Who, once and for all, do you think American leader should be?

[Boris Godunov]

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!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Easy choice for me:

Thomas Jefferson. Let us recognize, finally, what this man has meant to the United States. He may not have had more influence than Washington or led in as troubled times as Lincoln. However, his writing of the Declaration of Independence, his purchase of the Louisiana terrority during his Presidency, and his ideas of a weak federal government which won out over Hamiltonian ideas of strong federal government colored American attitudes, even today (even though we have a strong federal government these days).

[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).

(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?

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
(3) Clinton - did this guy actually do anything?

Just ask his intern...

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[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. 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]

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.

[Dauphin]

How come FDR was in the hotseat for so long, 13 years wasn't it? More if he hadn't died. When was the 2 term max rule brought in?

Anywho, my vote went to FDR as he is the President who was there the longest (?), and the one that I associate with the US demonstrating its global force for the first time.

Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington didn't really play much on the international stage (compared to FDR). After all it was FDR that really steered the USA out of isolationism.

[Boris Godunov]

How come FDR was in the hotseat for so long, 13 years wasn't it? More if he hadn't died. When was the 2 term max rule brought in?

There was not originally a term limit for the POTUS. The Republicans in Congress inacted the 22nd amendment because they were ticked off at FDR being prez for so long. The Dems went along with it because they didn't want to be seen as endorsing a "monarchal figure."

I would actually attribute the move out of isolationism more to Wilson than FDR. Or Wilson's wife, at least, since she was actually our first woman president after Wilson was debilitated by a stroke.

Cheers.

PS--I am opposed to the 22nd Amendment. I find it a violation of the Bill of Rights. Americans should be allowed to vote for who they want free of restrictions. That IS democracy, after all.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
PS--I am opposed to the 22nd Amendment. I find it a violation of the Bill of Rights. Americans should be allowed to vote for who they want free of restrictions. That IS democracy, after all.

I do agree, but the only thing is in the UK it allowed Thatcher to be in power for as long!

[TCO]

Thatcher is cool. Be nice to her, RJ. She's an icon of Britain. I don't even know what Blair or Major look like...

[Boris Godunov]

As much as I dislike Thatcher's policies, I give UK and her credit for some strong leadership. Would that the USA could get past its macho chauvinism and elect a woman president.

[Dauphin]

I would actually attribute the move out of isolationism more to Wilson than FDR. Or Wilson's wife, at least, since she was actually our first woman president after Wilson was debilitated by a stroke.

Whilst this is probably true, it is about perception. FDR is seen as the one that did the deed, even if Wilson did the prep work.

Similarly with the A-bomb. FDR set up the whole project and with the intention to use the bomb to shorten the war. However it was Truman who is asscoiated with ushering in the nuclear age as it came to fruiton on his watch.

The role of civ leader is that which is most synonymous with the civ that they are almost the embodiment.

I do agree, but the only thing is in the UK it allowed Thatcher to be in power for as long!

Thatcher was elected for a reason, the same reason Blair was elected - They weren't the leader of the unelectable party.

Of course, technically neither were elected PM, they just happened to be leader of the majority party.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
As much as I dislike Thatcher's policies, I give UK and her credit for some strong leadership. Would that the USA could get past its macho chauvinism and elect a woman president.

Maggie was no women!

Between Maggie and Dennis Thatcher (her husband), everyone knew who wore the trousers (pants).

[Oldenbarnevelt]

My vote goes to this man.