Former presidents

Remove all ads!

Oh come now. Those presidents I listed above have far more in common than being old and dead. Also the vast majority of them accomplished things far greater than Clinton. I'm a democrat, I voted for Clinton both times he ran, and I think he is a very likeable guy. I'm also not saying that the presidents I listed were perfect either. I'm sure everyone has thier warts (in the case of Kennedy, some more than others).

However, Washington was a general during the Revolutionary War.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln was the President during the Civil War - the most tumultuous time in U.S. History.

Teddy Roosevelt, while probably best known for his Rough Rider days, and even the quote, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" also holds the distinction of being the president under which the U.S. became an imperial power, and eventually a world power.

FDR was president during WWII - probably the most tumultuous time in WORLD history.

Kennedy was president during the height of the cold war, during the bay of pigs invasion, and the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis.

Compartively, what did Clinton do? Yes, we had unparalleled prosperity during his time, but that was more luck than anything. Whoever was president during the dot com financial boom of the mid 90s would have a successful economic record. I like NAFTA and all, but really, it doesn't compare to what these other presidents have accomplished.

 

Aldeth - I really agree with much of what you have been saying about the former presidents. I would add to your resume:

Washington - He is the "indispensable" Founder. It is unlikey the Revolution would have succeeded at that particular time without him. He may not have had the education or literary skills of Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams, but he was a man of impeccable integrity and superb judgment. His "Farewell Address" is still a touchstone document for many of us.

FDR - I would add the New Deal program, which probably saved the nation from violent revolution: The Social Security Act, The Fair Labor Standards Act, The Wagner Act and The National Recovery Act. These programs really empowered the American worker with some political and legal tools with which he could defend himself against the corporate fat cats. BTW, those on the right have contempt for all these programs and would like nothing better than to roll back worker rights to Pre-FDR days.

[ August 13, 2004, 04:01: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It was also just 'luck' that Lincoln was president during the Civil War or that FDR was president during WWII. They didn't instigate either of those events (I hope not). Being there during important events should not define a leader's greatness. If we use that yardstick then Bush Sr was there during the Gulf War and Bush Jr was there during the World Trade Centre attack, so does that make them great leaders too?

 

Actually luck had very little to do with Lincoln being president during the Civil War. It is quite accurate to say that the Civil War started BECAUSE Lincoln was elected president. Lincoln, an unabashed abolishonist was elected president because all of the non-slave states voted for him, and all the slave states voted for Douglass. Because the north's population was greater than the south, Lincoln had more electoral votes and was president.

I will grant that the Missouri Compromise had much to do with the south's inability to maintain slavery in the newer parts of the south (even though they hailed it as a victory initially), but in a very real sense, Lincoln DID instigate the start of the Civil War, in the sense that the south felt they no longer had any say in who was president of the country.

Similarly, Washington was instrumental in the start, and eventual victory in the Revolutionary War. His excellent leadership skills are probably a major reason the colonies were victorious.

I will concede your point on FDR, although as Chandros points out, the New Deal among other programs founded under his leadership are pillars of American society today. Also I will concede that the Cold War would have been going on regardless of whether or not Kennedy was president.

The point is, no one can convince me that the accomplishments of Clinton, make him the "best" president ever as Faraaz claims. I certainly not flaming him on his comment though. As he states he is not an American and therefore probably not as familiar with American history as I am. Similarly, I won't say who India's greatest leader was because I'm not as familiar with India's history as he is.

 

I actually find it interesting that people from all around the world are debating the leadership of the USA. I vote for John Quincy Adams. He doesn't get nearly enough credit. What a tough job he had. Being sixth is always tough and he still managed to instigate ambitious roading plans AND he built an observatory!

 

I don't see why one should be restricted to American Presidents. And I don't think that past politicans are looked upon more positive just because they accomplished to die. Yet, there is obviously some cult of personality linked to something... that's propably a whole concept of its own, Churchill and De Gaulle as example. And in the case of Churchill, history, me thinks, looks more and more at the person and forgets about the myth. Even if the myth is so much better to wear.

But thinking about George Bush, there is one past politican that literally jumps into my mind. A guy that was likewise held in like regards then and now for his astonishing intellectual abilities, fine-tuned rhetoric, his political savvyiness, his brilliant management of the government and the skillful way he deepend and secured the relationship to his allies and family-members in Russia and the UK.

This one

 

Hate to revive a half dead topic but I saw Kerry on Letterman yesterday and I think the premise of politicians getting more likable after the retire was a bit confirmed by this, and of course that Kerry does not seem to have Clinton's charisma. Kerry really tried and he was succesful at times but he came off a bit stiff and too "politiciany". Something that surprised me a lot was how blunt and gutsy Kerry was in some of his attacks on the current White House. JFK2 even dared to read a top ten list ridicouling the Bush taxcuts and I even got the impression that atleast the Kerry staff had a hand in composing it and not jsut the Letterman people. The list was even somewhat funny at times. It would be interesting to see Bush in a similar situation, I think it might even help him cause even though I think Bush II is a dangerous lunatic politics wise he seems to be a nice and funny chap privately. Could be nice to see him fooling around on some talk show, I cant imagine that it would hurt him. Might even make us Bush bashers perceive him as more human and not only a monster hellbent on world destruction.

 

I doubt it

 

WOW.

Holy Mary, Mother of God. I promise you, if it ever comes across my desk, I will limit international television. I don't care if asteroids are heading this way, or if we've just been invaded by sentient insects, I will not subject the world to our programs.

[edit: That is just plain out crazy, man. Crazy. I didn't realize ya'll had to deal with all that. I thought you just got, I dunno, Swedish CNN. Do ya'll get Black Entertainment Channel, too? What about Discovery? Christ, if you do, it's no wonder you think we're a bunch of ****s.]

 

Not to worry too much. I'm sure they get Rush Limbaugh also.

 

Absolutely not, Swedish public television did air Michael Moore on semi-prime time though. By American standards so is atleast Sweden so leftist biased that an American conservative would feel like a jew in Berlin 1939 if he came here.

 

Sounds like my kind of place!