a) Won World War 2 b) ended the Great Depression
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm always curious to people's answers to this question.
I'm not quite sure what I want to say, but I think I more or less agree wtih TL.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
What he did:
c) Ordered the wrongful relocation and effective imprisonment of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans, which included the confiscation & destruction of their belongings.
Yep, #1 President.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
George Washington. The transitions of power after him went so smoothly that I think people underestimate how wrong it could have gone had he not been the leader he is.
Lincoln's a close second. After them, a HUGE gap before anyone else.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I like William Henry Harrison purely because he was too stubborn to have his inauguration inside and died of pneumonia, a month later, because of it.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:c) Ordered the wrongful relocation and effective imprisonment of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans, which included the confiscation & destruction of their belongings.
No President is above criticism.
He did some bad things too.
Not a lot of people in the history of the world would have been capable of doing the *good* things FDR did. This country exists today because of him. There are maybe four Presidents you could say that about.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I've always been a big fan of Harry Truman, personally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I like William Henry Harrison purely because he was too stubborn to have his inauguration inside and died of pneumonia, a month later, because of it.
This does not make him a great president.
It makes him a stubborn fool, and a mere footnote in history.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Notice, I didn't say he was a good president. I just said I liked him. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:George Washington. The transitions of power after him went so smoothly that I think people underestimate how wrong it could have gone had he not been the leader he is.
This is actually something we never really covered in history classes - our teachers more or less told us "He was a military officer, they gave him the reins of power, he founded the nation - NEXT!" If you happen to know of a good text better outlining the specifics, I'd be interested.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you happen to know of a good text better outlining the specifics, I'd be interested.
I'll see if I can remember the book I read on it in college. That was 18 years ago, though, so it's not looking good.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: George Washington. The transitions of power after him went so smoothly that I think people underestimate how wrong it could have gone had he not been the leader he is.
Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Dag, I'm in agreement on the greatness of Washington.
I'd probably go
1) FDR 2) Lincoln 3) Washington
Then... The gap you described.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I still insist to you that Truman was a good president.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Steve, there's a lot of room for "good" after the top tier.
I don't think FDR belongs on the top tier. I don't think the threat to the nation's existence was as grave as at the founding or during the Civil War. I also think he did permament damage to the idea of federalism, something I don't consider trivial.
For all that I disagree with him politically, I put him in the top 10 (maybe the top 5) on pure leadership ability and courage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I typically rate:
1) Washington 2) Lincoln 3) FDR
Survey of historical and political scholars consistently places those three in a class by themselves. They are an excellent summary of presidential greats in a field which is defined by median mediocrity, featuring just as many failures as greats, just as many poor performers as good performers, and a good chunk of distinctly average performers.
I personally stand by Washington as the best of the three, though -- his greatness and legacy came on account of him playing it straight and attempting to purposefully constraining the capacity of the office of the president.
His trust-no-one approach and refusal to equate the new post to being King Of America established the office in a way that really made the system work.
Lincoln and FDR were save-the-day types. FDR's greatness is quite an accomplishment, given his tendency to overstep with radical projects. The people who rag on FDR are jumping on him as some sort of ignominious paragon of dangerous statism and socialism, while at the same time usually hypocritically excusing the fact that Lincoln simply broke presidential authority entirely for the duration of the Civil War.
Both could be said to be greatly responsible for the positive transformation of the crisis of their generation, and it can be said that a weak leader at their time in history would have aborted America's rise to superpower status.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by SteveRogers: I like William Henry Harrison purely because he was too stubborn to have his inauguration inside and died of pneumonia, a month later, because of it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not make him a great president.
It makes him a stubborn fool, and a mere footnote in history.
You have to admit, though, that he did the least damage while in office. He's my favorite president, too. I sort of wish the last four inaugurations followed suit.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
That's true.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
1)Teddy R. 2)Johnny A. 3)Woody W. (OK, not really, but I couldn't think of a third, and Woody is a funny name.)
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
James K. Polk
Hands down. I win.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My list: 1) Thomas Jefferson 2) George Washington 3) Martin Van Buren 4) Theodore Roosevelt 5) Calvin Coolidge
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Dag, I'm in agreement on the greatness of Washington.
I'd probably go
1) FDR 2) Lincoln 3) Washington
Then... The gap you described.
