Who is the best US President, in your opinion?

[David Floyd]

At least one, and arguably all three, are illegitimate. Also he was assassinated well before their passage.

And if you think Lincoln did a good job, boy I wish we could speak with the citizens of the CSA, anyone he locked up after suspending habeas corpus, anyone in the Maryland Legislature he ordered arrested, and, for that matter, George McClellan, whom he cheated out of the 1864 election through sending Benjamin Butler into New York to "maintain order" on election day.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

I agree with this, and Wahington got my vote for this reason.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

I find myself troubled by Lincoln, and not merely for the way he turned into a 'benevolent' dictator during the Civil War, or any of the other myriad reasons he is disliked by some people. It's something more personal to me, and definitely my opinion and not something that I can argue for.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

I think democracy and capitalism are both principles which are a good deal more durable to have been saved by any one man. Another 'benevolent' dictator in my book. Certainly a man who had the power that this one had could have done a great deal worse.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

Easily the worst selection on the list, and your greatest error. JFK in no way saved the world from nuclear holocaust, in fact increased the chances of it both during his presidency and for decades afterward. He raised a phony issue in his election campaign against Nixon, "The Missle Gap", which he used to criticize the Republicans for being 'soft' on the Reds. He knew well (as a member of the Senate Intelligence Commitee) that the Soviets did not have nearly the success that they claimed in their missle program, and he also guessed correctly that Nixon was too much of a patriot to discredit his claims by revealing classified information to refute him. He risked that disclosure to demagogue on what he knew was a false issue to get himself elected. What an ass. The truth was that the Soviets had an enormous bomber gap, and the missle gap was more truthfully a gap in big empty tubes dragged by the review stands on May Day parades.

The Cuban Missle Crisis is another big lie. Kennedy merely bullied the Soviets into backing off from placing missles in Cuba, even though the U.S. had missles in Turkey (this is commonly referred to as hypocrisy). After weeks of brinksmanship, the Soviets backed down due ironically to their weakness in long range nuclear missles (ie the phony missle gap issue). What wasn't reported with nearly so much hype at the time was the secret provision in the agreement whereby the U.S. pulled it's nuclear missles out of Turkey. So Kennedy created a false crisis with the Soviets in order to make himself look good. A pattern which seems to be a repeat of the missle gap issue. The temporary removal of nukes from Cuba provided only a marginal improvement in U.S. security, one which was offset in part by the removal of the U.S. missles from Turkey.

The real damage to come from this U.S. fomented crisis was the damage done politically to Kruschev and his fellow liberals in the Politbureau. Kruschev and company were out the next year, and by 1967 a new Stalinist regime (Brezhnev) was in place, and it went on a missle building and conventional arms binge. It also backed the Vietnamese with advanced weapons, and redoubled it's efforts (mostly successfully) to widen the Cold War in the hitherto mostly ignored (and thus spared) Third World. The damage done by the ascension of Brezhnev and the other Stalinists to both the Soviet Union and the world at large is immeasurable.

Add to this that Kennedy's recklessness was not limited to International Relations, but extended to his personal life in ways that threatened the nation. He was addicted to speed (probably a contributing factor to his Foreign policy insanity) and addicted to sex. He even slept with a Russian spy (who was spirited out of the country by RFK before Hoover could get ahold of her). He was in all probability being subtly blackmailed by the Mafia and J. Edgar Hoover to who knows what ends. If a presidential had to be assasinated by the laws of fate, he gets my vote as the most worthy candidate. Certainly the most overrated president in U.S. history, in large part because he was one of the worst.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

One of many reasons why he was not merely a good president, but one of America's greatest men.

Originally posted by Hoek
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 did well for a man probably unprepared for the presidency in a normal era, and thrust into the presidency at the dawn of the Cold War. He did very well considering the fact that even FDR didn't do so well in predicting the shape of the post war world, though probably no one had so much to say about the shape it would have.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

You are way too critical of Reagan IMO, and Andrew Johnson for that matter. If you have some evidence that Reagan paid off the Iranians to hold on to the hostages (and not some previously discredited disinformation put out by his enemies) I urge you to rush over to the New York Times and spill it. It would be a huge story. The reason that this story has never been huge, and why Reagan etc. were not arrested for violating the neutrality act or treason, nor sued by the hostages for being kept in captivity longer than necessary is a very simple one. Despite a swirl of rumors stating more or less what you claim as fact, when these rumors are investigated they completely fall apart.

You are also mistaken about the legality of providing money and aid to the Contras, at least as far as that 'specific prohibition' you mention, aka the Boland Amendment. You can research this further on your own, but a very good synopsis is in the book "The Nightingale's Song". The Boland Amendment stated that the Contras were not to be aided by any "U.S. Intelligence Agency". There was argument at the time in Congress, with some trying to get broader language passed, because as it was written there were enough loopholes to allow the sorts of things that ended up actually occurring. Lawrence Walsh conducted an independant counsel investigation regarding this Iran-Contra affair (btw the longest and most expensive IC investigation ever). He was unable to convict anyone of violating the Boland amendment, and in fact IIRC only got one conviction of any sort, which was for lying to congress. As with Clinton and to some extent Nixon, the coverup was a good deal more serious than the crime.

As for the deficit, I don't see how you can blame Reagan alone. The U.S. president does not make legislation, he implements it. If the Democrats had wanted to balance the budget they certainly could have done so, it would have been political suicide for Reagan to have opposed it. Let's just agree that there was a spending fest going on (just like there seems to be one now) that would not have been possible without bipartisan cooperation.

As for pillaging social programs to 'pay' for a taxcut, what the hell are you talking about? Tax revenues increased significantly under Reagan, though not nearly as much as spending I'll grant you. Which programs were cut? The Democrats were spending hand over fist (guns and butter). I seriously doubt that whatever cuts occurred during the Reagan administration were a pittance compared to the welfare reform that occurred under Clinton.

In short he was not a murderer, treasonous or even cold hearted. You seem to have gotten your information from 'The Nation' magazine issues printed in the eighties. The charges are all familiar, old, and haven't stood the test of time.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

I agree with this. Any president caught trying to manipulate an election in the way he did should have been impeached and convicted if necessary. He was brilliant in many ways, and it's a shame for the left that they hated him so much, because a lot of his domestic policy (certainly a huge exception: the war on drugs) had lefty ideals behind it, and most of it was a great deal more effectual than the hugely wasteful great society and war on poverty programs of Johnson. This was in large part the influence of Patrick Moynihan, one of the greatest statesmen in the second half of the 20th century IMO. (It really burns me to see Hillarity Clinton get his seat, there probably hasn't been such a sea change in a seat since Jim Crow).

We know that many presidents abused their power in similar ways to Nixon, including his immediate predecessors Johnson and Kennedy. Only Nixon and Clinton have had to pay a political price for it anywhere near what should have been paid.

Originally posted by Hoek
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.

I don't have much good to say about Clinton. He was weak in the very places a president has power and needs to be strong, foreign and military policy. His civil rights record is overstated, and is certainly nothing in comparison to Johnson's, although to be fair after Johnson and Nixon IMO there wasn't all that much left to accomplish from the top.

His peace brokering in the Middle East seems to have been a great deal less successful than Jimmy Carter's. His big mistake there was assuming that Arafat was sincere and had the balls to sell a very good deal to his own people, which is a very basic failure in these sorts of negotiations. His foreign policy as a whole was one of drift. He carried out Bush's foreign policy for an additional 8 years, when those policies were made at a time of rapid change and IMO were not particularly far-sighted even given the situation. His foreign policy team was horrible. While they certainly couldn't be blamed for upstaging the president, they were a bunch of amateurs the likes of which served no president in the last 50 years.

As for presidents and the economy, here I have to hold to my opinion that the president has very little power. Economics are not a top down phenomenon, they are bottom up. Congress to the extent that it is also serves as a representation of the bottom up principle has the most power over the economy, with the federal reserve having probably at least as much of the presidency. The vast majority of the power to effect the economy rests with the people, and in the age of free trade not merely the American people. You won't find me blaming a president for a bad economy not praising a president for a good one.

I completely agree that Clinton and Bush Sr. were poor presidents to usher in the post cold war era. Neither of them had the vision to make even the most basic and seemingly obvious predictions. They both suffered in their accomplishments from a misunderstanding of the changing role of a president once the spectre of the cold war was lifted. Presidents are weaker when there is no crisis. Clinton tried to become an FDR type president, but with no depression he failed despite his undeniable political skills.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, Sikander what a post!

All true, as well. Wonderfully written .

[orange]

I agree with about 90% of that Sik...all but the bit on Reagan and I think you're a bit more critical of Clinton than is deserved.

But other than that, WONDERFUL post and very well written

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Winston
Reagan! In my lifetime at least.

Its just a shame Ron wasn't President in his own lifetime

Foreigners look at this differently. FDR would be my pick. A truly great man.

[David Floyd]

You like FDR?

I'd recommend reading through this link:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html

[Alexander's Horse]

Hey Floyd, I saw the site. What shocks me is you give credence to gutter screeds like that. God you are naive.

[David Floyd]

Oh, that was partly a troll AH...I'd rather suspect a good part of that site is bull**** - but I'd also rather suspect that a good bit of it is factual.

[Hoek]

It's kind of interesting that my posts have become the locus of debate in this thread.

Sikander: Well, at least you didn't use the Monica Lewinsky affair to criticize Clinton's presidency. Judging from the recent attacks in Israel, and a more thorough examination of the peace process over the past ten years, and the shady statements coming from that Palestinian negotiator, I think it's safe to say that we had the wrong impressions of Arafat. Clinton should not be blamed for this, however. It wasn't until Ehud Barak offered the moon to Arafat last summer did the whole world realize that Arafat had been misleading everyone. Clinton, Israel, Europe, Bush Jr., everyone. My main criticism of Clinton is that he exhibited a paranoia that harks back to Nixon. While not nearly as bad, his inability to take action in the face of poor poll numbers, even when action was needed was his Achilles' heel.

Lets get a few things straight about the economy, though. There certainly are things that the federal government can do to help the economy. Clinton's promotion of free trade was very important to the growth that occurred in the 90's. Additionally, he was probably the most fiscally conservative president that we've had since Hoover. He made that hard decision to both raise taxes on the rich and cut spending, both unpopular measures, which set the government on much sounder financial footing. His promotion of research and development was also extremely important to the explosion in inovation that we have seen over the past years. I agree that growth comes from the private sector, but the government can help out the private sector and can encourage growth, which Clinton did.

Lincoln: Perhaps I am too focused on results, but I think he did alot of important things. The main thing that bothers me about him is the fact that he really was not against slavery as an institution, and that the emancipation proclamation was more tactical than anything else. However, he had the courage to do that, and I applaud him for that. But hey, I think 40 acres and a mule would have been the right thing to do, too.

FDR: he was not nearly as bad as Lincoln in terms of "dictatorialism." The court-packing thing was dumb and wrong of him to do, but it would have been the wrong move to give up the presidency in 1940. Additionally, I think this whole idea of term limits is wrong. It limits our options as voters. We should not have a candidate forbidden to us merely because of the length of time he served. It's fundamentally anti-democratic.

JFK: I agree that there were tons of problems with his presidency, election, and campaign. However, I think if it had been a different president (Nixon), the situation could have turned out MUCH uglier. The CIA would have recommended the Bay of Pigs to Nixon, and Nixon would have done it. I think the worst thing Kennedy did was to allow Hoover to turn the FBI into a fascist secret police.

I'm still crossing my fingers for McCain '04

[David Floyd]

Lincoln: Perhaps I am too focused on results, but I think he did alot of important things. The main thing that bothers me about him is the fact that he really was not against slavery as an institution, and that the emancipation proclamation was more tactical than anything else. However, he had the courage to do that, and I applaud him for that. But hey, I think 40 acres and a mule would have been the right thing to do, too.

Never mind that the Proclamation only included the CSA, so it wasn't legal anyway, never mind that he had no legal authority to do so, and never mind the fact that "40 acres and a mule" would have been out and out theft - although for people such as Lincoln, Benjamin Butler, and William T. Sherman, property destruction and theft was never a problem anyway.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, that was partly a troll AH...I'd rather suspect a good part of that site is bull**** - but I'd also rather suspect that a good bit of it is factual.

Oh c'mon, it's a geocities dude. Get something with a little more weight to it, and then come chat...

(btw: I...probably...agree with what you're trying to say. But Horsie has a point. You can't just throw a geocities down and say "ha, so there")

[David Floyd]

I wasn't attempted to provoke intelligent debate

I was just throwing out a provocative site that makes some good points, with a few citations.

[aaglo]

The best US president is a dead US president

Naah, JFK is good, better than most of them

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Never mind that the Proclamation only included the CSA, so it wasn't legal anyway, never mind that he had no legal authority to do so, and never mind the fact that "40 acres and a mule" would have been out and out theft - although for people such as Lincoln, Benjamin Butler, and William T. Sherman, property destruction and theft was never a problem anyway.

Yes. Put these things aside and focus on the REAL reason Lincoln was a terrible president: he led the Union to victory over the CSA, which brought the South back into the Union, which means 150 years later perfectly decent people have to live in a country where Trent Lott and Jesse Helms help make the laws (to say nothing of Methuselah Thurmond), while presidential elections force us to choose between Texas Bush and Tennessee Gore as a replacement for Bubba Clinton.

Really, Abe, just because Wisconsin makes such excellent cheese, you didn't need to go get us all those crackers.

[Wraith]

--"As for presidents and the economy, here I have to hold to my opinion that the president has very little power."

I do agree with this for the most part. Congress and the Federal Reserve certainly have the ability to effect the economy, however. I also make an exception for FDR because of the amount of control he weilded over Congress and the Supreme Courts.
However, Presidents do have authority over much/most of the regulatory agencies, which are up there with the Fed in economic influence. It's just less focused and less visible.

--"Clinton's promotion of free trade was very important to the growth that occurred in the 90's."

What promotion of free trade? NAFTA was a Republican bill that pre-existed him (and, given how many thousands of pages of regulations it entails, hardly counts as free trade).

--"He made that hard decision to both raise taxes on the rich and cut spending, both unpopular measures,"

Unpopular? Heh. Anyway, looking at CBO figures, federal spending increased every year he was in office, he can hardly have been said to have cut spending.

Wraith
"Life is not all thorns and singing vultures."
- Morticia Addams