Who is the best US President, in your opinion?

[Ramo]

McKinley Coolidge and Hoover were essentially the same presidency as far as what was going on...and that's quite simply "pro business" and of course, in McKinley's term especially, corruption.

Do you mean Harding (who had the "Teapot Dome" scandal)? McKinley (who also died in office) was President before TR.

[David Floyd]

Ramo, I'm sure he means Harding...and Coolidge WAS in favor of small government, and very pro-private business.

[Ramo]

Nope, he supported very high tariffs. That's definitely not a sign of small government.

[Hans2]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, I'd be willing to save 430,000 innocent Americans over 12 million foreign civilians.

You are correct if you are of the opinion that an American life is worth more than that of a 'foreigner.' I feel sorry for you David, anyone as ignorant as you deserves pity.

As to the FDR thing, there's already a lot of discussion going on over who got us into what, WW2-wise, in a couple other threads on here...suffice it to say he greatly provoked both Germany and Japan.

The 'evidence' that FDR 'new' about Pearl before it happened was circumstantial at best. As far as provoking Germany and Japan, we avoided going to war with Japan as long as possible. We tried every diplomatic avenue at our disposal first. Sure, the steel and oil embargo was a drastic move, but those were there war materials. It was the final ultimadum: you can either stop your war or we'll stop it for you. How would you feel morally if you knew the steel and oil you were selling Japan were then being used to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese?

As far as Destroyers for bases and other 'provacations' of Germany, the answer to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do does not matter, since you apparantly have no moral problem with standing by and watching a madman march across the world murdering millions, simply because he didn't bother America. And let us not forget, he did declare war on us. He didn't have to do that, hell, the Japs didn't honor their agreement with him in regards to Russia.

[David Floyd]

Hans, in my view no matter what some madman is doing doesn't become our business until he tries to do it to us. So unless Hitler's killing Americans in concentration camps, it's not our place to kill Germans to stop him.

Ramo, he may have supported high tariffs - but he was definitely in favor of small government, and was definitely pro-business, meaning that of all the US presidents we have had he is probably MOST NEARLY in line with Libertarianism and freedom.

[Hans2]

Richard Nixon. He definatly had his problems, but one must not forget what the biggest one was-he got caught. In this era of being apologetic (re: Clinton) I hate to say it, but if you look at what went on in the 60's what he did was no worse than LBJ.

Enough about what he did wrong, what did he do right? Ended the war in Vietnam, brought peace with China, cut the military budgets for the first time since just after WWII, signed the first signifcant arms treaties with Russia (ABM treaty and I believe SALT, though I may be wrong on that). Truly Nixon (strongly supported by Kissinger) was one of the great Statesmen on our time.

[David Floyd]

I will agree that Nixon had some extraordinary foreign affairs accomplishments.

[Hans2]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hans, in my view no matter what some madman is doing doesn't become our business until he tries to do it to us. So unless Hitler's killing Americans in concentration camps, it's not our place to kill Germans to stop him.

*shakes head* So naive. Someday that madman will come knocking at our door, and by the time he does, we will not be able to stop him because we'll be the only ones left. Is it your opinion then that the entire Cold War was a huge mistake on our part, that we should have sat buy and let Stalin take over all of Europe?

I will end with this famous quote from Pastor Martin Neimuller a German Catholic imprisoned in a concentration camp during the Holocaust:
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

[David Floyd]

*shakes head* So naive. Someday that madman will come knocking at our door, and by the time he does, we will not be able to stop him because we'll be the only ones left. Is it your opinion then that the entire Cold War was a huge mistake on our part, that we should have sat buy and let Stalin take over all of Europe?

Well, in my system we woulda stayed out of WW2, so Stalin taking over anything after Germany won WW2 wouldn't have even been an issue
But for the record, yes, fighting wars like Korea, Vietnam, etc., was a mistake, stationing troops abroad in Europe was a mistake - cost us too much money, and besides, the Constitution restricts the government in Article 1 Section 8 to only appropriating money for any standing army for a maximum of two years, so we shouldn't even have had the army needed to deploy that heavily.

Total isolationism
Foreign intervention

[Hoek]

David: why in the world did you include Madison? Agreed, he was a brilliant theorist, but most everyone agrees that he was ****ty as a president. Did you realize that the war of 1812 was declared by congress w/o a request from Madison? He didn't even want the war, but Congress declared war despite him. I'm surprised that you neglected to include Andrew Jackson. He is widely regarded as the man who made the presidency important. I would not have voted for him, but he is indeed one of the most important presidents.

