please help. i need a history lesson

Most of us probably don't know or forget how it was back then. People more than anything were scared. There was no faith in government. Banks were foreclosing on everything left and right. The Dust Bowl obliterated the midwest and the economy was just going backwards. The biggest issue was hope or the lack of it. That's why FDR resonates so well with so many who are still alive from the era. He brought a sense of hope to America. He also ended prohibition which was certainly popular. But back to the real issue, he finally give the boot to America's reliance on classical economics and was the first to buy into Keynsian economics, the idea that government spending can influence the economy and might actually be a good thing.

Also, we forget that America was staunchly isolationist at the time. We didn't want war and we wanted nothing to do with Europe. Hell we were turning away Jewish refugees and enacting racist and discriminatory immigration laws because we hated anyone who wasn't "American." FDR, rather slyly, started the path to war with things like the lend-lease program etc.. And he got us into WWII which was EXTREMELY controversial even with Pearl Harbor. He functionally created the modern presidency that we see today. Up until then, president's generally were very hands-off and deferred almost everything to Congress. He started the process of controlling the agenda, and dictating policy.

The atomic bomb thing is probably the biggest thing surrounding Truman. He authorized the first and only use of atomic weapons and it's still incredibly controversial. Besides the things you mentioned, he started the process of containment in terms of the Soviet Union, which was a big deal and a gigantic shift in foreign policy. He also established the Marshall Plan which most historians agree was absolutely key to preventing Western Europe from being swept up in the red spread. He also produced the Berlin Airlift which was a pretty impressive feat at the time and still is something to be admired. Also, he pioneered the beginnings of realpolitik (although that really took off with Kissinger) And most people forget, he started the Korean War and really started the policy of direct intervention in order to contain communism as well as funding proxy wars elsewhere. He also started American involvement in Vietnam, although it was nowhere close to what it would become under LBJ.

Truman is basically the guy that dramatically altered our foreign policy and started the cold war. And considering we came out on the right end of it, he's given a lot of credit for that.

He's overly romanticized, which is why his stock continually declines among historians. You're right he really didn't do much. Can't really add much here, the assassination really brought a special aura to him that is slowly disappearing as time progresses.

He was the quiet one that know one really talked about. His presidency is generally known as the "hidden hand." He liked to stay out of the spotlight and really didn't do anything incredible, but he didn't do anything bad. He really just did a bunch of little things. He did start the process of intervening in the Middle East. (He sent troops to Lebanon and Egypt I believe, not sure on that though) He deployed the 101st airborne to enforce Brown v. Board. He expanded the new deal somewhat and did some other tiny things. But that's all his presidency was. He just kept things in order and did what needed to be done. Nothing spectacular and no ground breaking achievements but he's rated so high because he didn't really do anything wrong. And you'll be surprised at how rarely you'll say that about a president.

That was just the nature of the cold war. We fought proxy wars and sent troops all over the place to contain communism. It just sort of bit us in the ass when we helped afghanistan. And honestly, no one could've saw this coming. We funded rebels all over the place and none of those really ever grew to anything more than minor regional issues. However, the Afghan situation just somehow worked out perfectly to where we had nuts WITH money AND extreme religious views. Short sighted thinking, but that was just how it was. The commies invade Afghanistan and our natural reaction is do anything to stop the commies. Hell, we're doing the same thing now. We're funding dictatorships and propping up bad governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.. because right now terrorism is our overriding priority.

Our funding is a fraction of what it was during Kennedy's time. The Space shuttle was designed to be efficient and cheap (of which it was neither) and all future designs all had cost restrictions. The Apollo program was a blank check to get to the moon at any cost before the Russians. If NASA had that type of financial freedom today, I assure you they'd be doing some better stuff than studying plants on a half-finished space station. NASA's budget has been consistently cut so often that they struggle just to fund satellites, let alone manned missions to other bodies in the solar system.

They're worthless, but its politics. The Cuban American population in Florida has a stranglehold on this issue and have their way in terms of sanctions. Things aren't changing unless one administration gets strong enough to where they can flat out ignore the cuban american population (which is large enough to swing Florida one way or another) or Castro finally dies. Sucky situation for the Cubans, but that's how it is.

God that was long and probably a waste of my time but whatever..

 

Ike was also the only President with a balanced budget, in fact I think he ran a surpluss during his term if I am not mistaken.

DD

 

Truman was the best of the bunch listed...I guarantee he would have had a post 93 mindset. Too bad the Democrats have devolved into the leadership they have now...

