Good to know the incumbent never failed, that everything he did was for the good and at any rate could not be avoided, and that whatever problems may have occurred at the time were entirely the fault of other people. Could it be that figures dominant in their era will be remembered differently in subsequent eras, less charitably, depending? And can we expect that a truly terrible president surrounded by far worse than yes men might be succeeded by a wise leader equal to the moment who rises to the historical occasion to save the day and the nation again? I know we can't know the future, and I don't subscribe to the "great man" theory of history, but if anyone has seen the finale of season 2, pray tell.
Terrific historical deep dive. The Lincoln vs Buchanan cabinet comparison really drives home why surrounding yourself with yes-men is dangerous in executive leadership. What really stood out to me is how Buchanan's southern-leaning appointees essentially guarenteed the admin would fail to address secession decisively. I once studied similar leadership failures in other contexts and the pattern of avoiding dissenting voices always ends badly.
Wonderful column, Mr. Galant. I learned more about Buchanan and his failures, and his eerie similarity to the new worst president in history with the even more corrupt cabinet of yes-men, than I did in all my studies of history through high school and college and a lifetime as a writer and editor. Thank you! I'm sharing it with several friends.
The parallels between Buchanan and the career of an unsuccessful president - Joe Biden - are striking. Both Pennsylvania men got their start as lawyers. They knew the ins and outs of government: they served as U.S. senators and foreign affairs specialists. Both prevaricated on the great crisis facing the republic.
Good to know the incumbent never failed, that everything he did was for the good and at any rate could not be avoided, and that whatever problems may have occurred at the time were entirely the fault of other people. Could it be that figures dominant in their era will be remembered differently in subsequent eras, less charitably, depending? And can we expect that a truly terrible president surrounded by far worse than yes men might be succeeded by a wise leader equal to the moment who rises to the historical occasion to save the day and the nation again? I know we can't know the future, and I don't subscribe to the "great man" theory of history, but if anyone has seen the finale of season 2, pray tell.
Terrific historical deep dive. The Lincoln vs Buchanan cabinet comparison really drives home why surrounding yourself with yes-men is dangerous in executive leadership. What really stood out to me is how Buchanan's southern-leaning appointees essentially guarenteed the admin would fail to address secession decisively. I once studied similar leadership failures in other contexts and the pattern of avoiding dissenting voices always ends badly.
Wonderful column, Mr. Galant. I learned more about Buchanan and his failures, and his eerie similarity to the new worst president in history with the even more corrupt cabinet of yes-men, than I did in all my studies of history through high school and college and a lifetime as a writer and editor. Thank you! I'm sharing it with several friends.
Glad you liked it — and thanks for sharing it.
The parallels between Buchanan and the career of an unsuccessful president - Joe Biden - are striking. Both Pennsylvania men got their start as lawyers. They knew the ins and outs of government: they served as U.S. senators and foreign affairs specialists. Both prevaricated on the great crisis facing the republic.
But successors of Lincoln are nowhere to be seen.
Very interesting article.
Thank you.