Posted on 02/21/2018 12:19:26 PM PST by SonofCuchulainn
... The next time you see some bow-tied, goateed, bespectacled tweedy intoning on television about some historical this-or-that, just keep these rankings in mind. This is not just a difference of opinion; its lunacy.
Ideology obviously informs how someone looks at political figures. But in the case of these political scientists, ideology doesnt just color their opinions; it crushes common sense.
(Excerpt) Read more at newbostonpost.com ...
Pretty keen on the “New Boston Post” aren’t you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:sonofcuchulainn/index?tab=articles
Regardless of political ideology, I think we can all agree that Teddy Roosevelt had the temperament, drive, and intelligence to be the greatest president: it’s a shame he lived in mediocre times.
Hard times make great men. Roosevelt was a great man without the opportunity to show his quality.
I can never understand why LBJ is always ranked so generously.
No we can’t all agree.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.
He strongly argued for greater government control over the economy.
His Congress created the Bureau of Corporations which eventually became the Federal Trade Commission. TR was a trust buster.
He called for a graduated income tax and inheritance taxes.
Roosevelt declared the idea of natural rights was scientifically wrong and morally obsolete. He believed humans could progress beyond their selfish individualism.
TR believed that the right of property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and wealth must be redistributed. Government is not just about the rule of law but was about bringing “social justice” to the citizenry.
TR evolved to embrace the idea of a “living Constitution.”
Denied the Republican nomination of 1912, Roosevelt ran for president under the Progressive Party ticket. Enough said.
I would trade TR on Mount Rushmore for Calvin Coolidge any and every time.
“I think we can all agree...” No...The whole point and strength of this forum is to air similar or differing opinions.
I certainly do not agree.
My opinion pretty much aligns with post #5.
In addition, I disagree with your theory he would have done better had it not been for mediocre times.
In terms of this nation falling flat on it’s a$$ and going to actual full blown socialism if not communism, this almost happened to us with Hitlery. IMO, this qualifies as hard times. During hard times true heroes come out to become great Presidents. In terms of greatness, Trump has both socialist Roosevelts beat 10 times over.
He moved left after he left the White House and bought into a lot of the ideas that he didn't have during his presidency.
That natural rights thing is bad, but it was pretty typical of his generation.
It was part the influence of Darwin and Hegel, part the fear of popular upheavals like the French Revolution.
One, the way we look at the presidents of our lifetime is going to be less reverential than the way we look at earlier presidents.
Two, I wouldn't prejudge the "top-tier/bottom-tier" thing. You shouldn't lock yourself in with terms like that beforehand.
He's probably right that McKinley was a better president than Bush I, but it may not be as easy a call as he thinks it is.
Yet Bush was an internationalist, McKinley a nationalist. If you assume that Americas prosperity on the home front means little and that globalism covers a lot of sins
McKinley made us an empire. That may be one reason he gets a lower rank. And empire and nationalism aren't necessarily the same.
In 1927, when the Mount Rushmore monument was started, it was far too early to evaluate the Theodore Roosevelt Administration in historical perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.