Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:02 PM PST by ncountylee
Agreed, but if they're going to include it they should include item 10A which is Ollie North's pimp-slapping of the congressional panel led by that runaway-combover idiot whose name I don't care to recall.
I see. It is also interesting that one of the reasons that Nixon looked so bad and sweaty during the first debate was because Kennedy was attacking our Cubean policy from the Right while both of them knew that planning for the invasion was underway. Nixon could not say that and could only sweat and stammer. Kennedy was quite the actor.
It was indeed a huge blunder not to carry on. That probably played a role in JFK's decision to allow our role in the war in Vietnam to escalate too.
Not true the Soviet army was bigger than the American in Europe. They had all their forces against Europe while we were divided between that theater and the Pacific. Check the numbers and get back to me.
Truman knew very well that there was no way a new, unelected president could magically transform America's view of our "loyal, long suffering Soviet ally" into enemity overnight. It is a silly idea for our type of people and government something only capable under a totalitarian dictatorship.
Patton was a great general but generals do not make foreign policy in our system.
Actually the Constitution does not specify that the fedgov can print money. It was decided, after discussion at the Convention, not to prohibit it to the federal government just state. That did not prevent state chartered private banks from doing so either.
You are correct that most of those believing that a small, weak federal government was the itent of the Founders have to ignore the fact that the Convention was called specifically to weaken the state governments and strength the federal. Not that the call was stated that way. And they must recognize that sovereignty is a constitutional power within itself.
Our current president recalls Lincoln in his steadfast determination to do what is best for our country no matter the chorus of critics. He also demonstrates many of his other virtues if not the eloquence.
A mistake I believe that should be on the list was Jackson's allowing the Trial of Tears to proceed rather than protect the cherokees. That was a huge national tragedy and a blot on our history.
At 8:15 this morning:
Call-In
Historical Presidential Mistakes
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 191225 - 3 - 02/20/2006 - 0:45 - No Sale
Gregg, Gary L., Director, University of Louisville, McConnell Center for Political Leadership
Gary Gregg will speak by video uplink from Louisville, Kentucky, about the release of a survey conducted by the McConnell Center on the ten worst mistakes made by U.S. presidents. The survey, taken by 37 presidential scholars across the country and 423 members of the general public, yielded two lists of the ten worst presidential mistakes. The survey was part of an academic conference at the University of Louisville organized to coincide with Presidents Day, February 20, 2006.
It would have been hard politically but avoiding 40 years of cold war would have made the world a very different place.
Yes, defending the States from OUTSIDE invaders was one of the primary reasons they became united. It was not formed so that the Federal government could impose its will on the individual states in virtually all matters. My initial point was that Lincoln helped set up the mechanisms which resulted in the overgrown Federal government we have today. I never said he was evil and I never said he did not do anything good.
Since I want the Federal government out of my life except in the areas expressly noted in the Constitution, I consider Lincoln's effect on the relationship between the Federal government and the states to be a net negative one. For that reason I do not consider him one of the greats.
If you like a Federal government having ALL the power in the U.S. then you are probably quite pleased with things just the way they are today. In that case I am happy for you. I, however, think my Federal taxes are being wasted by a power-hungry, over-grown bureaucracy and I do not like that so I attempt to put in office those who will help shrink the size of the Federal government. Unfortunately, they are few and far between.
Weak in relation to the States, except as specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
I am quite aware of the powers granted the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America. Obviously the central government HAS to have power, and the desire for a common currency and national defense were two of the main reasons the States became united. They are, indeed, two of the items specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But what do the DOE (energy), BATFE, DOE (eduction), NEA, EPA and the dozens of other various and sundry Federally-mandated, taxpayer-funded, agencies and/or programs have to do with the powers granted to the Federal government in the Constitution?
My initial reason for wanting Lincoln's name on the list of Presidential blunders was that his actions before and during the Civil War helped bring about the bloated, over-sized, power-hungry Federal government we have today. Our current Federal government is TOO big and TOO powerful (as it relates to the States), and Mr. Lincoln is one of the reasons why it has occurred.
