As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Vindicated/Vilified by History! Which President was the best?

1235713

Posts

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Shorty wrote: »
    grant put honest effort into unfucking the tire fire that Johnson left him, and if they'd stuck with his plan for reconstruction we'd be in a much better place re: race relations today

    it's a little weird to me that he's rated so poorly

    Lost Cause dominated academic history for like a century and smeared the hell out of him. Got the textbooks to write him as a disaster.

    ah, yeah, that makes sense

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Roz wrote: »

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Just to clarify are you hanging this on Lincoln?

    I, personally, don't particularly disagree with the actions taken by him or his generals. He was in a War and wanted to win. History tends to overlook the particulars, and only really cares that he won. To compare this to Obama for example, I think there might be a footnote about the Drone program, but it will probably be glossed over as an ongoing facet of war.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Yeah you don't get credit for pulling us out of a war you intentionally prolonged for your own personal benefit.

    I didn't use the getting us out of the war as his selling point, it's just another part of the picture. I also don't see a consensus on the claim being made, but again, it's not beyond Nixon. He most definitely did what was best for Nixon at any given point. He was a terrible man, but a deeply efficient politician.

    The big feathers in the cap of Nixon for me, personally, are Bretton Woods (which I don't hear any of you addressing) and opening China.

    His socks response is also held as a watershed moment in politicos in America, and that is something he as the architect of.

    It's not just "concensus" - we have records of Nixon's sabotage, thanks to Johnson having the US spying on the South Vietnamese government.

    And nobody is addressing Bretton Woods because it doesn't even begin to compare to the mound of gooseshit Nixon left us.

    just as a point of order, Nixon didn't have anything to do with the Bretton Woods Conference

    his only involvement was in dismantling the resulting system (in which exchange rates were pegged to gold-backed currencies, with the US dollar as the baseline) ~25 years later

    the Bretton woods exit is usually referred to as the Nixon Shock in all the sources I can find

    I really don't understand what we're doing when we are disputing things that occurred during a presidency. I really hope his thread doesn't get all Carter/Reagan Hostage release.

    But Nixon had a ton to do with Bretton woods. Period. Nixon was a deeply entrenched, if not THE Republican figure from post ww2-watergate.

    The fact they call it Nixon Shock should give you an idea of who will be remembered for the incident.

    uhhh I'm not disputing that

    I'm pointing out that when you say "Bretton woods" it doesn't mean the thing that you're saying it means

    typical usage would be to refer to the conference, or possibly the resulting system

    I'm just saying you should use the right term for the event you're crediting Nixon with

    it has his name in it and everything!

    Nixon is one of the few through lines you can draw from the original conference to the exit, and anyone who knows anything about history would be able to infer my meaning. Nixon, also, was far from a do nothing Vice President under Ike and again, I recommend reading about his Checkers speech to get an idea about what I mean being his better qualities for the office of president that he brings, and read analysis of why he lost to Kennedy to get an idea of why he was a good president. There's a good chance we would've never gotten into Vietnam if Nixon had won in '60.

    Nixon was an egomaniac, which again, I think is kind of par for the course of one seeks the presidency, and he was also a psychopath. He very much only cared about what was best for Dick, but he was also a cagey politician and a much stronger president than his immediate successors.

    But Nixon had nothing to do with the original conference or its early implementation?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Oh, and Nixon was the guy who kicked off the modern incarnation of the Drug War, and did so because of its effect on the counterculture.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    Ardol on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Oh, and Nixon was the guy who kicked off the modern incarnation of the Drug War, and did so because of its effect on the counterculture.

    Well, also black people.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Ardol wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    Cheney gaining any power is directly related to the mass exodus from the impeachment. He was Ford's chief of staff.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Ardol wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    More than that, the fallout from Watergate directly impacted how Itan-Contra was treated, and then the behavior of the W. Administration.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Oh, and Nixon was the guy who kicked off the modern incarnation of the Drug War, and did so because of its effect on the counterculture.

    I wasn't sure if I should put creating the DEA as a positive or a negative... ;)

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Ardol wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    More than that, the fallout from Watergate directly impacted how Itan-Contra was treated, and then the behavior of the W. Administration.

