Who is the greatest US president of the 20th & 21st centuries?

[MD]

JFK hands down

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh come now, Luis. It's not like Kennedy forced the Russians to plant Ballistic Missiles in Cuba. The Russians saw him as a weak President and thought they could get away with it. They found out rather rapidly that he wasn't quite as weak as they had allowed themselves to believe.

Though the thought makes me shiver a bit, perhaps the best foreign policy initiatives were advanced by the Nixon administration under the tutelage of Henry Kissinger.

*Dons flame resistant RF body suit*

You are serious, aren't you? You are not alone, either.

Anyway, I happen to emphatically disagree. Strong-arm foreign policy is self-defeating. Are you aware that to this day the damage that Kissinger created isn't yet healed?

To bother to wonder whether a President is "strong" or "weak" is a sign that one is not daring to consider better approaches. Presidents aren't weightlifters. Whatever that supposed personal "strength" turns out to be, it is not important except to the extent that some people will insist in judging them by that perception.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Theodore Roosevelt. Tough enough to champion Progressive causes and start up the national park system and one of the few who could sport the title of bull moose, yet soft enough to have the teddy bear named after him (even if it was just a political cartoon).

And Eisenhower, FDR, and some of the other Progressive presidents are closely behind. And JFK and Carter are probably last ones to actually do anything that actually means anything for those who aren't ultra-wealthy.
But I didn't snuggle with a Carter bear as a child, and it's not a giant Kenny bear that sits in my bed now (maybe a good thing).

 

[YmirGF]

You are serious, aren't you? You are not alone, either.

Anyway, I happen to emphatically disagree. Strong-arm foreign policy is self-defeating. Are you aware that to this day the damage that Kissinger created isn't yet healed?

To bother to wonder whether a President is "strong" or "weak" is a sign that one is not daring to consider better approaches. Presidents aren't weightlifters. Whatever that supposed personal "strength" turns out to be, it is not important except to the extent that some people will insist in judging them by that perception.

You might try re-reading what I said, Luis. Think about it before just dashing to the keyboard. Just a thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought about it. Nothing changed. I stand by what I just asked and said.

 

[dust1n]

And JFK and Carter are probably last ones to actually do anything that actually means anything for those who aren't ultra-wealthy.

Hmm? Habitat for Humanity? Owning homes and getting people clean water? They still do it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hmm? Habitat for Humanity? Owning homes and getting people clean water? They still do it.

Of course it's still around, as is the Peace Corpse, but it was those presidents who got them started.

 

[F0uad]

Competitive, I would say. Very much a cold war policy.

The Cuban Missile Crisis happened under his watch, which IMO is a bad sign. I will be surprised if there is no disagreement on this matter, though.



Either Jimmy Carter or someone going back way before Kennedy, I believe.

Well then they are all crap.. sorry Americans..

 

[dust1n]

Of course it's still around, as is the Peace Corpse, but it was those presidents who got them started.

Yeah... I think I misunderstood? I thought the complaint was that Jimmy Carter did the least amount of stuff for anyone other than the ultra-wealthy.

But he started Habitat for Humanity. He also returned the Panama Canal to Panama. So, I mean, I don't get the ranking of Jimmy Carter as someone who never helped poor people.

 

[dust1n]

Well then they are all crap.. sorry Americans..

It's alright. It's no secret to me all leaders are terrible leaders.

 

[F0uad]

It's alright. It's no secret to me all leaders are terrible leaders.

Most of them not all

 

[LuisDantas]

I have come to believe that the trouble is not so much with leaders as with the rather unreasonable, if not unhealthy, expectations that are usually projected into them.

Things usually work better when people's individual vocations and peculiarities are allowed for and taken constructive advantage of. What is usually described as "strong leadership" is quite the opposite, and ultimately destructive - yet people keep longing for the "strong leader" all the while despising him when he shows not to be in agreement with their views.

I even find myself wondering if the best countries aren't those that have smaller populations and therefore a closer link between their authorities and their regular citizens. Such as many of the Nordic ones.

 

[Wirey]

FDR took down Hitler and Japan. He prepared America for it's leadership role on the world stage. He forged a functional, albeit weird, alliance between democracy, theocracy, and commie-ocracy. With the possible exception of Churchill, the single most able politician of the 20th century.

 

[YmirGF]

FDR took down Hitler and Japan. He prepared America for it's leadership role on the world stage. He forged a functional, albeit weird, alliance between democracy, theocracy, and commie-ocracy. With the possible exception of Churchill, the single most able politician of the 20th century.

It's very hard to argue this, Wirey. Consider my vote changed from Ronnie to FDR. I let my love for RR cloud my vision.

 

[LuisDantas]

FDR took down Hitler and Japan. He prepared America for it's leadership role on the world stage. He forged a functional, albeit weird, alliance between democracy, theocracy, and commie-ocracy. With the possible exception of Churchill, the single most able politician of the 20th century.

That is so arguable. Including the Churchill part.

Churchill very much created Iraq as an unstable country, for instance.

And it seems to me that it were the soldiers who took down the Axis, perhaps the Russian ones over any others. Nor is it clear that FDR's handling of Fat Boy and Little Boy is to be considered responsible, either.

 

[Wirey]

That is so arguable. Including the Churchill part.

Churchill very much created Iraq as an unstable country, for instance.

And it seems to me that it were the soldiers who took down the Axis, perhaps the Russian ones over any others. Nor is it clear that FDR's handling of Fat Boy and Little Boy is to be considered responsible, either.

FDR was dead when the bombs were dropped. That was Truman. FDR was told that the Germans were working on the same bomb, and he wanted to beat them to it, which is hardly irresponsible considering his insider's knowledge of what the Nazis were up to.

And Churchill, alone, faced down the arguably the single greatest evil that free people have ever had to go toe-to-toe with until help showed up. He made decisions that were incredibly hard, and sometimes mean, in order to win. His idea of the French-British union was 60 years ahead of it's time. His handling of the people of the UK during the darkest days of war were inspired. His decision to sink the French fleet was a hard one, but it was right, so he did it without regard for how history would paint him. He may have been the only man capable of saving Western civilization, and we (humankind) were damn lucky he was British, and not German.

 

[dust1n]

Most of them not all

Really? I've never heard of a leader without blood on his hands.

 

[Wirey]

Really? I've never heard of a leader without blood on his hands.

Mussolini. He tried, but......

 

[Sunstone]

FDR took down Hitler and Japan. He prepared America for it's leadership role on the world stage. He forged a functional, albeit weird, alliance between democracy, theocracy, and commie-ocracy. With the possible exception of Churchill, the single most able politician of the 20th century.

Yes...yes...but Teddy stormed up San Juan Hill.

 

[Wirey]

Yes...yes...but Teddy stormed up San Juan Hill.

Don't get me wrong, Teddy was great. So were Ike, JFK, Reagan, and Clinton. But they were all Chuck Knoblauch to his Derek Jeter.