I'd say that Theodore Roosevelt should probably be somewhere high on the list. I certainly wouldn't mind someone like him in there now. We are facing some of the same problems that he dealt with in his presidency. For one thing, the lobbying power of large corperations is starting to get out of hand.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I share my birthday with a president. Can you guess which one?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
So what? I share my birthday with the president who just happens to be the savior of the union.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:I share my birthday with a president.
I share my birthday with Mad King George III. Go figure.
I vote for Jed Bartlet. Oh, wait...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I sort of wish the last four inaugurations followed suit.
You want Bush Quayle Gore Cheney to have been our last 4 presidents?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So what? I share my birthday with the president who just happens to be the savior of the union.
And I share MINE with the one who founded it. So THERE!
Although they make us share a holiday. Bastards.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You want Bush Quayle Gore Cheney to have been our last 4 presidents?
Um, I meant The last two Bush inaugurations, and the last two Clinton inaugurations, but you make a good point.
Maybe if two people keeled over per election, it'd be good. You know, Bush *and* Quayle bought it. Then Clinton *and* Gore. I dunno.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I find it sad that the last "great" of even "near great" president (according to those polls) was president almost 60 years ago. I think it's about time to find another great president. The question though, is if we would truly recognize one for who they were. We are so secularized, and so either wouldn't vote for greatness, or would criticize greatness for its actions. Will we ever truly see another great president?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I hope so, Evie! Now's the time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I find it sad that the last "great" of even "near great" president (according to those polls) was president almost 60 years ago. I think it's about time to find another great president. The question though, is if we would truly recognize one for who they were. We are so secularized, and so either wouldn't vote for greatness, or would criticize greatness for its actions. Will we ever truly see another great president?
So you suggest that a truly great president would have to NOT be secular? I don't think a celebration of religion is a necessity for greatness, but then again I also don't wholeheartedly approve of the secularization of American government. I have zero problem with a religious president, so long as he doesn't try and remake the world through his religious ideology. But then, people often get what the vote for. I don't think that's the case with Bush, but often it is.
I don't know where/when it happened, but somewhere along the way, and I'd say this definetely a late 20th century invention, we got the idea in our heads that the separation of church and state was the Founder Fathers' way of keeping religion out of the government. It wasn't. It was their way of keeping the government out of religion. Consider what was going on in England, and how the King messed with church doctrine, and for that matter the long, LONG history of European authoritarian screwing with religious dogma, doctrine, practice, etc. and you'll understand why they felt it was necessary. But they certainly weren't thinking about the kinds of issues everyone makes a hullabaloo about these days.
The next great President needs to have strong ideas, but I'm not sure how much it'll matter if he doesn't have a congress willing to put his great ideas into practice. Ideally, the next president will have an amazing set of ideas on where to take the nation, how to heal and not divide the nation and further, and in general make us feel like we are actually GOING somewhere as opposed to feeling like we're on a slow, steady downward spiral into the basement that Macedonia, Persia, Rome and Britain currently occupy. And quite frankly I see that as having almost zero to do with religion.
Most of the complaints we have about religion today are silly, if you ask me. Some Christians complain when the Ten Commandments are removed from in front of a Supreme Court House, well why? How many of the Ten Commandments are even LAWS IN AMERICA? While I agree that for the most part, Christian morality is where the majority of the basis of American morality comes from, I think it is utterly ludicrous to also say that the majority of American law, or even a decent amount of American law stems from Christian law. Stoned any sinners lately? Hell even the president had pre-marital sex and was a heavy drinker before Laura came along.
There's a war of ideology being fought. The next president needs to step up and talk about the role of religion in this country and this government. American policy is NOT Christian policy, no matter how much the two might seem to overlap from time to time, it is not directly derived from it. Religion has its place in society, but if you ask me it is NOT at the forefront. It should not be shoehorned into everything, but at the same time we don't need to secularly whitewash everything the way many Lefties are doing. The next president needs to find a balance that the majority of the country can accept so we can get down to fixing some of the more physical problems.
FDR started getting the country back on its feet on the VERY FIRST DAY. He passed more legislation (that actually worked!) in his first week than Bush has gotten passed in six years. The next president needs to actually send his OWN ideas to Congress for consideration, instead of constantly calling on them to figure it out for themselves. Presidents used to do it all the time. We need a reformer, we need a go getter, we need someone willing to strike a balance and bring unity to a divided nation. We need someone who considers sacrifice of life for his nation, and not for his party, to be the last full measure of devotion. And we need someone committed to cutting at least some (if not a majority) of the corruption and inefficiency out of government so we can get some quick, INTELLIGENT decisions made that are for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The stakes are too big for the petty playground crap going on in the Congress right now. As I said earlier, that means a larger commitment to the nation as a whole and less of one to the party.
