So who's part of the 29%? (1 Viewer)

[mr.t]

I voted for Bush both times, but I would not again if needed to. We need term limits in Congress because most of our Congress could care less about the country either . I voted for Perot twice as a protest vote.

 

[champ76]

Although I am quite critical of Bush, I think it's rather exaggerated to claim that he's going to be the "worst" in American history, or for onr century. In recent history I can see, but even I'm still uncomfortable slapping labels on presidents without the full record being disclosed.

Call it an occupational hazard, but the full record regarding all facets of his administration still have to mulled, culled, critiqued and analyzed. Although I think Iraq is a disaster, that bird has yet to completely fly. I really do think if Iraq does have a chance at maintaining a modicum of stablility and success, his legacy will be a lot better than we realize. Nonetheless, historians have this uncanny ability to find at least some good and bad in all presidents--after all, although FDR tried to circumvent the Constitution to pack the Supreme Court with his own sympathizers, most agree that he was a pretty good president, or at least the right man at the right time. Lincoln pretty much arrested the whole MD state legislature without charging them with a crime, and somehow he makes the top of the list.

Not excusing these actions or defending Bush, but I think when people say "worst in history," they fall into the same trap as many mindless partisans who get caught up in the political heat of battle.

And don't forget Truman. Isn't he much more revered now than immediately after his presidency?

 

[blackadder]

While I agree it’s premature to hang the “worst ever” label on him, I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say he’s got the potential of having that honor. IMHO, the odds are very good that he will at least be one of the worst.

My biggest beef with this administration is the disdain for checks/balances and the trampling of the Constitution. They came into power declaring they would strengthen the Executive. They were successful and Jefferson is rolling over. Of course I’m also miffed about the cronyism, intimidation of the press, and the sheer breadth of the incompetence (From New Orleans to Iraq!), but I digress. FDR has the New Deal and WW2. Lincoln has emancipation and preservation of the Union. For these things, historians will forever forgive the transgressions. For Dubya’s missteps to be forgotten, there’s going to have to be a miracle in the Middle East. As of this writing, it ain’t looking good.

The New Deal is debateable. It perhaps had a useful psychological effect at the time and we got some nice national parks and public infrstructure out of it.

But economically it didn't do much. Throughout the 30s the economy tanked and the depression didn't end until we ramped up war production. And it could be argued that the New Deal entrenched the idea that government and bureaucracy was the solution to everything.

 

[DadsDream]

The centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Recovery Act (NRA), was declared unconstitutional.

Teaching With Documents:
FDR's Fireside Chat on the Purposes and Foundations of the Recovery Program
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-fireside/index.html?template=print

 

[philipkw]

The New Deal is debateable. It perhaps had a useful psychological effect at the time and we got some nice national parks and public infrstructure out of it.

But economically it didn't do much. Throughout the 30s the economy tanked and the depression didn't end until we ramped up war production. And it could be argued that the New Deal entrenched the idea that government and bureaucracy was the solution to everything.

Maybe. Bottom line is that historians look him upon favorably and one of the reasons is New Deal policies. My ultimate point is that his positives far outweighed his negatives and for this president to overcome his negatives it’s going to be tough.

To your point on the New Deal, we also got Social Security out of it. Historically SS has been a resounding success and that’s not debatable. Now I understand that in recent history SS has fallen out of favor but that should be blamed on corrupt politicians that came after FDR. In order to curry favor among the electorate SS was slowly turned into something it wasn’t suppose to be, a hand-out that rewards sloth instead of a safety-net for hard-working folks.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I voted for Bush both times

 

[champ76]

Maybe. Bottom line is that historians look him upon favorably and one of the reasons is New Deal policies. My ultimate point is that his positives far outweighed his negatives and for this president to overcome his negatives it’s going to be tough.

To your point on the New Deal, we also got Social Security out of it. Historically SS has been a resounding success and that’s not debatable. Now I understand that in recent history SS has fallen out of favor but that should be blamed on corrupt politicians that came after FDR. In order to curry favor among the electorate SS was slowly turned into something it wasn’t suppose to be, a hand-out that rewards sloth instead of a safety-net for hard-working folks.

I think it's fair to say FDR is viewed more favorably for what he inspired us to do, more than what he did himself policy-wise. In other words, he showed leadership in a time of crisis, and that is what most Americans want from their political leaders.

 

[AR Saint]

I still support Bush on many issues, but he could not be more wrong on immigration.

For those of you who think his legacy will be a "failed" war (which IMO it isn't), that will be a drop in the history bucket compared to harm that will be done to this nation by the current immigration bill.

Can't GWB figure out that having Ted Kennedy write legislation is NOT a recipe for success???

New Tone = The Achilles Heel of the Bush Administration

 

[RebSaint]

The New Deal is debateable. It perhaps had a useful psychological effect at the time and we got some nice national parks and public infrstructure out of it.

But economically it didn't do much. Throughout the 30s the economy tanked and the depression didn't end until we ramped up war production. And it could be argued that the New Deal entrenched the idea that government and bureaucracy was the solution to everything.

That's a pretty contentious debate among economic historians, but I generally agree with your assessment about giving a psychological boost. The SEC and FDIC were good common sense reforms which I think struck at the heart of the overspeculation and the instability of the banking system in the 1920s as well as I understand the problems from a historical and economic perspective.

The NRA and AAA were complete disasters, as DD pointed out, the NRA was deemed unconstitutional--but it was hardly the "centerpiece" of the New Deal. Arguably the only centerpiece which anybody remembers or holds on to, or references is Social Security.

I can't find it, but there's a chart which shows that the GDP didn't grow that much until the late 30s, then tailed off in 1939, and the GDP didn't reach pre-depression levels until after WWII.

 

[philipkw]

I think it's fair to say FDR is viewed more favorably for what he inspired us to do, more than what he did himself policy-wise. In other words, he showed leadership in a time of crisis, and that is what most Americans want from their political leaders.

I don't think it's fair to say that. FDR's policy for intervention in Europe wasn't popular but proved to be his greatest legacy. After WW1 the population had become isolationist (and who could blame them). At Churchill's urging FDR finally realized that the US would have to engage in order to defend the Western way of life. FDR was slowly pushing the country in that direction and Pearl Harbor came along and that made it easier for him to pull the trigger.

Sure the dude was inspiring, but he also had some pretty policies.

 

[blackadder]

Maybe. Bottom line is that historians look him upon favorably and one of the reasons is New Deal policies. My ultimate point is that his positives far outweighed his negatives and for this president to overcome his negatives it’s going to be tough.

To your point on the New Deal, we also got Social Security out of it. Historically SS has been a resounding success and that’s not debatable. Now I understand that in recent history SS has fallen out of favor but that should be blamed on corrupt politicians that came after FDR. In order to curry favor among the electorate SS was slowly turned into something it wasn’t suppose to be, a hand-out that rewards sloth instead of a safety-net for hard-working folks.

I think some aspects of the New Deal were positive for sure. I just find it hard to argue with the less than overwhelming actual economic impact.

I'm not necessarily a Social Security hater. The way the program was originally designed wasn't it essentially supposed to be like mandatory savings? You pay money in and get doled back out to you.

Unfortunately the thing has been abused by the politicians and is on the verge of insolvency.

 

[philipkw]

I think some aspects of the New Deal were positive for sure. I just find it hard to argue with the less than overwhelming actual economic impact.

I'm not necessarily a Social Security hater. The way the program was originally designed wasn't it essentially supposed to be like mandatory savings? You pay money in and get doled back out to you.

Unfortunately the thing has been abused by the politicians and is on the verge of insolvency.

The original intent of SSN has been corrupted by politicians (of both stripes). I tend to agree with another poster who suggested term limits as a viable response to the corruption. Although in the long run that’s probably an impotent reaction to an inevitable consequence of being a human (and therefore susceptible to corruption)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

To me the best solution is to eliminate campaign finance from everyone, have public finance only, forbid any type of gifts (lunch, trips, etc) from lobbyists.

 

[champ76]

I don't think it's fair to say that. FDR's policy for intervention in Europe wasn't popular but proved to be his greatest legacy.
Sure the dude was inspiring, but he also had some pretty policies.

Imagine, doing the right thing isn't always popular.

 

[philipkw]

Imagine, doing the right thing isn't always popular.

I get your point and I hope you're right.

The difference is FDR had a legitimate reason to engage. There was no fabrication of intelligence in order to justify a preemptive war.