Posted on 03/04/2011 11:42:19 AM PST by americanophile
True, that's an accomplishment at least, even though he was a big government RINO type. That puts him ahead of the likes of Poppy Bush and Ford. I give Poppy a point for Clarence Thomas, that's about it.
I'm very low on W. Bush especially his big government second term. Maybe the passage of time will alter my perception. He is by default the best President of 21st Century, which ain't saying much. ;)
Bush II is underrated. He did something that Reagan couldn’t do, go 2/2 for Supreme court justices.
There was a tension before WWII between top dog publishers and reporters who had an attachment to underdogs, but it wasn't really an ideological conflict.
In the 1950s college-educated reporters began to see themselves more as Walter Lippmann-type philosopher-commentators, but publishers and reporters kept them more or less in line.
By the 1970s this was harder and harder to do, as the old-style editors who worked their way up from the bottom were being replaced by college men.
The last big shift happened in the last twenty years. Children of the Sixties like Pinch Sulzberger made it to the very top and abandoned any pretense of evenhandedness.
Papers had also shifted heavily to life-style reporting to woo young urban readers. Newspaper staffers looked around the room and realized that most of the people there were gay (a slight exaggeration) and that had an effect on the reporting.
Maybe, but a lot of the judgments of Presidents people make are ideologically-based, and there's much disagreement based on one's ideological preconceptions. Pierce and Buchanan were awful Presidents by much more objective and pragmatic criteria: they presided over the country's decline to civil war, so I don't have any trouble rating them as the worst.
It is astonishing to consider the diametrically opposed factions within both the Democrats and Whigs up to that point that had to keep their members “happy.” It would be the equivalent today of keeping San Francisco Anti-War Moonbats and Wisconsin Union Thugs in the same party with Jesse Helms and Sarah Palin Conservatives.
Why so astonishing? The Democrats were like that right down to the 1970s or so, and something similar was true of the Republicans. Parties just weren't as ideologically homogeneous as they are today.
I agree with you about Massachusetts and you explain things well. Things looked a little different at the time, though. We take an ideological polarization for granted that must have come as a shock to people who lived through it.
Well I’d put Harding much higher certainly above FDR. And Dirty Harry The White Obama much lower (I’m sure you guys remember how I feel about him).
My primary criterion is harm done to constitutional government. I can’t even rank Carter and Johnson worse than FDR in that regard.
Decent Conservatives
Reagan (KO of Soviets puts him ahead of Cal)
Coolidge
Taft
Harding
Middling
Ike
TR
Bush Sr.
Ford
Awful Crumbums
JFK
Hoover
Clinton
Wilson (The Grandaddy of Socialism)
Truman (White Obama)
Jimmuh
LBJ
FDR
TR is an interesting case, he certainly made some good reforms but may have gone too far in some cases. His 1916 platform was disgusting. Some freepers quote him, others name him as high RINO scum. McKinley (didn’t see much of the 20th Century) is also an interesting case. He’s been blasted around here by some for occupying the Phillipines.
I find it much harder to rate 19th Century Presidents as it’s harder to relate to the issues of the day and none of them were socialist scumbags.
I suppose there’s not much Buchanan (or Pierce) could have done to forestall civil war. But at a time in history that called for leadership he offered less than nothing.
I wish that the South had seceded when Southerner Andrew Jackson was President, seems to me he was crazy, he might have scared them back into the union.
I’m not sure if Andrew Johnson deserved to be removed from office but I wish he was (or that Hamlin was renominated in 1864). The failure and abandonment of reconstruction was the worst thing to happen politically in the 19th century. Perhaps “Radical Republican” President Ben Wade could have succeeded.
Yeah the Judges, easily his biggest and most lasting accomplishment and primary saving grace.
Even Reagen unfortunately gave us the middling O’Conner and Kennedy (3rd choice). And Bush 1 gave us the excellent Thomas and liberal scum Souter (who allegedly “fooled” everyone).
Can’t afford to mess up a scotus pick. We should have had a lock on the court back when 7 of 9 were GOP picks.
Funny thing is and I know this is heresy Clinton should move up. Much better growing economy and no wars (I know the Balkans). Could be he got the benefit of Regan/Bush and then left the cr@p to Bush. But you get lucky sometimes.
Had SC led a secession movement on Jackson’s watch, he supposedly claimed (or alleged) he’d have hanged the leaders of such a movement (that was more or less directed towards his VP John C. Calhoun, who led the Nullifiers).
