SHP Forums

Collector wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:In that respect, I agree. I want Teddy Roosevelt! He understood the idea of balance between entities like conservation and business.

We could use another Roosevelt again in so many ways.

I was just going to say the same thing. He needs to resurrect himself and run for pres again.

This prompts me to ask: do Americans have something like a beloved president of the past who's always nominated when something goes awry?

Here in Italy, it's pretty common to say something like "Aw, Pertini would have done this thing right" or "Pertine wouldn't have made this mistake," and Pertini is without a doubt our most beloved president of the past.

Who's America most beloved president?

The only other semi-recent president I hear good things about is Ronald Reagan. There are also our founding fathers, some of which were president such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Lincoln is another one but I heard controversy over him.

I keep hearing that Roosevelt is go-to man for these things. Although the problem I'm having with getting any solid information on the guy is that the internet is loaded with "Chuck Norris"-style facts about him.

!

I suggest watching the 2-DVD set, Theodore Roosevelt, An American Lion. It will give you a good idea of who he was how he got there and the many hats he wore throughout his life. And we can't forget all those old cartoons of him carrying his 'big stick'. ^_^

AndreaDraco wrote:This prompts me to ask: do Americans have something like a beloved president of the past who's always nominated when something goes awry?

Here in Italy, it's pretty common to say something like "Aw, Pertini would have done this thing right" or "Pertine wouldn't have made this mistake," and Pertini is without a doubt our most beloved president of the past.

Who's America most beloved president?

Well, it depends who you ask. The answer generally differs among Republicans and Democrats, although Americans as a whole tend to romanticize certain presidents regardless of political viewpoints.

The obvious answer is George Washington, usually referred to as the "father of the United States." He led the colonies in their fight against Britain, eventually helping to win American Independence. Washington set the precedent of running for only two terms (among many more ideas that we still cling to today).

Abraham Lincoln is often cited as "American's most beloved president" as well. The irony of this is that Lincoln was despised during his term in the 1860s. He violated many US laws, such as suspending habeas corpus (which was created to protect individuals from unlawful detention). Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states, many of whom were angry that a president they didn't even know of was elected. Furthermore, Lincoln was only elected because the Democratic ticket was split among two Democrats running for president and that allowed Lincoln, a Republican, to win.

As for modern times (i.e. anything from the 20th century and on), most people would say Franklin Delano Roosevelt (aka "FDR"), especially those who lived through the Great Depression and World War II. While he was definitely needed for the time, his positive traits are often held high and his negative traits conveniently ignored.

If you were to ask those Americans who grew up in the 1960s, many of them would claim John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka "JFK") was America's most beloved president. Like Lincoln, this is somewhat ironic considering he had many faults, including the Bay of Pigs, which almost started a nuclear war between the US and the USSR.

Within the last 30 years, Republicans would say Ronald Reagan and Democrats would point to Bill Clinton. Neither of them really deserve the title of "America's most beloved president" although out of the two of them, Reagan comes closer. Like FDR, Reagan succeeded due to the time period (i.e. the end of the Cold War) and is widely considered by Republicans as the man who "ended the Cold War and broke apart the Soviet Union." How much of that is true is up for debate.

Probably the most important thing to know is that "time heals all wounds." In other words, we may idolize a president now, but during his term he was probably hated or at the very least, severely insulted and spat upon. Because of this, some recent presidents, like George W. Bush might very well be seen in a positive light a century from now, no matter how difficult that is for most of us to contemplate.

Jules wrote:The only other semi-recent president I hear good things about is Ronald Reagan. There are also our founding fathers, some of which were president such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Lincoln is another one but I heard controversy over him.

Jefferson, Madison (and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Jay) created an important document called The Federalist Papers. That consists of 85 separate essays on the ratification of the United States. The articles within make cases for "the prevention of rule by a majority faction", "the lack of any need to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the US", "groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review", "a one man executive position" and "a discussion on what federalism means and how it applies to the United States).

It should be noted that all authors kept their identities a secret while writing The Federalist Papers. Even at that time, anonymity was highly prized.

Jefferson is most noted for authoring the Declaration of Independence (the importance of which is self explanatory) and making the Louisiana Purchase, sold to the US by Napoleon, who needed the money to continue his campaign in Europe. Jefferson got more than Louisiana, including Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado. In addition, the purchase also included small portions of land that would eventually become the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan (the latter of which I have great difficulty spelling correctly).

Datadog wrote:I keep hearing that Roosevelt is go-to man for these things. Although the problem I'm having with getting any solid information on the guy is that the internet is loaded with "Chuck Norris"-style facts about him.

You've probably read the many articles about him on Cracked.

I do agree with Cracked in many ways -- Teddy Roosevelt was an amazing president. I really admire his forethought in understanding the balance between nature and industry. That's something most people today can't even understand.

Even more important on a daily basis, Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for creating the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Pure Food and Drug Act. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 banned misleading labels and preservatives that contained harmful chemicals in them. The Pure Food and Drug Act banned food and drugs, that are impure or falsely labeled, from being made, sold, and shipped.

Most this was a direct response to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, which wrote about the plight of the working class to show the corruption of the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century. The novel depicts in harsh tones poverty, absence of social programs, unpleasant living and working conditions, and hopelessness prevalent among the working class, which is contrasted with the deeply-rooted corruption on the part of those in power.

Roosevelt originally considered Sinclair a crackpot, but upon close review, he realized the enormity of the situation and the overall lack of cleanness in the American meat industry. Considering how much Roosevelt liked eating meat, he wanted higher standards in the meat industry, as well as making himself look good in the public eye.

DPX is absolutely right in that past presidents tend to be romanticized, and/or their failings tend to be exaggerated, especially in today's climate of extremely polarized partisan scorched earth politics. It is true that Reagan is practically the subject of idolatry by those on the right, while they demonize Clinton, both by far more than they deserve. Both did some good, but both did damage to this country as well. Even the Reagan ended the Cold War notion is very inaccurate. Communism collapsed under it own weight. He might have sped it up slightly, but even that is debatable.

The views most have of modern presidents are too heavily biased by their own political leanings. Modern media has much to do with this. While it is impossible for news sources to be completely unbiased, they used to do a much better job of it. Most news outlets are so heavily biased these days, even to the point of out and out lies (death panels, anyone?). So you will have an impossible task to find a recent president that is universally liked and respected.

Nixon was generally hated, but in the end, Watergate and the Vietnam war were his main failings. There was good that happened under him.

Probably no president has been as heavily romanticized more than JFK. This is probably mostly because he was very charismatic and because of his assassination left a feeling of "what if..."

For all of his flaws, some of them despicable, the Civil Rights Act would not have happened without LBJ. He did this in spite of the fact that he knew that there would be a heavy price to pay for the Democratic Party. He said that "we have lost the south for a generation." It turning out to be more like 2-3 generations. But he will be forever damned by his getting up in so deeply into Vietnam. Perhaps the best term that I have heard to describe him was "a great man with great flaws".

Few remember Eisenhower as president, these days, but he was very popular at the time.

FDR is probably the earliest president that could be considered within living memory, but that generation is quickly passing. He was immensity beloved by most and reviled by a few. You have to remember the circumstances under which he came into power. We were far closer to a revolution at the time than most realize. The financial were collapsing (in large part due to lack of regulation), huge numbers were without homes, jobs and even food. There was a very real possibility that we could have a communist revolution if there had not been for many of the actions that came into place under FDR.

I find it hard to find much fault with Teddy Roosevelt's administration. He did much to stand up for the average man against the abuses of the Robber Barons. He really strived towards his Square Deal. He deserves far more recognition and admiration than what he currently has.

Beyond that, there are the standard favorites of the Founding Fathers and of course, Lincoln, though there has been some effort of the past few years to tarnish some of them, like Jefferson.

The funny thing about Nixon is that he is unfairly blamed for the Vietnam War. He did do some very underhanded things, but he didn't launch the US into war. If anything, the Vietnam War ended with his presidency.

DeadPoolX wrote:If anything, the Vietnam War ended with his presidency.

When he essentially had no other option. At that time the popular support for the war was all but nonexistent. The Vietnam War's roots go back to WWII, and even much earlier if you consider the Chinese invasions and French colonization. There were US military advisers going back to the 50s, but where the US involvement really starts is with Robert McNamara's Hyped up report to Kennedy. While the huge escalation was mostly Johnson's doing, Nixon's mistake was prosecuting the war too long as if it was winnable as popular support was vanishing.

Collector wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:If anything, the Vietnam War ended with his presidency.

When he essentially had no other option. At that time the popular support for the war was all but nonexistent. The Vietnam War's roots go back to WWII, and even much earlier if you consider the Chinese invasions and French colonization. There were US military advisers going back to the 50s, but where the US involvement really starts is with Robert McNamara's Hyped up report to Kennedy. While the huge escalation was mostly Johnson's doing, Nixon's mistake was prosecuting the war too long as if it was winnable as popular support was vanishing.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that Nixon somehow "fixed" or stopped the Vietnam War out of his doing. However, I dislike the implication by many that Nixon somehow started the war. Just looking at the dates involved renders that argument completely null and void.

What really ticks me off about the Vietnam War was the irresponsible journalism covering it. TV news shows and newspapers actually reported losses when they didn't occur.

For instance... it's a widely held belief that US troops lost the Tet Offensive. The reality is we didn't. We took some heavy losses, but in the end we won the conflict.

The US actually won every single major battle in Vietnam. Militarily speaking, that war was a success. However, political pressure and extreme lack of support at home led to the ultimate loss of the war.

It's interesting that discussion of the Vietnam war is coming up at the time when comparisons are being drawn between the Vietnam conflict and the war on terror.

DPX is absolutely right in saying that the US won the Tet Offensive militarily; however, it lost the war PR-wise, and this is where it really counted. The PR aspect of the Vietnam war was to America what the PR aspect of Ghandi's crusade was to Great Britain.

It's also very true that the Vietnam conflict did not start with Nixon - nor with Lyndon Johnson. The immediate catalyst was the French loss of its Vietnamese colonies at Dien Bien Phu, 1953. American 'advisors' to the French, and - later - McNamara's report to Kennedy, underrated the Vietnamese as opponents and overrated the American technology. While America was undeniably superior in terms of military technology, its tanks and aeroplanes were of little use in a jungle environment and many of its soldiers were unprepared and untrained in jungle warfare. The Vietnamese were hardly likely to face off against the Americans on an 'open-field', Napoleonic-style battle (the mythical one-battle-to-decide-the-fate-of-the-war); that style of battle had disappeared by the beginning of WW1.

Nixon's blunder was not only in persecuting the Vietnam war for as long as possible, even in the face of public discontent, but also in trying to cover up the failures. Many people think that the Watergate scandal brought him down instantly, but Nixon was actually re-elected even after the Watergate scandal broke out. It was only 8 or 9 months after the election that questions were beginning to be asked, and Nixon was eventually forced to resign to avoid being impeached.

That said, I think one of the reasons that Nixon is so reviled, and Clinton not so much, is because although they both made severe mistakes, Clinton never tried to hide his mistakes in the same way that Nixon did. Look at it this way: Nixon's mistakes made the US look like a big, ridiculous bully, and his crime (the Watergate break-in) led to one ghastly revelation after another and finally the downfall of a president. Clinton's mistake is that he slept with a government clerk. Nixon was full of crap, but he tried to hide it; Clinton was full of crap, but he waved it in everyone's face and basically said "Hiya, I'm full of crap and how'd you like that!" And so everyone said, "Well, he might be full of crap but at least he's honest about it!"

Rath Darkblade wrote:The Vietnamese were hardly likely to face off against the Americans on an 'open-field', Napoleonic-style battle (the mythical one-battle-to-decide-the-fate-of-the-war); that style of battle had disappeared by the beginning of WW1.

You could say it goes farther back than that, too.

In American history, it's quite obvious that the colonial forces were vastly outgunned and outmatched by Britain's military, which at that time was considered the very best in the world. Britain's military consisted of regulars (professionally trained soldiers) whereas the majority of the colonial troops were, at best, militia. Some of them did have professional military training and prior combat experience (such as George Washington who achieved the rank of brigadier general in the British Army), but those individuals were scarce.

The point I'm making is that the British Army followed traditional 18th century warfare tactics. The colonials knew they couldn't fight that way because if they did, they'd get cut down in seconds. Instead, the colonials fought using guerrilla warfare. The colonials had the advantage in that they knew the land better and that enabled them to use hit-and-run tactics.

The British felt the colonials were backwater hicks and incapable of mounting any resistance, much less fighting their forces back and actually winning battles. It's that sort of arrogance, complete with the inability to adapt their tactics, that led the British to lose the war.

Similar scenarios have occurred all through history. More recent examples include the Vietnam War, when the Soviets entered Afghanistan in the 1980s and even the current conflict in Iraq.

It is the only sensible way to fight a vastly superior force. Even open field engagements between relativity equal opponents a la Napoleonic type battles ended after the Crimean and American Civil wars. The advancements in weaponry made the carnage of such tactics too high. Another mistake made was that we failed to realize that for the Vietnamese the War was more about independence and expelling all of the invaders than about political ideology. That is the trouble with ideologues, they are blinded to reality as they discard or try to force facts to fit their narrow views, often with disastrous results for us all. One of the recognized hallmarks of intelligence is the ability and willingness to change one's mind when presented with new facts. This is what scientist do all of the time, though granted, sometimes with resistance. This usually gets branded as "flip-flopping" by ideologues.

George W. Bush = Ideologue?
I can haz ideology?

Ever happy to prove that Palin is a twit (since this turned all political)...

Know Your $#!+ wrote: Following in others' grand tradition of demonstrating gaps in knowledge while addressing a university, Sarah Palin told a crowd at a fundraiser at California State University in Stanislaus last weekend that Ronald Reagan, personal hero and inspiration, was a California college graduate. She told the cheering crowd: "This is Reagan country, and perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and interlinked to the Golden State."

There's just one problem here: Reagan went to Eureka College in Illinois from 1928 to 1932, the Alaska Dispatch reports. He didn't move to California until five years after his graduation. There's no Eureka College in California (though there's a town of Eureka that has a College of the Redwoods nearby).

Immediately after her speech, a live microphone caught voices in the press area trashing the former Alaska governor, Mediate reported. "The dumbness doesn’t just come from soundbites," one complained. The Fox affiliate owned the microphone but says their reporters did not make the comments.

And then her Legal Team helped matters...

Hey George, did you just hit SEND... wrote: Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports on a more serious recent mistake of Palin's political organization. Administrators for her legal defense fund accidentally sent out a rough draft of an email to thousands of supporters that falsely claimed she faced "millions of dollars" in legal fees because of "frivolous" ethics suits against her. The corrected version of the email said the fees numbered in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

Critics say several more claims in the email were not true. The email said 26 of 27 ethics violations against Palin were dismissed outright, which is false: Three moved into the investigative phase. One inquiry resulted in a cash settlement; another found that ethics had been abridged but declined to recommend legal proceedings because the charge involved the dismissal of the head of the Alaska state trooper force, who was an at-will employee of the governor.

The email also alleged that the Democratic National Committee created a website whose goal is to keep Palin out of public office — a charge that the organization says is untrue.

Last week, the earlier incarnation of Palin's defense fund was ruled illegal because it used the word "official." The decision forced the fund's administrators to pay back the $400,000 in donations they raised, and to launch the newer version of the fund.