My sense of history is that Reagan was a very smart man and was expert at putting on an affable and simple facade, which people found very appealing. One often hears that a president need not be smart (nor by implication competent), as long as he or she has “good advisers”. I see that as wishful thinking, the fantasy that the “average Joe” could master the intricacies of that office. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the public image that President Reagan tried to project was one of being a simple guy with simple tastes. His favorite vegetable was ketchup, and he believed in Mom, Guns, Apple Pie, and God, and he didn’t like those “revenuers”. Yet, when you go to the First Ladie’s dress collection at the Smithsonian, and look at pictures of the Reagans, it is clear that they lived in high style.
Jimmy Carter may be the only modern president who actually tried to be a spiritual person while in that office. How can we know though? My sense of President Bush was that his claims to religious piety were a sham, designed for political purposes. But, I met plenty of people who knew him personally who thought otherwise. He would be a case in point that religiosity does not grant competence, or even necessarily a steady moral compass. Other than for his sexual addiction problems, one could make a strong case that President Clinton was a much more effective president, yet there is no sense that he was particularly religious.
History shows Carter’s decision to turn the other cheek when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to have been weak, but was it morally wrong? President Clinton states that his biggest mistake in office was hesitating to send US troops into Rwanda. Lives were lost during his hesitation. Carter’s decision seems to me to have been influenced by his religious views, and also his handling of the Iranian matter. My reading of it is that he actually declared publicly that he would not leave the White House as long as the hostages were captive. The sentiment of showing solidarity with those unjustly imprisoned is admirable, and I suspect that it reflected his Christian values. Tactically, it seems like it was poor judgement.
I would say that the morality of being a President includes making decisions to more in the OT manner than in an NT manner, if you will allow that comparison, and it is not always easy to know which mode is correct, in the moment. Certainly, history has shown President Kennedy’s forbearance during the Cuban missile event to have been wiser than was ever suspected at the time. It turned out that the Cubans already had missiles in silos. I wonder how much of Kennedy’s decisions were influenced by his Catholic faith. Did he get down on his knees during that period, or was it all coffee and cigarettes in the Situation Room? We don’t know.
