Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

1568101113

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Hoover was a fantastic bureaucrat but did not really have vision.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    CptKemzik
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Hoover was a bad president, with no vision of his own,poor leadership qualities and almost no political base of his own, so was beholden to many special interests.

    That doesn't even account for the fact that the policy he did pursue had to be undone by successors; all of it for the most part, but definitely his economic related policies which are widely regarded as havin extended or intensified the depression.

    I don't think you can make a case that doesn't have him land in the bottom third of our presidents.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lincoln had the best hat.

    After him, presidents gave up on hat wearing. Like how they gave up on facial hair after Taft.

  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lincoln had the best hat.

    After him, presidents gave up on hat wearing. Like how they gave up on facial hair after Taft.
    The whole damn country gave up on hats and beards.

    This is what happened to Rome, you know.

    RT800 on
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    I voted without knowing anything about some of the candidates in the poll, I am become what I despise most.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    "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
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    Also got an awful racist elected President.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Teddy had like...double the amount of votes than Taft, and had he gotten the Republican nod Teddy would have won the election against Wilson handily

    EDIT Teddy won 88 electoral votes and Taft 8

    Kruite on
    MadCaddy
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    RT800 wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lincoln had the best hat.

    After him, presidents gave up on hat wearing. Like how they gave up on facial hair after Taft.
    The whole damn country gave up on hats and beards.

    This is what happened to Rome, you know.

    Rome actually did the opposite. Clean shaven was the trend up to Hadrian who started the beardy trend. And as for the hats, they went from nothing to laurel wreath to diadem.

    a5ehren
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    Maybe it's just the bleeding heart liberal talking, but establishing the National Parks administration at the same time he was allowing the Dawes act to divide up the reservations into individual plots, and signing into law an act that said Native Americans weren't inherently competent enough to own their own land (Burke Act) seems like a massive backhand to the first nations. I tend to think that if he was really so concerned about preserving natural beauty and dissolving the reservations he should have dissolved the reservations and just given the national parks to the people they belonged to and who had very recently fought wars to get it back.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Roz on
    HedgethornCrayonDarkPrimusCommander ZoomHonk
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    I don't really understand the criticism here? Religion and politics have been borderline synonymous far longer than they haven't, even in the US with its explicitly stated separation of church and state, so I don't really get the first part.

    However, I feel that TR's attempt to run as a bull-moose may have been a poor political decision, especially for the Republican Party, but it was a run based wholly in fundamental ideology differences, and I can't fault someone who lets their principles be of paramount importance, even more than their own party.

    Funny enough, though, I do fault Nader for losing Gore the 2000 elections, but i feel his ideological differences were more camouflage than the true reasonings for his run, and that he legitimately split a party with no true bar of his own. Teddy Roosevelt during his bull-moose run was a very very different circumstance.

    I am interested in hearing more about how you link Teddy to the modern GOP's development. I feel like the modern Republican Party is very divorced from the ideology of McKinnelley, Roosevelt and Eisenhower.

    I mean, Teddy himself was gonna name his party the progressive party before he settled on bull-moose! ;)

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    I'm a bigger TR fan than FDR, but a great thing I like about FDR is that he broke Tammany Hall. It controlled New York for about 80 years, pre-dating Lincoln's election.

    And Eisenhower today would have been a Democrat.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    OptimusZedRMS OceanicshrykeRedTideRchanen
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Hold up for a minute, I'll let you get back to yours in a moment, but I just gotta say Adams was he greatest founding father of all tiiime! ;)

    I would say he deserves to be on the list above Jackson for sure, and I definitely put him in the better 33% of Presidents. Madison, Monroe and Quincy were all deeply solid presidents as well.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Hold up for a minute, I'll let you get back to yours in a moment, but I just gotta say Adams was he greatest founding father of all tiiime! ;)

    I would say he deserves to be on the list above Jackson for sure, and I definitely put him in the better 33% of Presidents. Madison, Monroe and Quincy were all deeply solid presidents as well.

    John Adams was a great founding father, but he was one of the worst presidents and at times bordered on being a complete tyrant, even considering how early his presidency was.

    Rchanen
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Roz wrote:
    [About LBJ:] Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did

    LBJ won't be fairly treated by historians until the entire Baby Boomer generation is gone (and maybe all of Generation X too). Vietnam was such a crippling blow to that generation's pscyhe that Johnson's deceit in escalating the war will make him a pariah for another twenty years. At least.

    Rchanen
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    I agree for the most part with this post, but the bolded could come back to haunt his legacy. We just don't know how it will be viewed. Slavery was concerning in its the time too, but it wasn't illegal.

    JuliusCommander ZoomRchanen
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    So, everybody knows what Lincoln did during the Civil War and how he helped end slavery. What you might not know about him was that he had a biting wit, a sarcastic and often self-deprecating sense of humor, and a keen strategic mind. And, in some ways, he was even more badass than Teddy Roosevelt.

    In a feud with James Shields (the state auditor for Illinois at the time of this story) over a bank that had gone bankrupt and would no longer accept its own paper currency for debt payments -- they insisted on silver or gold, which would be uncommon for ordinary people to carry -- Lincoln wrote a series of intensely scathing letters to the Sangamon Journal, the editor of which he was friends with. He used a pseudonym and wrote the letters as "Rebecca". He taunted Shields and made fun of his lecherous lifestyle:
    I've been tugging ever since harvest getting out wheat and hauling it to the river, to raise State Bank paper enough to pay my tax this year, and a little school debt I owe; and now just as I've got it…, lo and behold, I find a set of fellows calling themselves officers of State, have forbidden to receive State paper at all; and so here it is, dead on my hands.

    (...)

    His very features, in the ecstatic agony of his soul, spoke audibly and distinctly–'Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. Too well I know how much you suffer; but do, do remember, it is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting.

    Obviously Shields was extremely angry about the letters and insisted the paper reveal the true name of "Rebecca", and the editor told him that Lincoln had written them. He had a letter sent to Lincoln:
    I have become the object of slander, vituperation and personal abuse. Only a full retraction may prevent consequences which no one will regret more than myself.

    Lincoln, in a fit of self-amusement, returned the letter with a request that it be rewritten "in a more gentlemanly fashion". Lincoln had big damn balls.

    In a fit of rage, Shields demanded satisfaction from Lincoln in the form of a duel to the death. As duels were illegal in Illinois at the time, but were still completely legal in Missouri, the duel would be held on Bloody Island (what a fucking metal name), located between Missouri and Illinois but under the jurisdiction of Missouri.

    As the man who did not request the duel but had accepted it, he was given the right to choose not only the weapons that would be used, but also the conditions of the battleground itself. Being a fucking badass, but also sort of brilliant, Lincoln chose "cavalry broadswords of the largest size". He also insisted that a plank be placed between the duelists that neither were permitted to cross. Why was this so smart of him? Shields was an expert marksman, and if Lincoln had selected a firearm as the weapon, he would likely have been killed. Lincoln was also very strong and extremely tall, at 6'4", compared to Shields' meager 5'9". He felt sure he would be able to disarm Shields under these conditions.

    Finally the day of the duel came, and it ended without a single wound to either combatant. Lincoln, just prior to the fight, swung his sword with all his might and struck a tree branch just over Shields' head, severing it. This demonstrated to Shields that he was about to be fucking murdered by Lincoln, and he asked for a truce, which Lincoln gladly accepted.

    Later, during the Civil War, Shields would fight for Lincoln in the Union Army as Brigadier General, and he would deliver to his President the defeat of Stonewall Jackson at the Battle of Kernstown. It was Jackson's only defeat and as a result, Lincoln promoted him to the rank of Major General, because he didn't hold grudges and was a genuinely good guy on top of being one of the biggest BAMFs in American history.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    RMS OceanicHedgethornorangeusArdolCommander ZoomGennenalyse Ruebenvisiblehowlshryke38thDoeElvenshaePolaritieHeirlonelyahavaDivideByZerokimeMegaMekRchanen
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Or they could fade into the sands of history.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Other
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.

    Crayon on
    "I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge."
    X-Box Tag: PrettyGoodCake
    PSN: LLatikuf
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    So, everybody knows what Lincoln did during the Civil War and how he helped end slavery. What you might not know about him was that he had a biting wit, a sarcastic and often self-deprecating sense of humor, and a keen strategic mind. And, in some ways, he was even more badass than Teddy Roosevelt.

    In a feud with James Shields (the state auditor for Illinois at the time of this story) over a bank that had gone bankrupt and would no longer accept its own paper currency for debt payments -- they insisted on silver or gold, which would be uncommon for ordinary people to carry -- Lincoln wrote a series of intensely scathing letters to the Sangamon Journal, the editor of which he was friends with. He used a pseudonym and wrote the letters as "Rebecca". He taunted Shields and made fun of his lecherous lifestyle:
    I've been tugging ever since harvest getting out wheat and hauling it to the river, to raise State Bank paper enough to pay my tax this year, and a little school debt I owe; and now just as I've got it…, lo and behold, I find a set of fellows calling themselves officers of State, have forbidden to receive State paper at all; and so here it is, dead on my hands.

    (...)

    His very features, in the ecstatic agony of his soul, spoke audibly and distinctly–'Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. Too well I know how much you suffer; but do, do remember, it is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting.

    Obviously Shields was extremely angry about the letters and insisted the paper reveal the true name of "Rebecca", and the editor told him that Lincoln had written them. He had a letter sent to Lincoln:
    I have become the object of slander, vituperation and personal abuse. Only a full retraction may prevent consequences which no one will regret more than myself.

    Lincoln, in a fit of self-amusement, returned the letter with a request that it be rewritten "in a more gentlemanly fashion". Lincoln had big damn balls.

    In a fit of rage, Shields demanded satisfaction from Lincoln in the form of a duel to the death. As duels were illegal in Illinois at the time, but were still completely legal in Missouri, the duel would be held on Bloody Island (what a fucking metal name), located between Missouri and Illinois but under the jurisdiction of Missouri.

    As the man who did not request the duel but had accepted it, he was given the right to choose not only the weapons that would be used, but also the conditions of the battleground itself. Being a fucking badass, but also sort of brilliant, Lincoln chose "cavalry broadswords of the largest size". He also insisted that a plank be placed between the duelists that neither were permitted to cross. Why was this so smart of him? Shields was an expert marksman, and if Lincoln had selected a firearm as the weapon, he would likely have been killed. Lincoln was also very strong and extremely tall, at 6'4", compared to Shields' meager 5'9". He felt sure he would be able to disarm Shields under these conditions.

    Finally the day of the duel came, and it ended without a single wound to either combatant. Lincoln, just prior to the fight, swung his sword with all his might and struck a tree branch just over Shields' head, severing it. This demonstrated to Shields that he was about to be fucking murdered by Lincoln, and he asked for a truce, which Lincoln gladly accepted.

    Later, during the Civil War, Shields would fight for Lincoln in the Union Army as Brigadier General, and he would deliver to his President the defeat of Stonewall Jackson at the Battle of Kernstown. It was Jackson's only defeat and as a result, Lincoln promoted him to the rank of Major General, because he didn't hold grudges and was a genuinely good guy on top of being one of the biggest BAMFs in American history.

    I've studied Lincoln a great deal, and think of you need proof of his awesomeness you need look no further than his guile in the Douglas debates. He truly was a canny politcian.

    However, I feel Lincoln the myth overshadows Lincoln the man to a great many, and feel he is overrated as a result. I still can't lower him below number two (maybe number three if I really am liking Wilson or Eisenhower that day...).

    Crayon
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    I don't really understand the criticism here? Religion and politics have been borderline synonymous far longer than they haven't, even in the US with its explicitly stated separation of church and state, so I don't really get the first part.

    However, I feel that TR's attempt to run as a bull-moose may have been a poor political decision, especially for the Republican Party, but it was a run based wholly in fundamental ideology differences, and I can't fault someone who lets their principles be of paramount importance, even more than their own party.

    Funny enough, though, I do fault Nader for losing Gore the 2000 elections, but i feel his ideological differences were more camouflage than the true reasonings for his run, and that he legitimately split a party with no true bar of his own. Teddy Roosevelt during his bull-moose run was a very very different circumstance.

    I am interested in hearing more about how you link Teddy to the modern GOP's development. I feel like the modern Republican Party is very divorced from the ideology of McKinnelley, Roosevelt and Eisenhower.

    I mean, Teddy himself was gonna name his party the progressive party before he settled on bull-moose! ;)

    First of all, TR only ran because he didn't get the Republican nomination, because of course he didn't. They would have had to take it away from a sitting president, which thus far has been unheard of. If you're the incumbent president, you get to run for your party if you want. TR or no TR. I don't know what evidence it is that his was a principled run and not "if you wont let me run as a Republican, I'll form my own party, with blackjack and hookers"

    Second, you're just straightforwardly wrong about the religious right in the country. While religion has always been a factor in US politics (one only needs to see our shameful list of amendments to see that), the mobilization of evangelicals politically is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's really only since the second half of the 20th century that the contemporary evangelical movement gets involved. Politics was always seen as the domain of liars and it wasn't a christian duty to participate in politics.

    So this theory kicks around a little and I read a book that made a convincing case that 1912 was a huge turning point for the Republican party. Before 1912, the social progressives were thoroughly Republican, but TR splits them off the party based on name recognition. Labor also completes it's alignment against the Republican party. In 1916, the progressives don't go back to the Republican party and instead they go to the Democrats. Now of course, like most movements and talking about blocs of huge groups of people there's some specificity that you lose. The Republicans of the 20s were far more socially liberal than our current Republicans, and it took a while for that echo of the progressive movement to leave.

    Really after 1912, Republican became the party of business, and it's because TR pulled people out of the party and they didn't go back.

    Also yes, TR got 88 electoral votes and Taft got 8

    But Wilson CRUSHED them both. If TR runs as a Republican, it would be a contest, but I don't know if it becomes a cakewalk for Teddy.

    "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
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Kruite
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Just wanna make clear if we're basing our votes solely on actions done in office I'd be firmly with Eisenhower at the top of my list as well.

    He was a deeply endowed leader and far more prescient than any other, excepting maybe Washington or Lincoln.

    Most of my love of Teddy has to do with his Bull-Moose stories, and his personal politics are those most closely related to my own. I also just can't even how he lived so much, in such a time, and overcame the hardships he had to endure. Like, managing to piece yourself together and accomplishing as much as he did being nearly blind, and losing his mother and wife at the same time.. Just mind blowing to me. I'd need a decade to recover over just that.

    While I really appreciate TR the trust buster, and he deserves to be praised for his stance on good business rather than any business, next to national parks probably the biggest thing that he accomplished was creating the pro-business low tax Republican party by taking the progressives out of the Republican party.

    Like, half of the Republican party of today (well, maybe not today, but say ten years ago) we owe to the entrance of the religious right into politics

    but the other half dates back to 1912 and TR running as a not at all viable third party candidate.

    I don't really understand the criticism here? Religion and politics have been borderline synonymous far longer than they haven't, even in the US with its explicitly stated separation of church and state, so I don't really get the first part.

    However, I feel that TR's attempt to run as a bull-moose may have been a poor political decision, especially for the Republican Party, but it was a run based wholly in fundamental ideology differences, and I can't fault someone who lets their principles be of paramount importance, even more than their own party.

    Funny enough, though, I do fault Nader for losing Gore the 2000 elections, but i feel his ideological differences were more camouflage than the true reasonings for his run, and that he legitimately split a party with no true bar of his own. Teddy Roosevelt during his bull-moose run was a very very different circumstance.

    I am interested in hearing more about how you link Teddy to the modern GOP's development. I feel like the modern Republican Party is very divorced from the ideology of McKinnelley, Roosevelt and Eisenhower.

    I mean, Teddy himself was gonna name his party the progressive party before he settled on bull-moose! ;)

    First of all, TR only ran because he didn't get the Republican nomination, because of course he didn't. They would have had to take it away from a sitting president, which thus far has been unheard of. If you're the incumbent president, you get to run for your party if you want. TR or no TR. I don't know what evidence it is that his was a principled run and not "if you wont let me run as a Republican, I'll form my own party, with blackjack and hookers"

    Second, you're just straightforwardly wrong about the religious right in the country. While religion has always been a factor in US politics (one only needs to see our shameful list of amendments to see that), the mobilization of evangelicals politically is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's really only since the second half of the 20th century that the contemporary evangelical movement gets involved. Politics was always seen as the domain of liars and it wasn't a christian duty to participate in politics.

    So this theory kicks around a little and I read a book that made a convincing case that 1912 was a huge turning point for the Republican party. Before 1912, the social progressives were thoroughly Republican, but TR splits them off the party based on name recognition. Labor also completes it's alignment against the Republican party. In 1916, the progressives don't go back to the Republican party and instead they go to the Democrats. Now of course, like most movements and talking about blocs of huge groups of people there's some specificity that you lose. The Republicans of the 20s were far more socially liberal than our current Republicans, and it took a while for that echo of the progressive movement to leave.

    Really after 1912, Republican became the party of business, and it's because TR pulled people out of the party and they didn't go back.

    Also yes, TR got 88 electoral votes and Taft got 8

    But Wilson CRUSHED them both. If TR runs as a Republican, it would be a contest, but I don't know if it becomes a cakewalk for Teddy.

    I would think that the contemporary evangelical movement being a modern phenomenon goes without saying, but religion has always impacted people's political ideology. I also don't view having a party for evangelicals if they so desire to organize as a necessarily bad thing.

    You're wrong about the specifics on his run. Roosevelt hand picked Taft as his successor and the two had a massive falling out over policy and actions Taft took in the presidency. I'm phone posting, and can't recall the specifics, but Roosevelts decision to run was not based solely on his own desire to be president again.

    MadCaddy on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Ronald Reagan
    Hmm!

    spool32 on
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    TR also let Taft run and picked him as his successor in order to maintain Washigton's two term precedent. Something he deeply regretted until his death, and that may have influenced his cousins lack of qualms about the matter.

    On another note, Wilson, TR and Taft is probably the most politically talented and skillful candidate pool of presidency since the panic of 1819 I'd say. Taft is a mediocre president, but was incredibly intelligent and the only president to become a Justice of the Supreme Court (chief at that!).

    TR and Wilson are both at the tippy top of my best of list. They both are just incredible politicians and we still feel the effect of their presidencies to this day, and for the better at that!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    shrykeRozHeirspool32
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    I've been kind of wondering about a related question, and Jefferson made me think about this.

    I don't think that Jefferson was a particularly great president

    But I do think he was a phenomenally important president.

    So if there's a difference between an important president, a president that does a great deal to shape the culture or politics of the United States versus one who does that in a beneficial way (which I'm not sure I'm committed to this being the distinction and I think that an interesting subject of discussion might be how one might pull these terms apart and whether one ought to), then are there Presidents that aren't great, but are important?

    I also think that this might give us interesting language to talk about some of our nominees for greatness.

    Like Washington.

    Washington didn't do an amazing amount of things, but he was vitally important (in that it was important that Washington the man was President) because it established a certain kind of political culture.

    "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
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Eh, we aren't speaking German and the UN is still in a neutered form of his ideal League of Nations. If his foreign policy was followed to a t , there's a very good chance world war 2 could've been avoided. Germany wouldn't've had the economic sanctions issued during the Weimar Republic that led to the hyperinflation which helped Hitler and the Nazi's gain dominance.

  • A duck!A duck! Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Abraham Lincoln
    Crayon wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.

    If I had 20% of LBJs dick I'd talk about it all the time.

    shrykeApothe0sis
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson were important Presidents who are all overrated. And Reagan was an important President who was a god damn disaster.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Commander ZoomshrykeArdolPantsBRedTideMegaMek
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    TR + Taft accounts for 96 electoral votes.

    You would have to commit to the claim that TR as Republican would more than double the amount of electoral votes that the two of them combined got.

    Wilson's margin of victory was massive.

    "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
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    His racism set the stage for Vietnam, for one example.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    TR + Taft accounts for 96 electoral votes.

    You would have to commit to the claim that TR as Republican would more than double the amount of electoral votes that the two of them combined got.

    Wilson's margin of victory was massive.

    TR + Taft's votes together would have won the majority of the country outside the south.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Rchanen
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Wilson is interesting because he where he was bad he was unequivocally awful

    but where he was good he was pretty good.

    I think that overall he did more long term harm than long term good (though Coolidge actually had purged most of the KKK from the high positions in the federal government), but he's certainly the most grey President.

    "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
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    His racism set the stage for Vietnam, for one example.

    I would go with the more material segregating the federal workforce, personally. Which contributed to the power of the KKK during the '20s.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Eh, we aren't speaking German and the UN is still in a neutered form of his ideal League of Nations. If his foreign policy was followed to a t , there's a very good chance world war 2 could've been avoided. Germany wouldn't've had the economic sanctions issued during the Weimar Republic that led to the hyperinflation which helped Hitler and the Nazi's gain dominance.

    WW1 was never a threat to North America. It was the dumbest of dumb European wars. And America did not contribute that much to the Allied victory type substance.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Gennenalyse RuebenshrykeArdolMegaMekRchanen
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Eh, we aren't speaking German and the UN is still in a neutered form of his ideal League of Nations. If his foreign policy was followed to a t , there's a very good chance world war 2 could've been avoided. Germany wouldn't've had the economic sanctions issued during the Weimar Republic that led to the hyperinflation which helped Hitler and the Nazi's gain dominance.

    Wilson waited an awful long time to get us into the war.

    If he hadn't, maybe Europe ends up a little less in shambles because the war ends much faster.

    With Europe less of a complete disaster in the post war we don't quite get the Weimar germany.

    Although that's a pretty tenuous argument, I'm not sure I'd care to actually give a full throated defense of.

    Also, the state of Europe post WW1 probably can be laid a lot at the feet of the successive Republican Presidents and their isolationist tendencies.

    "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
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    In addition. The popular vote was approx 6.3, 4.1, and 3.5 million for wilson, TR, and Taft respectively.

    It can be argued that Taft stole the nomination as well. Teddy had more delegates going into the first round, many of Taft delegates were from Southern states (that went Democrat anyway), and TR had many of his delegates replaced in the subsequent round.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    TR + Taft accounts for 96 electoral votes.

    You would have to commit to the claim that TR as Republican would more than double the amount of electoral votes that the two of them combined got.

    Wilson's margin of victory was massive.

    TR + Taft's votes together would have won the majority of the country outside the south.

    So you think that TR+Taft steals 160+ electoral votes from Wilson.

    That's cool and all, but with a combined 50%+ of the popular vote, they don't get those numbers.

    I mean, you are essentially arguing that TR wins more votes alone than TR + Taft do together.

    "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
1568101113
Sign In or Register to comment.