 

damn put him up there with old abe then. our fiscal irresponsibility is going to be the death of america.

 

Too many questions to answer so I'll just fill in a couple of blanks.

FDR: rodrick_98 was right on the money with saying he created the modern presidency. That is my primary "bookmark" about FDR even more than WWII.

Truman: The Korea War destroyed his presidency, however history has clearly proven him right. We had to respond to the invasion.

JFK: The most overrated president in history. I don't hold that against him, but I do hold it against the romanticists who promote his mythology.

China/Cuba: Agreed that Cuban sanctions are the by-product of "single-issue" Cuban-American activists hijacking of American policy. Florida is too important a state in national politics. Many of my friends in Miami think the sanctions are idiotic but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the logical rationale for the sanctions has been long gone.

 

FDR is probably my favorite President.

When he was elected most banks were closed people who thought they had money safe in banks had lost it all when the banks collapsed. FDR came into office looking to take swift action.

His first 100 days was a huge period of reform and change. He put in programs to get the huge numbers of unemployed back to work. He started the FDIC wich made sure that if people had money in the bank, it would be insured, and they wouldn't lose it. That helped people and a banking system which had failed. He brought electricity to the nation with the Rural Electrification Administration. The REA is one of the greatest acheivements of our nation in the 20th century. FDR also reformed the stock market. FDR is responsible for their being an SEC to regulate the market and protect citizens. He eased the burden on the poor and middle class with his graduated income tax system.

It is in inaccurate to say that WWII solved all the economic problems of the great depression, because Roosevelt's policies already started the recovery. Employment was down, and the economy was already headed in the right direction.

 

Didn't Clinton just do that?

Rocket River

 

FDR is one of my Favs as well .

We could use that type of president again

I think the 100 Days thing is from him
Whenever we get a new pres. . . everyone focuses on his 1st 100 days


Rocket River

 

JFK was charismatic and very popular. The nation saw him as a great leader. Perceptions trumps reality. He died so early in office, that the new shine had not been lost. Maybe after two complete terms, the public would have had a more balanced perception of him.

Another president whose popularity and charisma distorts his actual achievements is Reagan.

 

Not sure, I think he balanced the budget, but not the deficit, whereas Ike ran a surplass overall, if I remember correctly.

DD

 

When you say post '93 or post 9-11 mindset, what exactly do you mean?

Do you mean the mindset that doesn't focus on those responsible for the tragedy, and instead starts a war in one of the nations in the region with a leader who doesn't have ties to those involved, and his opposed to those involved with 9/11?

Do you mean the mindset that instead of concentrating on getting those responsible for the tragedy actually removes resources from the leader of those that attacked us, and instead starts a war with those who don't pose a threat to us?

Do you mean the mindset of govt. that becomes more secretive, tries to grab more authority and enacts a series of plans, and policies that are later deemed to be unconstitutional?

I am not going to pretend that everything Bush has done regarding terrorism is bad, because it isn't. Going after the finances, false charities, and organizational structure of terrorists is great. The initial actions regarding Afghanistan is great. But he lost focus.

However, the negatives that I mentioned in my mind outweigh the positive, and it isn't an effective way to fight terrorism, not is it the mindset I would like to have from somebody serious about combatting terrorism.

 

History is wierd. It remembers as great the Presidents who did a lot, whether good or bad. Hence, the "best Presidents" of the 20th century are typically considered to be FDR, Truman, Johnson, and Reagan. Personally, I think Ike and Clinton did a pretty good job by not doing much, but I like conservatives. FDR and LBJ created long-term economic problems with their solutions to short-term situations. (I don't dismiss what LBJ did for civil rights. He did more, among politicians, for civil rights than anyone since Reconstruction.)

 

He ran with a projected surplus in the budget. It was realized in 2000-2002. We never made any significant redution in the total US debt, but it was definitely a step in the right direction.

 

Throwing my 2 cents in.

FDR is often rated among the best if not the best due to the leadership he brought to several crisis. As others have pointed out what was going on during the Great Depression isn't comparable to anything we face now. Almost a perfect storm of economic collapse, breakdown in law and order and environmental disasters. A lot of the things FDR didn't work and in the long run probably haven't been that good but the leadership he displayed held the country together and gave people enough hope to keep the faith in our economy and government to survive.

Truman is generally considered in the top half but not among the top he did a good job given the situation he came to office in but didn't do that great of a job with the biggest crisis of his Admin. on Korea but not sure how else he could've handled the situation but that ability to transcend common wisdom may be what separates a great leader from a good one. That's what FDR did.

Ike is considered good but not great largely as people have pointed out he didn't have a huge crisis facing him. IMO that should make him great since there were a lot of smaller crisises that could've balooned into something much worse. Its a credit to Eisenhower that he could manage those while keeping America prosperous.

I'm very much in the JFK is overrated camp and firmly believe that if JFK had lived he would go down in history as a mediocre if not among the worst. JFK IMO is very much the triumph of image over substance looking at his term things like the Cuban Missile Crisis while we didn't go to war the Soviets actually came out better since the US gave up an existing strategic advantage while the Soviets gave up only a potential advantage. The Berlin Wall was diplomatic failure since the wall went up. The Bay of Pigs was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took LBJ to get Civil Rights passed. JFK also seems to get the a huge pass on Vietnam when he was ramping up involvement and his Admin. was very involved in the Diem coup, and inspite of wishful romantics, there's no evidence that JFK would've pulled out of Vietnam. The space race while the US was succeeding the Soviets were still ahead during JFK's term. The only major success of JFK's term was a large tax cut bill.

 

I agree with your analysis and you're right history is wierd. History takes time which is why I don't think we can really judge where a presidency is on a "good" or "bad" until a few decades and terms after.

 

Bashing JFK seems to be the current fashion craze. At least it is here.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I have seen many economists who basically state that every economic move FDR did was in the strictest sense wrong. Beyond the PR/public confidence value they were negative and hurt the economy. Of course after the image of government apathy projected by the Hoovervilles, almost anything the government did would have had positive morale building value.

It is also interesting how different 1st term FDR and 3rd term FDR were. If the two met in a room they would have left in bitter disagreement. It's sad to say and I'm sure he would have sacrificed his place in posterity to avoid the conflict but WWII was the best thing that ever happened to his presidency. When he died the nation was about as united as it ever has been and that unity stuck to people's memory of him.

As far as JFK, I'm not even going to think about the man as long as his bulldog Deckard is around watching out for his reputation.

 

LOL! Damn straight.




Keep D&D Civil and Worship Jack Kennedy as a GOD.

 

I'm gald you asked Blade and I'm here for you...My position on the post 9/11 mindset is what we are doing now in it's entirety of everything from DHS, VISA scrutiny, greater collaberation between intelligence and law enforcement, etc. and multiple etc....the post 9/11 mindset is the way to go...NOT the way of Clinton and the neo-demos which led to results of attacks against direct U.S. interests, example after example until...9/11 took place in eventuality...

Since we need to be on topic about history lessons and you apparently have selective reading capability, let's revisit the old fart...:



Take a look at this old fart...I don't loathe him just because the NRA gave this guy an "F",...he has done far worse, but he is part of the problem (with Clinton as the leader of the failure mindset brigade) in which the leadership from the left helped allow 9/11 to happen...

Doing 'too much"..yea right...Actually doing a lot to counter the dangers of terrorism takes as we all know...money...well, well, well...what about this...

As we all know Clinton and the Democratic leadership should have at least scrutinized and examined VISA regulation and instilled some sort of communication improvement between law enforcement and intelligence based on after the Spring of 1993 alone! Irregardless of doing anything to airport security...BUT, let's see how important intelligence was to the democratic leadership...
In the years preceding September 11 cuts to the intelligence budget were introduced every year of the Clinton Administration by Independent Bernie Sanders! Are you freaking kidding me! The fact that Sanders was an extreme leftist proved no problem for the Democrats—still enjoying their long-standing congressional majority—when they appointed him to a seat on the House intelligence committee.

The Sanders initiative was launched in 1993, after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center!

In that year, the Democrat-controlled House Intelligence Committee had voted to reduce President Clinton’s own authorization request for the intelligence agencies by 6.75%. But this was insufficient for Sanders. So he introduced an amendment that required a minimum reduction in financial authorization for each individual intelligence agency of at least 10%.

Sanders refused to even examine the intelligence budget he proposed to cut: "My job is not to go through the intelligence budget. I have not even looked at it."

Are you freaking kidding me?

According to Sanders the reasons for reducing the intelligence budget were that "the Soviet Union no longer exists," and that "massive unemployment, that low wages, that homelessness, that hungry children, that the collapse of our educational system is perhaps an equally strong danger to this Nation, or may be a stronger danger for our national security."

Irresponsible? Incomprehensible? Of course he was proven wrong to the tune of nearly 3000+ deaths.....Not to nearly half the Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the Sanders amendment.

Sad...

Why do the democrats hate intelligence?

__________________