A Question to Americans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Past century? Good question.

I rank TR very high. I actually rank FDR high, despite my holding my nose on the New Deal.

No serious onlooker can rank Clinton - I don’t hate Clinton, it’s just that he was a very mediocre president.

JFK did some very interesting things - he was a tax cutter and ardent anti-Communist back when liberals made fierce anti-communists. He was always an American exceptionalist as well. But his accomplishments were not enormous, and of course, he was struck down (by a communist) before he could imprint fully on the president.

I place Reagan fairly high as well - I think he and FDR (whom Reagan admired a great deal) were similar in many ways. He was the quintessential “closer” in the long fight against communism. But unlike many conservatives, I don’t quite reach the level of idol worship of Reagan.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Past century? Good question.

I rank TR very high. I actually rank FDR high, despite my holding my nose on the New Deal.

No serious onlooker can rank Clinton - I don’t hate Clinton, it’s just that he was a very mediocre president.

JFK did some very interesting things - he was a tax cutter and ardent anti-Communist back when liberals made fierce anti-communists. He was always an American exceptionalist as well. But his accomplishments were not enormous, and of course, he was struck down (by a communist) before he could imprint fully on the president.

I place Reagan fairly high as well - I think he and FDR (whom Reagan admired a great deal) were similar in many ways. He was the quintessential “closer” in the long fight against communism. But unlike many conservatives, I don’t quite reach the level of idol worship of Reagan.[/quote]

How are FDR and Reagan similar? (This is a serious question).

And JFK, being still the only Irish Catholic president… well, I love’em, except that like you said, he was killed too soon, and his old man was crooked as fuck… which I don’t have a problem with, except that he absolutely bit the hand that fed him the presidency.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FDR.

Hands fucking down.
[/quote]

I wonder what a Japanese-American “guest” at an American internment camp would think of that? I really hate G-dub and his flexing of executive muscle, but FDR went well beyond that. The best thing that could have happened to him would have been for a good-hearted American to put a bullet through his head from 500 yards. And don’t give me that FDR had to the balls to fight the war crap, Truman showed that he was no pushover himself.

FDR is the closest this country has ever had to having a dictator. To hear my countrymen speak lovingly of him denotes American weakness, cowardice and toadyism. Even Alexander Hamilton would have cringed at FDR’s excesses. The man was a tyrant, and there is no denying that fact.

Here’s a little something I read by Amity Shlaes recently:

"Roosevelt personally experimented with the currency-one day, in bed, he raised the gold price by 21 cents. When Henry Morgenthau, who would shortly become Treasury Secretary, asked him why, Roosevelt said that “it’s a lucky number, because it’s three times seven.” Morgenthau wrote later: “If anybody ever knew how we set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.”

That’s some Louis XIV shit right there my friends.

mike

24

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

How are FDR and Reagan similar? (This is a serious question).[/quote]

Both believed in American exceptionalism. Both believed they needed to bring America out of the doldrums by making people feel proud and excited and optimistic about being Americans.

Just as FDR wanted to “cheer up” America and get Americans believing in themselves again in the throes of the Depression-era, Reagan wanted a “morning in America” to get get us out of the loathesome 1970s.

And, both were movement ideologues that cobbled together large coalitions that reshaped politics. FDR’s coalition included liberals, farmers, urban Democrats, labor unions, Southerners, and even some industrialists.

Reagan’s coalition had economic conservatives, national security hawks/Cold Warriors (including many liberals), Reagan Democrats (who remain in the GOP to this day because of the Democrats’ turn to the Left), and traditionalists.

Each man “stole” certain parts of the political crowd to get a great amount of support and realign the parties.

And on foreign policy, both were unapologetic hawks against totalitarian “isms” - FDR against fascism, Reagan against communism.

It has been attributed to FDR that directly after Pearl Harbor, one of his advisers asked if FDR wanted to bring Japan to justice, and FDR replied “I don’t want to bring Japan to justice, I want to bring Japan to its knees”.

Liberal Democrats don’t talk like that anymore, of course - such moral absolutism and machismo would get you frogmarched out of the party - but Reagan could have been quoted saying the same thing about the Soviet Union.

25

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

[/quote]

Not many people in America cared about the blow job, and the fact that most people think thats what it all was about is also sad. I don’t want to start the whole argument again but the fact that people still think that it was about sex is a tribute to the Clinton PR machine.

Even forgetting about the loads of ethical issues, Clinton doesn’t even get a mention in the best lists. He had the fortune to be president in a time of relative peace and economic boom (neither or which should be attributed to him).

26

[quote]holifila wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

Not many people in America cared about the blow job, and the fact that most people think thats what it all was about is also sad. I don’t want to start the whole argument again but the fact that people still think that it was about sex is a tribute to the Clinton PR machine.

