Seventy years ago today, a modest man was thrust onto the world stage in a role for which many thought him ill-suited. Upon Franklin Roosevelt’s sudden death, Harry Truman became president of the United States.
Winston Churchill is believed to have lamented that the eagle had been replaced by a sparrow. Eleanor Roosevelt, in response to Harry’s heartfelt offer of condolences, “is there anything I can do for you,” responded “Is there anything I can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now.”
Stunned by his sudden elevation to a job he never wanted, the down-to-earth Truman asked newspapermen to pray for him.
When he left office 7 1/2 years later, his presidency and his reputation were at a low ebb. “To err is Truman” was a tag line which must have stung. And yet, with the passage of time, Harry Truman is now considered at least one of the near-great presidents of the United States, and there are those who would put him in the top rank.
There is some irony in his lionization by Republicans as well as Democrats. “Give ’em hell Harry” was a viciously partisan Democrat. He not only gave them hell, he said publicly that anyone who voted Republican should go to hell! Yet Republicans as well as Democrats, when they gear up to run for the presidency, promise a Truman-like campaign of plain speaking. And they honor his concern for his fellow citizens and his willingness to put partisanship aside for the greater good. These are qualities in short supply on both sides of the aisle today.
A further irony is that Truman would find himself totally at sea in today’s Democratic Party. A fearless pioneer for civil rights, he would be appalled at the self-promoters his party recognizes as civil rights leaders. An unabashed patriot and supporter of the state of Israel, he would not recognize today’s Democratic foreign policy philosophy.
In the upset election of the ages, he defeated a serious contender while fending off deserters from his own party, who nominated popular Progressive and Dixiecrat candidates of their own, siphoning votes away from his centrist campaign. He did it by tirelessly traveling the country in a whistle-stop campaign, where he connected with voters by telling them the unvarnished truth about the problems America faced and how he aimed to solve them.
Truman was not without faults. He could be loyal to “cronies” who cashed in on public office, but he was personally honest to a fault. He left the presidency in the same modest circumstances in which he had always lived, returning to his mother-in-law’s home, and refusing to accept any directorships, obscene speaking fees, or anything else that was being offered to “President Truman” as opposed to “Harry Truman the man,” as he quaintly put it.
So as we enter yet another too-long presidential marathon, what lessons can we draw from this deceptively simple man? There will be something appealing about a person who doesn’t want the job too badly, who won’t cater to factions, who won’t hesitate to say what he believes, and who can be trusted to put his fellow citizens first.
There is room for this in both parties. A Republican who wants to break out of the pack can do so if he demonstrates that he or she has principles that will not be trimmed to attract votes. If the Democrats opt against what seems today to be a foregone coronation, they should look for a candidate with an honest and fresh approach to problems at home and abroad.
I’m not optimistic that such a person exists in either party, possessing the best of Truman’s qualities. I fear we will get lip service, but I hope we will get the real deal.
Arnold Haiman is an adjunct professor at George Washington University and Senior Ethics Advisor with Ethos, LLC. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
