Posted on 10/19/2010 7:07:22 AM PDT by WebFocus
It’s tempting to say that Ronald Reagan was the best U.S. president of the past century, and I’ve certainly demonstrated my man-crush on the Gipper. But there is some real competition. I had the pleasure yesterday of hearing Amity Shlaes of the Council on Foreign Relations make the case for Calvin Coolidge at the Mont Pelerin Society Meeting in Australia.
I dug around online and found an article Amity wrote for Forbes that highlights some of the attributes of “Silent Cal” that she mentioned in her speech. As you can see, she makes a persuasive case.
… the Coolidge style of government, which included much refraining, took great strength and yielded superior results. …Coolidge and Mellon tightened and pulled [income tax rates] multiple times, eventually getting the top rate down to 25%, a level that hasn’t been seen since. Mellon argued that lower rates could actually bring in greater revenues because they removed disincentives to work. Government, he said, should operate like a railroad, charging a price for freight that “the traffic will bear.” Coolidge’s commitment to low taxes came from his concept of property rights. He viewed heavy taxation as the legalization of expropriation. “I want taxes to be less, that the people may have more,” he once said. In fact, Coolidge disapproved of any government intervention that eroded the bond of the contract. …More than once Coolidge vetoed what would later be called farm allotment–the government purchase of commodities to reduce supply and drive up prices. …Today our government has moved so far from Coolidge’s tenets that it’s difficult to imagine such policies being emulated.
But if you don’t want to believe Amity, here’s Coolidge in his own words. This video is historically significant since it is the first film (with sound) of an American President. The real value, however, is in the words that are being said.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
It’s tough to say who was the “best” president. How would Freepers rate Eisenhower? His philosophy may not have been far from Coolidge, but he inherited a government that was far bigger. He did not try to expand it the way LBJ did, but he did not scale it back, either.
What fraction of Americans know what an important president LBJ was? I think he was a disaster, but someone of the opposite political persuasion ought to rank him 2nd after FDR. JFK is much better remembered than LBJ because he was assassinated and because he was good-looking, but I think LBJ was more consequential.
Teapot dome was trivial (only one cabinet official was convicted abd even he beat most of the charges), certainly no worse than trading hostages for arms. Harding deserves number one. He was not only great on economics but also far superior on foreign policy, civil liberties, and civil rights. Sorry to tell you (but Stockman has detailed) but Reagan wimped out on the spending and deficit issue when he should have taken out his veto pen.
Oops, posted wrong thing. Let's try again. Teapot dome was trivial (only one cabinet official was convicted abd even he beat most of the charges), certainly no worse than trading hostages for arms. Harding deserves number one. He was not only great on economics but also far superior on foreign policy, civil liberties, and civil rights. Sorry to tell you (but Stockman has detailed) but Reagan wimped out on the spending and deficit issue when he should have taken out his veto pen.
RE: I think LBJ was more consequential.
You can be consequential in a good way or in a disastrous way.
LBJ’s great society programs are still here to haunt us and is the precursor to our pension, healthcare and debt crisis.
So, yes, he was CONSEQUENTIAL in a DISASTROUS WAY.
Harding probably does deserve the #1 slot. No other modern President successfully ended a depression.
Count me in with President Cal, also.
He was no more "tainted" by corruption than most presidents (only one cabinet official was convicted and Harding had no personal knowledge) including Reagan (remember arms for hostages?). Of course, neither Reagan or Harding could handle to the corrupt FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Nixon, and Truman administrations. They not only engaged in old-fashined rruption but massive abuses of power such as auditing income tax returns of opponents.
He was the truly the last representative of the “old school” way of fighting depressions and more’s the pity.
We're still fighting wars because of how the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire were broken up after WW I.
What stuns me is that the abject failure of Keynsian policies led to 11 years of 10 to 25% unemployment under Roosevelt, and has led to a 3+ year rescession/Depression thus far under Bush and Obama and the educated public still buys the “solution.” The Fed, the Professors, the Dems and many of the Republicans still think spending at a deficit and bailouts are good policy. Meanwhile Harding’s incredible success is barely discussed. I didn’t learn of it until this recession/Depression. Never heard a word about Harding and a Depression in almost 40 years of interest in politics.
Clinton - slept while the terrorist grew and developed, made a laughing stock of the presidency with Monica, most dishonest administration in history - his place should be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Carter and LBJ over Nixon - not hardly. Nixon made several mistakes but inherited a complete mess from LBJ - and cleaned up the bulk of it.
Kennedy ahead of Theodore Roosevelt? Maybe but just barely. Outside of launching the Moon race and getting shot, a lot of the other things Kennedy did weren't much. And his performance in the Bay of Pigs fiasco was despicable.
He was a big government Republican but at least his foreign policy was not a disaster.
It's weird that Reich almost gets something right - 'extra' money does go into bubbles. This is why some Austrian economists predicted the housing bubble. Tax policy directed inflation into one sector rather than into general inflation, disguising the dollar debasement.
This probably had something to do with the Crash of '29, but honestly, I'm not enough of a goldbug to give the whys and wherefores. Despite my tagline, I think Reagan overall is #1 through success both foreign and domestic.
You left out Taft and McKinley. They would both belong near the top--above Teddy Roosevelt, and definitely above Kennedy--with McKinley somewhat higher.
I’ve always been a fan of Coolidge, but my heart belongs to Reagan.
I have to disagree somewhat. True, Wilson promised a 'just peace' which he really could not deliver, but the German economy was a complete wreck by Nov 1918. They were quite literally at the point of collapse and starvation with riots in the streets. They simply could not continue the war any longer. They were spent.
It was not what the US Army did to the German army. It was more US food and materials proping up Britain and France while Germany had no such source to keep their economy from collapsing.
"My fundamental idea of both private and public business came first from my father. He had the strong New England trait of great repugnance at seeing anything wasted. He was a generous and charitable man, but he regarded waste as a moral wrong, Wealth comes from industry, and from the hard experience of human toil. To dissipate it in waste and extravagance is disloyalty to humanity. This is by no means a doctrine of parsimony. Both men and nations should live in accordance with their means and devote their substance not only to productive industry, but to the creation of the various forms of beauty and the pursuit of culture which give adornments to the art of life."
IMHO, the worst president ever. Every major issue we have no -- the staggering size of government, the collapse of our cities, social decay and dependency, -- all can be laid at the feet of Johnson.
Don't forget Medicare was created on his watch. Another program in the fine tradition of Social Security - a ton of promises without a clue as to how it would be paid for!
I came across this yesterday. I have never heard this before. They are claiming that an accounting change from "hold to maturity" to "mark to market" caused asset instability that led to the crash.
Time Bomb | Progressives’ Destruction of Private Sector Wealth and Control Of Capital and Property
"when Hoover also imposed mark to market accounting in 1929, ending the Roaring 20’s and launching into the Depression for the greatest shake out Private Sector ownership and control of wealth of that time"
"This continued until the Private Sector main stream banks and businesses were able to prevail on FDR to reinstate Private Sector hold to maturity accounting in 1938."
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.