The greatest Republican president

[Prospero]

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have revisited the triumphal progress of Richard Nixon - and the UK newspaper The Independent published this extract from their new book yesterday. They've been listening hard to some of the many thousands of hours of tapes - and find that Nixon was even more of a criminal than was revealed at the time of the Watergate hearings and his resignation. What a timely reminder.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/special-report-watergate--the-untold-story-7844900.html

[robertlouis]

The greatest Republican president was the first. It's all been downhill since then....

[fastingforlife]

The greatest Republican president was the first. It's all been downhill since then....

A serious review of Teddy Roosevelt is deserved.

[robertlouis]

A serious review of Teddy Roosevelt is deserved.

Depends how you define greatness, I'd say. He certainly raised the US' stature in the world, but his expansionist wars were all too often based on the same lazy logic that led us into the quagmire of Iraq. But certainly great energy and a larger than life persona.

Perhaps it's unfair to compare any of his successors to Lincoln, who confronted, and dealt with, the greatest crisis it has ever faced. My personal list of truly great presidents of either stamp is a very short one - Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, FDR. That's it.

[buttslinger]

Sandburg's Lincoln-excellent.

[Stavros]

I used to infuriate Americans by claiming that there was no democratically elected and legitimate President of the USA until Nixon's election in 1968, because up until then so many Americans were denied the right to register to vote and thus to engage in the democratic process. The problem is that if there are general principles of decency and morality by which to judge Presidents, few if any are worthy of respect. All of the early Presidents had to deal with the intense probem of the first nations and the quarrels over land rights and trade, in many cases even more savage and violent than the treatment of slaves. Lincoln was not immune. Having encouraged land-grabbing in Minnesota he was then faced in 1862 with a major Sioux campaign which was crushed by the army. 309 rebels were captured with Governor Ramsay demanding that all 309 be executed. Lincoln's compromise, to execute 'merely' 39 nevertheless ranks as the largest mass execution in American history. Lincoln even had the brazen cheek to claim the superiority of 'the pale-faced people' because -and wait for this '...we are not, as a race, so much disposed to fight and kill one another as our red brethren' -a remark he made in 1863 in the middle of a civil war! Lincoln also started out, not as an abolitionist, but someone opposed to the extension of slavery; he may have changed his mind, but he was locked into what Lefebvre would call the mentalité of the mid-19th century -an advance on bigots like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, all of whom regarded the first nations as sub-human and certainly not the people for whom their precious revolution had been fought.

Although I know its now almost a tired cliche, but as far as republicans go, Eisenhower has to come top, as the least bad of the lot. Ike was not only a war hero, he managed to keep his extreme (and often extremely violent) 'Christian' convictions to himself. He presided over a period of economic growth in the 1950s, his stand on the historic legal case Brown -v- Louisiana Board of Education is a pivotal -and positive- moment in the history of civil rights, and his reluctance to get the USA entangled in foreign wars not only saved the USA a lot of money, it meant that the collusion between the UK, France and Israel in the invasion of Egypt in 1956 was a deserved disaster -although Ike later regretted being so harsh on the British. Ironically, it marked the moment when the USA began to assert itself in the Middle East against the British, notably after the revolution which overthrew the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in 1958. At the time, Eisenhower saw these movements as diplomatic and economic advantages, it was LBJ who deepened the USA's involvement in the region at the military level with its contradictory support for both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Eisenhower was also a relatively modest man, and compared to the Presidents who followed him, was not obsessed with image and spin, but he lived on the cusp of the media age that propelled Kennedy to the White House and which became the anvil on which the Nixon Presidency was battered to death. No other Republican achieved as much as Eisenhower, nor deserves to be remembered by history, other than as a footnote for the historical record.

[buttslinger]

Lincoln came about 5 seconds from having his head bashed in by an Indian when he was a little kid, his brother shot and killed the Indian and then died, I believe. Lincoln's Gettysburg address ........Goddammit, no Presidential speech writer in History could have layed it down like that. And I hate Yankees.
Hey Stavros, you don't trash my Countrymen, I won't trash your QUEEN, Okay?? ha ha.

Eisenhower never gets mentioned, you're right, I think he did highways in the USA after seeing Hitler's fantastic Autobahn system. He doesn't even really get considered as being a Republican, he really was Commander in Chief during the most prosperous time in America's history. In the Army you're not Republican or Democrat. That's for sure. They said he couldn't be President because he had no experience with beaurocracy, but after handling the US Army, the biggest beaurocracy in the World, he seemed to have kept all problems down to finite size, by acting sensibly, and giving clear orders.

I was riding in the car on the Beltway when I heard Nixon's "I am not a Crook " speech. I thought it was a comedy skit! That was the end of automatic respect for the POTUS. Damn shame.

[Stavros]

Re: the Indian -so what? Lincoln's attitude to first nations may have been slightly better than his predecessorts in the job, but it is unacceptable and an important corrective to the assumption people make that he was a champion of human rights.

Re: Eisenhower -good point about the bureaucracy, although I think in the 1950s the world's largest bureaucracy must have been the USSR.

[fastingforlife]

Keep in mind, when discussing presidents of any stripe, these are men with egos that are so large, they might be considered a separate and distinct category of psychopaths........called politicians. I wonder, on average how many lies a politician tells daily, and how many are lies they're not even aware of, due to their own personal delusions? For example, Bill Clinton probably lies even in his dreams.

[Prospero]

Clinton tried to fuck a woman. Nixon fucked the nation and got caught. Bush Jr fucked America's standing around the world.

[fastingforlife]

Clinton tried to fuck a woman. Nixon fucked the nation and got caught. Bush Jr fucked America's standing around the world.

Yes, Clinton's immense sex drive, kept him grounded.

[buttslinger]

bureaucracy? I was talking about beaurocracy!! ha ha

In politics you can't get so far ahead of the parade that you can't hear the music. If you were sitting in a big Georgia field with your family, two of which had died last winter, no tractors, no hospitals, cause it's 1800, and all you have is the dirt below you........Today they hire illiegal migrant workers from Mexico. Even kids. I see it on TV. I do nothing.

Lincoln was primarily a hick LAWYER from backwoods Illinois, he was about fixing differences between people, not creating them. Lincoln's plan was to send all black people to Liberia! If the Civil War hadn't broken out, it would have been intersting to see how he handled the Slavery Crisis. Lots of the Abolitionists were stone cold crazy Religious types that get laughed at on this forum. Lincoln was head of the anti-slavery party whose election sparked the War between the States. That's a full plate for any President. The South tried to woo England and France to their side, because they loved Confederate cotton. I believe the first slave traders were English? And Portugese. See what you did Stavros? ha ha

But no, Lincoln put Black people and Indians second, that's for sure.
Even Eisenhower put Blacks second.

[fastingforlife]

bureaucracy? I was talking about beaurocracy!! ha ha

In politics you can't get so far ahead of the parade that you can't hear the music. If you were sitting in a big Georgia field with your family, two of which had died last winter, no tractors, no hospitals, cause it's 1800, and all you have is the dirt below you........Today they hire illiegal migrant workers from Mexico. Even kids. I see it on TV. I do nothing.

Lincoln was primarily a hick LAWYER from backwoods Illinois, he was about fixing differences between people, not creating them. Lincoln's plan was to send all black people to Liberia! If the Civil War hadn't broken out, it would have been intersting to see how he handled the Slavery Crisis. Lots of the Abolitionists were stone cold crazy Religious types that get laughed at on this forum. Lincoln was head of the anti-slavery party whose election sparked the War between the States. That's a full plate for any President. The South tried to woo England and France to their side, because they loved Confederate cotton. I believe the first slave traders were English? And Portugese. See what you did Stavros? ha ha

But no, Lincoln put Black people and Indians second, that's for sure.
Even Eisenhower put Blacks second.

you need to judge history in context with the times people lived in. Not 2012 hindsight.

[buttslinger]

Clinton's teleprompter once went out, and he "winged" an hour speach. He was one of the few people that passed a heart stress test, the day before major heart surgery. Before Hillary, all his girlfriends were babes. Born Politician.
When Obama talks, he speaks haltingly. Not because he doesn't know what he wants to say, it's because he's thinking every possible way his opponents are going to try and twist his words.
If Romney ever told the truth even his proponents wouldn't notice. Republicans don't want to change the truth they have, they want people to know their place, and stay there.
And just like like Buttslinger's political knowledge and spelling, it's not what you know, it's what you don't know that tells the tale.
I think most people would say, all things considered, Lincoln was the best President of any party. Check that face.

[Stavros]

you need to judge history in context with the times people lived in. Not 2012 hindsight.

I am not sure about this, because we cannot parachute back into an era beyond our times to judge in context, it is always a contemporary context. Thus, by our standards (or my standards), Lincoln was a major figure, but flawed, and his flaws are evident in his attitude to first nations, and slaves. The rebelion in Haiti led to the abolition of slavery in 1804, long before Lincoln arrived on the scene, there was a precedent, he did not follow it. If he was such a bold and radical politician, why didn't he take Haiti's lead?