Even forgetting about the loads of ethical issues, Clinton doesn’t even get a mention in the best lists. He had the fortune to be president in a time of relative peace and economic boom (neither or which should be attributed to him).
[/quote]

Interesting. Ok so things like this is why I started the thread. To listen to the European press, you guys hounded a perfectly good President out of office for having a thing for fat chicks. There was such an air of disbelief over here that something so absurd could be the ned of him. But the more I learn, the more I see some of the underlying problems with his administration.

I have heard quite a lot of talk from yanks that the US is still paying the price for the economic freedoms enjoyed during his time as President and that it was a bubble always destined to burst and this may be true. But despite ‘different times’ and all that, America was much more widely respected around the world under his leadership than under Dubya’s - Although I totally accept that a charismatic leader (agh! hate that word ‘leader’) does not necessarily make a great one…

And ALSO accept that it’s understandable that people do not give a flying fuck whether someone in Mozambique thinks you’re a tyrant or not, if they’re having problems finding work or getting healthcare because of the economic and political climate in their country. So carry on… I’m finding this all very eye-opening.

27

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
To listen to the European press, you guys hounded a perfectly good President out of office for having a thing for fat chicks. There was such an air of disbelief over here that something so absurd could be the ned of him. [/quote]

He wasn’t hounded out of office. He served the maximum two terms.

28

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

I have heard quite a lot of talk from yanks that the US is still paying the price for the economic freedoms enjoyed during his time as President and that it was a bubble always destined to burst and this may be true.[/quote]

This sentiment seems to imply that some “exploitation” occurred, as the “economic freedoms” were “allowed” when Clinton should have reined in these forces. The way you stated it sounds as though the “economic freedoms” should not have been “permitted” - let me know if I am wrong.

Such a stance is woefully inaccurate - the New Economy was driven by creative, wildly-optimistic idealistic youngish people, not stodgy old corporate barons. The unfortunate result was too much optimism and speculation on the success of the technology sector - it sucks, but it wasn’t anything that required the government to “clamp down” on “economic freedoms”.

29

[quote]holifila wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

Not many people in America cared about the blow job, and the fact that most people think thats what it all was about is also sad. I don’t want to start the whole argument again but the fact that people still think that it was about sex is a tribute to the Clinton PR machine.

Even forgetting about the loads of ethical issues, Clinton doesn’t even get a mention in the best lists. He had the fortune to be president in a time of relative peace and economic boom (neither or which should be attributed to him).
[/quote]

Yep. Clinton avoided middle east hot spots, letting them boil and saving them for the next president to deal with so as to maintain his own image. W inherited the problems and in a big way with the trade center falling.

I wonder how much of that would have been squashed had clinton been a man and taken care of issues as they presented themselves, rather than letting them fester and grow to our present situation?

He did inherit a good economy as well, largely due to Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan before him. It’s funny how political parties capitalize on market fluctuations so readily.

30

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

How are FDR and Reagan similar? (This is a serious question).

Both believed in American exceptionalism. Both believed they needed to bring America out of the doldrums by making people feel proud and excited and optimistic about being Americans.

Just as FDR wanted to “cheer up” America and get Americans believing in themselves again in the throes of the Depression-era, Reagan wanted a “morning in America” to get get us out of the loathesome 1970s.

And, both were movement ideologues that cobbled together large coalitions that reshaped politics. FDR’s coalition included liberals, farmers, urban Democrats, labor unions, Southerners, and even some industrialists.

Reagan’s coalition had economic conservatives, national security hawks/Cold Warriors (including many liberals), Reagan Democrats (who remain in the GOP to this day because of the Democrats’ turn to the Left), and traditionalists.

Each man “stole” certain parts of the political crowd to get a great amount of support and realign the parties.

And on foreign policy, both were unapologetic hawks against totalitarian “isms” - FDR against fascism, Reagan against communism.

It has been attributed to FDR that directly after Pearl Harbor, one of his advisers asked if FDR wanted to bring Japan to justice, and FDR replied “I don’t want to bring Japan to justice, I want to bring Japan to its knees”.

Liberal Democrats don’t talk like that anymore, of course - such moral absolutism and machismo would get you frogmarched out of the party - but Reagan could have been quoted saying the same thing about the Soviet Union.[/quote]

Good post… thanks…

And that part about bringing Japan to it’s knees still stirs my heart. That quote right there could sum up why I love FDR.

31

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And that part about bringing Japan to it’s knees still stirs my heart. That quote right there could sum up why I love FDR.[/quote]

His expansion of executive and federal power, on the other hand, is the reason I don’t.

32

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Interesting. Ok so things like this is why I started the thread. To listen to the European press, you guys hounded a perfectly good President out of office for having a thing for fat chicks. There was such an air of disbelief over here that something so absurd could be the ned of him. But the more I learn, the more I see some of the underlying problems with his administration.

I have heard quite a lot of talk from yanks that the US is still paying the price for the economic freedoms enjoyed during his time as President and that it was a bubble always destined to burst and this may be true.

But despite ‘different times’ and all that, America was much more widely respected around the world under his leadership than under Dubya’s - Although I totally accept that a charismatic leader (agh! hate that word ‘leader’) does not necessarily make a great one…

And ALSO accept that it’s understandable that people do not give a flying fuck whether someone in Mozambique thinks you’re a tyrant or not, if they’re having problems finding work or getting healthcare because of the economic and political climate in their country. So carry on… I’m finding this all very eye-opening. [/quote]

I don’t know who you talked to about the ‘economic freedoms’ under Clinton, they weren’t much different than under any other recent pres.

As to blowgate, I think that something that the European press (and much of the American press) get wrong here is that there was a very straw/broken camel back thing going on. The Clinton candidacy and presidential term had already had a lot of ethical problems.

Personally, I didn’t have a big problem with the bj (though the later perjury is a problem) but it was always amusing to listen to women’s groups defend him (how was it not counted as sexual harassment?).

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

I have heard quite a lot of talk from yanks that the US is still paying the price for the economic freedoms enjoyed during his time as President and that it was a bubble always destined to burst and this may be true.

This sentiment seems to imply that some “exploitation” occurred, as the “economic freedoms” were “allowed” when Clinton should have reined in these forces. The way you stated it sounds as though the “economic freedoms” should not have been “permitted” - let me know if I am wrong.

Such a stance is woefully inaccurate - the New Economy was driven by creative, wildly-optimistic idealistic youngish people, not stodgy old corporate barons. The unfortunate result was too much optimism and speculation on the success of the technology sector - it sucks, but it wasn’t anything that required the government to “clamp down” on “economic freedoms”.[/quote]

I disagree. There was much corporate corruption in the 90’s and the Clinton admin turned a blind eye. Early in Bush’s 1st term he stepped up the prosecution of corporate criminals. This has been totally overshadowed by the war on terrorism and I have no idea how strongly Bush’s justice department has been pursuing white collar crime for the past few years but early on he went after them.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I disagree. There was much corporate corruption in the 90’s and the Clinton admin turned a blind eye.[/quote]

On this I don’t disagree - I was primarily talking about the criticism (which I thought 1-pack was referring to) that the highly dynamic capital markets of the 1990s should have “tamed” with government intervention, completely outside a “corporate wrongdoer” problem. On that point, I say Clinton had no role to play.

In the excesses of criminal activity, I agree Clinton could have done more - but the “bubble” was not solely caused by corporate corruption.

Yes, this is often overlooked.

35

[quote]doogie wrote:

He wasn’t hounded out of office. He served the maximum two terms.[/quote]

He was impeached, though, which could certainly be called hounding!

36

Reagan was the badass who brough communism to its knees.

JFK showed calm under pressure during the Cuban missle crisis and took mankind to the moon.

Roosevelt wiped out two entire cities with his decision to use the A-bomb and ended a world war.

Definitely T-men.

37

[quote]koots wrote:
Reagan was the badass who brough communism to its knees.

JFK showed calm under pressure during the Cuban missle crisis and took mankind to the moon.

Roosevelt wiped out two entire cities with his decision to use the A-bomb and ended a world war.

Definitely T-men.[/quote]

Truman dropped the A-bomb.

38

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Any thoughts?[/quote]

I’ve been seriously trying to think how to answer this question. I do think that too much credit is given to the presidential figurehead whether they are perceived to get it right or wrong. That said, I really only think the obvious way to judge the goodness of the president is in terms of the Constitution and how they uphold and defend it–that is the only responsibility the president has to the country.

There are other subjective measures that also come into play when making this kind of decision–such as character and charisma but to me they don’t really hold much weight because there really is no true measure.

Judging the past presidents on how well they upheld the constitution I would have to say that eliminates pretty much all of them. I would say that the president that did the most to correct the inadequacies of the constitution was JFK–despite what his perceived weaknesses were, he did raise the issue of civil rights.

The big downside of civil rights is that the solutions that eventually came into play had some consequences for all Americans–those being, addressing personal rights and liberties based on “group identity” and not the inherent rights of the individual person.

39

TR, FDR, or Nixon. Quite the spread I have, eh?

(Completely serious)

I don’t think these guys were the best people, but I think they were the best for the nation.

40

For kicks, here is the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal’s rankings of all presidents, as per a survey conducted among a group of “ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics”:

This goes wide of our subject at hand, since it it includes presindents beyond the last century. But interesting nonetheless.