    The Nixon impeachment was a mistake and led us to having one of our worst presidents as well (Ford), as well as the stagflation that plagued the later seventies.

    The modern practicalities of impeachment make them pretty much just a MAD switch for the republic and Congress/the executive. It's just better to let a bad president run its course for four years, which is part of why Nixon so believed that the president couldn't break the law (which I agree he's wrong on and about, but it is an interesting philosophical question).

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Heffling wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    For people who rated Obama as #1, what's your reasoning? He's done a lot of good things, but I don't see how anyone could put him in the same league as an FDR or a Lincoln.

    It's way too early to objectively tell, but I think it's most likely that history will rate Obama as an above average but unexceptional president.

    Obama will probably wind up being in the top 10.

    Being the first black President is going to go a long way with historians. Washington's accomplishments while President are not particularly incredible. Yet he was the first and is "the father of the nation." History places a lot of value on the first to do anything.

    Plus the inspirational speakers are always highly regarded. People from our parent's generation absolutely adore JFK. His space program (not even completed while he was president) is considered a great accomplishment of his, for example.

    History will probably look at it like this:
    -Built the modern campaign machine (use of social media and new technologies)
    -Took over from a horrible predecessor (like Lincoln, FDR)
    -Saved the country from the great recession (TARP, Stimulus)
    -Passed greatest expansion of healthcare assistance since FDR (ACA)
    -Signed into the law Dodd-Frank and Lily Ledbetter acts
    -Allowed LBGTQ people to openly serve in the Military
    -Ended the Iraq war (how ISIS is handled/discussed moving forward I have no idea)
    -Killed Osama Bin Laden
    -Provided amnesty to DREAMers
    -Got new START passed
    -Worked extensively on non-nuclear proliferation (work that I imagine will continue after he leaves office)
    -Made the appointments to the Supreme Court which granted universal Same-Sex marriage, and if we're lucky, overturning of Citizens United.
    -Incredible orator, finest in a generation
    -Immensely successful at rebuilding the global relationships that were in tatters after Bush.
    -Appointed Tom Wheeler as head of FCC, which has provided us safeguards for Net Neutrality.
    -Tons of executive orders aiding everything from Education, to Gun Control, to Infrastructure to Civil Rights
    -and a bunch of others you can read about here: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Some points of disagreement:

    1) Modern Campaign Machine - I think that people probably felt the same way after the first TV adverts for candidates. Campaigning has to evolve and keep up with social technologies.

    2) Recession - TARP started under George W. Bush and was continued by Obama. Major seeds of the recession were laid prior to Bush, such as major banking laws struck down under Clinton.

    3) Dodd-Frank still isn't fully implemented despite being around for 6 years now.

    4) Iraq would be over now now matter who was president. It was too unpopular and unsustainable to continue. And he built up Afghanistan.

    5) Osama Bin Laden would have been killed no matter who was in office.

    6) Trump is an incredible orator.

    He's a good president, but I don't think he's going to go down as one of our greatest.

    Historians tend not to care all that much if someone else would have done it, or if that particular person was simply a lucky product of their time (cough JFK). Mostly they seem to care what was done, and if it was done while they had oversight it gets attributed to them.

    Obviously this changes when you get to 200+ level college history courses and a deeper discussion can be had on the events as they unfolded.

    Roz on
  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    FDR doesn't belong anywhere near the top three spots. He may have done great things but he did terrible ones as well. He doesn't get anywhere near the disdain he deserves for the internment camps. It gets treated as a footnote.

    cckerberos.png
  • Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    Thomas Jefferson
    Aw crap I misclicked and hit Jefferson aiming for Teddy, who put both the T named guys right next to each other? Crap.

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    cckerberos wrote: »
    FDR doesn't belong anywhere near the top three spots. He may have done great things but he did terrible ones as well. He doesn't get anywhere near the disdain he deserves for the internment camps. It gets treated as a footnote.

    He's honestly on my bottom five, but I know I'm in the minority. I just dislike people that get praised for self serving philanthropy like he engaged, and also hate his thoughts on the aristocracy and view on the filthy prole's.. I'm very anti-patriarchal though.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    cckerberos wrote: »
    FDR doesn't belong anywhere near the top three spots. He may have done great things but he did terrible ones as well. He doesn't get anywhere near the disdain he deserves for the internment camps. It gets treated as a footnote.

    Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, brutally put down protests, and allowed slavery to continue in the border states. They're all flawed.

    FDR's navigated the second and third most serious crises in US history successfully and moved the country to be a more fair and just place... for most people.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    George Washington
    Roz wrote: »

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Just to clarify are you hanging this on Lincoln?

    and as a negative

    the problem is it didn't go far enough to root out the plantation culture and way of life permanently

    burning down the south didn't seem to do a lot to fix the culture

    the lack of fixing the south is probably on Johnson for shitting up reconstruction

    I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think that Riemann's arguing we should've just burnt down a few more farms and everything would've been fine and dandy. He knows there is more to "rooting out the plantation culture and way of life" than aimless devastation.

    yes it was that the "devastation of the south" didn't go far enough

    so sure, not just burning down a few more farms but wreaking more devastation writ large on the south.

    the issue with rooting out plantation culture wasn't that the south wasn't destroyed enough

    it was the fucking up of reconstruction, it was screwing up the rebuilding that was the failure, not a lack of wrecking shit

    The problem was that we left the Southern elites in place, instead of removing them from power. We should have stripped the plantation owners of their lands and redistributed them. We also should have given all members of the Confederate government and all Confederate flag officers the "traitor's reward", especially those, like Lee, who broke their oaths of allegiance as former US Army officers.

    Well the country would certainly been wildly different if we'd executed all the confederates.

    But given the precedent that would have set, I'm struggling to see how it would have improved things for the future. It's totally what Putin or Erdogan would have done though.

    Or Stalin, for that matter.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Ardol wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    More than that, the fallout from Watergate directly impacted how Itan-Contra was treated, and then the behavior of the W. Administration.

    The Nixon impeachment was a mistake and led us to having one of our worst presidents as well (Ford), as well as the stagflation that plagued the later seventies.

    The modern practicalities of impeachment make them pretty much just a MAD switch for the republic and Congress/the executive. It's just better to let a bad president run its course for four years, which is part of why Nixon so believed that the president couldn't break the law (which I agree he's wrong on and about, but it is an interesting philosophical question).

    First off, there was no "Nixon impeachment". He chose to resign after Goldwater told him he no longer had the support of the Senate Republicans. Second, the real problem was Ford pardoning Nixon, allowing him to avoid any real accountability of his conduct, as well as the Village being afraid of the weakness of another "failed presidency", which lead to how Iran-Contra and the W. Administration would be treated.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Roz wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Just to clarify are you hanging this on Lincoln?

    I, personally, don't particularly disagree with the actions taken by him or his generals. He was in a War and wanted to win. History tends to overlook the particulars, and only really cares that he won. To compare this to Obama for example, I think there might be a footnote about the Drone program, but it will probably be glossed over as an ongoing facet of war.

    I'm not sure the devestation of the South during the civil war really counts as a black mark at all.

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Ardol wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    And when I speak of Bretton woods during Nixon's presidency, I am speaking of the fact that Nixon is responsible for devising the scheme and selling it to debase the gold standard.

    Nixon opened China (aka the world to free trade) and devised a scheme to have a fiat dollar be the worlds fundamental commodity, while tossing aside the gold standard (a fundamental concept as old as currency practically).

    Those are things that will be remembered even if the US doesn't exist anymore.

    Again, you can't bring up Nixon opening China without mentioning that he poisoned that well. And he also brought us things like the Saturday Night Massacre (the dismissal of the DoJ official investigating the Watergate breakin and the Nixon campaign's involvement by Robert Bork (after the AG and Deputy AG resigned in protest.)) Much of the fallout from Watergate is stuff we're still dealing with today, impacting how we deal with the Presidency.

    It seems like you bring up unrelated things to the facts I state, and often with pure conjecture.

    The only point I'm trying to make about Nixon is that he was a deeply impactful president (which you obviously agree with by your post above), and that alone makes him better than the do nothing's like Harrison, Taylor, Hoover, Harding's. etc. I don't see how the statement that Nixon is in our better third of presidents can be disputed based on his legacy.

    A fertilizer plant explosion is deeply impactful as well, yet I doubt that anyone would consider it good. When someone does horrible things (and did Nixon ever do horrible things), saying "but he made an impact" is not a positive attribute!

    Your prose poetic while quaint, is lost on me. Nixon did good and bad things, as all presidents do to differing degrees. Just because you feel
    Nixon is the embodiment of evil, doesn't lessen the effect and impact of the things I've stated, and I would say their outcome was good for the
    US given our status as a superpower hasn't faltered yet.

    The most telling fact of Nixon of all is that he would've beat Goldwater without Watergate. His hubris got the best of him. He was still a better and more qualified president than Ford and I would consider his impeachment a mistake for the republic with perfect hindsight, as I would say most historians would concur.

    Citation needed.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some good along with the bad, but ho boy was there a lot of bad. Additionally the idea that he should not have been impeached is directly responsible for a number of the more reprehensible actions during the GWB administration (Cheney for one began his career during the Nixon administration and very much believed the President should be above the law).

    More than that, the fallout from Watergate directly impacted how Itan-Contra was treated, and then the behavior of the W. Administration.

    The Nixon impeachment was a mistake and led us to having one of our worst presidents as well (Ford), as well as the stagflation that plagued the later seventies.

    The modern practicalities of impeachment make them pretty much just a MAD switch for the republic and Congress/the executive. It's just better to let a bad president run its course for four years, which is part of why Nixon so believed that the president couldn't break the law (which I agree he's wrong on and about, but it is an interesting philosophical question).

    First off, there was no "Nixon impeachment". He chose to resign after Goldwater told him he no longer had the support of the Senate Republicans. Second, the real problem was Ford pardoning Nixon, allowing him to avoid any real accountability of his conduct.

    I'm very confused by the point being made?

    Although you do give another good example, albeit part self-serving and expedient politically in Nixon choosing to resign over being impeached.

    And again, Nixon facing criminal charges wouldn't necessarily have been a good thing for the republic. Much like executing all former confederate or confederate sympathizers.

    When it comes to politics, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or the ideology trump the rationality of a given course. These are all deeply flawed, no easy answer scenarios, but I would say that some presidents were more skilled and bettered the nation more than others would in the same spot. All of them have also done some sort of horrible travesty or thing some of us would view with distaste. You have to look at the alternatives, and think what realistically could've occurred.

    Which kinda ties into my defense of Nixon. I honestly believe Nixon was the best and most qualified candidate in every presidential race he ran. I don't agree with his ideology, or even share many of the same views and I definitely understand the shortcomings of the man; However I still feel he served his nation as best he could, and almost exactly as he had promised, and it was only his personal shortcomings that failed his administration. He had a good nose for talent, and politics.

    He would be a much better example modern GoP Republican than Reagan, alongside Eisenhower, if it wasn't for all the accompanying baggage of Watergate et al.

    I mean what's the threads feelings on LBJ and Carter? I'd vote Carter best post president, but one of he most unqualified and underprepared modern presidents. Clinton is top ten for sure. LBJ I'm torn on and still don't know. I know he was a weird dude, but he to was a very talented politician with a good nose for talent. He also likes to talk to people while on the shitter and taking baths.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Nixon was a garbage human being but that doesn't mean that every single thing he did in office was also terrible.

    Of course, that's because Presidents have so fucking much to do.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    shryke wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    For people who rated Obama as #1, what's your reasoning? He's done a lot of good things, but I don't see how anyone could put him in the same league as an FDR or a Lincoln.

    It's way too early to objectively tell, but I think it's most likely that history will rate Obama as an above average but unexceptional president.

    Obama will probably wind up being in the top 10.

    Being the first black President is going to go a long way with historians. Washington's accomplishments while President are not particularly incredible. Yet he was the first and is "the father of the nation." History places a lot of value on the first to do anything.

    Plus the inspirational speakers are always highly regarded. People from our parent's generation absolutely adore JFK. His space program (not even completed while he was president) is considered a great accomplishment of his, for example.