Vote Lyrhawn 2008
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I don't know where/when it happened, but somewhere along the way, and I'd say this definetely a late 20th century invention, we got the idea in our heads that the separation of church and state was the Founder Fathers' way of keeping religion out of the government. It wasn't. It was their way of keeping the government out of religion. Consider what was going on in England, and how the King messed with church doctrine, and for that matter the long, LONG history of European authoritarian screwing with religious dogma, doctrine, practice, etc. and you'll understand why they felt it was necessary. But they certainly weren't thinking about the kinds of issues everyone makes a hullabaloo about these days.
How would you propose we make sure the influence stays unidirectional? If "seperate" doesn't mean seperate, what does it mean, and where should we draw that line?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm often disturbed by how frequently "greatness" is defined as "benevolent dictatorship." Why are people so fond of presidents who overrepresent the power of their office?
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:Why are people so fond of presidents who overrepresent the power of their office?
They're easier to remember because it's just one guy.
If you asked people "what was the greatest Congress in the history of the U.S.?" this would generally not be followed by an actual congress ("35th Congress, WOO!") but by people confusedly listing their favorite congresscritters from history ("clearly, Daniel Webster")... for pretty much the same reason.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Best Man to Be President: Washington, followed closely by Lincoln
Best President: hmm, much harder. How do people define "best" in this context? Most effective at accomplishing his agenda? Best at performing the duties of Chief Executive? Country prospered under his guidance? Had the biggest net positive impact? I've managed to confuse myself sufficiently; I'll just say Chester Arthur. Wait, Ike. No Jackson. In truth, I think almost all presidents have been "good" and I don't think there's sufficient structure to rank them as "better" or "best." With the exception of Harding. What a corrupt, ignorant, incompetent, naive, ninny. He was the worst; everyone else is the best. Except Nixon.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Why are people so fond of presidents who overrepresent the power of their office?
I don't quite think that's the association that's being made when it comes to Lincoln and Roosevelt. I think it's more of a 'look at what they were able to accomplish against impossible odds' thing than a 'let's examine, specifically, how they did it,' kind of thing.
Ends seem to justify means when it comes to the history books.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Jimmy Carter was an Honest President. It is unfourtunate that our present system cannot accommodate an honest man in that office. Therefore Carter was ineffective. I still have written him in for most of the recent elections
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I find it sad that the last "great" of even "near great" president (according to those polls) was president almost 60 years ago. I think it's about time to find another great president. The question though, is if we would truly recognize one for who they were...Will we ever truly see another great president?
I think part of the reason is that it takes time to see and appreciate a president's influence. For example, I consider the jury to still be out about the kind of president Bush is.
Depending on the cascading events in the Middle East and the world, in 60 years he could be seen as a revolutionary who actually accomplished a road map of peace that brought stability to the world, or he could be seen as a mass murderer whose fool hardy policies destabilized the world and crystallized terrorists' resolution.
He could also be remembered (or not) as anything in-between. It takes time to appreciate influence, barring a clear cut victory like an enemy signing a surrender document and abiding by the surrender.
EDIT: grammer and added a word.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
1. George W. Bush 2. Ronald Reagan 3. George Washington 4. Abraham Lincoln
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: James K. Polk
quote:I'm often disturbed by how frequently "greatness" is defined as "benevolent dictatorship." Why are people so fond of presidents who overrepresent the power of their office?
Agreed. Excellent point.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Hahahahaha! Jay is just parodying himself now Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
1. Abraham Lincoln 2. Ronald Reagan 3. George Washington
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:I don't know where/when it happened, but somewhere along the way, and I'd say this definetely a late 20th century invention, we got the idea in our heads that the separation of church and state was the Founder Fathers' way of keeping religion out of the government. It wasn't. It was their way of keeping the government out of religion. Consider what was going on in England, and how the King messed with church doctrine, and for that matter the long, LONG history of European authoritarian screwing with religious dogma, doctrine, practice, etc. and you'll understand why they felt it was necessary. But they certainly weren't thinking about the kinds of issues everyone makes a hullabaloo about these days.
How would you propose we make sure the influence stays unidirectional? If "seperate" doesn't mean seperate, what does it mean, and where should we draw that line?