As for Andrew Johnson, my position is I agree he had the right to fire his Cabinet members (after all, if a President doesn’t have that authority, he’s reduced to a figurehead). The Radicals were looking for any excuse to remove him from office, and that was a pretty odious reason. Senate President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade didn’t make himself look good during the proceedings (especially openly casting a vote to make himself President) and there was the claim that the reason some of the Republicans voted “not guilty” was because they didn’t want Wade as President.
As it was, Wade would’ve only been President for less than a year had impeachment been successful (and it would’ve been unlikely Wade would’ve been nominated, as Grant was the leading choice). Grant was actually pressured into choosing Wade as his VP running mate, but he shot that idea down. Wade lost reelection for 1869 as it was, since OH voters elected a Dem legislature, and they replaced Wade with Allen Thurman (of whom would also later go on to be President Pro Tempore and was actually President Grover Cleveland’s running mate during his unsuccessful run for reelection in 1888 — at the age of 75 !).
As for Reconstruction itself, as Grant himself noted, for it to have been fully implemented (at least with respect to assuring Black Civil Rights), it likely would’ve required a permanent military presence in the South and would’ve sparked another war. The North no more wanted to have that happen than the South was to have a repeat. If the Republicans had pressed that, they’d have swiftly been defeated at the next election. It was going to end one way or the other after 1876, especially with the corrupt bargain. A President Tilden WAS going to end the occupation, period. Hayes was “allowed” to win without a Democrat challenge (the Democrats held the House) because he agreed to also end the occupation of the Southern states.
As I was discussing the issue with my father several days ago, Blacks were screwed one way or the other. Northern Whites, no matter how allegedly “tolerant” they were, were going to put back on the uniform to spill blood to guarantee Black rights, period. They may have been sympathetic for them, but from far away. It’s always easy to be sympathetic and “high minded” to causes far removed from your neck of the woods.
Yes, quite so. Although I do get a kick out of contemporary historians (especially of a left-wing ilk) trying to use "liberal" vs. "Conservative" on Presidents of that era and earlier. Those ideological labels as we know them today simply don't apply to those times. I can't really begin to label political figures (Presidents in this case) on such a scale until around 1892/96 and after, when the modern roots were coming more into focus (i.e. Cleveland was the "last" Conservative Democrat President).
"Pierce and Buchanan were awful Presidents by much more objective and pragmatic criteria: they presided over the country's decline to civil war, so I don't have any trouble rating them as the worst."
My point above being that it would not have mattered who occupied the office for the bulk of the 1850s, since what was coming was coming. Only difference would've been the speed towards what was coming. Winfield Scott vs. Pierce was negligable. Frémont vs. Buchanan, and the former probably would've seen it happen 4 years earlier (and likely that Lincoln would never have become President, and we'll never know how Frémont would've handled such a crisis).
"Why so astonishing? The Democrats were like that right down to the 1970s or so, and something similar was true of the Republicans. Parties just weren't as ideologically homogeneous as they are today."
Perhaps astonishing isn't the right word so much as "baffling" is. At least to me. I'm not naive on the subject, as I do know that both of the parties did have a decent presence across the ideological spectrum, although the dominant wings were asserting themselves before the '70s, though the Watergate babies really did a number on the Democrat party and managed to force (or force out) center-right members leftward. To elaborate why I chose the words "astonishing/baffling" is that it seems counterproductive to have a substantial chunk of one party opposed to what the rest of the party wants, you end up having constant internecine battles except during times of relative calm/prosperity. Of course, in a way, when both parties were counterbalanced within, it prevented the country from going off the deep end (hence you had your sane and rational folks balancing out or outvoting the nutters).
There have, of course, been purges of one ideology going back to the 19th century. Some more notables being the Silverites/Socialists who decided to take over the Democrat party with the 1896 race, led by the Bryans and the Altgeld moonbats, forcing out the Bourbon/Gold Democrats of Cleveland. The 1912 split between the Taft Conservatives and Roosevelt Progressives. The 1928 tempest between the pro- and anti-Catholics opposed to Al Smith (which, interestingly, would portend the direction New England would go in the long run towards the Democrats). The late '30s abortive purge by FDR to sack Conservative anti-New Dealer Democrats. The three-way split in 1948 between National Truman Democrats, Ultraleft Wallace Progressive Democrats and States Rights Democrats under Thurmond. The 1964 split between the Eastern Establishment Liberals under Rockefeller/Scranton, et al and the Goldwaterites. And, of course, the slow-burn build-up between 1968-1976 within the Democrats to move out the Conservatives/War Hawks and transform it into a McGovernite party.
That all begs the question, had we kept a balance within the parties, would that have staved off such divisions we see rising in the country, amped up post-1994 ? Now that the GOP has the bulk of Conservatives and moderates (with a smaller nuisance smattering of pro-big government RINOs), it has allowed the Democrats to completely jump off the deep end with no internal counterbalance to cool off their insane spending/gov't expansion and decadent social policy stances. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. This might be exactly like the 1850s again, what was coming was coming and it didn't matter entirely who was in charge, except to determine the speed of which we were headed towards this ultimate calamitous event. History does indeed have a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many folks have a nasty habit of not knowing history.
Paul Johnson said it best in his "History of the American People" (and it pains me to say that) about Reconstruction: "The U.S. was still a democracy," meaning that people get what they want.
This is where we are today and it is why I think we need more partisanship, not less. People get what they want. But people always want everything, and want to avoid hard choices. The only way to force them into "doing the right thing" is to make sure that the alternatives are blatantly obvious and open and exposed as they can be. If I had my way, I'd see someone like a Palin vs. an Obama (not necessarily her vs. him): someone of the hard right vs someone of the hard left. I think in the end Americans would choose an uberconservative. But so long as a candidate can appear "moderate," a Dem will ALWAYS have an advantage because the language of the left is less threatening and more nurturing---even though in the end it is vicious and deadly.
What I love about Lincoln is that he NEVER waivered from the position that slavery in the territories HAD TO BE STOPPED and therefore, as all southerners knew, ultimately all property rights in slaves would be under assault, because either a person is a person or a person is property, and a person is a person in KS as well as OH as well as AL.
Letting Douglas and Congress open up the Kansas-Nebraska issue did a lot to hasten the coming of war. I can't say what Scott would have done, but not every possible President would have let that issue run away from him. That's why Pierce is rated so low.
Buchanan could have sent clearer signals about what the government would do. He could have restrained his pro-secessionist appointees and helped to resolve the situation one way or the other before Lincoln took office.
I get the whole "irrepressible conflict" theory. Maybe if Pierce or Buchanan had done things differently we'd still have ended up with war, but the fact that they did so little really counts against them.
To elaborate why I chose the words "astonishing/baffling" is that it seems counterproductive to have a substantial chunk of one party opposed to what the rest of the party wants, you end up having constant internecine battles except during times of relative calm/prosperity. Of course, in a way, when both parties were counterbalanced within, it prevented the country from going off the deep end (hence you had your sane and rational folks balancing out or outvoting the nutters).
The composition of the parties meant that national politics would be focused on issues that did more to unify the sections of the country. Democrats focused on different kinds of pork for Northern cities and Southern and Western farmlands, rather than on divisive social issues. When they formed their platforms the parties tended to avoid the questions that divided them internally for as long as they could. Of course they couldn't permanently avoid arguing things out, but they put off the explosions for a long time.
And of course in those days basic civil rights were a "divisive social issue" and the effect was to freeze action on that issue, but the party system did limit how far any party would go in any one direction. Actually the constitutional system of checks and balances limited what parties could do. The mixture of different elements within each party doused the rhetorical heat and tamped down the animosity between the parties. I'm not saying those were good old days that I'd want back, but there was something to be said for politicians tending not to claim to be more opposed to each other than they actually were or to promise things that they couldn't possibly deliver.
That all begs the question, had we kept a balance within the parties, would that have staved off such divisions we see rising in the country, amped up post-1994 ? Now that the GOP has the bulk of Conservatives and moderates (with a smaller nuisance smattering of pro-big government RINOs), it has allowed the Democrats to completely jump off the deep end with no internal counterbalance to cool off their insane spending/gov't expansion and decadent social policy stances. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. This might be exactly like the 1850s again, what was coming was coming and it didn't matter entirely who was in charge, except to determine the speed of which we were headed towards this ultimate calamitous event. History does indeed have a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many folks have a nasty habit of not knowing history.
There is a snowballing effect. So long as Southerners led the Democrats and Westerners or Middlewesterners led the Republicans ideological passions were weaker. Not that things were wonderful in all ways, but polarization was less than it could have been. With G.W.B and B.H.O. you have the parties led by people from their strongest base areas and polarization is greater. I wonder if that wasn't inevitable -- if after a certain point you couldn't get Democrats to nominate Southerners or Republicans to nominate Californians -- but I'm not sure that it's irreversible. Parties are as much competitive enterprises as ideological ones and look for ways to win the swing voters in the middle.
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.