    History will probably look at it like this:
    -Built the modern campaign machine (use of social media and new technologies)
    -Took over from a horrible predecessor (like Lincoln, FDR)
    -Saved the country from the great recession (TARP, Stimulus)
    -Passed greatest expansion of healthcare assistance since FDR (ACA)
    -Signed into the law Dodd-Frank and Lily Ledbetter acts
    -Allowed LBGTQ people to openly serve in the Military
    -Ended the Iraq war (how ISIS is handled/discussed moving forward I have no idea)
    -Killed Osama Bin Laden
    -Provided amnesty to DREAMers
    -Got new START passed
    -Worked extensively on non-nuclear proliferation (work that I imagine will continue after he leaves office)
    -Made the appointments to the Supreme Court which granted universal Same-Sex marriage, and if we're lucky, overturning of Citizens United.
    -Incredible orator, finest in a generation
    -Immensely successful at rebuilding the global relationships that were in tatters after Bush.
    -Appointed Tom Wheeler as head of FCC, which has provided us safeguards for Net Neutrality.
    -Tons of executive orders aiding everything from Education, to Gun Control, to Infrastructure to Civil Rights
    -and a bunch of others you can read about here: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Eh, I'm not even really prepared to call that much of a black mark. It just seems the kind of base level of foreign policy-related killing presidents gets up to, at least in the post-WW2 period, and the appending of "drones" to the affair doesn't really change much imo.

    I agree. I don't think he's done anything that's out of the norm (militarily) for a post WW2 president, and that some of the concerns around drone use don't extend much beyond "I don't like this cause robots are involved". How history will view that though, I don't really know. I think it'll be largely glossed over, and that it's incredible how scandal free this Presidency has managed to be.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Basically what Johnson supported and what we ended up doing was going right back to ignoring the problems of the South instead of fixing them

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    All the way with LBJ

    As the president with the sickest burns he is the obvious choice

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Other
    I'm pretty much constitutionally required to rep Eisenhower in these sorts of discussions.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    on the other hand none of these geezers had a musical written about them so how good can they be?

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    on the other hand none of these geezers had a musical written about them so how good can they be?

    But the men who've killed some of them have!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_(musical)

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    My greatly unpopular opinion is that H.W. Bush was the best 20th century post-war president.
    • The relatively peaceful democratization of the Warsaw Pact, the reunification of Germany, and the dismantling of the Soviet Union were endeavors that could have erupted into open warfare in a dozen different ways, and a lesser President might not have had such a steady hand in the process.
    • The first Gulf War was an overwhelming success, with the main assault lasting only five days. The Pentagon wanted to march on Baghdad and overthrown Hussein, but Bush told them to stop at the border and declare victory. Hindsight has shown us that no president after H.W. has been able to easily extract troops from the Middle East, but he managed to make it look effortless.
    • The protection of democracy in Panama, another fast and successful military operation with minimal loss of life.
    • When faced with growing deficits from Reagan-era policy, he was willing to make compromises with a Democratic Congress, raising taxes off their Reagan-era lows in a way that helped set the stage for the Clinton-era budget surpluses. He did so even though he knew his party would crucify him for breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.
    • The American with Disabilities Act. "Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
    • The 1989 semiautomatics ban, which cost him his NRA endorsement.
    • His resignation from the NRA, after what he called "their vicious slander on good people [namely, ATF agents]".

    In summary, why do I think so highly of H.W.? Because he was undoubtedly one of the best managers of foreign policy and military power in the post-war period (I'd say the best), and in domestic policy he was a pragmatic manager who sought to make government work well, regardless of ideological stances. In that regard, he was a Republican very much in the mold of Eisenhower -- which is ultimately why the party of Reagan rejected him and has diminished his memory ever since.

    Edit: This is also why I think we don't give enough respect to career government service people when electing politicians. I have little doubt that Bush's time as Ambassador to the UN, diplomat to China, and Director of the C.I.A. are part of what molded him into such a pragmatic manager of the ship of state.

    Hedgethorn on
  • Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Demon Hunter for Hire Time RiftRegistered User regular
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    H.W. is without a doubt the best Bush, like, no contest

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Ronald Reagan
    Gotta give it to Reagan because sometimes I need to be a stereotype.

    Ike and GHWB were both fantastic though. I would've picked either one over Reagan.

  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    I'd probably put Nixon at the bottom. Sure, he wasn't the worst. But he was the only one who got caught and resigned. Although maybe that just means that other presidents didn't have the good sense to resign.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Roz wrote: »

    His blackest mark is probably the Drone program, which I would argue is no where near Japanese internment, the devastation of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam, or Iran-Contra.