I suppose in a broader sense sure, seperate does mean seperate, I'm just saying that what we think of today as the PRIMARY focus of that line in the constitution is NOT what was originally intended, it was the for the benefit of the other way around.
But I have no idea on how you can ASSURE that it stays that way. When it really comes down to it, much of it is an honor system. When you elect a religious president who tells you right up front that God wants him to be president and he's going to act on his faith, then you should vote for him accordingly depending on your own beliefs. If you have another candidate who tells you right away that he is catholic, but he won't force his dogma on you, his faith is part of his morality but not his state policy, then you vote accordingly too.
This happened in 04, and Bush won.
For the matters that can't be decided by elections, it has to go to the courts, though quite frankly I think much of it should just be solved with common sense. Sadly, there isn't enough to go around.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I share a birthday with our current president.
I don't feel qualified to say who the best president was. My favorite is Eisenhower, though.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Lincoln.
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Washington and Lincoln undeniably occupy the top two spots. It varies for me largely depending on which documentary I've watched lately.
A substantial gap before FDR, and then quite a ways before anyone else. FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by unicornwhisperer: 1. Abraham Lincoln 2. Ronald Reagan 3. George Washington
Ronald Reagan, huh? He always struck me as a bit of a crackpot.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: I'm just saying that what we think of today as the PRIMARY focus of that line in the constitution is NOT what was originally intended, it was the for the benefit of the other way around.
I understand that, and I think the historical evidence is there to support that. My response to that, however, is that one is necessary to ensure the other. In the course of enforcing the limit on influence the founders intended, limiting the church's influence on the state is a prudent measure to take. Basically, I can't swallow the idea that there's such a thing in this kind of context as unidirectional influence.
quote:When you elect a religious president who tells you right up front that God wants him to be president and he's going to act on his faith, then you should vote for him accordingly depending on your own beliefs.
Inevitably, a candidates's public policy will derive from their morality. I can live with that. But take, for instance, the time a reporter asked Bush if he had consulted with his father over Iraq, since Bush Sr. had experience conducting a war there. W replied, "...he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." This really symbolizes the dangers, as I see them, of of church -> state influence. Prayer and faith can't replace empirical fact and experiential wisdom.
quote:This happened in 04, and Bush won.
We could debate that, but I don't think its really necessary. Suffice to say, I disagree.
quote:For the matters that can't be decided by elections, it has to go to the courts, though quite frankly I think much of it should just be solved with common sense. Sadly, there isn't enough to go around.
Too true, but that's why we need governments and courts and whatnot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A substantial gap before FDR, and then quite a ways before anyone else. FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I agree about the first substantial gap, but I'd put Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan in a seocndary tier with a smaller gap between them and the next tier. And I switch the order around depending on the day.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by unicornwhisperer: 1. Abraham Lincoln 2. Ronald Reagan 3. George Washington
Ronald Reagan, huh? He always struck me as a bit of a crackpot.
Why is that? Did you even live in the 80s?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
No, I didn't. But looking back upon some of his proposed projects and things that I've heard from people who were around in the 80's, he wasn't as amazing as you guys seem to be making him out to be.
I don't really know, having had no personal expierence with the man and his policies.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
I lived in the '80s, and I considered Reagan a crackpot.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Agreed, I lived in the '80s. Reagana was a crackpot.
An uncle of mine (great-uncle, actually, and unfortunately now deceased) was a Russian language translator for the Federal government. He got to sit in on a few meetings where Reagan was present. Reagan would come in, tell a joke (unrelated to anything at hand), and fall asleep. My uncle's opinion on Reagan, from first-hand experience? A crackpot.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I couldn't possibly disagree with that more, btw.
The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
I look at it like this... Lincoln saved America, and FDR saved the world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:We could debate that, but I don't think its really necessary. Suffice to say, I disagree.
I'm curious as to what precisely you disagree with there. I'm alright with no arguing, fun as it can be, but I would like to know what your issue is with that.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I like William Henry Harrison purely because he was too stubborn to have his inauguration inside and died of pneumonia, a month later, because of it.
Since many many years ago, I have said that William Henry Harrison was the best President, because less is more. Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
I think George Washington was the greatest president ever. After the Revolutionary War, he was asked to become king. He refused and said there shouldn't be any kings in America. #2 would be Lincoln and #3 would be Regan.
BTW, for everyone that claims FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression, you should check out this book.
Jesse
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I think that who is "the best President" really depends on the situation. FDR probably would've sucked as President during the Revolutionary War, and GW probably would've sucked as President during the Depression and WWII.
