The Best President in History? [Archive]

@_@ Artman

12-14-2006, 12:42 PM

I'm trying to figure out how a person can put Thomas Jefferson and FDR on the same list of "greatest" presidents and keep a straight face.

It was the Ken Burn's Documentary on Jefferson for me (http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/). He wasn't a perfect man, but in many ways brilliant in thoughts and ideas. His views became more darker and misguided later on, but he had a very tragic personal life.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

:smokey:

sammi jo

12-14-2006, 02:06 PM

Jefferson, Lincoln.

Why Reagan, exactly? This isn't a partisan observation... but the Reagan era conjures up images of the S&L scandal, Iran Contra, huge deficits and a record number of administration officials convicted for criminal conduct.

Reagan would easily make my (very) short list of worst presidents.

dmz

12-14-2006, 02:08 PM

Did you guys know that Adams and Jefferson both died on the same day, within hours of each other -- July 4th no less?

SDW2001

12-14-2006, 02:09 PM

Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson.

Reagan, though? :???:

Reagan contributed heavily to the collapse of the Soviets and reversed a decades long trend of appeasing them. Under Reagan, the economy grew out of a recession that was perhaps approaching a depression. His optimism was legendary, as was his ability to bring out the best in people. He had the courage to make the Berlin wall speech, and years later saw it torn down. Reagan was an inspiration to millions. I'm surprised that you find my mentioning him so unusual. If you'd like to disagree, that's one thing...but your reaction seems odd to me.

sammi jo

12-14-2006, 02:29 PM

Reagan contributed heavily to the collapse of the Soviets and reversed a decades long trend of appeasing them. Under Reagan, the economy grew out of a recession that was perhaps approaching a depression. His optimism was legendary, as was his ability to bring out the best in people. He had the courage to make the Berlin wall speech, and years later saw it torn down. Reagan was an inspiration to millions. I'm surprised that you find my mentioning him so unusual. If you'd like to disagree, that's one thing...but your reaction seems odd to me.

The Soviet Union (and the Eastern bloc) were going down, Reagan or no Reagan. It imploded under natural forces: communism only works in small systems, where all the participants are willing volunteers, and can opt out if the system suddenly becomes not of their liking. Forcing communism on the masses requires totalitariansm: it will always fall apart in the end. The Soviet system was so inefficient and corrupt that they couldn't even afford to feed their own people, let alone win an ill-conceived war in Afghanistan.

:lol:

And here we were, for some 40 years, paranoid that "the reds were going to take over"! The irrational fear of being "nuked by the Soviets" fueled one of the biggest scams in history. Let me add Eisenhower to my short list of the best presidents for having the foresight to warn us all against the the "predomination of the military-industrial complex" within the economy. He was so correct, and if the US economy ever fails spectacularly, it will be due in part to this.

SDW2001

12-14-2006, 02:35 PM

The Soviet Union (and the Eastern bloc) were going down, Reagan or no Reagan. It imploded under natural forces: communism only works in small systems, where all the participants are willing volunteers, and can opt out if the system suddenly becomes not of their liking. Forcing communism on the masses requires totalitariansm: it will always fall apart in the end. The Soviet system was so inefficient and corrupt that they couldn't even afford to feed their own people, let alone win an ill-conceived war in Afghanistan.

:lol:

And here we were, for some 40 years, paranoid that "the reds were going to take over"! The irrational fear of being "nuked by the Soviets" fueled one of the buggest scams in history. Let me add Eisenhower to my short list of the best presidents for having the foresight to warn us all against the the "predomination of the military-industrial complex" within the economy. He was so correct, and if the US economy ever fails spectacularly, it will be due in part to this.

I should have known that comment would attract you like a bee to nector. It was just a matter of time until someone made the "Reagan did nothing, the Soviets collapsed on their own" comment.

The fact is that Reagan hastened and ensured their collapse by demonstrating that they could never sustain the rate of military spending it would take to compete with us. His negotiations were from a position of strength rather than weakness. This had simply not been tried, at least not for a long time.

sammi jo

12-14-2006, 02:46 PM

I should have known that comment would attract you like a bee to nector. It was just a matter of time until someone made the "Reagan did nothing, the Soviets collapsed on their own" comment.

The fact is that Reagan hastened and ensured their collapse by demonstrating that they could never sustain the rate of military spending it would take to compete with us. His negotiations were from a position of strength rather than weakness. This had simply not been tried, at least not for a long time.

The dismantling of the Eastern communist bloc happened because of people power. You have to give credit to all the regular folk who were so done with living under oppression, and wanted liberty. They took it upon themselves and upended it all from the bottom layer..and the top collapsed. Reagan just happened to be a lucky guy, in the right place at the right time. He was one of those people who could fall into a vat of slurry and come out smelling of cologne. For one example of that, remember the timing of how the Iranian hostage crisis finished?

Chris Cuilla

12-14-2006, 02:55 PM

My vote is for Al Gore.

Powerdoc

12-14-2006, 03:47 PM

My vote is for Al Gore.

In what Category : virtual president ? ;)

ronaldo

12-14-2006, 07:42 PM

I'm trying to figure out how a person can put Thomas Jefferson and FDR on the same list of "greatest" presidents and keep a straight face.

Perhaps some reasons for why so-and-so is the "greatest" (or on the short list of greatest) POTUS would help illuminate. What is it that makes a POTUS "great"? Are there some guiding principles to measure against? Upholding the constitution? Champion of liberty? Giving people what they want? Making the economy better? Keeping us out of war? Etc.
Why wouldn't you have Jefferson on your list of the best presidents?
He was responsible for the Louisana Puchase and the Lewis & Clark Expidition, and many more great things to numerous to mention here.

Oh, and just one more thing. He was the founder of the Democratic Party. What more would you want?

gregmightdothat

12-14-2006, 07:55 PM

Why wouldn't you have Jefferson on your list of the best presidents?
He was responsible for the Louisana Puchase and the Lewis & Clark Expidition, and many more great things to numerous to mention here.

Oh, and just one more thing. He was the founder of the Democratic Party. What more would you want?
I have a feeling that Chris Cuilla is the one person in the world who has a problem with FDR. ;)

Gilsch

12-14-2006, 11:13 PM

It's not even close. It's Jefferson.

As in William Jefferson Clinton. :smokey:

Chris Cuilla

12-14-2006, 11:40 PM

I have a feeling that Chris Cuilla is the one person in the world who has a problem with FDR. ;)

Well not the only. But I still cannot imagine him in the same list as Jefferson.

gregmightdothat

12-15-2006, 12:15 AM

Well not the only. But I still cannot imagine him in the same list as Jefferson.
Let me guess... the New Deal was too liberal... blah blah blah... the people have an undeniable freedom to live in poverty...

Chris Cuilla

12-15-2006, 12:17 AM

Let me guess... the New Deal was too liberal...

The New Deal was hardly liberal...well in the classical sense...in the modern sense, yes. Whereas Jefferson was a liberal in the classical sense but not the modern sense. I suspect TJ would have been appalled at FDR's New Deal.

Chris Cuilla

12-15-2006, 09:06 AM

Impossible to say.

Impossible might be a bit strong. We can made educated guesses from TJ's view of government and FDRs actions.

TJ was a small government classical liberal.

FDR was a big government, progressive statist. The New Deal was the single largest move to advance the size of government in the nation's history.

franksargent

12-15-2006, 09:32 AM

Impossible might be a bit strong. We can made educated guesses from TJ's view of government and FDRs actions.

TJ was a small government classical liberal.

FDR was a big government, progressive statist. The New Deal was the single largest move to advance the size of government in the nation's history.

:smokey:

Two different men, two different eras. Each carried the baggage of their times, how each would have behaved in the other's environment, how their thought processes would have formed in the other's environment, CAN NEVER BE DETERMINED!

IMHO TJ would not have been small government given FDR's environment, and FDR would not have been big government given TJ's environment.

History guides those who are living, not those who are dead (i. e. FDR had much more knowledge of his situation, than TJ would have had, if somehow he could be transported to FDR's time).

IMHO both men were great POTUS, FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE TIMES!

:smokey:

jimmac

12-15-2006, 09:38 AM

SDW2001

12-15-2006, 11:07 AM

Haven't we done this before?