    Just to clarify are you hanging this on Lincoln?

    and as a negative

    the problem is it didn't go far enough to root out the plantation culture and way of life permanently

    burning down the south didn't seem to do a lot to fix the culture

    the lack of fixing the south is probably on Johnson for shitting up reconstruction

    I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think that Riemann's arguing we should've just burnt down a few more farms and everything would've been fine and dandy. He knows there is more to "rooting out the plantation culture and way of life" than aimless devastation.

    yes it was that the "devastation of the south" didn't go far enough

    so sure, not just burning down a few more farms but wreaking more devastation writ large on the south.

    the issue with rooting out plantation culture wasn't that the south wasn't destroyed enough

    it was the fucking up of reconstruction, it was screwing up the rebuilding that was the failure, not a lack of wrecking shit

    well, I think the fundamental problem was readmitting the traitor states as states rather than disbanding them into territories and letting them obtain statehood under some pretty severe conditions but that's getting rather off topic.

    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gotta give it to Reagan because sometimes I need to be a stereotype.

    Ike and GHWB were both fantastic though. I would've picked either one over Reagan.

    @spool32 I actually put Reagan in the list because I wanted it to be there in case you popped into the thread.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    George Washington
    H.W. is without a doubt the best Bush, like, no contest

    Second best.

    bush4_photo_gal__photo_385186143.jpg


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOllF3TgAsM


    But he's totally better than that other one.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Other
    I forget who gave the nod to Obama on the basis of his pushes toward LGBTQ rights...

    BUT

    That seems pretty soft on Obama and that it is largely an idea that's time had come. He spent forever "evolving" before he finally did the needful.

    If he had have been speaking in support of it prior to its implementation then that would have been a much brighter feather in his cap.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    George Washington
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I forget who gave the nod to Obama on the basis of his pushes toward LGBTQ rights...

    BUT

    That seems pretty soft on Obama and that it is largely an idea that had come. He spent forever "evolving" before he finally did the needful.

    If he had have been speaking in support of it prior to its implementation then that would have been a much brighter feather in his cap.

    You're not wrong, but history won't remember that.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I forget who gave the nod to Obama on the basis of his pushes toward LGBTQ rights...

    BUT

    That seems pretty soft on Obama and that it is largely an idea that's time had come. He spent forever "evolving" before he finally did the needful.

    If he had have been speaking in support of it prior to its implementation then that would have been a much brighter feather in his cap.

    I don't think I approve more of someone who changes their mind in a radically positive and public way, but I think that it's something that is laudable in its way

    I think that Obama in a sense let people change their minds

    I mean yeah, he should have been on the right side to start with, but it's a reality of the world that not everyone will always be on the right side of things, and I appreciate instances where people can demonstrate character by admitting that they were wrong and changing their position

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gotta give it to Reagan because sometimes I need to be a stereotype.

    Ike and GHWB were both fantastic though. I would've picked either one over Reagan.

    You know, I think you're straightforwardly wrong here. I mean, we disagree about what ought to be valued politically

    however, I think that even with what you value politically, Reagan doesn't deserve your adoration as much as numerous other Republicans.

    I think that if you yearn for a president who lowers taxes, enforces a strong libertarian social policy, and encourages and supports business

    Like, how are you not a huge fan of Coolidge? He largely eliminated income tax!

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Demon Hunter for Hire Time RiftRegistered User regular
    Other
    To elaborate and rather than muddle things with my own words and also having a keen appreciation for the National Park System (Thanks Teddy!) I will take a few points from the Web page of the Eisenhower National Historic Site: https://www.nps.gov/features/eise/jrranger/5accompX.htm

    5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.
    This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened its effectiveness.


    4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
    This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of legislation.


    3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.
    Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the prosperity of the 1950's.


    2. He Ended the Korean War.
    He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a negotiated peace and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement would lead to dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest achievement.

    1. He Kept America at Peace.
    Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he was in office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the U-2. While more than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He dealt calmly and rationally with each situation, always finding a solution that avoided war without diminishing America's prestige.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    I like Ike, but letting BP play him on Iran was a big deal.

    Not intervening in the Suez Crisis is to his credit though.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Sign In or Register to comment.