 |
|
d_dudy
|
|
what have you got against reagen? don't like that he helped keep your continent safe?
i picked abe, widely considered the greatest president because of what he had to deal with. gw (hehe) is a close 2nd, being the precedent for all presidents, but he'll be an easy great leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1. A. Lincoln, Save the Union
2. G. Washington, Could have been a King or Emperor but said no I will be a President only and only for 4 years.
3. FDR 3. JFK FDR new the war was coming had to do something to get us ready.
4. JFK 4. FDR, JFK Made the Communist brink first.
5. T. Roosevelt, World affairs, Walk softly but carry a big stick.
Dead last W.J. Clinton, Don't really know where to start. To many ladies.
Last edited by on 19-09-2001 at 03:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Lincoln, Hands Down. He saved our nation at our most critical juncture. People snipe and revise history and try to smear him, but he was savior of America. I don't think Stephen Douglas could have done the job half as well. I would venture a statement that Lincoln's impact on the world is greater than any other American.
After that, I think FDR would come next, as his domestic policies shape the America I live in today. He certainly had more influence than any other president of the 20th Century.
Washington is not even in my top 5 of American presidents. He was really a mediocre statesman (and general), but I guess he was in the right place at the right time and had the charisma to get the job done.
Jefferson would be high on the list, maybe after FDR, but would also have to include Monroe (who still influences American foreign policy) and Wilson.
Reagan? Too soon to tell, but given my personal revulsion at his far-right ideology and his lasting negative economic impact, I can't put him in the top ten. His strong foreign policy guidance is his saving grace, I suppose.
I think they should allow Vice Presidents to come and do minor negotiations or state visits. That way we can all watch Al Gore sigh and roll his eyes (Love ya, Al!)
BG
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Now, McCain on the other hand...  |
McCain had my vote. Bush is doing OK on this issue, The Bombing. I live in Calif., so his engry poilcy not so good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I think Lincoln is probably the best choice, but does it have to be a President? Why not Martin Luther King, Jr., for example?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
I think Lincoln is probably the best choice, but does it have to be a President? Why not Martin Luther King, Jr., for example? |
Considering all the other civilizations use their great leaders, it would be inconsistend and odd to pick someone who never actually led the Americans as a leader. Don't get me wrong--I have unending admiration for MLK--but I think they should use only actual heads of state.
Which leads to their own inconsistencies, now that I think of it (ah, the dangers of speaking from one's own buttocks...). For instance, Joan of Arc. Certainly historically significant, but she was never the head of state of France. They could have picked another great French woman for the female ruler. Catherine de Medici? She at least held real political power.
Of course, this leads to problems in the U.S. as well. Will they still make Eleanor Roosevelt the female leader? Who is the Germans' female (Austria's Marie Theresa perhaps???)? Ohhh, the questions I have!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OK, some leaders and reasons for choosing them. Note - one criteria I'm not using is former presidents (Joan of arc wasn't, so Firaxis seems to be using some criteria other than political leaders also).
(1) MLK - the guy fought for equality and rights, namely he fought to make American practice match American philosophy. (Right on Guynemer).
(2) Washington - did two extraordinary things. First, he stepped down after two terms, thus setting a precident that president is a temporary position (until FDR screwed things up that is). Second, he subitted to and obeyed the constitution. Sound simple but consider all of the dictators who started out ostensibly democratic but then did not obey their own constitution, like Peru's Fujimori. Washingon helped "embed" the constituion in the American psyche - truly creating a government of laws. If anyone doubts the importance of laws and constitutions being embedded - read this http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/jilp/main/issues/33/q.html
(3) Lincoln - ended slavery, and insured that the US became an industrial nation instead of clinging to the agricultural fantasies of both Thomas Jefferson and the Confederacy.
(4) James Madison - designed our constitution. Say no more.
(5) Alexander Hamilton - established many of the institutions (like a central banking system) that allowed the US to enter the industrial age.
(6) Ralph Nader - leading consumer/environmental advocate. Challenged the one-party-maquerading-as-a-two-party monopoly.
Bad choices
(1) FDR - concentration camps, staying on office too long.
(2) Reagan - big deficit
(3) Clinton - did this guy actually do anything?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
OK, some leaders and reasons for choosing them. Note - one criteria I'm not using is former presidents (Joan of arc wasn't, so Firaxis seems to be using some criteria other than political leaders also).
Bad choices
(1) FDR - concentration camps, staying on office too long.
(2) Reagan - big deficit
(3) Clinton - did this guy actually do anything? |
I have to take issue with this because you are qualifying the leaders based on whether or not you thought they were "good" people and did good things. Considering the plethora of leaders (Stalin, Shaka, Napoleon, etc.) who were NOT nice guys and did some pretty awful things, I can't agree with using such things as qualifiers.
The criteria should be the impact, good or bad, such a leader had on their civilization and thus the world. Of course, good taste prevents last centuries' most influential political leader (Mr. Hitler) from being used, but then again, Stalin was perhaps as much an evil man.
In that regards, FDR is certainly the most influential president of the last century. His domestic policies, the New Deal, etc., were monumentally important in shaping America as it is today. THe Issei camps were a rather ignominious aspect of American history, but given the climate at the time following Pearl Harbor, I hardly think it compares to what was happening to the Jews in Europe as far as human rights violations go. As for his staying too long...hey, in 1940 war was imminent and the economic crisis was still a big thing. I bet Americans wanted the continuity, considering he had been very successful. I personally would like to give Clinton a third term, as did most voters by the time of last year's election (according to the polls, they would have picked Clinton over Bush almost 2-1).
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov:
I would have voted for Clinton over Gore and Bush, and I don't even like Clinton that much. I'm just saying he's not the guy to represent the US in the game because there are so many better choices. But who knows how these guys will look in 50 or so years.
FDR's camps weren't as bad as Hitler's, BUT I still think it makes him unworthy of the monument they are building for him (which does not even mention the camps). It was a mistake that was just too big. Lincoln may have suspended habeus corpus, but that got corrected right after the Civil War. Most of the Japanese Americans never recovered the full value of the assets that the government siezed from them. Only recently (1992 I think) did an act of congress give survivors a token reparation ($25,000 each I believe) and I think that act may have included some sort of really late apology. I might be more forgiving of FDR had the mistake been addressed immediately following the war (by Truman), but there you have it. Further, I think the US was headed in the New Deal direction anyway. Huey Long and a lot of other progressives were pushing for the same sorts of programs. I just find it hard to give credit to FDR for an historic inevitability while overlooking the camps which he could have stopped but failed to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Boris Godunov:
I would have voted for Clinton over Gore and Bush, and I don't even like Clinton that much. I'm just saying he's not the guy to represent the US in the game because there are so many better choices. But who knows how these guys will look in 50 or so years.
FDR's camps weren't as bad as Hitler's, BUT I still think it makes him unworthy of the monument they are building for him (which does not even mention the camps). It was a mistake that was just too big. |
Fair enough on the Clinton thing. With any president post WWII, I think it is too soon to judge their lasting impact. Nixon was certainly, by most standards, a good president. He was just a rotten person!
As for FDR, will just have to disagree. I don't think many Native Americans will see Lincoln's administrations policies to them as being much better than the policy towards the Japanese, and those are wrongs we STILL haven't apologized for. I take the whole shebang, and I think overall FDR's administration did much more good for the country than bad. I don't take his reforms as inevitable...the Republicans were against them, and if they had the White House, they would not have gotten done. No great leader in times of domestic reform has just invented the ideas. They used their influence to implement ideas that already existed.
As for the camps...this will no doubt get me in hot water, but it's how I feel. I would have fully agreed with you until last week. Now I think I really understand the national mood after Pearl Harbor and the pure fear among the people. While the camps were irrational and certainly unconstitutional, I understand the sentiments that led to them, as much as I may disagree with them. But they were different times and America was dealing with something entirely new. Mistakes will be made in such cases. I think the important thing is that there are ongoing efforts now to right the wrongs of the past. I cannot, however, condemn FDR's entire presidency based on them. He did too much that was critical.
Cheers.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2001 22:31
Attachment: 
Ditto for Clinton. Now, Nader or McCain on the other hand... 
|
