Posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:25 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Was Roosevelt a good president?
Posted: June 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.
Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.
However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.
Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?
If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.
Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.
My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.
Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.
"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.
I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.
He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.
"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.
Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?
Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.
It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.
But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.
I just think of Hoover and Carter as engineers who preceded more popular presidents.
Good answer. I will have to review this thread, I have been out all day. From the looks of things it got a little heated here today.
-after reviewing the thread - which was interesting, I see you have everything under control. Good job.
Thank you. FDR was not an EVIL person and did not create the situations that too many people want to hang on him. If he were alive today he would be repulsed by the left that wants to hang their hats on him.
The "war" cost the gummint somewhere on the order of $15 million, a lot for the times. Albert Sidney Johnson later became a well-known Union general in the Civil War.
When the army camp/fort was finally declared unnecessary during the Civil War, they sold everything for 10 cents on the dollar and my great grandparents filled their wagons with tools and lumber--all to their benefit and that of their neighbors. Buchanan actually helped the Utahns, but did not intend to do so.
Actually, I think Reagan opposed term limits on the Presidency (but favored them for the legislature).
It's still an empty reply to the debate that we are having.
Albert Sidney Johnson later became a well-known Union general in the Civil War.
JOHNSTON was a KY native living in TX at the time the war broke out. He led CONFEDERATE troops in the "western theater" until he was killed at the bloody battle of Shiloh (Church), TN, the spring of 1862. He was one of the oldest generals on either side. He was unrelated to a VA-born "Johnston" -- Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston, who surrendered to Sherman at Durham, NC, in the spring of 1865.
Just like Reagan and Thatcher, and Churchill
An unexplained phenomenon: why would Churchill favor going to war to get Nazis out of Poland,yet meekly acquiesce when communists occupied the country after 1944-45? I've never understood the answer to that question. Nazis and communists were different forms of socialism, which Churchill was said to have decried.
My error! Sorry! I did have the feeling that I had it wrong, but failed to look it up. Me bad!
No need to apologize. We all learn, even when we get a little off the topic at hand.
Having been there before he came to office, I remember those times well. Yes, most folks looked to FDR as a savior type at the time.
< . . . snip . . .>
To understand Roosevelt's greatness can't be done outside the times.
Au contraire! It is only outside the times that we can judge in retrospect, for we didn't learn until decades later that he was the agent for change.
< . . . snip . . . >
"Reagan is great because he was able to lead us back from the abyss... FDR did the same for his generation.
Heh! But Reagan didn't push us into the abyss.
That is the point: some things would have been done in any case; turning over Eastern Europe to the USSR was, ahem, an idea more unique to FDR and his Communist-sympathizer advisers.
"Roosevelt didn't have to allow such a large "Soviet" sphere of influence."
Exactly. The reason he did, is because he was a huge fan of "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
Even if the decision was made to stick to unconditional surrender and not work with the resistance to take Hitler OUT and Germany on the side of the Western Allies, there was NO reason for American troops to slow down to let the Soviets get to Berlin first; nor to have to backtrack out of areas Americans held in order to comply with the Yalta boundaries.
It is a travesty: the German people welcomed the American conquerers, but were in dread of the Soviet advance. After the war, "German guilt" precluded any wide-spread publicity -- but recent histories show that women in the Soviet occupied East and Berlin were raped repeatedly by the Soviet invaders; some gang-raped; some raped up to thirty times; some committed suicide to avoid further such inhumane violations. Of course, conventional historical wisdom would tell us: they were Germans, so they "deserved" it. Sigh . . .
"I am still unsure if FDR wanted Wallace purged"
Thanks for your additional information. The books I have read recently imply that Wallace was indeed FDR's choice/preference. But he did not have the power to go against the Democratic Senators. Truman, thankfully, replaced the Morgenthau plan with the Marshall Plan, among other sensible policies -- for a Democrat! ;)
One of the greats? Sort of, but more because of circumstance.
"how, when, and why our monetary system was converted from cash to credit (debt)? "
very good point; I was hoping someone would hop onto this topic with additional details.
"how, when, and why our monetary system was converted from cash to credit (debt)? "
very good point; I was hoping someone would hop onto this topic with additional details.
The saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind when I think of the presidency's of FDR AND Lincoln.
FDR was a symptom of a badly frightened electorate. He promised relief.He controlled the media which at that time was relatively new as far as radio broadcasting. Churchill, Hitler and Roosevelt share to varying degrees successful access to and manipulation of radio and press. The media gained control by getting JFK elected and since that time plays a large role in making and unmaking elected officials. Three weeks of media treatment and the truth is recognized by all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.