Best leader your country never had
- Thread starter Quackers
- Start date
plarq
Crazy forever
and enjoy better PR for not invading as many countries as US.
Only agenda is historical accuracy.
Early presidents did not actively pursue legislative agendas in the same fashion as modern presidents. There was a greater degree of deference to the Congress and party leaders (Adams was by no means the leader of the Federalists and had quite a tense relationship with the Federalists retained from Washington's administration).
David McCullough covered this fairly well in his biography of Adams, if you are interested in reading more.
I was going to let Cutlass post the followup if he wanted. But I suspect he was referring to one of two things: the Iran-Contra scandal, or undermining the negotiations with Iran during the presidential campaign to go after the Carter administration.
...really? Au-H2O?
I'm kind of curious, I glanced back up-thread and you mentioned how the conservative movement became more religious following his defeat.
As much as I dislike Reagan, I don't agree with this. Reagan had too many successful speeches and public appearances in the last 2 years of his term. And no one at the time noted him starting to lose focus.
Reagan worked to undermine the sitting president by undermining a national security issue while a candidate for that office. Reagan used US tax dollars to subsidize the USSR's weapons programs by selling them subsidized grain. And Iran-Contra, where he sold guns intended for use against Americans and our allies.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,645
I had to google that to get the context. I'd never seen it before.
Since we're playing what-if, I think there is a decent case to be made for the country being a better place today if conservatism in the form of Barry Goldwater hadn't been ground into the dust by Lyndon Johnson. I don't know another political candidate that was smashed so hard in a general election that many people still consider it fine to vilify him decades later based mostly on the electioneering rather than anything concrete. I mean Johnson did some good stuff, I certainly don't want to give up the Civil Rights Act, but that man was as terrifically effective when he was wrong as when he was right. Mainstream conservative candidates that were for minimal government intervention in people's private lives died with Goldwater, the Blue Dog Democrats have followed suit finally. I blame the Tea Party and the NeoCons on this. It's almost tempting to hate Johnson as much as Truman, really, in some ways.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
He signed the act, you're arguing against historical accuracy.
Undermine =/= treason, politicians do it, and while maybe they shouldn't, in this case he did the right thing, as the President Elect... Carter had clearly failed.
Also, talking bad about an opposition party leader, that you're running against, during a campaign, is the right of anyone in the campaign.
Carter sucked, and Reagan was pointing out how he would do better... and then he did better, proving it right away.
Or would you suggest that in running against the incumbent, the challenger can't challenge the incumbents actions? That's his job.
Anyway, it wasn't to lead to the "overthrow", so not treason. I won't even accept it as low or unethical, and I think you guys trying to present it as such is clear nonsense.
What part of that is an attempt to overthrow the US government?
That's what treason is.
Again, the president elect undermining the sitting/lame duck/ineffectual president to get back our people =/= treason.
Undermine =/= treason.
Use the correct words whenever possible, and when called out to be wrong, don't double down on it. Admit you misspoke and fix it.
MacAttack
Just the tip
Don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. He gave birth to the Mexican independence movement, but was executed within a year after starting.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Reagan was a decent -- maybe even good -- executive in terms of foreign policy. At the end of the day I am glad we had Reagan instead of Mondale and H.W. Bush instead of Dukakis, but the economic cost has been high. We had a Democratic executive for the majority of the 1990's that arguably did more to deregulate the economy than its Republican (H.W. Bush) predecessor, so in my assessment Clinton/Gore are just as culpable as Reagan for the suicidal l'aissez-faire project. Probably more, because you know, they were supposed to be liberals.
The Democratic Party has been a disappointment post-LBJ, really.
The Democratic Party has been a disappointment post-LBJ, really.
Yeah, I think he had some campaign signs with that abbreviation of his name. I remember seeing some black-and-white pictures with it.
I had always considered Goldwater as a sort of prototype for the modern GOP, given his current fan club. Would you describe his conservatism as a bit more libertarian-leaning in the modern context?
He signed everything the Congress passed (I'm not kidding, Adams never vetoed a thing), and that was a Congress dominated by Hamilton's Federalists. He deferred to them to a fault which, to bring this back to SC's point, is what he wanted: an Adams with a backbone that was not run over by Hamilton & Co.
Treason is defined in the US context as citizens levying war against the country or otherwise willingly aiding and abetting the enemy. For reference, I consider what the Buchanan war department did (not to mention the Confederate government and army) and Nixon sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks as unquestionably treason. Not brought to court, but still treason.
The key issue with Reagan's Iran saga is whether that country is considered an enemy, given there general hostility and no formal diplomatic relations, but there was not a formal declaration of war. If what he did wasn't treason, he was toeing that line as closely as possible, and doing so for the most naked of ambitions.
@Antilogic: Goldwater hated the idea of the religious right usurping the party and even warned against it.
"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
We got Nixon and Reagan instead of Goldwater and Rockefeller and that is why America has failed 
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The problem is that the 'religious right' and the 'economic conservative' are basically in the same position. They are a minority trying to inflict their views on the majority. In order to accomplish the goal they have no choice but to make a deal with anyone who is willing to set aside their own economic views, and in return they have to offer support on whatever issue the allies think makes that worthwhile.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
*facepalm*
Yeah, and so did GWBush basically, until like 2006, and hence the budget flew out of control, etc. Bad leader, yes, still responsible for it.
You're continue arguing against fact.
Ummmm... Reagan wasn't doing either. He was freeing Americans.
Enemy in a time of war, we weren't at war.
So, the PRESIDENT seeks to overthrow himself? You're completely in the wrong arena here...
He was running for President, Jeeeezuzzz...
So, was John Kerri treasonous during his 2004 campaign? Decidedly no, but per your argument, yes. In the real world, he was presenting options to the status quo.
Sorry to break this to you, but we live in a democracy where people get to choose their presidents (their two options being presented to them by the corporations they are sympathetic to), and they give us options... that isn't treason for crying out loud.
If we lived in a dictatorship, then you could argue it would be treason, because dictatorships don't allow for opinions outside of the government's.
It's hilarious that you're willing to double down on this absurd premise rather than say, you're right, treason is too strong/hyperbole... please, triple down on it. I think that's what people here like to do.
*end facepalm*
Hadn't seen that quote from him before. I'm getting the impression he's more of a Rand Paul type.
We got Nixon and Reagan instead of Goldwater and Rockefeller and that is why America has failed
Rockefeller would have been an interesting chief executive, kind of a Warren-light. Speaking of which, I'll add Earl Warren to my list. Got muscled out by Nixon but if he had been president, we might have seen the parties reversed today.
You said it best:
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Antilogic, please use words properly in your posts. It makes for a more meaningful exchange.
That's all I'm saying.
If you can't figure the difference between providing an option versus treason, in a democracy, I'm sorry. I don't find it to be at all a subtle difference, but I can't continue to discuss with someone that doesn't make sense.
That's all I'm saying.
If you can't figure the difference between providing an option versus treason, in a democracy, I'm sorry. I don't find it to be at all a subtle difference, but I can't continue to discuss with someone that doesn't make sense.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,645
In the modern context? Probably not, as that's been bastardized by the Tea Party. He's a bit muddled on Civil Rights too. Pre-presidential candidacy he had a history of quietly working on and supporting Civil Rights reforms and managed not to trigger the reactionary right. When presidential politics reared its head he allowed, or maybe was forced, to stand as separate from LBJ on that, and yea, his line was that states should enact that change. Which he seemed on his history willing to work for, but it still backfired and probably rightfully so. I don't think he represents the modern GOP. His union stances existed largely in the light of much a more powerful and significantly more corrupt unionized era. His views on abortion and gay rights would be an anathema to a Tea Party Republican, though they might try and brush that over.
The projection here is astounding. Truly astounding.