As a side note, my American History teacher despised George Washington. Routinely called him a bumbling idiot or something along those lines. I'll try to look at my notes to remember exactly why, but from the information he gave us, he was very convincing.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Lyrhawn, Basically, I don't think Bush won because of his faith. At least, no more than any other WASP president. I think he presented the image of a president who "stays the course." Bush, for a lot of people, I think, symbolized America because he was an authoritarian leader with traditional values. I think you're right inasmuch as those values were important in his persona, but I don't think they were the deciding factor. Merely a part of a larger portrait that Rove (and others) painted for the public. Bush won because his campaign said, both explicitly and implicitly, that Kerry was an elitist effete flip-flopper (which I have to admit, is really brilliant; how unmanly can you get?) while Bush was an unwavering leader who, no matter what what the world thought, was going to protect America.
I think this is evidenced by Bush's low approval ratings. The country isn't as terrified of terrorists anymore; we don't pee ourselves every time Homeland Security fiddles with the terror alert. Consequently, the very things that won him his reelection are what he's being taken to task for.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah alright. I didn't actually mean that he won BECAUSE of his faith, just that he highly represented his faith as a part of the package. And that's part of what we got, and what people voted for, whereas Kerry presented himself as the highly secular, though morally religious candidate (which most people didn't pay attention to, but there it is).
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
CANADA won ww2, the states got involved later..much later, just as they did in the first world war. knave
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. Good thing we had that huge Canadian Navy and all those Canadian tanks and fighters, and bombers to fight the war with too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:FDR was good, but the national crises and trials he faced when compared to Lincoln and Washington? Piddling.
I couldn't possibly disagree with that more, btw.
The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
One of the things that critics of FDR fail to recognize is seriousness of the great depression. When FDR took office, the US was on the verge on an all out class war. Given what happened in Germany and Russia during this time period, I think its very reasonable to assert that without FDRs reform, the US would have ended up with either a Fascist or a Communist dictatorship.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:GW probably would've sucked as President during the Depression and WWII.
Which would be different from the current situation in what way?
GW double you probably would have sucked as president in any era, but in this era he has been catastrophic.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Did the Canadian WWII tanks include the ones with no gun and a big hole in the top? I'm pretty sure it was Canada, but it might have been WWI. I remember seeing a picture of one in highschool.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Rabbit, I think GW stands for George Washington, there.
Posted by Princesska (Member # 8954) on :
1. FDR. The New Deal, helped win WW2, got re-elected more than any other president. That last part alone makes him the popular winner of this contest. 2. Lincoln and Washington. (I don't know much about Washington so he could be #2 instead of Lincoln, I dunno) 3. Clinton. He's just cool. And, I actually remember his administration!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
1. George W. Bush 2. George W. Bush (2nd term) 3. George W. Bush (3rd term) 4. Garfield (Greatest president named after a cartoon cat)
I can't believe you people aren't voting Bush! Do you hate America? Obviously! (this whole part works best if you say it in your best Bush impression, like he's actually saying it to you).
Come on, he's fighting a war on Terror, and winning! How many presidents have beat an emotion? Did Washington beat Terror? Nope, because it's still here! Only GWB has the gumption to take on Terror. They used to call him "Terror Fightin' Georgie" back in the National Guard. That was his handle, like Goose and Maverick, only "Terror Fightin' Georgie" is so much cooler.
He stares Terror right in its beady little eyes and says, "Come on now terror, lets you and I go at it. I don't want to have to get all nuculer on your butt, but I'll do it (hehe, I said butt, but). Shock and Awe terror! Shock and Awe! And when I'm done, I'm gonna tag out and Rumsfeld's coming in, then he's gonna tag in Cheney, we might even get Condie in there. We'll have a Royal Rumble! Hehe, Royal, I like the sound of that."
Do you know why we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq? Because GW Shocked and Awed them out of existence! They just disappeared under a barrage of Democracy and Christianity!
So there you go. Case closed! If you say otherwise, you're un-American, and probably a terrorist or a communist! Go back to Iraq, you Taliban Washington and Lincoln lovers. Shock and Awe!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Great Depression and WW2 were both potentially nation-ending problems. The Civil War, of course, was devastating -- but moreso than the threat of the Nazis conquering Europe?
I look at it like this... Lincoln saved America, and FDR saved the world.
The USA has dealt with many problems that were potentially 'nation-ending'. The Great Depression was one of them, WWII was not necessarily.
I look at it like this. Lincoln proved to the planet that a democratic republic could endure, and he did it in spite of terribly inept leadership of his subordinates. He made massively tough decisions, endured terrible personal losses, and continued to retain his committment to the Union.
FDR helped Americans regain their national courage in the face of a terrible economic crisis, and helped to inspire us to do something that desperately needed doing: fighting the Axis in WWII. But...this was something that probably would have happened anyway, and furthermore the 'saving the world' mantle belongs to FDR and other world leaders as well. Not least to Hitler, ironically, for his stunning military idiocies later in the war.
But Lincoln? He didn't save the Union alone, but he was the guiding light. If you took FDR away, there were potentially other American politicans who could have inspired America through the Great Depression (which, incidentally, would not have lasted forever no matter what) and to fight WWII (which was guaranteed to happen after Pearl Harbor).
If you took Lincoln away on the other hand...the United States of America would have failed, guaranteed. Or as close to guaranteed as is possible in such hypothetical discussions.
Reagan deserves to be up there, somewhere above the 0.500 mark, if only because he helped oversee the downfall of the USSR, something that badly needed to happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, just because it's making fun of GWB does not automatically make a joke funny. That's one of the less amusing aspects of political humor. Same goes for Clinton, of course.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:If you took Lincoln away on the other hand...the United States of America would have failed, guaranteed. Or as close to guaranteed as is possible in such hypothetical discussions.
I agree with this. But where we differ is I think you're vastly underestimating what FDR did.
I feel that mine is the stronger argument, personally, because yours is hypothetical. You're saying, 'Here's what could have happened.' I'm saying 'Here's what DID happen.'
But I thank you for your opinion and certainly appreciate your point of view (and the point of view of the other 'FDR? Nah' people.)
This has been a really fun thread for me to read and think about.
Cheers, everyone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to agree, I think the dangers posed by the Depression are greatly underemphasized in parts of this thread.
FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
His handling of the situation not only averted a possible total disaster, it resulted in America becoming the strongest, most stable, and economically powerful nation on the planet. And that wasn't a given for any president, HE made it happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
TL,
quote:I feel that mine is the stronger argument, personally, because yours is hypothetical. You're saying, 'Here's what could have happened.' I'm saying 'Here's what DID happen.'
Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust.
FDR dealt with a war that involved shooting hundreds and thousands of miles away from where he and his people lived. Lincoln dealt with a war where he could hear the gunfire from the White House, on occassion (I may be misremembering that. I seem to recall hearing it in a documentary more than once).
FDR successfully dealt with the Great Depression, a severe wound on the USA. Lincoln successfully dealt with all the economic trauma that results from having a civil war, which is like getting stabbed in the chest after getting shot in the gut.
My argument by necessity is hypothetical...but so is yours, really. Your argument that FDR is a great president is founded on the idea that if another president were in office, things could have been much worse. My argument that Lincoln was a great president is founded on the idea (near certainty, in my mind) that if anyone else were in office at the time, the Union would have failed.
Lincoln dealt with both personal and national grief and suffering, and still did a superb job, that make the Great Depression seem trivial. Even though it was not. A massive economic recovery program and inspiration thereof does not compare with saving the Union, I believe.
The point is, the Great Depression would have gotten better on its own. Eventually. The recovery if left to itself would have been much longer and more painful and more damaging, but it would have happened. A high tide lifts all boats, and the economic tides of the world were lifting in the buildup to WWII. Which, incidentally, also had much to do with FDR's success.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You know, just because it's making fun of GWB does not automatically make a joke funny. That's one of the less amusing aspects of political humor. Same goes for Clinton, of course.
Actually it does. Any joke about GWB is automatically funny. Watch:
How many presidents does it take to screw in a lightbulb? I forget, but George W. Bush is a moron.
See, comedy genius! Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust.
FDR dealt with a war that involved shooting hundreds and thousands of miles away from where he and his people lived. Lincoln dealt with a war where he could hear the gunfire from the White House, on occassion (I may be misremembering that. I seem to recall hearing it in a documentary more than once).
FDR successfully dealt with the Great Depression, a severe wound on the USA. Lincoln successfully dealt with all the economic trauma that results from having a civil war, which is like getting stabbed in the chest after getting shot in the gut.
