's prosecution of the Civil War, anyone who has ever held a leadership position has experienced the debilitating effect of the few bad apples spoiling the atmosphere and effectiveness of the organization. As a leader in such a situation, the course of action you must follow is clear and unambiguous – an effective leader will take action to isolate, if not eliminate, those employees who cannot or will not get with the program.

As a manager of multiple professional offices during my 35-year career, I was blessed to work with people who, overwhelmingly, were dedicated and loyal to me and to our organization. At the same time, I was challenged by the few who were incapable of positively contributing to the success of the office. Those who were limited by their ability were relatively easy to deal with. Training, mentoring, reassignments worked miracles for some. For others, the only recourse was a strong recommendation to find success elsewhere. Know failure when you see it and take action to eliminate it.

Dealing with those whose only fault was lack of ability was relatively easy. Dealing with those who were contrarians by nature was difficult, time consuming, and yet, critical to the success of the organization as well as to my success as a leader.

Throughout my career, I found that there were always about 10 percent of staff who wouldn't pull their share of the load or exhibit loyalty to the office. These were the malcontents, the backbiters and the office gossips whose reason for being seemed to be the undermining of morale and efficiency. These 10-percenters were found at all grade levels. They were the lower level staffers who in crunch times would refuse to pick up the pace while denigrating others who worked beyond what the grade requirements were. Worse were senior level managers who while espousing the company line in leadership councils were, in private, persistently fighting to enhance their fiefdoms at the expense of the larger organization.  I could never tell if these were egocentrics intent on pursuing their personal agendas or people who just were unable to change their contrary nature. As destructive was the senior staffer who could not resist torpedoing every new idea by chiming in with, “well, it sounds like a good idea, but the trouble with that is.” It happened so often, one could perfectly time his interjection of this sour note of disapproval. He was the true contrarian who, unfortunately, created an atmosphere that stifled less senior staffers and even peers from offering new ideas.

Eliminating these opponents of good order in the organization challenges the skills of even the most seasoned leaders but ignoring them is a decision one soon comes to regret. Removing such people in today's world of bureaucratic safeguards for even the worst performers is a task not for the faint of heart. Sometimes, regrettably, the only recourse is the “Simon Cameron action” -- moving the problem employee to where he or she will be less of an obstacle to overall organizational success. As unpalatable as putting someone “on the shelf” is, at least he or she is removed from poisoning the atmosphere of the dedicated members of your team. Cut your losses quickly and ruthlessly and save yourself from the insidious effects of a culture of contrarians.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” (Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Harold Holzer, “Lincoln and the Power of the Press”). 

For any president to be an effective leader, he must also be a skilled communicator. To do so, he must command the publicity mediums available to him in his time to sway public opinion - public sentiment - to his cause, his vision. Lincoln led the nation to support his policies and vision through the assiduous use of the power of his pen in hundreds of letters and articles written to the national newspapers; for Teddy Roosevelt, it was the social issue magazines with by-lines of those who would become known as the “muckrakers”, for presidents beginning with Calvin Coolidge, it was the transformative medium of radio, and, beginning with Harry Truman, the cool medium of television which became the means by which presidents molded public sentiment in support of their vision. And in 2015, Barack Obama leads through a personal interaction with practically anyone who has a computer.

If the “modern presidency” can be defined through the prism of modern communication technology, then the administration of Calvin Coolidge is an appropriate place to begin.

Forever to be known as “Silent Cal”, Coolidge was anything but silent. From assuming the presidency in 1923 upon the death of Warren G. Harding, until leaving office in 1929, Coolidge was heard by more Americans than all of the presidents before him combined. His Inaugural Address of 1924 was heard on radio by 23 million listeners whereas, just four years before, Warren Harding's audience for his Inaugural Address was 125,000. (White House Historical Association)

In using the communication mediums of their times, presidents exercised leadership in ways that reflected their personalities and the unique character traits with which they are associated. With Harry Truman, the “buck” stopped with him. Ronald Reagan was “the Great Communicator”; Lyndon Johnson was unconvincing on camera but was known for twisting arms and other appendages to achieve his goals; Bill Clinton conveyed that he “felt your pain”; FDR came into your home for a “fireside” chat; John Kennedy co-opted the media with his charm and charisma; Dwight Eisenhower combined the aura of his Army command with the glittering smile of the “man who comes from the very heart of America”; George W. Bush rallied the country after the worst peacetime attack in American history much as George H. W. Bush rallied the world to stop Iraq's aggression in Kuwait. And, Gerald Ford brought comity back into the political arena by his calm everyman demeanor after the nation-rendering impact of Richard Nixon and Watergate. But lest Nixon's communication skills be relegated to his maudlin farewell speech on his resigning the presidency, history will remember that he saved his vice-presidential candidacy and political career with his “Checkers” television performance in 1952.

For all of these men, the tool they used to exercise their power and to lead the country in support of their policies was the electronic medium that changed the art of presidential communication from mom and pop retail politics to that of one-stop shopping at a wholesale chain store.  “Torch light parades”, “front porch” campaigning, editorials in partisan newspapers and magazines, and whistlestop barnstorming that had formed the crux of presidential communication for over a century, were supplanted in a short moment in time by a technology that brought presidents into homes in every corner of of the nation.  With this technology, presidents were given a new instrument of leadership by which they could persuade, cajole and convince Americans to follow and support their visions.

Harry Truman characterized the sum of presidential power when he said, “I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the President amount to." (“Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents”, Richard E. Neustadt).

Coming from the man famous for saying “the buck stops here”, this lament on the extent of his power may reflect the impotence Truman felt on a daily basis in the Oval Office.  Move Truman to the 21st Century and instead of leading the relatively few through personal conversations and 20th Century technology, he would have the enormous power of the internet and social media with which to influence and lead public opinion. One can only hope it is a power that will be well and wisely exercised.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.