Well it's easy. John F. Kennedy!

In the short time he had he was the most inspiring for america to do great things. Like go to the moon beef up the physical education dept. of schools ( which we could use again as there are way too many over weight kids out there ). His stance on racism ( gov. Wallace and those high school kids ). Fair employment. He made so many changes and never lived to see some of them come to fruition.

And lets not forget the Cuban missle crisis. Albeit the bay of pigs was a failure Cuba would be the same anyway.

With Russia the way they were back then it took a very tough guy to handle that and the domestic stuff also.

" Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country "

" We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard! "

Great words.

I don't know. I admittedly wasn't around then, but I left him off the list for a few different reasons (though I thought of him). First, I think he really was a media darling (perhaps the first media darling of the modern era), so it may have colored perceptions of him. He was portrayed in an extremely positive light. Then there was the Bay of Pigs incident. There are also a host of personal questions that simply weren't raised at the time. However, he did cut taxes and stimulate economy and of course diffused the missile crisis. So what I'm saying here is that I just don't know. Since his death was premature, I don't think we'll ever really know.

Chris Cuilla

12-15-2006, 02:14 PM

IMHO TJ would not have been small government given FDR's environment, and FDR would not have been big government given TJ's environment.

This is conjecture and it requires you to reject the underlying principles that both appeared to have held.

TJ's small government principles were based on an observation of history of what governments tend to do as they grow. His observations and concerns seem to have withstood the tests of time (i.e., he has been shown to be correct).

I would submit that the greater of the two is he who can see the larger picture and implications of his actions and act accordingly rather than for short-term political, economic or social gains.

Just MHO.

jimmac

12-15-2006, 11:42 PM

I don't know. I admittedly wasn't around then, but I left him off the list for a few different reasons (though I thought of him). First, I think he really was a media darling (perhaps the first media darling of the modern era), so it may have colored perceptions of him. He was portrayed in an extremely positive light. Then there was the Bay of Pigs incident. There are also a host of personal questions that simply weren't raised at the time. However, he did cut taxes and stimulate economy and of course diffused the missile crisis. So what I'm saying here is that I just don't know. Since his death was premature, I don't think we'll ever really know.

Given his short record and the large amount of change for the better he acomplished I'd say you can only begin to imagine the stuff he could have done given more time. I was just a kid but you could tell the era had changed when Kennedy took office. It was a very different time.

I just thought I would add that the thing about Kennedy was that he was young. That's why he was in the media so much. He was the youngest to ever take that office. He had new ideas that were controversial. That's what I feel we need now. We need someone young who will revialize the country with new approaches to things.

Frank777

12-16-2006, 03:39 AM

Let me guess... the New Deal was too liberal... blah blah blah... the people have an undeniable freedom to live in poverty...

As opposed to having the freedom to let their government spend them into poverty?

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 10:21 AM

As opposed to having the freedom to let their government spend them into poverty?
I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Depression?

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 10:43 AM

I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Depression?

And your point is?

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 12:56 PM

And your point is?
Well, two-fold.

One, that during Roosevelt's 3 terms in office, we had the fastest growing economy in any industrialized country, ever.

Two, the costs of the New Deal were minimal considering their benefits: the creation of Social Security and the SEC are integral to our economic stability.

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 01:17 PM

Well, two-fold.

One, that during Roosevelt's 3 terms in office, we had the fastest growing economy in any industrialized country, ever.

Two, the costs of the New Deal were minimal considering their benefits: the creation of Social Security and the SEC are integral to our economic stability.

You need to do your homework. The fact is economists now believe that the actions that FDR's administration took to end the depression only prolonged it. And let's not get started on Social Security.

franksargent

12-16-2006, 02:10 PM

:smokey:

A 1999 survey of academic historians by CSPAN found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Roosevelt the three greatest presidents by a wide margin, and other surveys are consistent. Roosevelt is the sixth most admired person in the 20th century, according to Gallup.

Both during and after his terms, critics of Roosevelt questioned not only his policies and positions, but also the consolidation of power that occurred because of his lengthy tenure as president, his service during two major crises, and his enormous popularity. The rapid expansion of government programs that occurred during Roosevelt's term redefined the role of the government in the United States, and Roosevelt's advocacy of government social programs was instrumental in redefining liberalism for coming generations.

So it looks like academic historians consider FDR one of the three greatest POTUS by a wide margin.

FDR Legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Legacy)

And you wonder why old skool fiscal conservatives might not admire FDR! Let's see now who were POTUS's prior to FDR? Three Republicans.

Let's seen now who had to deal with The Great Depression and WWII? A Democrat.

Who has tried to dismantle SSI prior/during/since it's creation? Republicans.

Don't want to draw any conclusions here, but . . .

Historical rankings of United States Presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents)

:smokey:

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 05:31 PM

You need to do your homework. The fact is economists now believe that the actions that FDR's administration took to end the depression only prolonged it. And let's not get started on Social Security.
If, by economists, you mean a tiny fraction of economists.

(By the way, I thought something could only be a fact once it's impossible to prove otherwise? ;))

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 05:36 PM

If, by economists, you mean a tiny fraction of economists.

By economists I mean those that have studied and understood the actual events, actions and related consequences of what happened before, during and after the GD.

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 05:41 PM

By economists I mean those that have studied and understood the actual events, actions and related consequences of what happened before, during and after the GD.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2FWorsened_the_Depression

A 1995 survey of economic historians and economists asked "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of the economists 27% agreed and 51% disagreed. Of the economic historians, only 6% agreed and 74% disagreed. (the rest were in the partly agree/disagree group).

So, of economists that studied and understood the actual events, 6% agreed with you.

Wow.

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 05:45 PM

Believe the myths about the GD and the New Deal if you like. Makes no difference to me.

EDIT: A survey of 90 economists? Goodness!

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 05:46 PM

Believe the myths about the GD and the New Deal if you like. Makes no difference to me.
Interesting. I always wondered what would happen when you got owned.

I think this is the first time you've backed out of a discussion yet ;)

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Interesting. I always wondered what would happen when you got owned.

I think this is the first time you've backed out of a discussion yet ;)

Well if you won't listen to reason. What's the point?

I said that economists (27% by one part of the survey you cited and 6-26% of economic historians) now believe that the ND actually prolonged the GD. You choose to ignore this. Not much more to say. You could actually do some reading on the subject...educate yourself and then make up your own mind. Or not.

BTW...I used to believe the classical high school history lesson on this too. I have educated myself since then.

Owned? You think you "got" me. OK. Whatever. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Instead of "survey slapping" me, why don't you read something about this. This is a good start. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf)

EDIT: BTW, I fully understand that FDR is a demi-god and not to be questioned but instead blindly revered.

midwinter

12-16-2006, 05:56 PM

By economists I mean those that have studied and understood the actual events, actions and related consequences of what happened before, during and after the GD.

Who theorize about it, you mean.

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 06:00 PM

Who theorize about it, you mean.

Fair enough. I'll take that. As long as we accept the same for anyone claiming that the ND did, as a matter of fact, help pull the U.S. out of the GD.

midwinter

12-16-2006, 06:04 PM

Fair enough. I'll take that. As long as we accept the same for anyone claiming that the ND did, as a matter of fact, help pull the U.S. out of the GD.

Well, the fact is that the GD ended and that the ND occurred and did have an effect on the economy. To say anything beyond that is theory. Maybe we need a Keynes v Friedman deathmatch?

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 06:08 PM

Maybe we need a Keynes v Friedman deathmatch?

Perhaps...I'll bring my Milton Friedman action figure if you'll bring your John Maynard Keynes action figure.

;)

midwinter

12-16-2006, 06:10 PM

Perhaps...I'll bring my Milton Friedman action figure if you'll bring your John Maynard Keynes action figure.

;)

Very, very clever. Master class points for you, sir!

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 06:17 PM

So, I should think for myself, by letting a think tank think for me? :lol:

That article is hugely selective and entirely biased, pointing the entire problem at the government.

Edit: and short on details. I thought you were gonna educate me!

midwinter

12-16-2006, 06:22 PM

Heh. The CATO Institute. Do you think that had Friedman's body bronzed and propped up in the lobby? Or maybe an effigy of Keynes crucified upside down in the yard?

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 06:28 PM

So, I should think for myself, by letting a think tank think for me? :lol:

Not suggesting that at all. Just suggesting getting an alternative view of the matter. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. I understand the basic arguments of both sides of this. You appear to know of one. If you are comfortable with that. No worries for me (as long as you don't get into a position of government economic policy-making in the U.S.)

That article is hugely selective and entirely biased, pointing the entire problem at the government.

Well then you can easily provide counter points. Or you can tell us where is it factually incorrect. Or you can provide alternative interpretations of the facts.

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 06:29 PM

Heh. The CATO Institute. Do you think that had Friedman's body bronzed and propped up in the lobby? Or maybe an effigy of Keynes crucified upside down in the yard?

Prolly.

:lol:

Chris Cuilla

12-16-2006, 06:31 PM

Edit: and short on details.

For a two-page summary/primer (I was trying to give you bite sizes) it looks pretty thick with details (just not the ones you like). Read more. Search more. There is plenty out there.

I thought you were gonna educate me!

Well, I can suggest...but only you can truly choose to inform yourself (or not). I've done my research.

MarcUK

12-16-2006, 06:32 PM

You're all wrong, the best president in history is Jaques Chirac!

gregmightdothat

12-16-2006, 06:47 PM

Not suggesting that at all. Just suggesting getting an alternative view of the matter. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. I understand the basic arguments of both sides of this. You appear to know of one. If you are comfortable with that. No worries for me (as long as you don't get into a position of government economic policy-making in the U.S.)

Well then you can easily provide counter points. Or you can tell us where is it factually incorrect. Or you can provide alternative interpretations of the facts.
They:

- completely ignored the benefits of stuff like the FDIC and the SEC in preventing future depressions,
- ignored the millions of jobs the government created through the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps,
- were full of irrelevant facts and quotes (of course Roosevelt had more executive orders than any other president, he dealt with both the depression and WWII),
- made non-sequiturs (re: Canada not having restricted branching), and
- in the conclusion, came up with unsupported, unproven contentions (that the New Deal was only beneficial for big business, etc...)

Flounder

12-17-2006, 01:00 AM

By economists I mean those that have studied and understood the actual events, actions and related consequences of what happened before, during and after the GD.
Seriously, wasn't that just a big euphemism for "people who agree with me"

Frank777

12-17-2006, 02:14 AM

I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Depression?

Of course I have, and I believe it's appropriate for a government to temporarily intervene in extreme cases to assist people who are in need.

The problem is that the interventions are rarely temporary anymore and built up bureaucracies come to life and never go away.

It never ends these days. Income Tax was started to fund a war, gas taxes imposed to fund transportation, tolls implemented to build bridges. Social Security is funding all kinds of things except future retirements. It is taken for granted now in society that every transaction between two people has to be subject to some kind of government taxation.

Then everything's dumped into general revenues and whichever party is in power uses the pot to help out their friends and pay off increasingly wealthy public sector unions.

The New Deal was implemented for honourable reasons, but it did help move us even more in the direction of government intervention in the personal lives of citizens, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

Chris Cuilla

12-17-2006, 09:57 AM

Seriously, wasn't that just a big euphemism for "people who agree with me"

No. :rolleyes:

gregmightdothat

12-17-2006, 11:50 AM

No. :rolleyes:
Yeah it was and you know it. We're "appeals to authority"-savvy.

12-17-2006, 01:09 PM

George W. Bush.

oops, wrong thread.

gregmightdothat

12-17-2006, 01:18 PM

George W. Bush.

oops, wrong thread.
haha, that's great :D

Chris Cuilla

12-17-2006, 01:44 PM

Yeah it was and you know it.

No it wasn't. (But...if it is for me, is it also so when you do it?)

We're "appeals to authority"-savvy.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

But far more importantly, I encouraged you to not take my (or even their) word for it, but to investigate the facts and to consider (expert) opinions that do not align with your (and the common) understanding. You might learn something.

sammi jo

12-17-2006, 01:49 PM

Well, the fact is that the GD ended and that the ND occurred and did have an effect on the economy. To say anything beyond that is theory. Maybe we need a Keynes v Friedman deathmatch?

If all the world's economists were laid end to end... that would be a good thing.

franksargent

12-17-2006, 02:27 PM

No it wasn't. (But...if it is for me, is it also so when you do it?)

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

But far more importantly, I encouraged you to not take my (or even their) word for it, but to investigate the facts and to consider (expert) opinions that do not align with your (and the common) understanding. You might learn something.

:smokey:

You know it could take me several years to go back through the historical record, the FDR archives, the information/knowledge/economic theories AT THAT TIME, to accurately determine if FDR made excellent/good/average/fair/poor choices for ecomomic recovery.

I'm sure that significant analyses and improvements in economic theories, subsequent to actual events at that time, you know hindsight, applied to the historic data would suggest other choices could have been made to accelerate the recovery.

But one thing I have learned from hindsight, is that often other paths may have been chosen, but that there is no guarantee that whatever the chosen path, that it would have been a de facto better choice, since there's no way of turning back the hands of time.

IMHO, hindsight is only good in going forward, it's a lessons learned thing, to try to eliminate repeating (perceived) mistakes of the past.

In a probabilistic sense, a better choice always exists (given some metrics), regardless of the situations/events/people involved.

:smokey:

midwinter

12-17-2006, 03:07 PM

If all the world's economists were laid end to end... that would be a good thing.

I was chatting with out provost, an economist, the other day and he was telling me about some of his work, which is on gauging the pervasiveness of ideas across systems. He polled a bunch of economists to see to what degree they agreed on a variety of subjects (e.g. politics and academic debates about economics). He said that there was a remarkable amount of variance. Granted, "remarkable" meant "More than I expected considering economists tend to all be cut from the same cloth in Chicago."

Gilsch

12-17-2006, 08:45 PM

If all the world's economists were laid end to end... that would be a good thing.
It always helps to get laid.

SDW2001

12-19-2006, 11:14 AM

:smokey:

So it looks like academic historians consider FDR one of the three greatest POTUS by a wide margin.

FDR Legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Legacy)

And you wonder why old skool fiscal conservatives might not admire FDR! Let's see now who were POTUS's prior to FDR? Three Republicans.

Let's seen now who had to deal with The Great Depression and WWII? A Democrat.

Who has tried to dismantle SSI prior/during/since it's creation? Republicans.

Don't want to draw any conclusions here, but . . .

Historical rankings of United States Presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents)

:smokey:

FDR was a totally different breed of Democrat as compared to today. Republicans were also much different. Secondly, there's a lot of debate about what "really" got us out of the depression. While many credit FDR's New Deal(s), we still experienced deep recession in 1937 and onward. It was only when our military buildup began in earnest that we truly came out of the depression.

I'm not slamming FDR at all. Many of the reforms he instituted were needed at the time...of that there can be no question. However, to look back and say "A Democrat ended the Depression due to his liberal policies!" or something to that effect is quite disingenuous.

midwinter

12-19-2006, 11:31 AM

FDR was a totally different breed of Democrat as compared to today.

That's right. They were Keynesians.

SDW2001

12-19-2006, 11:37 AM

That's right. They were Keynesians.

Yes, agreed.

franksargent

12-19-2006, 11:54 AM

FDR was a totally different breed of Democrat as compared to today. Republicans were also much different. Secondly, there's a lot of debate about what "really" got us out of the depression. While many credit FDR's New Deal(s), we still experienced deep recession in 1937 and onward. It was only when our military buildup began in earnest that we truly came out of the depression.

I'm not slamming FDR at all. Many of the reforms he instituted were needed at the time...of that there can be no question. However, to look back and say "A Democrat ended the Depression due to his liberal policies!" or something to that effect is quite disingenuous.

:smokey:

Well, if I implied that, I didn't mean to. In fact, I didn't realize FDR was ranked as high as he was per the wiki link(s) above, and that the top 3 POTUS are ranked substantially higher than the rest of the POTUS. If you had asked for a short list (say 4), instead of the best, off the top of my head, I'd probably have gone, AL, GW, TJ, and then FDR.

What bothered me was trying (it appeared to me) to limit the debate to economic choices made by FDR, using hindsight and (perhaps) a bias by referencing work by an old skool liberal think tank (Cato). We must also aknowledge the context of the times for both TJ (by all current metrics it was a small size (physically/politically/economically) ) and FDR (socialism/communism were more popular at that time, economic theories at that time, a global GD).

:smokey:

Chris Cuilla

12-19-2006, 06:45 PM

What bothered me was trying (it appeared to me) to limit the debate to economic choices made by FDR,

But things are far more subtle than this.

First, the economy was simply a convenient excuse for a range of choices (many of which were struck down the SCOTUS else it all would have been far more pervasive and invasive) that were implemented that effectively limited (and still do) personal freedom (a decidedly non-liberal idea). This was the single biggest government power play in U.S. history and while it was not as successful (in terms of government takeover) as they had hoped/intended, it put the U.S. on a trajectory towards ever greater government intervention into private affairs, further limiting personal freedoms (incrementally over time) since many limitations today are built on the foundation his administration created.

Second, people often mistakenly separate economic freedom/liberty from political freedom/liberty. These two are far more intertwined than most realize (or care to admit). Put more plainly...limit economic liberty and you (ultimately, perhaps not immediately) limit political and personal liberty.

We must also aknowledge the context of the times for both TJ (by all current metrics it was a small size (physically/politically/economically) ) and FDR (socialism/communism were more popular at that time, economic theories at that time, a global GD).

Understanding context is important indeed, however it is incorrect to say that the "economic theories at that time" were lacking something compared to now. Yes, Keynes was the economic "rock star" of the period and had yet to be debunked as he largely has been now, but it is a lack of understanding of economic theories and political philosophies (especially related to liberty, central planning, socialism, statism, etc.) that were fairly well established at that time already that would lead to their (incorrect) conclusions (and, consequently, policies). Furthermore, it is valid question to ask whether the "greater" leader is the one who is able to look beyond the merely (currently) popular and fashionable to a broader understanding and implication of these ideas and choices and subsequently choose wisely. The wiseness of those choices is indeed often judged better in hindsight (after decades or even generations). But that is the perspective we are looking from now. Given what we know now...who was the greatest? Perhaps that was not the intent of the question/thread...but it seems impossible for us to separate our answer from our current understanding of past events and their ultimate consequences.

lunocrat

12-19-2006, 07:33 PM

I'll say Ben Franklin because he was smart enough to model norte americano democracy on the Iroquois Confederacy. Forget the part about him not being a President. C-note.

franksargent

12-19-2006, 10:33 PM

But things are far more subtle than this.

First, the economy was simply a convenient excuse for a range of choices (many of which were struck down the SCOTUS else it all would have been far more pervasive and invasive) that were implemented that effectively limited (and still do) personal freedom (a decidedly non-liberal idea). This was the single biggest government power play in U.S. history and while it was not as successful (in terms of government takeover) as they had hoped/intended, it put the U.S. on a trajectory towards ever greater government intervention into private affairs, further limiting personal freedoms (incrementally over time) since many limitations today are built on the foundation his administration created.

Second, people often mistakenly separate economic freedom/liberty from political freedom/liberty. These two are far more intertwined than most realize (or care to admit). Put more plainly...limit economic liberty and you (ultimately, perhaps not immediately) limit political and personal liberty.

Understanding context is important indeed, however it is incorrect to say that the "economic theories at that time" were lacking something compared to now. Yes, Keynes was the economic "rock star" of the period and had yet to be debunked as he largely has been now, but it is a lack of understanding of economic theories and political philosophies (especially related to liberty, central planning, socialism, statism, etc.) that were fairly well established at that time already that would lead to their (incorrect) conclusions (and, consequently, policies). Furthermore, it is valid question to ask whether the "greater" leader is the one who is able to look beyond the merely (currently) popular and fashionable to a broader understanding and implication of these ideas and choices and subsequently choose wisely. The wiseness of those choices is indeed often judged better in hindsight (after decades or even generations). But that is the perspective we are looking from now. Given what we know now...who was the greatest? Perhaps that was not the intent of the question/thread...but it seems impossible for us to separate our answer from our current understanding of past events and their ultimate consequences.

:smokey:

I don't know where to begin with what you've said above. Please define "personal freedom." It's a min/max problem, by what "objective" metrics do you or I, we or they, use to define the problem? In my view, "personal freedom" is an ambigious statement, it has no context. :D

On the subject of economic freedom/theories/popularity, every POTUS has had to deal with POV's popular at that time, popular in the sense of popularity by a group of people, not the population as a whole. Fairly recent examples of this are neocon thinking, or supply side economics, or social programs, or the health care debate, or the policy of preemption. Each POTUS will have a bias, we all do, it has context. :D

Economic theories/policies have changed significantly since FDR's time, and will continue to change going forward, to the context of the times. :D

In closing, the wiki link has POTUS polls dating up through 2005, including a few from the WSJ (if I recall correctly), that's 60 years of pondering the FDR legacy, by whatever metrics those polles are using (which are the same for all POTUS), the totality of the FDR legacy, would (by those polled) appear to be "great," in fact consistently in the top three of "greatness." In the context of all POTUS. :D

:smokey:

Chris Cuilla

12-19-2006, 10:49 PM

Please define "personal freedom."

How about the freedom to do whatever I want, with my person and property, with whoever I want, whenever I want unless I am infringing upon the person, property and rights of another to do the same and as long as I am not deceiving or defrauding another?

But there are some guide posts in these definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Economic theories/policies have changed significantly since FDR's time

Certainly not the fundamentals that apply to the analysis that has been done. In fact, these fundamentals (established and understood since well before FDR) were demonstrated to be right even more because of the actions of his administration (or in spite of its desires...however you wish to look at it.)

EDIT: This is also more than just economic thought but also philosophy of liberty, politics and government. Stuff people have been talking and writing about since well before FDR. Principles which do not seems to have faded or gone out of style.

to the context of the times.

You might think about doing some reading about economic thought and theories before you say things like this.

In closing, the wiki link has POTUS polls dating up through 2005, including a few from the WSJ (if I recall correctly), that's 60 years of pondering the FDR legacy, by whatever metrics those polles are using (which are the same for all POTUS), the totality of the FDR legacy, would (by those polled) appear to be "great," in fact consistently in the top three of "greatness." In the context of all POTUS.

I thought that the question was what you thought...not "Gee, what do various polls tell me I should think about this question."

franksargent

12-20-2006, 12:09 AM

How about the freedom to do whatever I want, with my person and property, with whoever I want, whenever I want unless I am infringing upon the person, property and rights of another to do the same and as long as I am not deceiving or defrauding another?

Certainly not the fundamentals that apply to the analysis that has been done. In fact, these fundamentals (established and understood since well before FDR) were demonstrated to be right even more because of the actions of his administration (or in spite of its desires...however you wish to look at it.)

EDIT: This is also more than just economic thought but also philosophy of liberty, politics and government. Stuff people have been talking and writing about since well before FDR. Principles which do not seems to have faded or gone out of style.

You might think about doing some reading about economic thought and theories before you say things like this.

I thought that the question was what you thought...not "Gee, what do various polls tell me I should think about this question."

:smokey:

CONTEXT!

My context, my opinion! Other's context, other's opinion's. I've stated my and their's, you've stated your's and other their's.

I knew what my opinion of FDR was prior to this thread, it hasn't changed one iota, in fact it's been amplified, and I thank you for providing additional input!

I now know what the "experts" think of FDR, over 60 years of polling, thanks to wikipedia. Thank you wikipedia for informing me, in as much of an objective manner as is humanly possible!

So do I believe you and your's, or mine and OURS? Do I look at the totality of the situation, or take it out of context, am I broad minded or narrow minded? Rhetorical questions one and all!

I've done the research, I'm happy with MY conclusion, it appears to also be the majority conclusion of those who have studied the POTUS situation in depth.

CONTEXT!

Of FDR's time, not our time, and not TJ's time.

CONTEXT!

Of all POTUS times, suggests FDR is number 3, for all time, not MY opinion, but the "experts" opinion, many "experts" opinions, over many polls, over many years!

CONTEXT!

And I'm going home!

:smokey: