C-SPAN’s Presidential rankings

Alright, I know I haven’t posted here before, but I am just SICK of the stupidity floating around here.

Alright, I just have to say a few things:

The over-adoration of Coolidge is getting tiring. Half the reason he is even viewed as well as he is is because he didn’t really DO ANYTHING. The ecconomic boom cannot be attributed to him, but to the ending of WWI and the US’ role in piecing Europe back together.

While his actions in the foreign arena were solid when they happened (for instance, maintaining intercourse with the LoN and its children without subverting American independence) it is more telling what he DIDN’T do. The bottom line is that he- like Wilson- was a head-in-the-sand idealist who thought that human conflict had ended with the fortunate collapse of the Kaiserreich- which was not true, by the way.

Ultimately, he was lucky to have what amounted to an “easy” period of history to work with, and I HIGHLY doubt that he could have weathered WWI, WWII, or the Cold War intact.

Certainly not deserving to be in the top 10, but perhaps in the 20′s or so, with Wilson. The man may have been competent, but he was not a great, and to rate him above Washington, Lincoln, Teddy, Truman, or FDR (yes, I said FDR, so bite me) shows how disconnected one is with the political realities of modern history.

Which brings me on to the next point: FDR.

Yes, we know DAMN well that FDR’s “New Deal” lengthened the depression, enlarged the government to the corrupt and ineffective behemoth it is today, and has fathered monstrosities like the current stimulus bill, while he himself was highly autocratic, somewhat racist, and detatched.

That being said, one has to look at the pluses as well as the negatives, and here is where he shines. For all his flaws, FDR DID realize that the US could not remain isolated as Wilson and Coolidge had hoped. He wanted it to, but he was forced to realize it could not. And so he choose to aid China in the Pacific and the Anglo-French and their exiled allies in Europe and Africa against the enemies he KNEW were out there and poseda dire threat to American interests and to its very existence as a nation that could justifiably be called free and independent.

And, while you may seem to wave this off, you must consider that this was a CONSIDERABLE political gamble for him. In order to do it, FDR had to alienate a not inconsiderable amount of the public support he so fanatically attempted to cultivate while at the same time realizing it could backfire disasterously on him. Why did he do it? Because he realized that he was kindered to the Western Allies and that Germany and Japan had to be weakened or destroyed to ensure American freedom. And he nearly paid for it as well, as more then a few dodged attempts to kick him out show (while it never got as far as an impeachment, it was certainly talked about, and a few botched assassination attempts should give a hint that FDR took flak for that, HARD).

In addition, when war actually DID come, he likely helped change the course of history for the good by strongly resisting the temptation to lash at Japan while leaving the Germans free to attack Britain- something that the majority of his constituants did not think of.

As for Yalta, all I can say is that he should have taken a stronger line period, but other then that, I can hardly see what more he could have done about the situation. The fact was that all the territory we “gave” them they had ALREADY TAKEN. And does ANYBODY think that a Western Allied demand for them to “get out” of all their conquests- or even a quarter of them- would be followed?

Barring that, we only have one option to force a Soviet “withdrawal” from Eastern Europe: by grabbing our guns and blasting them out.

And while many would be partial to that, remember that the Soviets far outnumbered, outgunned, and matched us in pretty much every numerical statistic relevant to war. Sure, we were better trained and (on the whole) equipped, but it would have been nasty.

And this is without taking into account that the extent of Soviet duplicity and hostility was only discovered in 1945- AFTER FDR had died- and you can see why such a move would have been unlikely. Bluntly, FDR- while certainly imperfect- did the only truly realistic thing that he could have done save for pushing the Soviets a bit harder regarding the Balkans, Germany, and Austria. But hindsight IS 20/20, and FDR’s ability to lead and learn during his wartime tenure EASILY trumps even his horrific mishandling of the Depression, and I SINCERELY doubt that Coolindge would have been fit to take his place in that crisis.

Easily in the top 10, after Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan.

Wilson: Yes, the man was an idealistic, naive, hypocritical, racist, diplomatic idiot. But he was far from the worse we have ever had. The complaints about his “oppression” are transparently thin when you consider what LINCOLN did, and why nobody insults HIM if they wish to be taken seriously at ALL. And one thing that people overlook with Wilson and WWI is that he was NOT a Fascist (contrary to what Mr. Goldberg in his otherwise decent book may think), and that there is a broad gulf between the statist but Democracy-loving Wilson and the Fascist regimes to pop up later: key amongst them the fact that Wilson’s “Emergency Powers” were actually MEANT TO BE REPEALED!

In addition, another thing people overlook when thinking about his heavy-handed largess in attacking dissidents and potential spies while churning out a war machine of vast size is that NOBODY THOUGHT THE WAR WOULD END IN 1918 AT THE TIME! The most likely scenario would have forced the Germans out of Belgium, Luxembourg, and their territories on the Western Bank of the Rhine by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. However, the reinforcements in a year or two from Eastern Europe- coupled with the problems of crossing the Rhine River in force (you think the Western Allies had trouble in WWII? Imagine what this would have been like thirty years earlier, with unreliable armor, no paratroops, small airforces, and relatively slow ground forces!). In addition, the German military dictatorship’s attempts to institute an apocalyptic Endkampf would have caused considerable suffering and would have forced us to drive all the way to Berlin- and possibly further if their conquests in the East continued to resist. In other words, Wilson was not preparing for a one-year war, but two or three year one with subsidary conflicts in Latin America and a potential conflict with the Bolsheviks. Such a feat would have REQUIRED a strong hand to cut off anything that would interfere with such preparations, and even more if an occupation of Germany would have caused conflict with Lenin.

In short, welcome to wartime desperation. Nasty? Yes. Caused by a highly-flawed man? Absolutely. Necessary to root out an evil far more oppressive then anything Wilson tried to do? Certainly.

Such idiotic circle-jerk actions are something I would expect from the rabid Left, not from you. It is a pity so few study history any more.

They could learn quite a bit.

Turtler on February 17, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Pengiun, your incompetence and your dishonestly is BLINDING:

“Wow, FDR that high in the list? Why?”

Probably for his ability to discern the Axis threat VERY early and to take extremely unpopular but very necessary steps to combat it? Perhaps because he broke his populist mainstray and actually resisted a dillution of the effort against Hitler in favor of satisfying but strategicaqlly foolish “revenge” against Japan? Perhaps because he- on the whole- managed to rise above his mistakes and lead an unprepared and underarmed US into war and win it?

I’m not doubting the man made collosal screw-ups or that his rascism and character flaws mar the view. But blame and credit must both be paid when due. And, with FDR, the credit is VERY MUCH due.

“I’m getting tired of how hyped Lincoln is.”

True, but your foolish and moronic “reasons” differ greatly from mine.

“Uh… the Rebs would have done that eventually anyway. Other than that…”

Proof? Magic 8 Ball? Extremely accurate Psychic? How do you know the South would not have turned into some Apartheid-esque nightmare like South Africa was in the 80′s- not as oppressive as it seemed, but certainly far from liberating- while retaining bondage? Yes, there were many influential Confederates that favored abolition. But even more OPPOSED it. So, how can you possibly now how an unwritten future would turn out?

You CAN’T.

“Well, he rose an army and invaded his own nation.”

DAMN THAT WASHINGTON FOR MISTREATING THOSE CAPTURED DURING THE WHISKEY REBELLION!

The fact is that it was the CSA who initiated the war, the CSA who broke away from the Union, and the CSA who were willing to bombard Fort Sumter in order to break away. In addition, how conveniently you forget that the Confederates invaded the North several times and did as much per capita damage as Sherman and Grant ever did. The fact is that the President is granted the powers to ensure that the Federal government’s will is carried out- as demonstrated during the Whiskey Rebellion- and the CSA’s decision to break away meant that Lincoln had little choice to crush them or face a constant tumor in the South that could be manipulated by outside powers against the Union.

“He was responsible, ultimately, for nice places like Andersonville.”

You DO realize that Andersonville was a CONFEDERATE camp, right? And remind me again how much control Lincoln had over the Confederates and what THEY did? If you wanted to pick out “hellish POW camps of the war” you should have mentioned Detroit, where a case CAN actually be made that Lincoln was responsible for what happened.

That being said, you fail to notice that the “war guilt” ultimately falls to the Confederacy for starting the war with Fort Sumter then with the Union. A strange omission you and “Confederate” seem to make.

“Not to mentiont that he (a lawyer) chose to violate the habeas corpus.”

And, as history has shown, great crises demand great measures. It is rightfully infamous, and he probably abused it more then we realize, but he never intended it to be permanent or to do much more then to win the war.

“Hmm, great man indeed.”

Yes indeed, though I doubt in the way you mention.

“Oh, not to mention fighting a war without approval of congress.”

I doubt Beauregard and the CSA waited for the approval of the Confederate Congress before bombing the hell out of Fort Sumter. When one is attacked, you attack back, you don’t wait until you can assemble a few dozen people to officially notice you are being attacked.

“Hey Abe, how does it feel having the blood of 600,000 of your own countrymen on your hands?”

I don’t know. Perhaps your idiotic inquiries (and those of Confederate, for that matter) may be better directed at Davis, Beauregard, and John Brown?

Fools.

Turtler on February 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM