 |
| |
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
I hesitate to respond to the question because, once the presidency is far enough in the past to gain some perspective, good things can be said about even Presidents I loathed.
Richard Nixon - won the election by lying about his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam and indeed, he unnecesarily prolonged it. He was a paranoid weasel who brought about his own justifiable downfall with the Watergate cover-up.
However, if you ever listen to his speeches, they were great! If he'd ever had listened to his own speeches, he'd have been one of the great Presidents of all times. He knew that realism was needed in foreign policy, not the idealism that had dominated foreign policy since Eisenhower. Nixon also opened up China to the West.
Ronald Reagan sent the economy reeling in the wrong direction with his staggering deficits that we're still trying to pay off today, and with his de-regulation of banking and S&Ls, which lead to swindles of a magnitude never seen in the course of human history. For example, more money was lost in the Lincoln S&L scandle than in all the bank robberies in U.S. history combined!
But he restored dignity to the White House and prestige to the U.S. around the world. He also turned plain speaking into a political artform.
I can say -- and have said -- lots of bad things about George W. Bush. But he has exhibited strong leadership qualities when America needed a strong leader, he enjoys campaigning more than anyone I ever seen, he truely believes in what he's saying, and he has a strong moral foundation. I can't say he is the worst President ever, no matter how much I loath his policies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
We have to think of these things as if we were looking back 2000 years, divorced from the passions and politics of the moment. We judge Roman Emperors primarily on how the empire fared under their guidance. In this regard, Commodus, even though judged by history as a moral bastard, has to be judged as a good emperor because the empire did well while he presided. But it is clear that the most damage was done by the likes of Valens and Honorius. Valens because of Andrianople. Honorius because he acted to undermine Rome's security exactly when it needed great leadership.
In US history, I think it is clear that van Buren lead the US into its greatest depression ever. He has to be condemned. Ditto Herbert Hoover. People whose policies actively harm the US must be condemned.
Grant's regime was corrupt, but the country prospered under his presidency. Ditto Clinton. We have to judge these presidents favorably.
Nixon too performed well as president even though he was truly mentally ill, in my view. I think the had paranoia.
In contrast, the country faired poorly under both Ford and Carter, and clearly Johnson was a failure due to his disastrous mismanagement of Vietnam. No other event in US history so traumatized this nation.
So, in order
1. Johnson
2. Van Buren
3. Hoover
4. Ford
5. Carter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
So many bad ones to choose from, so few good ones.....
The three I hate the most are the ones Berzerker already brought up - FDR, Lincoln, and LBJ, probably in that order, for their efforts in shredding the US Constitution. For example, Lincoln's decision to ignore the Supreme Court in Ex parte Merryman strikes me as one of the worst abuses of power in the history of the Presidency - far, far worse than anything Nixon did.
Franklin Roosevelt violated the Constitution so regularly, the only way his New Deal became Constitution was through his threats to pack the Supreme Court. SCOTUS began to see things his way more often after that Court Packing mess, but the timing of the decisions against FDR vs. those in his favor is sort of telling. |
He was neither the first nor the last President to attempt to use his power to appoint Justices to bend thing his way. For their part the Supreme Court repeatedly over-stepped their bounds just because they didn't like his programs. quote:
Put another way, without FDR's threat to pack the court (an abuse of power up their with Lincoln's Merryman decision in my book), most of his legislative programs that had not already been found unconstitutional would undoubtedly have been found as such. |
I can think of no instance in which the Suoreme Court backed down from a decision because they were afraid of FDR. quote:
FDR also was conducting an illegal undeclared war against Germany, and trying to do anything he could to get the US into the biggest bloodbath in history, otherwise known as WW2.  |
Even in the 1790s the US reserved the right to protect its merchant vessels by providing armed escort in war zone waters. Thomas Jefferson sent a convoy of grain ships escorted by American (and French) warships to Repuiblican France through a British blockade. The escorts were forced to fight a battle with a British squadron in order to clear the way for the convoy. Was Jefferson conducting an illegal war against Great Britain? OTOH by the time that the US began providing armed escorts for American merchatmen Nazis submarines were already operating on this side of the Atlantic. Therefore it could be said that the Nazis had made all of the seas and oceans between the Old World and the New into a war zone. Would you have confined our merchant fleet to the 3 mile zone?quote:
Woodrow Wilson is also pretty high up on my list of "worst Presidents" - not only did he get us into WW1, but he also played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, and once we were in the Great War, his administration quelled dissent everywhere they could find it, and created a propaganda of hate against the Germans - in some ways, Wilson stirred up more hatred against the Germany of WW1 in the US than FDR was able to stir up against Nazi Germany, in my opinion. Wilson's administration actively prosecuted ANYONE who disagreed with the war, the draft, or any measures in support of either - people actually went to prison for saying they felt that the war or draft was wrong. |
I think you'd be hard put to find a President who hasn't played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, so why single out Wilson? Also I seem to recall that the US Congress declared war on the Germans, not Wilson. The Zimmerman telegraph pretty much out raged the American public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
He was neither the first nor the last President to attempt to use his power to appoint Justices to bend thing his way. |
Good point - Lincoln threatened to do it too. Besides, there is nothing wrong with appointing Justices who are likely to rule "your way", but "packing the Court" with extra Justices on the basis of ideology alone is an unconscionable abuse of power.
quote:
For their part the Supreme Court repeatedly over-stepped their bounds just because they didn't like his programs. |
Give me an example. Striking down, say, the AAA or the NRA was fully within the bounds of the Supreme Court, because both of those entities were unconstitutional, or at least were acting unconstitutionally.
quote:
I can think of no instance in which the Suoreme Court backed down from a decision because they were afraid of FDR. |
Perhaps not in any single case, but on the other hand, Justice Owen Roberts suddenly started voting with the liberals on the Court, coincidentally right around the time that FDR was threatening to pack the Court. This created a liberal majority and instead of every major New Deal program being struck down, they were upheld instead. I'm sure you've heard of the "switch in time that saved nine" and this was it.
quote:
Even in the 1790s the US reserved the right to protect its merchant vessels by providing armed escort in war zone waters. |
So what? In the 1790s the US wasn't shipping war material essentially for free to a belligerent in a major war, and using its navy to attack on sight the warships of the other belligerent, which is what was going on in 1940/1941. The USN was at first radioing the position of German U-boats to the British, and eventually simply began attacking them on sight. Those are hostile acts.
quote:
OTOH by the time that the US began providing armed escorts for American merchatmen Nazis submarines were already operating on this side of the Atlantic. Therefore it could be said that the Nazis had made all of the seas and oceans between the Old World and the New into a war zone. |
Duh, Canada was a major belligerent on the side of Great Britain, and a great deal of shipping went between the two nations. We only had a right to keep the U-boats out of our territorial waters, yet by the time we declared war, we had a "security zone" extending over 1200 miles away from the US East Coast. That was both unnecessary for US security, and violated international law, and as far as I'm concerned, that zone was simply in place as a)an intentional provocation to get the Germans to attack, and b)an aid to the British.
quote:
Would you have confined our merchant fleet to the 3 mile zone? |
Not at all, I'm not advocating that. I'm simply saying that the US was behaving in a hostile way towards Germany, while acting as a virtual ally towards Great Britain. You may say that we had a right to do so, and while I disagree with you on the basis of my argument about the war-making powers in the US Constitution (you've heard it before, but I'll repeat it if necessary), that also isn't the point.
quote:
I think you'd be hard put to find a President who hasn't played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, so why single out Wilson? |
I'm singling Wilson out on the basis that he got us into WW1, and then subsequently suppressed individual liberty on a larger scale than Dubya.
quote:
Also I seem to recall that the US Congress declared war on the Germans, not Wilson. |
True, but Congress was manipulated by Wilson - Wilson's mis-information/propaganda network was screaming bloody murder over the Lusitania incident, which we really had no right to be upset over. The Lusitania was carrying arms, and the Germans tried to warn Americans against boarding the Lusitania - but the US government suppressed those warnings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypse
You make the South sound so bad. The north hated blacks and didn't want them anywhere near the north. That's why many of the northern states had rules against blacks even coming into the state. While the South might have enslaved, at least they were tolerant. And the north only didn't want expansion of slavery, not abolition, until after the Civil War even started. |
Wait, how can one have slavery AND be tolerant? Sorry, thats, well, NUTS. NO the south was NOT tolerant- saying that the north was racist, which it was, is not the same as saying the south was tolerant- in fact, the south was FAR more racists than the north and remained so for well over a century AFTER the civil war.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2005 06:13
|