Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Is that list going to include calling up the National Guard to bust public sector union strikes?
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Is that list going to include calling up the National Guard to bust public sector union strikes?
Edit: I guess that was as governor. Whoops.
The conversation isn't limited to just Presidents and their Presidencies. The thread is meant to reflect on how any and all historical figures have been either vilified or vindicated in hindsight. It's tough to tell what lasting effect a politician leaves as a legacy in the moment. Maybe 30 years from now Obama is going to be remembered much more fondly than we think he will right now, just because we're living in this time and it's difficult to remain objective about him.
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Yeah, like doing anything to prevent the Great Depression.
Oh, he was fine with blaming Hoover for it, though.
His ascension to godhood by the GOP is a huge disservice to the horrible shit he's done. Including:
Ignoring embassy attacks (241 US Marines (and others) dead in a single attack, woot!)
Ignoring the AIDS crisis and calling it "they gay disease" (over 20,000 people died from the disease before Reagan would even talk about it)
Increasing the national debt (deficit nearly quadrupled) and tossing the tax burden on that dept onto poor people cause he cut rich taxes ("Read. My. Lips: No. New. Taxes!" Then raises taxes 7 outta 8 years in office)
Iran/Contra
Vetoed the UN from condemning Saddam Hussein for murdering people with chemical attacks (which is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the US)
Vetoing the Anti-Apartheid bill (cause slaves are awesome, right?)
Gave money to Osama Bin Laden
Unemployment went from 7.5% -ish to over 10%
Weakening or outright eliminating mental health bills, which is not only cruel and has a causality with violent crimes, but is also extremely ironic considering his fight with Alzheimer's disease
Yet this guy is the absolute best President the GOP can put forth to call upon and worship since their last great President (Eisenhower) did a lot of liberal shit.
Well I mean, if you're gonna talk about Actual Reagan, well yeah.
But Saint Reagan is a completely different, albeit fictional, person. And it's Saint Reagan the GOP celebrates.
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
It's tough to decide between FDR and Lincoln. Lincoln, almost literally, won the Civil War (because the Union Army was a hot mess of stupid, Lincoln's micromanagement did things like get Grant in charge), while FDR instituted the modern social safety net and helped UN Nazi the world.
The North's population, manufacturing power, logistical superiority, and competent (but not stellar) leadership literally won the Civil War.
Essentially the North was never really losing the war, even though they might have been losing battles.
I mean, sure, Lincoln kept firing and hiring generals so that there couldn't be consistent leadership (until he settled on Grant not because he actually won but because he realized that losing wasn't a huge deal because he had the numbers to take huge losses), but yeah, he totally almost literally won the war. Lincoln did a lot of great things, and a lot of great things during the war. His speeches were amazing and they provided a clear moral imperative that I think it's hard to argue helped immensely.
But Lincoln didn't win the Civil War, and saying such allows for the southern narrative of them being thiiiiiiiis close to winning to stay alive when it should have died in its infancy.
As a historical outsider (as in, doesn't know tons about history but has opinions nonetheless), this post sort of is dancing around something I have been feeling reading this, which is that the circumstances of each president are so different as to make comparisons impossible. It's sort of like seeing the Churchill stuff going on in the (I think this is the thread anyway) the British politics thread - Churchill was apparently not a super great leader, but he managed to be not-incompetent during a super awful time for Britain, so he gets tons of love. Similarly, American presidents are remembered for what they did during crises, which is at least as much a product of them having specific crises to deal with. Clinton was a great president, for the most part, with some missteps, but he is way beneath Lincoln on the list. Was Lincoln that much greater, or did he have the serendipity to be placed in a time when he was able to take actions that people were impressed by?
I am not sure this is actually relevant to the thread, the more I talk about it, but I think it's an interesting distinction. We prefer a hypothetical president who governed over a time that could have been super shitty, but instead was alright, over a hypothetical president who governs over a time that could have been pretty good but was instead great.
Not all of them are held to the standard of what they did in a crisis.
Teddy is generally measured a lot by what he did outside of the presidency entirely as well as his actions in the presidency.
Jefferson is measured by how his personal politics differed from his presidential politics, as well as his contributions to the infancy of the nation in the Continental Congress, Washington's cabinet and in the Articles of Confederation crisis.
Jackson tends to be measured by how he manufactured crisis from calmness, both in abolishing the Bank of the US and in how he utterly dumped on the rule of law. Also by geese who want to see his random violent outbursts as somehow awesome.
However, when your entire term in office is defined by a period of crisis, it's really hard not to measure them by that because how they handled that crisis takes up the bulk of their actions in office. FDR, Hoover, GWB, Nixon, JFK, Reagan, Lincoln, Madison, Washington, ect kind of have to be judged by what they did in a crisis.
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.
Okay good, because if we expand this discussions to more than just presidents, William Tecumseh Sherman is pretty high on my favorite Americans list.
You'll get no argument from me. So much of what Sherman said and believed came true. The man was resolute in his actions, even if he felt abhorrent about what he needed to do.
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations
It's tough to decide between FDR and Lincoln. Lincoln, almost literally, won the Civil War (because the Union Army was a hot mess of stupid, Lincoln's micromanagement did things like get Grant in charge), while FDR instituted the modern social safety net and helped UN Nazi the world.
The North's population, manufacturing power, logistical superiority, and competent (but not stellar) leadership literally won the Civil War.
Essentially the North was never really losing the war, even though they might have been losing battles.
I mean, sure, Lincoln kept firing and hiring generals so that there couldn't be consistent leadership (until he settled on Grant not because he actually won but because he realized that losing wasn't a huge deal because he had the numbers to take huge losses), but yeah, he totally almost literally won the war. Lincoln did a lot of great things, and a lot of great things during the war. His speeches were amazing and they provided a clear moral imperative that I think it's hard to argue helped immensely.
But Lincoln didn't win the Civil War, and saying such allows for the southern narrative of them being thiiiiiiiis close to winning to stay alive when it should have died in its infancy.
It's very easy to envision the North cutting her losses and accepting a truce with the Secessionist South. The South didn't have the population or manufacturing base to win a war against the North, but they may well have had the capabilities to prevent the North from winning the war.* Heck, negotiated peace was the main plank in the Democratic party platform in 1864! Sure, that election didn't end up being close, but had the North not started to win battles in 1863/1864, it's easy to see Lincoln losing reelection and President McClellan having a mandate for the cessation of hostilities.
*In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the North didn't win the Civil War, anymore than the U.S. won the Iraq War of 2003. Sure, the North defeated the Southern Armies, accepted terms of surrender, and set up a military occupation, but the South continued a campaign of guerrilla insurgency for decades until the military occupation was finally lifted, at which time the old regime continued much as it always had.
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations
And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.
I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.
+2
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Is that list going to include calling up the National Guard to bust public sector union strikes?
Edit: I guess that was as governor. Whoops.
perhaps you were thinking of Grover Cleveland, who deployed the army to break the Pullman Strike
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.
Watergate was not a "personal shortcoming" of Nixon, is was an attempt to use the power of the Presidency to undermine the democratic process.
Then there's the whole "lying to Congress and bombing Laos and Cambodia, thus clearing the way for the Khmer Rouge to take power" thing, which is much more despicable than Iran/Contra yet rarely gets brought up when discussing Nixon.
Nixon is, by far, the worst 20th Century President.
+11
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
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.
Okay good, because if we expand this discussions to more than just presidents, William Tecumseh Sherman is pretty high on my favorite Americans list.
my own personal top 10 would include him, Mark Twain, and Nellie Bly, among others
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.
Watergate was not a "personal shortcoming" of Nixon, is was an attempt to use the power of the Presidency to undermine the democratic process.
Then there's the whole "lying to Congress and bombing Laos and Cambodia, thus clearing the way for the Khmer Rouge to take power" thing, which is much more despicable than Iran/Contra yet rarely gets brought up when discussing Nixon.
Nixon is, by far, the worst 20th Century President.
That's saying a lot when W is right there.
W's problem was that he was incompetent and gave Cheney a long leash. Nixon was smart, effective, and wholly corrupt; a terrifying and abominable combination.
Reagan was the architect of the modern structural deficit
We've never actually reversed trickle-down economics or his massive military spending programs. At best the Democrats have pumped the brakes a little now and then.
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Yeah, like doing anything to prevent the Great Depression.
Oh, he was fine with blaming Hoover for it, though.
At the time it wasn't like "have a Great Depression y/n?" was a real question.
Yes what was done was wrong, and the actions that they took were either insufficient or made it worse, but in some sense they were trying to do something about it or they figured it was the kind of thing that would be bad but not that bad
I think at worst you can accuse the leaders at the time of just not understanding what was happening. We have the benefit of being able to explain what happened because we can study it.
In the middle of the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, I'm not sure it's all that hard to understand that they just didn't realize what was going on or have the economic theory to try to stop it
Like, without Keynes at all, how do you even conceptualize the depression?
"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
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Is that list going to include calling up the National Guard to bust public sector union strikes?
Edit: I guess that was as governor. Whoops.
perhaps you were thinking of Grover Cleveland, who deployed the army to break the Pullman Strike
In 1919, in reaction to a plan of the policemen of the Boston Police Department to register with a union, Police Commissioner Edwin U. Curtis announced that such an act would not be tolerated. In August of that year, the American Federation of Labor issued a charter to the Boston Police Union.[50] Curtis declared the union's leaders were guilty of insubordination and would be relieved of duty, but indicated he would cancel their suspension if the union was dissolved by September 4.[51] The mayor of Boston, Andrew Peters, convinced Curtis to delay his action for a few days, but with no results, and Curtis suspended the union leaders on September 8.[52] The following day, about three-quarters of the policemen in Boston went on strike.[53] Coolidge, tacitly but fully in support of Curtis' position, closely monitored the situation but initially deferred to the local authorities. He anticipated that only a resulting measure of lawlessness could sufficiently prompt the public to understand and appreciate the controlling principle – that a policeman does not strike. That night and the next, there was sporadic violence and rioting in the unruly city.[54] Peters, concerned about sympathy strikes by the firemen and others, called up some units of the Massachusetts National Guard stationed in the Boston area pursuant to an old and obscure legal authority, and relieved Curtis of duty.[55]
"Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. That furnished the opportunity; the criminal element furnished the action. There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time. ... I am equally determined to defend the sovereignty of Massachusetts and to maintain the authority and jurisdiction over her public officers where it has been placed by the Constitution and laws of her people." (emphasis added)
Telegram from Governor Calvin Coolidge to Samuel Gompers September 14, 1919.[56]
Coolidge, sensing the severity of circumstances were then propitious to his intervention, conferred with Crane's operative, William Butler, and then acted.[57] He called up more units of the National Guard, restored Curtis to office, and took personal control of the police force.[58] Curtis proclaimed that all of the strikers were fired from their jobs, and Coolidge called for a new police force to be recruited.[59] That night Coolidge received a telegram from AFL leader Samuel Gompers. "Whatever disorder has occurred", Gompers wrote, "is due to Curtis's order in which the right of the policemen has been denied…"[60] Coolidge publicly answered Gompers's telegram, denying any justification whatsoever for the strike – and his response launched him into the national consciousness (quoted, above left).[60] Newspapers across the nation picked up on Coolidge's statement and he became the newest hero to opponents of the strike. In the midst of the First Red Scare, many Americans were terrified of the spread of communist revolution, like those that had taken place in Russia, Hungary, and Germany. While Coolidge had lost some friends among organized labor, conservatives across the nation had seen a rising star.[61] Although he usually acted with deliberation, the Boston police strike gave him a national reputation as a decisive leader,[62] and as a strict enforcer of law and order.[63] The Boston Police Patrolman Association was finally formed in 1965; it would be unionized in 1998.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+3
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Other
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
Having great ideals doesn't mean much if you can't enact any policy. And Carter struggled badly with that.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
and beginning the conservative economic policies which Reagan expanded on (i.e. deregulating airlines, rail freight, trucking, massive corporate tax cuts)
and getting us involved with the Mujahideen in the middle east
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
By all accounts Hoover was a super smart policy wonk following the leading economic theories at the time. We now realize those theories were bad, and that his economic vision sucked, but it was his lack of empathy that brought the mob down on him. The man had no understanding of optics or how to connect with a suffering electorate.
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations
And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.
I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.
This is exactly why Bill Clinton is considered an average or slightly above average President.
0
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
I mentioned Ike right there in the OP and continued to shower praises on him! What do you want, blood?! I only get 10 poll choices at maximum and one of them had to be "Other"!
Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.
He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much
Yeah, like doing anything to prevent the Great Depression.
Oh, he was fine with blaming Hoover for it, though.
At the time it wasn't like "have a Great Depression y/n?" was a real question.
Yes what was done was wrong, and the actions that they took were either insufficient or made it worse, but in some sense they were trying to do something about it or they figured it was the kind of thing that would be bad but not that bad
I think at worst you can accuse the leaders at the time of just not understanding what was happening. We have the benefit of being able to explain what happened because we can study it.
In the middle of the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, I'm not sure it's all that hard to understand that they just didn't realize what was going on or have the economic theory to try to stop it
Like, without Keynes at all, how do you even conceptualize the depression?
The exact causes, effects and given repercussions of actions taken during the Great Depression are still a very hotly debated and studied field in academic Economics (as well as policy leaning think tanks.)
It's why even Obama had no idea what to do exactly or what would be the right path during the Great Recession; the best thing he did, and what most academics agree as the correct course given the scenario, was not tighten the purse strings of the Fed and try to balance the budget while operating at deficit with a collapsing GDP. A very Keynesian solution, but it might've been taken too far as the still hovering at 0% prime rate may indicate and the growing income inequality domestically.
0
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
I mentioned Ike right there in the OP and continued to shower praises on him! What do you want, blood?! I only get 10 poll choices at maximum and one of them had to be "Other"!
:P
I mean...Obama is a little too soon to see any lasting impact and talk of greatness. Personally, I think Obama has been the best person in the white house, but I do think it'll take time to have him in the discussion, and even then I think he falls outside my top 5. Ike did too much for modern society to not be included!
+1
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
and beginning the conservative economic policies which Reagan expanded on (i.e. deregulating airlines, rail freight, trucking, massive corporate tax cuts)
true, but I feel like that would have been the policy of any president, and I think it's faulty to lay the blame for it at any single president. Hell, the deregulation effort was a global phenomenon, popular among conservatives and liberals, and basically part of mainstream economic thought at the time.
And honestly the thing began before Carter. Nixon got rid of regulations, and Ford started the deregulation of rail.
0
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
Carter is the best post-President, hands down, for his work in monitoring elections and eradicating the guinea worm. I can't even think of who else is even in that contest.
Sadly, he was not nearly so good at being President.
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.
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
Carter is the best post-President, hands down, for his work in monitoring elections and eradicating the guinea worm. I can't even think of who else is even in that contest.
Sadly, he was not nearly so good at being President.
The Clinton Foundation pays for 3+ million people to get AIDs medicine and 12 million a year anti-malaria drugs and a lot of other humanitarian efforts. I expect Obama to do great things as well. Maybe one of Carter's legacies will be Presidents should use their influence for humanity even after they leave office, as long as their Democratic.
I vote for Carter, the only recent president who actually seemed to believe in something greater. (And whose vision of something greater wasn't abhorrent.)
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
Carter is the best post-President, hands down, for his work in monitoring elections and eradicating the guinea worm. I can't even think of who else is even in that contest.
Sadly, he was not nearly so good at being President.
I made this statement earlier too, and can think of only one president who might give him a run for his money on accomplishment, but not good done, Taft. Also our only legit obese Prez!
There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations
And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.
I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.
Sorry, I guess Hoover ran out of crisis-handling power after working 14-hour days for years during World War I, negotiating relief efforts with governments on both sides of the conflict and saving many millions of civilians from starvation.
Posts
Is that list going to include calling up the National Guard to bust public sector union strikes?
Edit: I guess that was as governor. Whoops.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The conversation isn't limited to just Presidents and their Presidencies. The thread is meant to reflect on how any and all historical figures have been either vilified or vindicated in hindsight. It's tough to tell what lasting effect a politician leaves as a legacy in the moment. Maybe 30 years from now Obama is going to be remembered much more fondly than we think he will right now, just because we're living in this time and it's difficult to remain objective about him.
Yeah, like doing anything to prevent the Great Depression.
Oh, he was fine with blaming Hoover for it, though.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well I mean, if you're gonna talk about Actual Reagan, well yeah.
But Saint Reagan is a completely different, albeit fictional, person. And it's Saint Reagan the GOP celebrates.
Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.
Not all of them are held to the standard of what they did in a crisis.
Teddy is generally measured a lot by what he did outside of the presidency entirely as well as his actions in the presidency.
Jefferson is measured by how his personal politics differed from his presidential politics, as well as his contributions to the infancy of the nation in the Continental Congress, Washington's cabinet and in the Articles of Confederation crisis.
Jackson tends to be measured by how he manufactured crisis from calmness, both in abolishing the Bank of the US and in how he utterly dumped on the rule of law. Also by geese who want to see his random violent outbursts as somehow awesome.
However, when your entire term in office is defined by a period of crisis, it's really hard not to measure them by that because how they handled that crisis takes up the bulk of their actions in office. FDR, Hoover, GWB, Nixon, JFK, Reagan, Lincoln, Madison, Washington, ect kind of have to be judged by what they did in a crisis.
You'll get no argument from me. So much of what Sherman said and believed came true. The man was resolute in his actions, even if he felt abhorrent about what he needed to do.
Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's very easy to envision the North cutting her losses and accepting a truce with the Secessionist South. The South didn't have the population or manufacturing base to win a war against the North, but they may well have had the capabilities to prevent the North from winning the war.* Heck, negotiated peace was the main plank in the Democratic party platform in 1864! Sure, that election didn't end up being close, but had the North not started to win battles in 1863/1864, it's easy to see Lincoln losing reelection and President McClellan having a mandate for the cessation of hostilities.
*In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the North didn't win the Civil War, anymore than the U.S. won the Iraq War of 2003. Sure, the North defeated the Southern Armies, accepted terms of surrender, and set up a military occupation, but the South continued a campaign of guerrilla insurgency for decades until the military occupation was finally lifted, at which time the old regime continued much as it always had.
And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.
I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.
perhaps you were thinking of Grover Cleveland, who deployed the army to break the Pullman Strike
Watergate was not a "personal shortcoming" of Nixon, is was an attempt to use the power of the Presidency to undermine the democratic process.
Then there's the whole "lying to Congress and bombing Laos and Cambodia, thus clearing the way for the Khmer Rouge to take power" thing, which is much more despicable than Iran/Contra yet rarely gets brought up when discussing Nixon.
Nixon is, by far, the worst 20th Century President.
my own personal top 10 would include him, Mark Twain, and Nellie Bly, among others
That's saying a lot when W is right there.
W's problem was that he was incompetent and gave Cheney a long leash. Nixon was smart, effective, and wholly corrupt; a terrifying and abominable combination.
We've never actually reversed trickle-down economics or his massive military spending programs. At best the Democrats have pumped the brakes a little now and then.
At the time it wasn't like "have a Great Depression y/n?" was a real question.
Yes what was done was wrong, and the actions that they took were either insufficient or made it worse, but in some sense they were trying to do something about it or they figured it was the kind of thing that would be bad but not that bad
I think at worst you can accuse the leaders at the time of just not understanding what was happening. We have the benefit of being able to explain what happened because we can study it.
In the middle of the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, I'm not sure it's all that hard to understand that they just didn't realize what was going on or have the economic theory to try to stop it
Like, without Keynes at all, how do you even conceptualize the depression?
"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
No, definitely Coolidge.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
:bro:
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
He was pretty great. Aside from selling arms to Indonesia so that they could further their invasion of East-Timor I guess.
Having great ideals doesn't mean much if you can't enact any policy. And Carter struggled badly with that.
I'm not sure I'd call his presidency one of the best, though.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
and beginning the conservative economic policies which Reagan expanded on (i.e. deregulating airlines, rail freight, trucking, massive corporate tax cuts)
and getting us involved with the Mujahideen in the middle east
he's a good man, but was a shitty president
By all accounts Hoover was a super smart policy wonk following the leading economic theories at the time. We now realize those theories were bad, and that his economic vision sucked, but it was his lack of empathy that brought the mob down on him. The man had no understanding of optics or how to connect with a suffering electorate.
This is exactly why Bill Clinton is considered an average or slightly above average President.
Do what now?! I don't know what bro means in this context! Hah.
Eisenhower was my vote, too.
so
:terroristfistjab
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
He is a fellow Ike lover
Ahhhhhh nice. Yeah, I think we've spoken about it on voice chat a few times, just wasn't sure, hah.
:P
The exact causes, effects and given repercussions of actions taken during the Great Depression are still a very hotly debated and studied field in academic Economics (as well as policy leaning think tanks.)
It's why even Obama had no idea what to do exactly or what would be the right path during the Great Recession; the best thing he did, and what most academics agree as the correct course given the scenario, was not tighten the purse strings of the Fed and try to balance the budget while operating at deficit with a collapsing GDP. A very Keynesian solution, but it might've been taken too far as the still hovering at 0% prime rate may indicate and the growing income inequality domestically.
I mean...Obama is a little too soon to see any lasting impact and talk of greatness. Personally, I think Obama has been the best person in the white house, but I do think it'll take time to have him in the discussion, and even then I think he falls outside my top 5. Ike did too much for modern society to not be included!
true, but I feel like that would have been the policy of any president, and I think it's faulty to lay the blame for it at any single president. Hell, the deregulation effort was a global phenomenon, popular among conservatives and liberals, and basically part of mainstream economic thought at the time.
And honestly the thing began before Carter. Nixon got rid of regulations, and Ford started the deregulation of rail.
Carter is the best post-President, hands down, for his work in monitoring elections and eradicating the guinea worm. I can't even think of who else is even in that contest.
Sadly, he was not nearly so good at being President.
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.
The Clinton Foundation pays for 3+ million people to get AIDs medicine and 12 million a year anti-malaria drugs and a lot of other humanitarian efforts. I expect Obama to do great things as well. Maybe one of Carter's legacies will be Presidents should use their influence for humanity even after they leave office, as long as their Democratic.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I made this statement earlier too, and can think of only one president who might give him a run for his money on accomplishment, but not good done, Taft. Also our only legit obese Prez!
Sorry, I guess Hoover ran out of crisis-handling power after working 14-hour days for years during World War I, negotiating relief efforts with governments on both sides of the conflict and saving many millions of civilians from starvation.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar