Originality Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast) |
Strelnikov
Junior Spy
Post #59308
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Total Words: 13,863
Average words per post: 330.07
PoliMatch: n/a
   
|
Posted: Wed 2009-08-19 04:09
|
 |
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: Russia |
|
| Socialism, Progress and the Quality of Life |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (5 votes cast) |
|
|
Socialism, Progress and the Quality of Life
It is interesting how Conservative capitalists equate Socialism with stagnant sameness and the speed of the slowest man.
Capitalism has given mankind wonderful progress and technology and all Socialism can offer is a kind of worn out poverty where everyone aspires to the least common denominator.
So what can Socialism possibly offer in the face of working 9 to 5, 5 days a week for 25 or 30 years, not to mention another hour each day commuting (or more). 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 12 years OR MORE going to school. Asleep 1/3 of our lives. And if we survive the stress, crime and toxicity of modern 'civilization' and live past 50, we get to relax and try to spend our 'golden years' relaxing with our family that is now off leading their own lives.
And dont forget that the 8 hour day and the 5 day work week were traded for 10 to 12 hour days and a 7 day work week not so very long ago.
Those same Capitalists who warn of Socialism probably would have spent their youth in a sweat shop and then working their lives away not unlike proles. No public education, state or community colleges without Socialism. You were either born into luxury, or you sweat your ass off and die a pauper. Few make the conversion from lower middle class or lower class to the Bourgeoisie.
It was Socialism which changed the system from the Liberty of the White male landowner to something more generic. And landowner didn't come through purchase. Purchasing land if you did not inherit it or were granted it, was merely leasing. When you died, it didnt go to your offspring, it returned to the state/king or to a real landowner.
It was Tom Paine who first proposed in his Agrarian Justice that those landowners owed a debt to the rest of the population who 'allowed' the landowner to develop the land. Essentially the land belonged to everyone and those lucky enough to own some and be enriched by it, owed the rest of us a debt for the privilege.
But even though the Socialists made our lives 'better' than they were/ could be under rampant Capitalism, Capitalism Unbound, our lives still have little real quality.
If we live 80 years, do those 80 years have more quality than the 40 years that a native person who lived in 'America' before 1607 enjoyed?
Even the farmer who eked out a living and died poor and over worked at 45 or 50 had a better quality of life. Time could be spent with one's own family and tribe. Work was an extension of your family and community.
No we work everyday farther from home than many of those people ventured their whole lives. Those extra 40 years are lost away from our loved ones institutionalized at work, school or commuting. And that time is taken from us in our prime.
Capitalism has destroyed the family and the bonds that keep the family together as everyone rushes off into the sunset on their own selfish journey.
People fear the possibilities of Socialism and equality because they can't imagine what it could be like. They accept the poor lives we have as some sort of Capitalist Utopia, instead of the selfish, individual hell it has become.
What if 400 years ago, America had been founded on the ideals of real freedom for all, regardless of social class, ethnic background, gender, race .... What if we had believed that the success of each of us depended on the success of all of us and as TRUE social beings we thrive on our mutual success. Instead we accepted the path that to each his own by his own skills and the luck of the draw. That I can succeed only if I find advantage over others. If I find a way to bring others down by their race, their beliefs, their social class or their intellect, I can improve my own lot.
It is an ugly selfishness when the blanket is thrown back and we see it in the light of day.
Conservatives say Socialism would keep people down and that they want freedom, while they vote to limit rights to others.
Executive pay increases hundredfold while minimum wage continues on. I read that had the minimum wage kept pace with executive pay, it would be $41 an hour today. Something to think about.
The laws and regulations have created a huge gap between the haves and the have nots and it only grows everyday. But those are the people who want to continue to be free.
It is a dictatorship of the wealthy.
Under Capitalism, the idea is to pay/ imburse your workers only the minimum you need to keep them in your employ. Anything else is wasting your profits or the return to your shareholders.
Socialism is about bringing everyone together and supporting each other. Capitalism is about pulling each other apart and taking care of yourself.
Even if we only lived to be 50 years old, to spend your life in the shawdow of your family and enjoy simple prosperity would be far better than to live in deadly competition needing the newest car and spending over half your life away from your family and maybe, MAYBE living to be 51....
-Pasha |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Agent Zero
Junior Spy
Post #59311
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-08-19 20:56
|
|
| Politics: Ingsoc |
Country: British Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.6/4 (5 votes cast) |
|
|
I'm an evolutionary Socialist to perhaps extreme ends. I believe that Marx was right in that before achieveing an ideal society that society has to pass through stages of development (though I for one believe that Marx's theories need to be updated to include the post-industrial capitalist phase, the one we're currently in in most western democracies, as it has given human society most of its greates technical achievements).
In that sense I believe that capitalism isn't neseccarily evil, it's just outdated, obselete, like the feudal system of the middle ages. Simply put, capitalism is needed to achieve the technological foundations of the socialist society that will replace it. Not to say that technological achievement can't be achieved under socialism, just that capitalism is better suited for the "heavy lifting" to get it done faster. I beleive we're nearing the point where human techological progress will have reached the point where capitalism has finally contributed it's last bit of usefullness and we have the complete technological foundation needed to achieve a well run, efficiant socialist society.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #59313
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-08-19 23:25
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| What if 400 years ago, America had been founded on the ideals of real freedom for all, regardless of social class, ethnic background, gender, race .... What if we had believed that the success of each of us depended on the success of all of us and as TRUE social beings we thrive on our mutual success. Instead we accepted the path that to each his own by his own skills and the luck of the draw. That I can succeed only if I find advantage over others. If I find a way to bring others down by their race, their beliefs, their social class or their intellect, I can improve my own lot. |
Most American themes developed in a spirit of opposition to Europe. When Europe persecuted religious groups, those groups fled to the colonies. When people had no land of their own, they came here, where they could stake out their own property. When the English government wanted to discharge criminals without executing them, they established a penal colony here. The Irish couldn't get anything to eat and drew no wages during famine, they came to the US and worked. The planner in you must imagine that America was founded on some overriding vision or premise, and this is simplistic. Things did not happen according to a plan, here or anywhere. If, truly, you prefer birthright, tradition, guilds, predestination, and national projects, you should probably head back to Europe, because we're the exiles from those systems and they find less purchase here.
| Agent Zero wrote: |
| In that sense I believe that capitalism isn't neseccarily evil, it's just outdated, obselete, like the feudal system of the middle ages. Simply put, capitalism is needed to achieve the technological foundations of the socialist society that will replace it. Not to say that technological achievement can't be achieved under socialism, just that capitalism is better suited for the "heavy lifting" to get it done faster. I beleive we're nearing the point where human techological progress will have reached the point where capitalism has finally contributed it's last bit of usefullness and we have the complete technological foundation needed to achieve a well run, efficiant socialist society. |
This idea has been popular since Marx expressed it a hundred and forty years ago. Nearness to a point is highly relative to one's perspective. Clearly, things just aren't following our script.
I think a "planned society" --something founded for and governed by specific goals-- would be a viable system once we have an unimaginable level of precision with predictions and information. Isaac Asimov envisioned those ingredients when he created a sci-fi variant on psychohistory in the Foundation series: a mathematical science that can encapsulate human existence A to Z... an academic discipline which was basically the final product of an outrageously advanced human society spanning the galaxy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strelnikov
Junior Spy
Post #59314
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Total Words: 13,863
Average words per post: 330.07
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 03:00
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
The planner in you must imagine that America was founded on some overriding vision or premise, and this is simplistic. Things did not happen according to a plan, here or anywhere. If, truly, you prefer birthright, tradition, guilds, predestination, and national projects, you should probably head back to Europe, because we're the exiles from those systems and they find less purchase here.
|
I dont think I ever implied that America was founded with some 'plan'. What I said was 'what if it were?' Or more accurately what if people actually acted that all people were worthy of freedom and liberty no just white landowners.
If you doubt white males were the birthright of America, read the constitution.
Americans are no longer exiles from Europe. In fact, prior to the revolution most Americans saw themselves as an extension of Europe. But regardless, certainly today Americans are Americans not exiles. Many Americans are descendents of those who left Europe for opportunity that did not exist in their homes. Or to escape war or oppression. But there were many who were brought to America or who came to America who did not realize full citizenship merely because of their race or their gender.
I think it is always interesting when Americans fail to understand the freedom of thought and ideas, that as soon as someone has an idea that is contrary to their own, they speak up and say, go back to your country .... or America love it or leave it.
Freedom means that people can come to America and seek to change things they way they desire. If they are even a minority of one, they have the right to pursue their desires, as long as they honor the responsibility of the minority in a democracy.
In fact, in America today there are millions in a conservative minority that are failing their responsibility to support the system that selected a majority and take their place as the minority while respecting the right of the majority to rule.
Whether you can really run a country where 51% of the citizens decide what is good for 100% of the citizens isnt really the point. The fact is that is what the American form of a federal republic is designed to do.
The possibility that that system is outdated and may benefit from changes is certainly an option open to Americans.
There is nothing in the Constitution saying Capitalism is the form of economy in the US.
But what the Constitutin DOES say is that there are ways to change the constitution legally and those changes carry the same weight as the original document.
Okay, I've strayed from the issue here and gone down a separate path. The point is that all Americans have the right to pursue whatever system they desire, as long as they recognize their responsibilities as a minority, or until such time as they are the majority.
-Pasha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #59316
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 04:40
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.7/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| I dont think I ever implied that America was founded with some 'plan'. What I said was 'what if it were?' Or more accurately what if people actually acted that all people were worthy of freedom and liberty no just white landowners. |
Oh, okay. As to the white landowner part, we needed to start somewhere. In Europe, it wasn't all white men, but only those of noble birth who were entitled to lands and liberties. All ownership was under the auspices of nobles. Extending rights to all white men was a step forward at the time.
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| In fact, in America today there are millions in a conservative minority that are failing their responsibility to support the system that selected a majority and take their place as the minority while respecting the right of the majority to rule. |
Perhaps I can help with an appeal to empathy. I do not know you, but if you were following US politics in 2004, did you throw in with Bush quietly, taking your place as a minority and respecting the right of the majority to rule? Or did you feel dissatisfaction at the outcome of the election, and an urgency that his policies desist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #59318
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4330
Total Words: 713,643
Average words per post: 164.81
PoliMatch: n/a
  
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 06:48
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| I dont think I ever implied that America was founded with some 'plan'. What I said was 'what if it were?' Or more accurately what if people actually acted that all people were worthy of freedom and liberty no just white landowners. |
Oh, okay. As to the white landowner part, we needed to start somewhere. In Europe, it wasn't all white men, but only those of noble birth who were entitled to lands and liberties. All ownership was under the auspices of nobles. Extending rights to all white men was a step forward at the time.
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| In fact, in America today there are millions in a conservative minority that are failing their responsibility to support the system that selected a majority and take their place as the minority while respecting the right of the majority to rule. |
Perhaps I can help with an appeal to empathy. I do not know you, but if you were following US politics in 2004, did you throw in with Bush quietly, taking your place as a minority and respecting the right of the majority to rule? Or did you feel dissatisfaction at the outcome of the election, and an urgency that his policies desist? |
Republican pontificating on the poor and cheering for the worst president in US History -foolishness does not learn from the past yet again... 
PS: Republican Majority Vote = rigged memory cards in Diebold Voting Machines, courtesy of Republican Supporter, CEO and elected Rep. -Sweet.
_________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c)
alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com
RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agent Zero
Junior Spy
Post #59319
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 13:09
|
|
| Politics: Ingsoc |
Country: British Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
To be fair I would rank James Buchanan and maybe Richard Nixon as worse US Presidents then George W. Bush.
It's way to soon in the post-W era to even think about trying to objectively evaluate his presidency.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strelnikov
Junior Spy
Post #59320
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Total Words: 13,863
Average words per post: 330.07
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 15:42
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Agent Zero wrote: |
To be fair I would rank James Buchanan and maybe Richard Nixon as worse US Presidents then George W. Bush.
It's way to soon in the post-W era to even think about trying to objectively evaluate his presidency. |
History is important, to be sure. It IS too soon to know for sure where Dubya will fit in. There were policies and actions that Dubya took that will certainly mark him. The interesting thing, which you raise by pointing out Buchanan, is that sometimes the WORST politicians are the ones which do nothing, not the ones which make bad decisions or implement bad policies.
My favorite worst modern president is Ronald Reagan. But Conservative historians are busy glossing over his errors and misdeeds and focusing in some of his less important positive acts.
Any president that enters office heading a creditor nation and leaves office with a debtor nation needs some examining.
But that said, Reagan will get his review when the emotions of his reign are over, and the same is true of Dubya. Most on either side cannot be impartial enough to look at both sides critically.
With that I will reserve my personal feelings towards Dubya, I'm not a historian but I know scary policies when I see them.
When we look at presidential inaction, Hoover stands up as one pertinent to our times. Hoover failed to take much action on either the social front or the economic front. Whether actions taken could have reduced or avoided the Depression, we will never know. Nor will we know if actions NOT taken by Roosevelt would have resolved the Depression sooner or better.
But what we do know is that FDR took action and he was willing to adjust or change course if his actions proved unsuccessful. FDR was probably one of the least political presidents in the sense of party politics, he was just stuck in a situation where he had to do what he thought was right to solve the crisis and assist Americans, as well as try to impose some regulation to try and ensure the conditions of the crisis were not realized again.
It is interesting that our current crisis comes after many of the restrictions were finally lifted and the precursor conditions of the Great Depression were once again realized resulting in a similar disaster.
Again, nothing says there aren't better solutions, but we can only judge by the solutions implemented.
The same goes for any president. Judge them on the decisions they make based on the criteria of the times and then judge their ability to change course and adjust when those prove to be less than effective or another course may work better.
One of Dubya's 'crimes' was his seeming inability to adjust course as more information came in.
We'll never know if buchanan could have prevented or contained the Civil War, probably not. Had the south seceded during Buchanan's administration there might have been no fight for re unification at the time. So sometimes a bad president at the right time can do accidental good.
-Pasha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strelnikov
Junior Spy
Post #59321
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Total Words: 13,863
Average words per post: 330.07
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-08-20 16:05
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Perhaps I can help with an appeal to empathy. I do not know you, but if you were following US politics in 2004, did you throw in with Bush quietly, taking your place as a minority and respecting the right of the majority to rule? Or did you feel dissatisfaction at the outcome of the election, and an urgency that his policies desist? |
As a general answer, I will say that I was working in the government at the time of Dubya's accession to the presidency. After a while the discussion came up that this (at the time) must be very much like what it was like to serve when Hitler came to power. You could see bad (I use bad in place of evil) things happening, but there was so much support you could neither find a way to 'expose' the bad nor find a way to counter it.
I knew of a man who chose to resign because he could not support Dubya's policies. I also knew a man who resigned for the same reason during the Clinton Administration. I knew of others who disagreed with Dubya's policies but thought it wrong to resign or retire just because one disagreed with the policies of the elected leaders.
So, I did the job I was appointed to do. When discrepancies or outright misinformation came up, I did my best to refute it and counter it where I could.
It is difficult to remember that you are a 'servant' of the people and those same people elected the president and the congress. The nice thing about America is that if something weird becomes a law, it can also be undone.
I think Dubya's campaigns and tactics were questionable at best, but if the American people are confused or convinced, there isnt much one can do. When a target of those nearly criminal tactics - McCain came out and nominated Dubya at the convention rather than slamming the campaign tactics and trying to lead the party away from Dubya, that seemed to smack of sellout. There were many GOP victims of Dubya's campaign but no one came forward at any time to point out the tactics. Of course, that is there option and choice.
There is much to discuss of any actions by politicians. And those actions and policies and laws should be discussed and debated. Dissent is part of the process. I am not disparaging dissent. I am disparaging distractions from the issues. I am disparaging fear mongering and misinformation. And I will always call people out when they claim they support freedom and liberty and then turn around and deny rights and privileges to certain classes of people.
You are correct, the white male landowners were a starting place. I cannot disagree with that nor with the progress made since then.
My thesis in my imaginary ravings were really -- where would we be if, in 1607, things started out that way.
And not only started out that way, but if we didnt immediately fear immigrants based on their race, culture, language or politics.
The days of the white majority are quickly coming to an end in the US. By 2042 - certainly within many of our lifetimes - whites will no longer be a majority in the US. I hope by that time we have sorted out where exactly race fits into the American culture. It is too bad we have YET to deal with this, rather than feel good that we already know.
Thanks for your insights and your point of view!
-Pasha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Post #59324
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-08-21 00:15
|
|
| Politics: Nihilism |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Socialism, Progress and the Quality of Life |
Post Rating: 1.3/4 (4 votes cast) |
|
|
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| Capitalism has destroyed the family and the bonds that keep the family together as everyone rushes off into the sunset on their own selfish journey. |
At least it got that part right. The human mind cannot comprehend singularities. It can only comprehend comparisons. A socialist society could only lead to decadence and decay of the human will in the long run.
Speaking of the long run, as the period of human existence approaches zero in comparison to the period of existence of the universe, serving the burden of a 'higher' cause placed on your shoulders by your ancestors makes less and less sense. Both socialism and capitalism are guilty of this, which is why I gave up on politics almost a year ago.
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strelnikov
Junior Spy
Post #59329
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Total Words: 13,863
Average words per post: 330.07
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-08-28 04:44
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: Russia |
|
| Re: Socialism, Progress and the Quality of Life |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
| Speaking of the long run, as the period of human existence approaches zero in comparison to the period of existence of the universe, serving the burden of a 'higher' cause placed on your shoulders by your ancestors makes less and less sense. Both socialism and capitalism are guilty of this, which is why I gave up on politics almost a year ago. |
The ideas of 'cause' ancestry and duty to the ancestors and the like -- seems to me one of those propagandist tools used to present a much improved vision of the past as some sort of lost utopia that 'we' should be trying to return to. In effect - the ultimate reactionist argument. Unfortunately, the past was just as shitty as the future.
I dont think there is a wrong in trying to identify or comprehend a sense of 'culture', even though to some degree that can become a tool of racism and separation of people, tribes, states, nations, religions, cultures - whathaveyou ... I think it is natural to desire to connect with a sense of a greater 'you' through culture, history, family history, origin, etc, but as a method of finding a place within a greater whole and then becoming a part of that whole.
We should be evolving, that was one of my points. Too bad we didnt evolve from a more advanced point, rather than from where we are today. And too bad we must continue to re learn the same lessons -- the point I get from JOHNNYBEGOOD -- that we need to progress as humans instead of superstitious beasts who think that time and existence started the day the first human crapped on the ground.
I dont think it is too useful to focus on those past/ ancestral issues as much as it is to find a sense of community to work together to 'succeed' in the universe. Too much of the effort has been on small groups succeeding, even at the expense of others. And yes, much of that is the thanks of this sort of AncestorThink whereby we derive a sense of destiny from some connection to an ancestor who maybe never imagined us in this condition.
You can broaden this to religious and racial trappings of superiority -- all it is, is an attempt by one group to derive a cause or rationale for their selfish behavior. Not based on the rationality of the present and the near future, but on the irrationality of a bygone past and a slanted interpretation.
We have matured, to some degree, away from the political parties, definitions, ideals and tactics of the 19th and 20th centuries, in the same way we have matured or evolved away from the religions of the past 500 years.
We seem to be at some intangible cross road similar to when human kind moved from being centered on families and villages to centering on states and nations. We just havent emerged to understand what that is yet. And the past, our ancestors and the reactionaries are busy trying to hold us back.
-Pasha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agent Zero
Junior Spy
Post #59342
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2009-08-29 18:03
|
|
| Politics: Ingsoc |
Country: British Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (2 votes cast) |
|
|
| Strelnikov wrote: |
| Agent Zero wrote: |
To be fair I would rank James Buchanan and maybe Richard Nixon as worse US Presidents then George W. Bush.
It's way to soon in the post-W era to even think about trying to objectively evaluate his presidency. |
History is important, to be sure. It IS too soon to know for sure where Dubya will fit in. There were policies and actions that Dubya took that will certainly mark him. The interesting thing, which you raise by pointing out Buchanan, is that sometimes the WORST politicians are the ones which do nothing, not the ones which make bad decisions or implement bad policies.
My favorite worst modern president is Ronald Reagan. But Conservative historians are busy glossing over his errors and misdeeds and focusing in some of his less important positive acts. |
I have no doubt W will rank as one of the worst, I'm just not ready to say the worst. We're just approaching the time, as you pointed out, where we can objectively look at Reagan's presidency. It'll be a while before W's final place is decided.
Of course it's also all dependent on Obama. If Obama screws up royally W will look much better by comparison. It doesn't even have to be Obama's fault. One terrorist attack on US soil will swing the American public opinion back to W and the Republicans.
"Legacy" is a tricky thing.
| Quote: |
| Any president that enters office heading a creditor nation and leaves office with a debtor nation needs some examining. |
Definitely. W will go down as one of the worst. I'm just not sure if it will be THE worst. It's way to early to make that call.
| Quote: |
| But that said, Reagan will get his review when the emotions of his reign are over, and the same is true of Dubya. Most on either side cannot be impartial enough to look at both sides critically. |
I think we're just reaching the point where we can look at Reagan objectively. I'll agree with you, history will not be kind, especially when, if you look at the larger picture, Reagan was just the body that happened to occupy the Oval Office when the USSR collapsed.
| Quote: |
| With that I will reserve my personal feelings towards Dubya, I'm not a historian but I know scary policies when I see them. |
I'll actually equate W with Buchanan more then with Nixon. Nixon went out and spear headed "scary policies."
I don't think much of what W's terms are famous for were his initiative. The PATRIOT Act, the wire tapping, suspending habeas corpus, the treatment of PoWs, etc... all of that always seemed to me to be the work of Cheney and his underlings. W was just the figure head who did nothing to spot the evil that was being done under him. In that way he's more like Buchanan in that he did nothing even when he could see things were going wrong.
| Quote: |
| When we look at presidential inaction, Hoover stands up as one pertinent to our times. Hoover failed to take much action on either the social front or the economic front. Whether actions taken could have reduced or avoided the Depression, we will never know. Nor will we know if actions NOT taken by Roosevelt would have resolved the Depression sooner or better. |
Hoover, I think, gets less of a hard time from historians because he did try some things near the end of his term to stave off the Depression. He was just incapable of doing anything else. He was a 19th century politician faced with a 20th century problem. He just didn't know what to do after he tried everything that he did know how to do. As futile as his efforts were, at least he tried something. Coupled with the fact that the Depression wasn't his fault (I blame Taft if anyone but it was more of a global collapse) and I think Hoover getting off lightly is probably justified.
| Quote: |
| But what we do know is that FDR took action and he was willing to adjust or change course if his actions proved unsuccessful. FDR was probably one of the least political presidents in the sense of party politics, he was just stuck in a situation where he had to do what he thought was right to solve the crisis and assist Americans, as well as try to impose some regulation to try and ensure the conditions of the crisis were not realized again. |
FDR is a capitalist hero. No question. The man did what he could to keep the system on life support and the people believing in it until a huge war could pull it back up.
I wouldn't say he was the least political though. He did try to add six seats to the Supreme Court when that body struck down some of New Deal legislation. Not even his own party went along with that 
| Quote: |
| It is interesting that our current crisis comes after many of the restrictions were finally lifted and the precursor conditions of the Great Depression were once again realized resulting in a similar disaster. |
I agree. Ultimately I think the same policies will be put back in place. I don't think the recovery will be as swift though, given that there's less of a chance that the US will enter a major world war this time around.
| Quote: |
We'll never know if buchanan could have prevented or contained the Civil War, probably not. Had the south seceded during Buchanan's administration there might have been no fight for re unification at the time. So sometimes a bad president at the right time can do accidental good.
-Pasha |
I am of the opinion that Buchanan's refusal to act in the wake of the CSA's secession worsened the crisis for the Union. Back in those days the new President was inaugurated in March, not January. The first state to secede was South Carolina in December of 1860. That gave them, and the rest of the south that followed, three months to raise troops organize a national government, organize an army, print currency, etc....
Had Buchanan acted swiftly he could have brought the seceding states back into the Union before they even had a chance to form the CSA.
Inaction in the face of a crises that would have split his country apart is what earns him the rank of "Worst Ever President" in my book.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