Rakeesh, I agree with everything positive you've said about Lincoln. This is not a Lincoln vs. FDR debate by any means -- in my opinion they were both great. There really is no need for you to defend Lincoln to me. Lincoln is not under attack from me.
quote:My argument by necessity is hypothetical...but so is yours, really. Your argument that FDR is a great president is founded on the idea that if another president were in office, things could have been much worse.
No, it really isn't. My argument that FDR was a great president is founded on the fact that his leadership was crucial in solving various national and international crises. Those are pretty concrete facts. I'm not out here saying 'if Truman had been President it would have been an unbelievable disaster.' I'm saying, 'FDR was President, and look at the stuf he got done. Good for him, man.'
quote:My argument that Lincoln was a great president is founded on the idea (near certainty, in my mind) that if anyone else were in office at the time, the Union would have failed.
Lincoln dealt with both personal and national grief and suffering, and still did a superb job, that make the Great Depression seem trivial. Even though it was not. A massive economic recovery program and inspiration thereof does not compare with saving the Union, I believe.
Once again -- Lincoln is not under attack, here. I'm not sure why you keep defending him so vigorously. I agree with you.
quote:The point is, the Great Depression would have gotten better on its own. Eventually. The recovery if left to itself would have been much longer and more painful and more damaging, but it would have happened. A high tide lifts all boats, and the economic tides of the world were lifting in the buildup to WWII. Which, incidentally, also had much to do with FDR's success.
I don't know where you think your argument is anything other than totally hypothetical, Rakeesh is what I'm still confused about.
It's possible that what you're saying would have happened might have, in fact, happened. But the truth is we'll never know. Because it didn't happen. We do know what *did* happen -- which is that FDR took fantastic measures to solve potentially nation-ending problems, and succeeded.
Our disagreement is not that Lincoln wasn't a Great Man with a capital G and a capital M -- our disagreement is that I think you are *vastly* underestimating what FDR actually did.
That's all.
I think FDR was the Bees' Goddamn knees, and you don't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's faulty to assume that if FDR hadn't fixed the US and brought them out of the Depression then Japan still would have attacked.
I think that Japan, seeing a weakened US still crippled by the Great Depression would have ignored us entirely, conquered New Zealand and Australia, smashed the allied navy in the Pacific, and would have then proceeded to fortify all holdings before proceeding to help Germany attack Russia by opening another front to the war.
Japan attacked the US because they felt the only move they could make was to attempt to cripple us, forcing a negotiated settlement. But if things had been that bad in 1942, America never would have instituted an oil embargo, we would have needed the income too much, and we never would have been able to get planes and tanks to Russia and GB.
World War Two was NOT a given for the US. We never could have fought the war if FDR hadn't of gotten is into the shape necessary to fight the war.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
[/QUOTE]Mine is only very slightly hypothetical. It is not much of a hypothetical to say that if it had not been for President Lincoln, there would not have been a USA for FDR to save, and furthermore there's a chance that a good number of Hatrackers would be posting in a Confederacy that endorsed slavery...or did very recently. The idea of a nation run democratically, as a republic in the modern age, would have been proven to be a bust. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think that statement is very much hypothetical. There is definetely an argument that the south's economy was not supportable and so they would have eventually had to break. It really depends on how France responded, which is why framing the war as a slavery issue was such a good political decision. Made France more likely to go to Egypt for cotton, which would destroy the South's chance at economic stability. It has been too long since I was in history for me to site sources.
I like Jefforson.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
It's my turn to post, and I would say that Lincoln was the best president.
Now for Canada:
3. Jean Chretien 2. Lester B. Pearson 1. Pierre Eliott Trudeau.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
1. Washington 2. Lincoln 3. FDR
Wow, I'm not very creative, am I?
Lots of props to Jimmy Carter for his post-presidency work, as well (although I guess that doesn't technically apply to the subject of this thread).
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
quote:Lyrhawn : FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
Oh yeah, the AAA was later declared unconstitutional.
In my own personal opinion, FDR's biggest blunder was taking us off the gold standard, which allows for rampant inflation. It has been roughly 70 years since this mistake. Assuming an average of 4% inflation each year, $6.42 in 1936 had the same purchasing power as $100 today. (Calculations taken from Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods (10th Edition).)
Jesse
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How funny: once taken off the fixed exchange rate in 1967, gold prices have inflated far faster than dollars ($35 then would be $171.97 in 1998, but $295.24 in gold in 1998, and that's after a drop from $389.09 in 1996!)
And of course, we have far better inflation figures than a 4% estimate; using one of the many free inflation calculators, $6.42 would have only reached $86.47 in 2005.
Not to mention that on a gold standard inflation would have been far more than the recent price of gold increase, for one simple reason: there's a limited supply, so as real production increases, prices must increase. Maintaining the gold standard requires a country to constantly acquire more gold, at increasing cost, even as the value of their existing gold drops. What's more, it prompts currency attacks.
FDR was quite right to migrate (officially; we were really already off it) from the gold standard instead of tieing our inflation to that artifical ratio. Inflation is a property of monetary flow, not how much gold has been discovered compared to how much production there is.
The gold standard did have some stabilization power on international exchange rates, but this was largely a false benefit. In many ways, the economic collapses caused by currencies have been far less painful and more easily recoverable from than the economic collapses caused by failed entire economies, operating under perverse incentives all in an aim to secure a better gold position.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
I used 4% as a rough number and inflation has been around that number. I didn't even think to look online for a calculator. Apparently the historical inflation rate has been a little under 4%. Thanks for the info.
I wish I had more time to discuss the pros and cons of a gold/silver standard at length (I might next week after my finals are over) so I hope you will excuse me for bowing out at the moment.
Jesse
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eisenoxyde:
quote:Lyrhawn : FDR was on the scene fixing the problem literally his first day in office. A do nothing president in this case would have been disastrous for the United States. It could have left many dead from starvation, or homeless (I should say, many MORE than there already were), and could have led to an eventual breakdown in basic services before it ever got better.
Oh yeah, the AAA was later declared unconstitutional.
The US government still pays farmers to not grow certain things. Do people in America die from food shortages today? Or is it because they can't afford to buy the food?
It was the unemployment rate that would have starved them. Millions couldn't afford clean water and food to eat for their families. FDR helped get them jobs, so they could afford to eat. The jacking up of the prices of foodstuffs made them easier to sell on the international market, and kept farmers in business. It would have served good for NO ONE for farmers to go out of business and grow NO food. I know it sounds callous to say that in a way, and it was considered callous back then too, that while many starved, the government destroyed food. But it was necessary to stablize the farm industry and ensure that food would continue to be grown. After the Depression when prices rose and more food as needed for the war, the AAA ordered a massive increase in farm production.
And it wasn't declared unconstitutional because of what it did, it was declared so because of the methods of taxation. It taxed others to provide the subsidies for the farmers. Later, when the subsidies came from a general tax on the population, the AAA was reestablished and the Supreme Court declared it constitutional.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I can't confirm that the US economy had recovered before WWII; I had always heard it recovered during this time -- but I'd be happy to see contrary information.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you're referring to what I said Will B, I never said it had totally recovered. He fixed much of what was wrong with it, and got it running on the right foot again, but WW2 spending is what blew the Depression out of the water.
Still, if Pearl Harbor had happened the month after the stock market crash and subsequent collapse, the US would have been hard pressed to immediately commit to war with the shape it was in. FDR got us prepped and ready to face any challenge.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
OK. I would agree that he got us prepped, but based on what I've heard so far, he didn't do it by ending the Depression. "Got it running on the right foot" would be a value judgment, I think, not something we could verify or disprove with data.
Certainly he got us prepped by military spending. And a good thing, too -- although I'm sure it's what prompted Pearl Harbor: Japan realizing that the US would likely interfere with its ambitions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which is why I specifically refuted what Rakeesh said earlier, that WW2 was not an automatic. Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor if FDR hadn't gotten us back on our feet. And I think you actually could make a case with decent data for the improvements he made. I'd need a couple weeks to get it together, which means quite frankly I won't do it. No offense but writing a research paper for Hatrack isn't the best use of my time.
He got banks back up and running, he restored consumer confidence in the bank so people would put their money there again. He stablized the price of food so farmers would keep growing, saving millions from starvation, also giving millions jobs in public works projects to improve infrastructure and get people working agian so they could eat. He got the manufacturing industry back up and running. One could make the argument that if he hadn't of spent eight years fixing the manufacturing infrastructure, there wouldn't have been enough capability to pump out ships and tanks to fight the war.
And likely, few others than FDR would have cut off shipments of oil and steel to Japan, as that was a rather large loss of income, which many blame for Japan's attack. Japan would have been loathe to attack the nation supplying them with oil and steel, especially if their manufacturing sector sucked as bad as it would have with a quarter of the nation's work force unemployed, and with few having any money to buy manufactured goods.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)