Mid-19th century America can resemble democracy in the city-state of Athens. Athenian democracy may serve as the foundation of a system of political involvement and decision making by the citizens of that city-state, but it excluded women, and by classifying only a minority of people as citizens in the first place, excluded many others the most obvious being slaves and barbarians. Indeed, knowing this has forced a redefinition of democracy in theory and practice, to be more inclusive than exclusive. And, crucially, it is considered superior, because every age believes it has improved on the former, just as the instruments of checks and balances in the American political system, it is believed, are superior to those that enabled Nixon to disgrace the office of President.

So, fastingforlife, who do you think was the best Republican president, and why?

[maaarc]

not only was Washington the greatest president, he very well may be the greatest American to have ever lived.

"The Continental Congress appointed Washington commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775. The following year, he forced the British out of Boston, lost New York City, and crossed the Delaware River in New Jersey, defeating the surprised enemy units later that year. As a result of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured the two main British combat armies at Saratoga and Yorktown. Negotiating with Congress, the colonial states, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and failure. Following the end of the war in 1783, King George III asked what Washington would do next and was told of rumors that he’d return to his farm; this prompted the king to state, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” Washington did return to private life and retired to his plantation at Mount Vernon."

[fastingforlife]

I am not sure about this, because we cannot parachute back into an era beyond our times to judge in context, it is always a contemporary context. Thus, by our standards (or my standards), Lincoln was a major figure, but flawed, and his flaws are evident in his attitude to first nations, and slaves. The rebelion in Haiti led to the abolition of slavery in 1804, long before Lincoln arrived on the scene, there was a precedent, he did not follow it. If he was such a bold and radical politician, why didn't he take Haiti's lead?

Mid-19th century America can resemble democracy in the city-state of Athens. Athenian democracy may serve as the foundation of a system of political involvement and decision making by the citizens of that city-state, but it excluded women, and by classifying only a minority of people as citizens in the first place, excluded many others the most obvious being slaves and barbarians. Indeed, knowing this has forced a redefinition of democracy in theory and practice, to be more inclusive than exclusive. And, crucially, it is considered superior, because every age believes it has improved on the former, just as the instruments of checks and balances in the American political system, it is believed, are superior to those that enabled Nixon to disgrace the office of President.

So, fastingforlife, who do you think was the best Republican president, and why?

Teddy Roosevelt because, to him, our environment was of paramount importance.

[fastingforlife]

I am not sure about this, because we cannot parachute back into an era beyond our times to judge in context, it is always a contemporary context. Thus, by our standards (or my standards), Lincoln was a major figure, but flawed, and his flaws are evident in his attitude to first nations, and slaves. The rebelion in Haiti led to the abolition of slavery in 1804, long before Lincoln arrived on the scene, there was a precedent, he did not follow it. If he was such a bold and radical politician, why didn't he take Haiti's lead?

Mid-19th century America can resemble democracy in the city-state of Athens. Athenian democracy may serve as the foundation of a system of political involvement and decision making by the citizens of that city-state, but it excluded women, and by classifying only a minority of people as citizens in the first place, excluded many others the most obvious being slaves and barbarians. Indeed, knowing this has forced a redefinition of democracy in theory and practice, to be more inclusive than exclusive. And, crucially, it is considered superior, because every age believes it has improved on the former, just as the instruments of checks and balances in the American political system, it is believed, are superior to those that enabled Nixon to disgrace the office of President.

So, fastingforlife, who do you think was the best Republican president, and why?

Lincoln, because he saved the Union. Doing it with horrible military leaders, until grant emerged.

[robertlouis]

As I was the first to "nominate" Lincoln as the pre-eminent president from the Republican side, I'd like to make it clear that I don't have any misty-eyed illusions about his preternatural goodness. He was severely flawed and on matters of race was pretty well representative of all the prejudices and beliefs of his time.

But his supreme achievement was the preservation of the union and his total commitment to that objective, to which everything else was secondary - the Emancipation Proclamation initially only applied to those territories beyond Union control, and for all of its profound symbolism the Proclamation was a well-crafted piece of political opportunism, no more, no less.

[fastingforlife]

Teddy Roosevelt because, to him, our environment was of paramount importance.

I erred, Teddy was intended to be an honorable mention. Lincoln was the best, without peer, there is no second best, just notable achievers.

[fastingforlife]

As I was the first to "nominate" Lincoln as the pre-eminent president from the Republican side, I'd like to make it clear that I don't have any misty-eyed illusions about his preternatural goodness. He was severely flawed and on matters of race was pretty well representative of all the prejudices and beliefs of his time.

But his supreme achievement was the preservation of the union and his total commitment to that objective, to which everything else was secondary - the Emancipation Proclamation initially only applied to those territories beyond Union control, and for all of its profound symbolism the Proclamation was a well-crafted piece of political opportunism, no more, no less.

That is pretty strong language. Can't we leave comments like "severly flawed" for Nixon and some others, and just accept that Lincoln was a product of his time, continuing to reach but with mortal limitations? Hell if he is severly flawed, the rest of us must be bugs.

[robertlouis]

That is pretty strong language. Can't we leave comments like "severly flawed" for Nixon and some others, and just accept that Lincoln was a product of his time, continuing to reach but with mortal limitations? Hell if he is severly flawed, the rest of us must be bugs.

Fair enough. I'll take away the "severely" if we can agree on "flawed". lol

I know ot sounds corny, but on my - so far - one and only visit to Washington DC I took in most the usual sights, but my aim was to sit at Abe's feet in the Lincoln Memorial, and I did it. One of my heroes.

Hell, Churchill was an utter disaster as a peacetime politician and was largely responsible for the hideous mess of Gallipolli in the First World War, but it doesn't detract from my belief that it was his personal courage that pretty well saved the world from fascism in 1940 and 1941 when Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany and Bushido Japan. That makes him a hero too - but you can bet that the huge social and industrial reforms of the post-war Labour government would never have happened if he'd remained in power.

But the final paragraphs of his speech to parliament on the brink of the Battle of Britain still stirs the blood:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'

Winston Churchill - June 18, 1940

[fastingforlife]

Fair enough. I'll take away the "severely" if we can agree on "flawed". lol

I know ot sounds corny, but on my - so far - one and only visit to Washington DC I took in most the usual sights, but my aim was to sit at Abe's feet in the Lincoln Memorial, and I did it. One of my heroes.

Hell, Churchill was an utter disaster as a peacetime politician and was largely responsible for the hideous mess of Gallipolli in the First World War, but it doesn't detract from my belief that it was his personal courage that pretty well saved the world from fascism in 1940 and 1941 when Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany and Bushido Japan. That makes him a hero too - but you can bet that the huge social and industrial reforms of the post-war Labour government would never have happened if he'd remained in power.

But the final paragraphs of his speech to parliament on the brink of the Battle of Britain still stirs the blood:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'

Winston Churchill - June 18, 1940

Fair enough. As for Churchill, the word great fails to capture the true measure of the man. I understand his mistakes and failures, but they do not in anyway tarnish the role he played in saving all of us, from what could have been a very grim reality.

[robertlouis]

Fair enough. As for Churchill, the word great fails to capture the true measure of the man. I understand his mistakes and failures, but they do not in anyway tarnish the role he played in saving all of us, from what could have been a very grim reality.

Just out of curiosity, who would you propose as the greatest Democratic president? For me, it's FDR by a very long way.

[fastingforlife]

Just out of curiosity, who would you propose as the greatest Democratic president? For me, it's FDR by a very long way.

Nobody served as long as FDR. He did make some "Hoover like" blunders, several years after he got the economy stablized, resulting in a wicked recession that should have been prevented.

He is our greatest Democratic Prez, ranking within the top 5 greatest presidents of all time. I usually take my family on a tour of Hyde Park every few years. This reminds me to pencil it for sometime in the fall....best time to travel though New York State.

[buttslinger]

OK Fastingforlife, you're a good interview......Tell me about a Mitt Romney Presidency, in your own words....please. Greatest Republican President of All Time?

[Stavros]

Some confused responses here.
1) Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive not a Republican, he was also a world-class bigot and an architect not only of American Imperialism, but of Japanese imperialism too -his belief that Japan should possess the Korean peninsula, in an indirect way, paved the way for the growth of Japanese ambitions in Asia and its ultimate attack on Pearl Harbour. It was Roosevelt who wanted to wipe Cuba off the map; Roosevelt was determined to brutally suppress the nationalist movement in the Philippines and it was possibly here against Filipino prisoners that water-boarding was first used as an instrument of torture; and his views on Black people as being essentially 'stupid' and at least a thousand years behind Aryan people like him inevitably make him a relic of that nauseating late-19th-early 20th century fetish with the bogus 'science' of race that produced, among others, Adolf Hitler. As Teddy Roosevelt is an architect of world war, I can't think of much good to say about his Presidency; the man was, quite simply, disgusting.

2) George Washington was not a Republican, as such parties did not exist at the time, I assume he would have been described as a Federalist. Again, Washington did not lead 'the Americans' into a revolt against British colonial rule, all that he achieved was achieved for a distinct group of people in the Colonies, mostly men with money and land, and they were not black, nor were they any of the first nation populations whom he considered to be equivalent to animals. When Washington instructed his generals to attack the Iroquois it was for total annihilation - they were to 'lay waste all the settlements..(so)...that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed'. He said they were like Wolves 'both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape'. Even in the context of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment this is strong stuff; it is also unacceptable but utterly typical of the times in which these people lived. Perhaps that is why Revolutions initiate developments which continue long after the founding event, and why it is absurd for people to get frustrated with the pace of change in the Arab world following the Arab spring. If the status of women is the issue, not many states in the world emerge from historical comparisons with a great reputation.

3) I have never understood the fascination with Churchill, a man who changed political parties for no other reason that he believed he needed to be in Parliament and it didn't matter which party put him there. Indeed, his personal ambition and love-affair with himself has been part of the mythology, including the offensive rubbish that Britain 'stood alone' against the Nazi menace when there were resistance movements all over Europe without whom Britain would not have been able to build an opposition which inevitably included the USA. Attlee had been warning of the dangers of Nazism from at least 1931, Churchill was never a lone voice. And so on. The rise of the Third Reich was caused by a collective failure across Europe in the 19320s and 1930s, particularly the German legal system; but it was a collective opposition that defeated it; Churchill made some rousing speeches, and that's about it really. The rest if self-congratulatory bullshit.

[fastingforlife]

OK Fastingforlife, you're a good interview......Tell me about a Mitt Romney Presidency, in your own words....please. Greatest Republican President of All Time?

That's a bit premature, don't you think?

[fastingforlife]

Some confused responses here.
1) Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive not a Republican, he was also a world-class bigot and an architect not only of American Imperialism, but of Japanese imperialism too -his belief that Japan should possess the Korean peninsula, in an indirect way, paved the way for the growth of Japanese ambitions in Asia and its ultimate attack on Pearl Harbour. It was Roosevelt who wanted to wipe Cuba off the map; Roosevelt was determined to brutally suppress the nationalist movement in the Philippines and it was possibly here against Filipino prisoners that water-boarding was first used as an instrument of torture; and his views on Black people as being essentially 'stupid' and at least a thousand years behind Aryan people like him inevitably make him a relic of that nauseating late-19th-early 20th century fetish with the bogus 'science' of race that produced, among others, Adolf Hitler. As Teddy Roosevelt is an architect of world war, I can't think of much good to say about his Presidency; the man was, quite simply, disgusting.

2) George Washington was not a Republican, as such parties did not exist at the time, I assume he would have been described as a Federalist. Again, Washington did not lead 'the Americans' into a revolt against British colonial rule, all that he achieved was achieved for a distinct group of people in the Colonies, mostly men with money and land, and they were not black, nor were they any of the first nation populations whom he considered to be equivalent to animals. When Washington instructed his generals to attack the Iroquois it was for total annihilation - they were to 'lay waste all the settlements..(so)...that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed'. He said they were like Wolves 'both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape'. Even in the context of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment this is strong stuff; it is also unacceptable but utterly typical of the times in which these people lived. Perhaps that is why Revolutions initiate developments which continue long after the founding event, and why it is absurd for people to get frustrated with the pace of change in the Arab world following the Arab spring. If the status of women is the issue, not many states in the world emerge from historical comparisons with a great reputation.

3) I have never understood the fascination with Churchill, a man who changed political parties for no other reason that he believed he needed to be in Parliament and it didn't matter which party put him there. Indeed, his personal ambition and love-affair with himself has been part of the mythology, including the offensive rubbish that Britain 'stood alone' against the Nazi menace when there were resistance movements all over Europe without whom Britain would not have been able to build an opposition which inevitably included the USA. Attlee had been warning of the dangers of Nazism from at least 1931, Churchill was never a lone voice. And so on. The rise of the Third Reich was caused by a collective failure across Europe in the 19320s and 1930s, particularly the German legal system; but it was a collective opposition that defeated it; Churchill made some rousing speeches, and that's about it really. The rest if self-congratulatory bullshit.

Wow, you don't give anyone any credit do you? I would hate to hear what you think of God. You must be really pissed at him.

[buttslinger]

That's a bit premature, don't you think?

I hear Republicans BASHING BASHING BASHING Obama, but they never talk about Romney. They talk about Reagan more than Romney. Even OMK has his doubts about Romney. There isn't a human being alive that thinks Romney will be a Great President, They think he might be an ELECTABLE President. That's about the highest praise he gets from his own supporters!

[trish]

Teddy Roosevelt is also hated for establishing the national park system for the preservation of forests and wetlands, protecting them from exploitation for profit, for the enjoyment of all Americans

[fastingforlife]

I hear Republicans BASHING BASHING BASHING Obama, but they never talk about Romney. They talk about Reagan more than Romney. Even OMK has his doubts about Romney. There isn't a human being alive that thinks Romney will be a Great President, They think he might be an ELECTABLE President. That's about the highest praise he gets from his own supporters!

Actually, I am still a registered Democrat. My family were a bunch of blue collar folk, who voted the party line, so when I turned 18, they signed me up.....as in I voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary.

But in National and state elections I have never voted for a Democrat or felt any affinity to their belief system. However, ths does not mean I am a Republican. I am just anti-democrat.

At some point, I will give Romney a thorough read, not to determine whether or not to vote for, but rather, to learn how to defend him from the rabble.

I did like his dad very much, a man of great character. Our first and best HUD Secretary.

[hippifried]

Some confused responses here.
1) Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive not a Republican, he was also a world-class bigot and an architect not only of American Imperialism, but of Japanese imperialism too -his belief that Japan should possess the Korean peninsula, in an indirect way, paved the way for the growth of Japanese ambitions in Asia and its ultimate attack on Pearl Harbour. It was Roosevelt who wanted to wipe Cuba off the map; Roosevelt was determined to brutally suppress the nationalist movement in the Philippines and it was possibly here against Filipino prisoners that water-boarding was first used as an instrument of torture; and his views on Black people as being essentially 'stupid' and at least a thousand years behind Aryan people like him inevitably make him a relic of that nauseating late-19th-early 20th century fetish with the bogus 'science' of race that produced, among others, Adolf Hitler. As Teddy Roosevelt is an architect of world war, I can't think of much good to say about his Presidency; the man was, quite simply, disgusting.

2) George Washington was not a Republican, as such parties did not exist at the time, I assume he would have been described as a Federalist. Again, Washington did not lead 'the Americans' into a revolt against British colonial rule, all that he achieved was achieved for a distinct group of people in the Colonies, mostly men with money and land, and they were not black, nor were they any of the first nation populations whom he considered to be equivalent to animals. When Washington instructed his generals to attack the Iroquois it was for total annihilation - they were to 'lay waste all the settlements..(so)...that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed'. He said they were like Wolves 'both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape'. Even in the context of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment this is strong stuff; it is also unacceptable but utterly typical of the times in which these people lived. Perhaps that is why Revolutions initiate developments which continue long after the founding event, and why it is absurd for people to get frustrated with the pace of change in the Arab world following the Arab spring. If the status of women is the issue, not many states in the world emerge from historical comparisons with a great reputation.

3) I have never understood the fascination with Churchill, a man who changed political parties for no other reason that he believed he needed to be in Parliament and it didn't matter which party put him there. Indeed, his personal ambition and love-affair with himself has been part of the mythology, including the offensive rubbish that Britain 'stood alone' against the Nazi menace when there were resistance movements all over Europe without whom Britain would not have been able to build an opposition which inevitably included the USA. Attlee had been warning of the dangers of Nazism from at least 1931, Churchill was never a lone voice. And so on. The rise of the Third Reich was caused by a collective failure across Europe in the 19320s and 1930s, particularly the German legal system; but it was a collective opposition that defeated it; Churchill made some rousing speeches, and that's about it really. The rest if self-congratulatory bullshit.
Who's confused?

1) Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. Don't get the parties confused with issue by issue labels. He didn't take his private militia to Cuba to fight & kill Cubans. The war was against Spain. We destroyed what was left of their colonial empire in less than a year. (Makes me wonder what might have been if we'd just kept going & ended colonialism worldwide altogether.) Roosevelt wasn't in any kind of high office at the time & had nothing to do with what happened in the Philipines afterwards. His big foray into imperialism as President was separating Panama from Columbia so the Canal could be built. Bigoted asshole? Sure. The extention of the Chinese Exclusion Act & the "gentleman's agreement" with Japan is pretty good evidence. But that was just part of the eurocentric mindset of the time.

2) Washington didn't belong to a political party & didn't think they should exist. I've seem him listed as a Whig though. The attacks against the Iroquois nations happened in the 1750s while he was a field commander under orders of British generals. Again, you ascribe animosity toward the wrong enemy. The Brits were fighting the French over control of the fur trade, off & on for over a century, with the various Indian nations & individual tribes successfully playing both sides against the middle & changing sides as they saw fit. The big losers were the beavers. As Commander in Chief during the revolution, he still managed to drive the Brits out of the United States despite all the logistical problems. As Chair of the Constitutional Convention, he was chosen to be first President because he was the adult in the room who helped work out the compromises that allowed the document to be completed & sent out for ratification. As President, it was all administrative & diplomatic as the new federal government system worked out the kinks.

3) Can't say I disagree about Churchill. Don't know enough about him, & I've never really cared.

[Stavros]

1) Re the Philippines: following the attack on US marines on the island of Samar in September 1901-40 killed- Roosevelt ordered Maj-Gen R CHaffee to 'pacify' the island, Chaffee gave the job to Gen Jacob Smith who wanted the island to become 'a howling wilderness' and gave the now-notorious instruction to 'kill all over ten' -note, Roosevelt was President at the time; I think for about two weeks.

2) The point about Washington is in many ways the most pertinent: it is not about the conflict with the British, but the question: Who is America for? or, Who was the Revolution fought for? It relates to the debate I am sure you are familiar with that argues that the men who shaped the revolution did it for people like themselves: land and slave-owning capitalists of Christian western European origin. George Washington was no friend of the first nations, because their existence contradicted the enlightenment ideals which helped to shape the language and content of the founding documents -indeed, it was these ideals and values which formed the basis of the civil rights movement and which, ultimately, could not deny that equality is a meaningless concept if, in practice, it does not apply to all. Today, there are Republicans whose belief that the founding idea of America was to make it a refuge for 'White' Christian capitalists is articulated in the face of and despite the multicultural and multi-religious facts of the USA, just as the contempt for people who are not descended from European Christians continues to result in fatal violence suggests that a 'frontier mentality' has not been expunged from the USA.

With regard to Trish's sarcastic remark:
Teddy Roosevelt is also hated for establishing the national park system for the preservation of forests and wetlands, protecting them from exploitation for profit, for the enjoyment of all Americans

Richard Nixon was President when the Environmental Protection Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency were created, protecting the environment from exploitation by big business, and for the enjoyment of all Americans. Does that mean you want to re-habilitate Mr Nixon?

These are politicians we are dealing with, not saints and martyrs; politicians are doomed to be judged harshly, and rightly so.

[trish]

With regard to Trish's sarcastic remark:
Teddy Roosevelt is also hated for establishing the national park system for the preservation of forests and wetlands, protecting them from exploitation for profit, for the enjoyment of all Americans

Richard Nixon was President when the Environmental Protection Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency were created, protecting the environment from exploitation by big business, and for the enjoyment of all Americans. Does that mean you want to re-habilitate Mr Nixon?

These are politicians we are dealing with, not saints and martyrs; politicians are doomed to be judged harshly, and rightly so. Totally agree. Nixon implemented commendable policies and despicable ones, as did Teddy R. Counting up the pluses and the minuses is not ever an easy job. Thank you historians for continuing on and persevering the criticism.

An Aside: For my two cents I don't want to see anybody's head carved into a mountain, not even the Phantom's. It would be interesting to bring back the four Rushmore Presidents and ask each of them what they think about that eyesore. Would Crazy Horse really appreciate the fact that his image will deface a whole landscape?

[buttslinger]

Thanks for the set-up, Trish, here is my response in living color, Teddy Roosevelt in miniature, and yours truly, the budding sculptor. No mountains were harmed.

[trish]

Cute, artistic and ambitious! I would've had a serious crush on you.

[buttslinger]

Thanks for not leaving me hangin' I've been murdering threads lately.

[hippifried]

1) Re the Philippines: following the attack on US marines on the island of Samar in September 1901-40 killed- Roosevelt ordered Maj-Gen R CHaffee to 'pacify' the island, Chaffee gave the job to Gen Jacob Smith who wanted the island to become 'a howling wilderness' and gave the now-notorious instruction to 'kill all over ten' -note, Roosevelt was President at the time; I think for about two weeks.

2) The point about Washington is in many ways the most pertinent: it is not about the conflict with the British, but the question: Who is America for? or, Who was the Revolution fought for? It relates to the debate I am sure you are familiar with that argues that the men who shaped the revolution did it for people like themselves: land and slave-owning capitalists of Christian western European origin. George Washington was no friend of the first nations, because their existence contradicted the enlightenment ideals which helped to shape the language and content of the founding documents -indeed, it was these ideals and values which formed the basis of the civil rights movement and which, ultimately, could not deny that equality is a meaningless concept if, in practice, it does not apply to all. Today, there are Republicans whose belief that the founding idea of America was to make it a refuge for 'White' Christian capitalists is articulated in the face of and despite the multicultural and multi-religious facts of the USA, just as the contempt for people who are not descended from European Christians continues to result in fatal violence suggests that a 'frontier mentality' has not been expunged from the USA.

With regard to Trish's sarcastic remark:
Teddy Roosevelt is also hated for establishing the national park system for the preservation of forests and wetlands, protecting them from exploitation for profit, for the enjoyment of all Americans

Richard Nixon was President when the Environmental Protection Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency were created, protecting the environment from exploitation by big business, and for the enjoyment of all Americans. Does that mean you want to re-habilitate Mr Nixon?

These are politicians we are dealing with, not saints and martyrs; politicians are doomed to be judged harshly, and rightly so.
Wow! You sure like to make mountains out of molehills. So TR is the big villain in Samar because he ordered the military governor to get the island under control? He also ordered the investigations into the pacification campaign that saw Major Waller court marshalled & found not guilty (he countermanded Smith's "howling wilderness" order), & had Smith court marshalled & forced to retire. Nice historical cherry picking. I hope you realize that this kind of factual omitting is the biggest problem with trying to have these kind of discussions. You failed to make your point.

The American revolution wasn't about protecting slavery, or land holdings, or even capitalism. It was a rejection of monarchy & aristocracy. It was a rejection of the European mindset that all things eminate from nobility, & that rights are granted. The Declaration of Independence wasn't just about getting out from under British rule. It was a statement of the American core belief in the self evident truth of unalienable rights. Americans know this part. How many do you suppose can quote a single charge against the king? Independence was just necessary to keep rulers from interfering with that core idea. All those guys you claim were only in it for the money had their necks on the line. Literally.

Oh, & Nixon didn't just propose & push the EPA, but OSHA too. Then again, he was also a crook & liar. He singlehandedly plunged the world into the 40 years of artificial inflation that's still happening & that most of y'all personally know nothing else. He cut the "Russian wheat deal". His big foray into diplomacy with the communist block set up a monopoly deal for Pepsi (his old client with his law partner John Mitchell) to be sold exclusively ("no coke! Pesi...") across northern & central Asia. On & on.

[Stavros]

Wow! You sure like to make mountains out of molehills. So TR is the big villain in Samar because he ordered the military governor to get the island under control? He also ordered the investigations into the pacification campaign that saw Major Waller court marshalled & found not guilty (he countermanded Smith's "howling wilderness" order), & had Smith court marshalled & forced to retire. Nice historical cherry picking. I hope you realize that this kind of factual omitting is the biggest problem with trying to have these kind of discussions. You failed to make your point.

The American revolution wasn't about protecting slavery, or land holdings, or even capitalism. It was a rejection of monarchy & aristocracy. It was a rejection of the European mindset that all things eminate from nobility, & that rights are granted. The Declaration of Independence wasn't just about getting out from under British rule. It was a statement of the American core belief in the self evident truth of unalienable rights. Americans know this part. How many do you suppose can quote a single charge against the king? Independence was just necessary to keep rulers from interfering with that core idea. All those guys you claim were only in it for the money had their necks on the line. Literally.


In the matter of Teddy Roosevelt you are the one who has missed the cardinal point, which is that TR wanted to create an overseas American empire based on the fact, as he saw it, that the subject peoples targeted by America he considered to be inferior human beings, if they were human at all. So, a) he was embarrassed at the consequences of his own decision in Samar, hence the actions that he subsequently took, but b) he wasnt about to acknowledge the right of the Philippines to be independent, the people in his opinion were not good enough. It was TR's position on Japanese imperialism that has led some historians (eg James Bradley in The Imperial Cruise) to argue that the East Asian/Pacific region policies of the TR administration boosted the confidence of the Japanese Empire and led directly to Pearl Harbour.

Fundamental to this moment in American history, is the core problem inherent in the revolutionary project where the 'Rights of Man' either refer to inalienable rights that all men have, or the Greek concept in which the concept of humanity is exclusive, meaning only some people can be classified as 'men' or in the Greek terminology 'Citizens'. Even if the precise language differs from the Athenian model, before and after 1766 but not until 1964, some people in the USA were not equal, the 'Rights of Man' did not apply to them because they were not considered worthy of the right to be equal -Iroquois, Sioux, Slaves and so on -this is so basic to the problem of American democracy it still resonates in the laws that States have drawn up to prevent certain types of people -typically convicts and ex-convicts- from participating in elections.

Every President since Washington has had to confront the language of freedom with its reality -there is no more absolute way of depriving someone of their freedom than to kill them, and yet it was before, during, and after this famous Revolution that first nations were being denied their freedom, as it were, absolutely. Roosevelt carried on killing as part of his American Empire project. This does not make the USA the enemy of freedom, as the country has supported it and democracy on many occasions (cf the King-Crane Commission in what is now Syria in 1919) - but the thread does ask harsh questions about the way in which a Republican or indeed any other President can be judged.

Freedom has become a fixture in the lexicon of American politics, sometimes in a positive way; but it is equally important to point out how often it has been denied, from the Iroquois and the Sioux inside the USA, to Filipinos and Cubans on theb outside. And, surely, Vietnam for my generation fatally undermined whatever lingering admiration there was for the USA's commitment to freedom and liberty- and few Presidents, if any, have been able to repair the damage that was initiated by Kennedy and reached a new nadir of destruction under Nixon.