I put Washington, because he forged a legacy of presidential behavior that has lasted for more than 2 centuries. Had it not been for Washington's commitment to democracy, and to the constitution, the nation would have ended up far, far worse.

Next, I would have to put Lincoln for preserving the Union and abolishing slavery (even though it wasn't out of the goodness of his heart). His leadership was phenomenal and he brought this country through the toughest of times.

Next, I would put FDR, since he saved democracy and capitalism. Had it not been for Roosevelt, both of these would have been history. Not only did he bring the nation out of misery, he elevated it to the pinacle of power in the world. Through welfarist programs and his steadfast defense of democracy, he saved the world from the forces of evil presented by Hitler and Hirohito.

Next, I would put JFK since he saved the world from destruction. Few presidents can claim that, but JFK clearly deserves loud applause for saving the world from nuclear holocaust.

Next, I would put TR because he was the first U.S. leader to promote the idea that the government had a role in stopping the abuse of power. This has been his legacy, and is extremely important.

Next, I would put Truman. He understood what was needed to create a stable international order free of the kind of strife seen in the early 20th century. He also laid the groundwork for the civil rights effort.

As for Reagan, he is one of the worst, in my book. He is even worse than Nixon, even worse than Andrew Johnson. In fact, he ranks dead last in my book. Not only did he pay off Iran to hold off releasing the hostages until he was swore in, he also violated a direct order from congress to stop funding the contras by secretly selling arms to Iran. Additionally, he ran up a deficit that will be a burden on this country for decades to come. His pillaging of social programs to give top-heavy tax cuts is downright awful. At best, he was a cold-hearted treasonous murderer.

As for Nixon, I think we had a real Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde thing going. Few realize that some of the most important and most liberal laws passed in the last 50 years were signed by Nixon, and that his pursuance of detente and opening China were the most important foreign-policy developments since WWII up until the collapse of communism. However, his manipulation of the FBI and CIA to pursue his own maintenence of power smacks of totalitarianism. He did abuse his power, and watergate was only one of many abuses.

Clinton: I think he is like Nixon in many ways, except both his good sides and his bad sides were less extreme. He did more to promote civil rights than any president, probably, and was perhaps the most brilliant politician this country has ever seen. He also did alot for the environment. He was a slave to polling however, and he was particularly weak in military policy. Though he was unquestionably the best-respected president internationally in a long time, he was often inept as commander in chief. Our experiences in Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, and with terrorism were not good. Clinton was not the right man to usher in a new world order (nor was Bush, though, I think). There were many weaknesses in domestic policy, too, including an unflagging support of the death penalty and big business. His biggest foreign policy sucesses: promotion of free trade, peace-brokering in the mideast (he won a nobel prize during impeachment hearings, for christ's sake!). He WAS good for the economy. Lost alot of personal authority after Monica, though.

Perhaps an interesting parallel poll would be who have been the most important presidents. I would put it like this on the top:

JFK
Washington
Lincoln
FDR
Jackson
TR
Wilson
Reagan

I don't like Jackson, but he had very important legacies surrounding the office of the presidency.

I don't like Wilson either, but he too left a lasting legacy of liberalism in international politics, which has shaped thought on international politics significantly in the 20th century.

JFK tops the list because he saved the world. There is actually not other good reason why he should be at the top. He actually didn't do that much domestically (he was a slave to the southern vote), he was a McCarthyist, and he probably didn't even get in office legally. However, he saved the world, so that's pretty important.

[The Mad Monk]

Why do you think that stipulation is in there, David?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

FDR -- strong leadership, honest caring about ordinary Americans, and politics I happen to agree with (though I agree more with Eleanor's).

TR is my favorite president, though. How can you not love him? Interesting to think that he'd be reviled by today's GOP (he was pro-environment and anti-big business, after all; how I'd love to see him rise from the grave and beat Bush and his oilman cronies over the head with a big stick).

And, as Hoek points out, Madison absolutely doesn't belong on this list. An interesting alternative poll would be, who's the greatest man to have been a terrible president:
J Adams
Madison
JQ Adams
Grant
Taft
Hoover

Surprised you didn't include Jackson or Truman, both generally better-regarded than Wilson (though I don't have much regard for either myself).

[Hans2]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, in my system we woulda stayed out of WW2, so Stalin taking over anything after Germany won WW2 wouldn't have even been an issue

Um, and this would have been better?

But for the record, yes, fighting wars like Korea, Vietnam, etc., was a mistake, stationing troops abroad in Europe was a mistake - cost us too much money, and besides, the Constitution restricts the government in Article 1 Section 8 to only appropriating money for any standing army for a maximum of two years, so we shouldn't even have had the army needed to deploy that heavily.

Total isolationism
Foreign intervention

Um, no. Article One, Section Eight:
"...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;
..."
If you read the statment, it does not say that we cannot maintain a standing army for more than two years. That is an absolutely absurd interpretation. Following your line of logic, it would be constitutionaly alright to raise an army for two years 'disband' it for one week, and then 'raise' it again. The statment says that you cannot appropriate money for periods longer than two years, ie, Congress cannot pass a bill that says, "The army gets thirty gazillion dollars for the next bagillion years." Currently, money is re-appropriated to the military every year, so we are actually following a stricter limit than what the constitution imposed.

I included the second portion about maintaining a navy because it cleary shows that the framers intended us to have a standing military. At the time a standing army was not nescessary, quickly raised militia would suffice. But the concept of a 'militia' navy would have been as absurd then as it is today, so they provided for the maintanence of a 'standing' navy. Now, in today's world the only thing close to a non-standing military that would provide adequate defense is the National Gaurd, and perhaps in your opinion even that is a violation. At least a small standing army is required to presevere a cadre of experienced officers.

[Scott F]

Though he was unquestionably the best-respected president internationally in a long time, he was often inept as commander in chief.

Actually, that record would go to the elder Bush, who was a committed internationalist and free trade advocate, certain flaws not withstanding. Clinton was liked in Europe because he was a socialist, not because he had some sort of great policy. "America is the indispensible nation." Ugh. He went trolling about obscenely for a Nobel Peace prize since he got in office. First in the Middle East, then in Northern Ireland, then in the Balkans, then back to the Middle East.

Next, I would put Truman. He understood what was needed to create a stable international order free of the kind of strife seen in the early 20th century. He also laid the groundwork for the civil rights effort.

Truman's blunders with regards to Russia and the spread of communism from Potsdam onwards knock him down somewhat. The evolution of tensions with the Soviet Union owe much to him, a man who held simple and honest and often moral opinions, listening to the wrong people, primarily Burns.

Most of the real civil rights work goes to Johnson, and that is one of his most redeeming qualities in the history books. He certainly won't be remembered well for Vietnam, and Great Society was at best mediocre.

Not only did he pay off Iran to hold off releasing the hostages until he was swore in

Care to prove that?

Additionally, he ran up a deficit that will be a burden on this country for decades to come.

Let's not heap blame. Let's give it to everyone, as it needs to be done. Every American president since FDR, and every Congress, is to blame for that. The United States held the largest gold and currency reserves on earth, about half of the world's total (which is truly astounding) until the Vietnam War began to deplete them.

He did more to promote civil rights than any president, probably, and was perhaps the most brilliant politician this country has ever seen.

I would rank Johnson, Truman, and even Eisenhower and Nixon higher than Clinton with regards to civil rights.

He also did alot for the environment.

True, but so did Nixon and Carter.

peace-brokering in the mideast (he won a nobel prize during impeachment hearings, for christ's sake!)

Source for that? I seem to recall that he was nominated but never awarded...

He WAS good for the economy.

The jury is still out on that one, I am afraid. Anyone who wants to blame Coolidge and Harding for the Great Depression must also blame Clinton for the slowdown that followed him out, and the elder Bush for the free trade policies and savings and loan sort-outs that arguably helped herald in the roaring Nineties.

JFK tops the list because he saved the world. There is actually not other good reason why he should be at the top. He actually didn't do that much domestically (he was a slave to the southern vote), he was a McCarthyist, and he probably didn't even get in office legally. However, he saved the world, so that's pretty important.

But by that logic should not every American president (and Russian leader) during the Cold War from Eisenhower on get credit for saving the world by not pressing the "big red button"?

[Hans2]

Originally posted by David Floyd (In the Draft Dodging Thread)
GP, you miss my point: IN THEORY I would love to volunteer for the military, probably would go in as an Army officer in the infantry, if I had a choice. MY PROBLEM, though, is that I just cannot agree with dying or having others die for Jews, or Frenchmen, or Vietnamese, or Koreans, or Kuwaitis. Would I have volunteered for World War 2? Probably - my personal morality abhors genocide, etc., but more than that Japan did attack Pearl Harbor (the fact that FDR instigated it is a different argument). But would I support a draft in a WW2-like situation? Of course not - I can't push my morality on others.

Wha...DF, clarify your posistion.