But if you like and desire a strong central government then you should be quite pleased with what we have today.
I was going to question that one also.
Kennedy had the Navy offshore, as Eisenhower had planned. Then he chickened out and left the 'invaders' high and dry on the beach.
I never could understand the Cuban refugee's love of Kennedy in later yrs. He screwed them at Bay of Pigs.
It's not just that the world endured 40 years of cold war...the harmful effects continue today in North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, their leftist allies like Venezuela, and in areas of the evil empire where only the names have changed, not the manner of doing business.
"7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.
-8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua."
As someone else said, who are these guys?! I can think a 50 presidental blunders worse than these. I don't think the Iran Contra affair was even a "blunder".
I think that the real blunder made by FDR wasn't Yalta. Yalta was irrelevant in Stalin's mind, what was relevant to him was force. Where FDR slipped up was in not pushing forward after the conquest of Italy. Prague was within easy reach. Had they pushed forward the Soviet control over Eastern Europe would have been limited to Poland and Romania. Their influence over Hungary and Yugoslavia would have been significantly weakened. The entire cold war may have been shortened or at least the impact diminished. FDR was playing the chess game "one move at a time".
The other big mistake FDR made was in not paying attention to Keynes. But the thing is, what FDR did right and wrong were both due to his character. He liked to hedge his bets. He was a bird in the had guy. He didn't like to overthink things. It was just this character that allowed FDR to stay in power as long as he did and to move the country to a war footing (this perhaps is the greatest achievement of any president).
Nixon, wage controls were a huge mistake. Why are people blaming Carter for stagflation? This was Nixon's debacle. The amazing thing is that Nixon was by political philosophy opposed to interfering with the economy, he took us off the gold standard, declared himself a keynesian: yet he made the biggest economic blunder he could have and the closest thing to socialist controls this country has ever seen. Nixon was a terrible president. Completely in thrall to power, indecisive and interfering. His foreign tour was his only forward-thinking stroke of brilliance.
I'll agree with someone earlier who stated that the biggest blunders were when presidents didn't act. Namely Buchanan and Hoover. Rather than changing course, both of these presidents preferred to sit on their asses and do nothing, blaming the world for not conforming to them.
I think that you can't measure the historical impact of recent events, but I hardly think that anything that happened under Clinton was that relevant. Iran-Contra was a non-event. I'm surprised that no-one put down Bush #1 leaving Sadam in power? This could potentially turn out to have as much impact as Wilson at Versailles. That said, in both cases although the president could have had impact events were out of their control. You really have to blame France for Versailles more than anyone else. Blame everyone for just ignoring the events in Germany if you will, but remember that it was a different world. No-one could have possibly anticipated a unified Europe, global economies or peace through economic co-dependence. The world was very isolationist at the time and Wilson was pretty much on the cutting edge of internationalism considering the age.
Bay of pigs, cuban missle crisis. Hard call huh! If nuclear war had happened then this would have gone down as the greatest blunder in all of history. But it didn't, so he gets credit for riding it right to the edge? This is what's fun about history. It turns on a dime. I wouldn't blame Ike for Vietnam. This was Kennedy's doing. And remember, LBJ's hands were almost completely tied. It wasn't LBJ against the peaceniks. It was LBJ against the *more* hawkish conservatives. Granted, he could have done more to prevent events from slipping away. He didn't understand the nature of the war or the character of the people (neither did Westmoreland). With hind-sight, he should have known that SV was completely corrupt and a house of cards, should have been able to estimate the staggering cost of building that nation (Iraq?). But he couldn't pull out. He couldn't escalate. It was a no-win scenario, and like the kobiashi-maru, he kept trying to game the system any way he could. A big mistake was him not running for another term! He would have won, and as a lame duck president he would have been less beholden to the opposition and probably could have simmered the war down. As luck would have it though the hawks came into power and escalated the war. That didn't work out.
From an overall historical perspective though, the vietnam war probably had more of a *positive* impact than negative. It taught America the limits of militarism and that we were in a new age when it was no longer economically feasible to conquer countries. It created the angst that was necessary to have the cultural revolution of the 60s which brought about civil-rights, women's rights and a good deal of overall social enlightenment. LBJ fretted that the war prevented his pursuit of the great society dream, but perhaps it was because of the war that the important parts of that dream came to reality? Again, history turns on a dime.
I'm tapped out...
By the way, did they have the bomb then? NO...Did the Fanatical Japanese Surrender because of it? YES... If the world at the time were a poker hand... would you have held your 4 aces and gone all in or checked and left your opponent off the hook with the possibility take you out on the next deal...??
Truman blew it.
You are correct that Kennedy wussed out in a major way. Castro might have been history had Kennedy not lost his nerve. Also, if Kennedy is on the list for the Bay of Pigs, what about Bush I telling the Shiites to rise against Saddam after Gulf War I, and then he let them be slaughtered with no air support or anything.
I would like to see a list of the criteria used to do this rating. The Leftist bent is obvious. Watergate only brought Nixon down, so what's the big deal there? Of course, it did embolden the MSM to become the worthless lot they are today.
It's an excellent question with no perfect answer but I'll offer yes, pick a fight and start dropping bombs. We still had the production facilities to continue the war, far more so than did the Soviets. Certainly there was no shortage of opinions on the dangers the Soviets posed.
But as I mentioned previously, it probably wasn't politically possible. American's were tired of war, had sacrificed a lot, were glad it was over and, at the time, there was a general feeling that since we had the bomb we could keep the peace.
Of course my comments benefit from perfect 20/20 hindsight, but then all those scholars get to use that as well and avoiding the resulting commie encroachment both in the USSR as well as in their satellite states the world would be a far, far different place. In fact to the point where I can't image.
Sure...kill millions of Russian civilians in a strategy that wasn't even guaranteed to work? Americans may have accepted the bombs falling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the earlier firebombing of Tokyo, but the Japanese had attacked us, whereas the Russians had been our allies. Something like 100,000 Russian troops died capturing Berlin. As late as his famous Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill still had some kind words for Stalin for his role in the war. I just can't see an American President resorting to mass slaughter on that scale for a foreign policy objective.
Lincoln "set up" little in the way of governmental institutions. He did establish a National banking system and expand the railroads which were necessary for the more efficient development of capitalism. Most if not all the additional constraints upon individual freedom came as a result of the machinations of the Slavers assault upon freedom. But given the enormous demands for provisioning the military there was no way a small government could have organized for victory. Even the Confederate government soon became required to centralize government far more than its founders ever thought possible.
There would have been no need for a Fourteenth amendment but for the slaughter and campaign of Terror unleashed upon Freedmen and their Republican protectors in the South. This I blame on the refusal to prevent rehabilitation of the Slaver Ruling Class and its return to power based upon a campaign of neo-slavery reforms designed to remove political rights from the Blacks through a States-Rights rationale. How disgusting is it that it need be used at all to protect civil rights because of the retention of Democrat power in the South?
Fortunately they overplayed their hands while the fedgov was still in the hands of those who realized that the fruits of victory would be thrown away if their prefidity and anti-Americanism was not restrained. Thus they destroyed the States' Rights pretension that a reign of terror could be maintained against a class of people. Unintended consequences make it an not unmixed result but blame it on the people who forced the issue by their nefarious actions.
Lincoln's presidency itself was largely reactive not entering office with any idea of huge changes. He had no idea what he was getting into hence the changes which occurred were mainly the results of History in action. I am sure that he never believed the the Treasonous activities of the Slavers would provoke the war. Thank God he was the man for the job of destroying their evil plans.
The size of the federal government is due to the demands of the American people for protection national and individual.
Demands for rights produces this size. That and the natural growth of societies in size and complexity. Since international affairs dictates the need of protection it has the largest impact upon the growth of the fedgov.
Without a less complex World at Peace there will be no shrinkage of government. This is a hard truth but still a truth.
bump!
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.