Greatest Republican President of All Time

[The Archregimancy]

Teddy isn't even a Rep. He was a Progressive/Bullmoose (his own party), and in that regard, a third-party.

Theodore Roosevelt ran for the vice-presidency in 1900 as a Republican. He became president as a Republican following McKinley's assassination. He successfully ran for election for a second term in 1904 as a Republican. Throughout his presidency he represented the Republican Party. By any measure, he was a Republican president.

He subsequently attempted to run for a third term in 1912 on the Progressive Party ticket, but this doesn't change the fact that he represented the Republican Party as president.

Similarly, Millard Fillmore was a Whig Party president from 1850-1853 (indeed, the last Whig president) even though he subsequently sought election on the American Party ticket in 1856, and Martin Van Buren was a Democratic Party president from 1837-1841 even though he subsequently sought election on the Free Soil Party ticket in 1848.

[HypErcApitAl]

It's very difficult to give an answer other than Lincoln; no other president of any party has successfully guided the country through a civil war, functionally ending de jure slavery in the process. And if he didn't immediately end de facto slavery, and certainly didn't end racism, he died before he could have any post-war impact on the former, and a quick look at current events in the United States suggests that the latter would defeat any president.

Eisenhower was probably the best 20th-century Republican, though like Grant his claim to greatness largely stems from events pre-dating his presidency.

Of Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, I think George H.W. Bush likely would have made a fine president in the 1970s; he perhaps became president 20 years too late, and perhaps didn't fully appreciate that his style of pragmatic consensus politics was increasingly out of fashion. Failing to adapt is, of course, a political failing; but as political failings go, it's more forgivable than many; and given what American politics has subsequently become, it's easy to be nostalgic about a Republican who valued pragmatic consensus politics.

Edit:
Also, to my mind Bush Sr. never broke his 'no new taxes' pledge; increasing existing taxes is not the same thing as introducing new taxes. And yes, I was living in the US at the time.

I'll agree w/ you when it comes to Eisenhower. I think after that point, there were no more military strongmen Presidents. Trump, in some regards, is a strongman, but then he somewhat-uses Tulsi Gabbard rhetoric. Throw Assad out. There's already a movement for a Democratic-Republican Syria (Free Syria), plus the Rojava and Kurds need independence.

I like Tulsi. I agree w/ taking precious soldiers out of the Mideast, but at the same time, that'd also be ceding control to the Taliban or some other terrorist group.

[The Archbishopric of York]

I don't know a lot about American politics, compared to British politics, but I'd have to agree with this:

It's very difficult to give an answer other than Lincoln; no other president of any party has successfully guided the country through a civil war, functionally ending de jure slavery in the process. And if he didn't immediately end de facto slavery, and certainly didn't end racism, he died before he could have any post-war impact on the former, and a quick look at current events in the United States suggests that the latter would defeat any president.

I also have a lot of respect for Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower. More controversially, I unironically stan Nixon; despite his... Significant personal failings, he had sound policies in many areas.

[Mopistan]

I don't know a lot about American politics, compared to British politics, but I'd have to agree with this:

It's very difficult to give an answer other than Lincoln; no other president of any party has successfully guided the country through a civil war, functionally ending de jure slavery in the process. And if he didn't immediately end de facto slavery, and certainly didn't end racism, he died before he could have any post-war impact on the former, and a quick look at current events in the United States suggests that the latter would defeat any president.

I also have a lot of respect for Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower. More controversially, I unironically stan Nixon; despite his... Significant personal failings, he had sound policies in many areas.

I mean, Nixon was pretty good as a president, just terrible as a human being.

[Sundiata]

My favorite Republicans: Abe Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W Bush.

I also personally respect all of these men.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

The latter was an imperialist piece of garbage like pretty much every POTUS after 1898.

Often "imperialist" is used by people who hate America yet can't argue why so they tack on an overused and ill defined phrase while allowing non-American leaders to infringe upon the rules egregiously. Saying that America is bad because it is imperialist and defining imperialist as any action America/the West takes in general is circular reasoning. At least clarify that you are an isolationist/consistent pacifist or hate America because using weak excuses and loaded words is a poor arguement against ideological opponents. Don't resort to the tankie strategy.

Actually, "imperialism" was used by Americans to describe U.S. foreign policy well before communism was a thing.

Here is how American imperialism was ridiculed in the 19th century. It depicts U.S. territories as uncontrollable infants that the U.S. can't afford to take care of. A large number of Americans have always felt that U.S. imperialism, expansionism, adventurism, etc. was a waste of taxpayer money from home on futile nation-building abroad.

[HypErcApitAl]

Teddy isn't even a Rep. He was a Progressive/Bullmoose (his own party), and in that regard, a third-party.

Theodore Roosevelt ran for the vice-presidency in 1900 as a Republican. He became president as a Republican following McKinley's assassination. He successfully ran for election for a second term in 1904 as a Republican. Throughout his presidency he represented the Republican Party. By any measure, he was a Republican president.

He subsequently attempted to run for a third term in 1912 on the Progressive Party ticket, but this doesn't change the fact that he represented the Republican Party as president.

Similarly, Millard Fillmore was a Whig Party president from 1850-1853 (indeed, the last Whig president) even though he subsequently sought election on the American Party ticket in 1856, and Martin Van Buren was a Democratic Party president from 1837-1841 even though he subsequently sought election on the Free Soil Party ticket in 1848.

I find that weird though, and even weirder how people try to pass Progressivism on as a Left-wing/Democrat ideology. I know I sound opinionated, but heck, Progressivism isn't partisan. You either wanna progress Humanity or GTFO. Both left-wingers and right-wingers have used Progressive and Regressive politics.

Liberalism and every other ideology got taken over by grifters and the Neo-centre. I am a Liberal, yet the Justice Democrats (AOC's brand of Democrat, although she's also a far-left grifter) took over my party and made everything about Identity Politics, hence my classicism. I don't like the way the Democrat Party went. Plus, I like laissez-faire. Classical Liberal politics are very neat, though there's no real representation for my ideology (besides Tim Pool, but I don't see him as a ClaLib, he seems way more Centrist than I am)

Social Justice also got taken over by grifters. This neo-SocJus is very different compared to the Social Justice of the Bush era and pretty-much the first term of Obama (back when the Tea Party and Occupy were things)

Ideology is so complicated. I can't believe I identify myself with an "-ism" when ideology and those movements/beliefs/etc change overtime. To one person, I'd look like a Centrist myself, to another, I'd look Conservative-Republican or Southern/Conservative Democrat.

Gamergate ruined everything. Buzzfeed and other movements during 2014-2016 ruined everything. My politics:

• Pro-STEM and anything technological, humanist, etc. In that regard, I'd pretty-much be a Technocrat, though I'm more of a Technocratic Republican. I say we need Democratic-Republicanism, still, but we need to emphasize Science. We need to explore Space. We need more Einsteins and Elon Musks.
• Free Speech absolutist
• Anti-government (in some regards, like the Tea Party, Vermin Supreme and other ideologues/movements. We need more satire and "silly" stuff. Even if this means my politics aren't taken seriously, or seem farfetched b/c 'hey-ho, he supports Vermin, Vermin's a joke candidate!" but Vermin Supreme and the Third-parties are deeper than that.
• Big gov't, small-to-minimal gov't oversight (meaning that I think we shouldn't revert to the Wild West, when the US didn't have a police-force or fire department, or heck, even the Washingtonian Years when the US had no real "Army" and was just militias. Big gov't is there to protect the people. It should be voluntary. We shouldn't be forced to protect ourselves w/ Magnums. That's why cops are there, to do things some don't want/feel like doing. Heck, citizens can make arrests ((Citizens' Arrests)), but some don't.)))
• Pro-2A and Dueling/essentially Andrew Jackson politics. (this is in my Sig, under the first spoiler. Plus, I believe in self-defense and vigilantism. Also, Dueling was cool. It served to defend one's Honor. Fisticuffs also help blow-off Steam.)
• Third Position towards Abortion (Pro-woman and pro-life both make good arguments. I also feel like we need more scientists, innovators and overall brilliant people. We need to advance Humanity instead of filling it up w/ lazy/demotivated smucks. We need more Diogeneses and George Carlins. In this regard, my "Only the Strongest shall survive" quote makes sense. I know it sounds Eugenicist, I'm aware, but you can be Strong in all sorts of ways.)
• Unironically, I do adhere to the Sith Code. Yes, I do honestly think the Jedi are rubbish.
  
  and other things, that I don't feel like listing or explaining. I've had enough of people on NS saying "Hypercap is edgy" or this or that when it somewhat-represents my viewpoint(s), I just didn't go full ClaLib. When I made Hypercapital, I was thinking about Economics, Capitalism, and Capitalism's sister ideologies (Corporatism, Plutocracy, State Capitalism, etc), that's why I'd describe Hypercap. as being wholly Economy-centered. Yes, environmentalism and technocracy don't fit in the same boat. I think, in some regards, Hypercapital uses some Green rhetoric. Other parts of Hypercap. are just aesthetic and theme. (I like the whole Cyberpunk, Star Wars and Star Trek aesthetic)
  
  But hey, whatever floats my boat! I just have enough of people thinking I'm trolling when I genuinely support these things or hold those points. "Oh, he's a troll, he likes Kanye West!" b/c Kanye states facts! He doesn't follow rules or fall under anyone's standards. He's like Daria. He's the counter-culture. He speaks my mind. I speak my mind. Plus, I like his music.

[Onocarcass]

I mean, my favorite president was a republican, being Teddy Roosevelt.
My 2nd is probably FDR.

I came to the conclusion in my research that most presidents ranged from Meh to Bad. But a handful were pretty good.

[-Astoria]

I've had enough of people on NS saying "Hypercap is edgy" or this or that when it somewhat-represents my viewpoint(s)

To many people, said views are "edgy", hence why people continue to say so.

But hey, whatever floats my boat! I just have enough of people thinking I'm trolling when I genuinely support these things or hold those points. "Oh, he's a troll, he likes Kanye West!" b/c Kanye states facts! He doesn't follow rules or fall under anyone's standards. He's like Daria. He's the counter-culture. He speaks my mind. I speak my mind. Plus, I like his music.[/list]

As for example.

[HypErcApitAl]

I've had enough of people on NS saying "Hypercap is edgy" or this or that when it somewhat-represents my viewpoint(s)

To many people, said views are "edgy", hence why people continue to say so.

But hey, whatever floats my boat! I just have enough of people thinking I'm trolling when I genuinely support these things or hold those points. "Oh, he's a troll, he likes Kanye West!" b/c Kanye states facts! He doesn't follow rules or fall under anyone's standards. He's like Daria. He's the counter-culture. He speaks my mind. I speak my mind. Plus, I like his music.[/list]

As for example.

Anytime you do something anti-establishment or out-of-the-box, you have people calling you edgy/an edgelord. Why is this? Ancap Chile and a bunch of other nations use Hypercapital's same "weird" aesthetic, and aren't chastised. Is it because they're not in the Forums?

Besides that, I'm also tired of people not taking the third-party seriously. They all make great points, and are better than the lifeless boomers we have in the Democratic-Republican duopoly. Also, I kinda wish 1920s-Great Depression ideologies and ideas weren't politically Fringe or Underground. Technocracy, Longism and other ideas are long-dead (no pun intended), and all we're stuck with is the same-ole/same-ole "Centrists," although Biden and etc aren't even Centre. I think they're more Centre-left.

I'm just fed-up w/ the Statusquo, and alienation. I'm fed-up w/ "oh, be yourself, be unique" and then when you try to be genuine, frank, unique, etc, you're instead called every name in the book.

In the end, I'd love to see the Whigs return. I'd love to see the Republican Party change (besides Trumpism/Populism, that was the "flavor-of-the-week." The Right's essentially back to how it was during Reagan, with the Religious Right and the "Judeochristian Values" and essentially being Theocratic. I mean, I like Reagan for many reasons, I just don't like how the GOP is heading.)

I think American Politics'll end up like Canadian Politics (how Canada has multiple ideologies because their Lefts and Rights are fractured.) though I'm not sure about the Bloc Quebecois (though maybe the French will get tired of being marginalized and will politically rise-up.)

[HypErcApitAl]

Maybe it's my idealism. Maybe I wish I didn't live in a world where people didn't blindly hate or ignore Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Mark Dice, Vermin Supreme, Trump and other figures.

I don't mean to strawman (again) but I get tired of people saying Vermin is zany. How is he zany? He's like Andrew Yang, in some cases. He raises up Dentalcare and Hygiene as issues (which rightfully are.) He knows what the people want (Ponies/Horseback riding), and overall, he's entertaining and makes Politics feel fresh. He's not a man in a suit grandstanding or sucking up to Exxonmobil or BP or what-have-you.

Teddy was like that, too. He went trust-busting. He's anti-monopoly. Teddy was environmentalist in some regard, but he wasn't like these Climaticists. "Global warming," hell yeah, the globe is warming - we were in an Ice Age. It'll take time for Earth to return to how it was, pre-Ice Age. And, besides that, the Earth always survives. Mother Nature always finds a way.

Besides that, the Reagan thing - if Trump's "racist," then wouldn't that make Reagan "racist?" Trump and Reagan have said literally the same thing. "Make America Great Again" literally translates to "Let's revitalize America." Every president and politician wants a revitalized America, they just have a different way of doing it. Different styles and approaches.

I'm pretty-sure in Washington's time, "MAGA" would translate to; "Hey, let's make America not-British!" (Technically, America was Great when it was discovered)

[Risottia]

1.Lincoln because kicking the CSAss is just.
2.Eisenhower because at least he knew that the government should help all citizens
3.Nixon because he was the ultimate memelord. I mean, he managed to be in two Doctor Who episodes AND in a good quarter of Futurama.

[Kazakah]

He definitely should. Coolidge was a model conservative and its a shame he's been forgotten by mostly everyone.

Hear, hear, hear.

Trump shifted the Overton window on trade, away from the Puritan “free trade” insanity.
That is something. Sure not enough make him great at all (he has not pushed a new look on trade hard enough) but something.

I'm of the same opinion. Trump's most significant effect after he leaves - be it in 7 months or 4 years - will probably be the change of conversation he represents. The Republican Party has been changed dramatically, and I'm pretty sure that the Democratic Party has too - though I have less insight there.

That is truth right there. It'll be interesting to see what the parties will look like in a decade. Will they grow farther apart? Further dividing Americans. Or will they both calm down a little and return to a more stable era?

[The Black Forrest]

Trump at least has balls. They're small, but it's better than nothing

So.........he is a male?........

[Novus America]

But no the anti nuclear fanatics killed the environment. Anti nuclear is the worst thing to happen to the US since Vietnam.

Say what now? How, though?

Nuclear is a clean source of energy that does not produce air pollution which could have met all our energy needs by 1980, thus ending the air pollution problem from electric power production 40 years ago. 40 years of dramatically less air pollution would have save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives and made our lives better. It was a republican 50 years ago who had a better strategy for addressing air pollution than anyone today.

[New Jewlan]

Definitely the Don!

[Novus America]

Often "imperialist" is used by people who hate America yet can't argue why so they tack on an overused and ill defined phrase while allowing non-American leaders to infringe upon the rules egregiously. Saying that America is bad because it is imperialist and defining imperialist as any action America/the West takes in general is circular reasoning. At least clarify that you are an isolationist/consistent pacifist or hate America because using weak excuses and loaded words is a poor arguement against ideological opponents. Don't resort to the tankie strategy.

Actually, "imperialism" was used by Americans to describe U.S. foreign policy well before communism was a thing.

Here is how American imperialism was ridiculed in the 19th century. It depicts U.S. territories as uncontrollable infants that the U.S. can't afford to take care of. A large number of Americans have always felt that U.S. imperialism, expansionism, adventurism, etc. was a waste of taxpayer money from home on futile nation-building abroad.

Interestingly anti-imperialism was heavily racist, if it were not for racism we would be bigger.

And I know from the contemporary perspective it is uncomfortable, but unlike Europe we did not go making non-contiguous territories everywhere, and were more selective and strategic.
We could have taken far more than we did.
And they were strategically necessary, without them we would have been in a worse position in WWII amongst other things.

Sometimes foreign policy requires making ugly decisions. Moralistic foreign policy is a route to failure. Sometimes in a dog eat dog world you have to eat or be eaten.

[-Astoria]

Nuclear is a clean source of energy that does not produce air pollution which could have met all our energy needs by 1980, thus ending the air pollution problem from electric power production 40 years ago. 40 years of dramatically less air pollution would have save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives and made our lives better. It was a republican 50 years ago who had a better strategy for addressing air pollution than anyone today.

That may well be, but to be fair; unlike conventional energy sources, whenever there's an accident, it's likely to be catastrophically more worse, as seen with Chernobyl & Fukushima. Is it worth the risk?

[Juristonia]

Nixon was a great president who got taken down on a scandal that would be a 2-week story today

That's a criticism on the current bunch; not a compliment for the Nixon bunch.



Obviously Lincoln, but Ulysses S. Grant by far has the coolest name, and, I'm gonna say it, a better beard.

[Necroghastia]

Definitely the Don!

What has he done that makes him better than the likes of Lincoln and Roosevelt? Honest question.

[Novus America]

Nuclear is a clean source of energy that does not produce air pollution which could have met all our energy needs by 1980, thus ending the air pollution problem from electric power production 40 years ago. 40 years of dramatically less air pollution would have save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives and made our lives better. It was a republican 50 years ago who had a better strategy for addressing air pollution than anyone today.

That may well be, but to be fair; unlike conventional energy sources, whenever there's an accident, it's likely to be catastrophically more worse, as seen with Chernobyl & Fukushima. Is it worth the risk?

Even counting those it is still the safest: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/

Chernobyl is also an outlier as it used a design that was not used for civil US power production.
Fukushima was because of a tsunami (which we really do not have) and could have been mitigated with a proper containment structure (which all US power plants are required to have).

See Three Mile Island (a melt down can be contained with a proper containment structure) and there are designs that literally cannot melt down.

Nuclear is actually the safest.

[Juristonia]

Definitely the Don!

What has he done that makes him better than the likes of Lincoln and Roosevelt? Honest question.

Jewlan's been rambling about Soros a couple of times, so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything coherent.

[Antityranicals]

My two favorite presidents were Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland. But I suppose of the Republicans, I'll go with Reagan.

[Major-Tom]

1.Lincoln because kicking the CSAss is just.
2.Eisenhower because at least he knew that the government should help all citizens
3.Nixon because he was the ultimate memelord. I mean, he managed to be in two Doctor Who episodes AND in a good quarter of Futurama.

You know you've won the history books when Futurama has your head as President for most of the seasons.

[Ethel mermania]

Actually, "imperialism" was used by Americans to describe U.S. foreign policy well before communism was a thing.

Here is how American imperialism was ridiculed in the 19th century. It depicts U.S. territories as uncontrollable infants that the U.S. can't afford to take care of. A large number of Americans have always felt that U.S. imperialism, expansionism, adventurism, etc. was a waste of taxpayer money from home on futile nation-building abroad.

Interestingly anti-imperialism was heavily racist, if it were not for racism we would be bigger.

And I know from the contemporary perspective it is uncomfortable, but unlike Europe we did not go making non-contiguous territories everywhere, and were more selective and strategic.
We could have taken far more than we did.
And they were strategically necessary, without them we would have been in a worse position in WWII amongst other things.

Sometimes foreign policy requires making ugly decisions. Moralistic foreign policy is a route to failure. Sometimes in a dog eat dog world you have to eat or be eaten.

both grant and lee were fairly anti imperialist when it came to the Mexican - American war.