Who is America's greatest president?

[Ifreann]

Taft.

By a certain definition of greatness.

You are a very wise dog.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I'm sure if Reagan was president then we wouldn't have had a war with Germany. Reagan would probably ally with them against the soviets because Reagan was so anti communist, he would have sided with Satan himself if Satan was against Russia.

[Elwher]

Calvin Coolidge.

"It is probable that a press which maintains an intimate touch with the business currents of the nation is likely to be more reliable than it would be if it were a stranger to these influences. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." [emphasis added]
"President Calvin Coolidge's address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors", Washington D.C., January 25, 1925

That, combined with his decision not to seek a second term because "If I take another term, I will be in the White House till 1933 … Ten years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it—too long!" make him the model future presidents should emulate.

[Kedri]

While I lean Republican, Kennedy was probably one of the best presidents we've ever had.

[Punished UMN]

So was WWII good or bad then? You continually imply that it was bad but are now praising FDR for it.

WWII was bad, but it was necessary under the circumstances.

However, it could've been averted had FDR shown the same leadership, tenacity and audacity in 1936 as he showed in 1941-45.

Reagan provided the blueprint for dealing with survival level threats.

Of the four wars America has fought in my lifetime, none occurred because America was too strong. ~ Ronald Reagan

US politics was incredibly different at the time, Roosevelt couldn't have done anything about that. Prior to WWII, the US public and government were incredibly skeptical of the idea of a large peacetime army. The Navy was large, but the public, following in the footsteps of the founding fathers, were worried that a standing army might lead to a military coup. For this reason, the US historically has relied on the Volunteers of the United States, an ad-hoc force assembled in wartime, rather than its actual army. It was after the poor performance of US Volunteers against Spanish regulars in the 1898 war which led to the creation of the US Army we'd know today, but even after this, the US Army was small and poorly equipped. The US entered war with few rifles, almost no machine guns, a small number of artillery, and no military experience. For much of WWI, the US Expeditionary Force was under the command of British or French officers and equipped with British and French surplus. After WWI, isolationism was briefly reaffirmed, the Army was again downsized, and despite the doctrinal desk-work of men like Patton, the US Army remained a dramatically under-equipped and under-trained force until Japan declared war, invaded the Philippines, and destroyed much of it right there. A new US Army was basically built from scratch after that, and it was after the war that the public decided that the US needed a standing army. It was not politically feasible for the US to have a strong army before that because American ideology was particularly distrustful of big government, and a standing army is big government.

[-Ra-]

What did Washington ever do for the vast majority of Americans who weren’t rich, white, and male enough to vote other than drag them into a long and costly war against the British?

If I have to pick, I’d go with FDR. Hardly a humanist hero, what with the Japanese internment camps et al., but at least he has some notable accomplishments I can point to and say well done.

What he did for them was create their country, as well as enshrine the principles of democratic governance they would go on to inspire republican movements on all six inhabited continents of the globe.

FDR had good policies, but as I mentioned he was in many respects a budding tyrant, certainly not the avatar of liberalism and democracy that Washington was. There would be no FDR without Washington.

[Herador]

WWII was bad, but it was necessary under the circumstances.

However, it could've been averted had FDR shown the same leadership, tenacity and audacity in 1936 as he showed in 1941-45.

Reagan provided the blueprint for dealing with survival level threats.

Of the four wars America has fought in my lifetime, none occurred because America was too strong. ~ Ronald Reagan

US politics was incredibly different at the time, Roosevelt couldn't have done anything about that. Prior to WWII, the US public and government were incredibly skeptical of the idea of a large peacetime army. The Navy was large, but the public, following in the footsteps of the founding fathers, were worried that a standing army might lead to a military coup. For this reason, the US historically has relied on the Volunteers of the United States, an ad-hoc force assembled in wartime, rather than its actual army. It was after the poor performance of US Volunteers against Spanish regulars in the 1898 war which led to the creation of the US Army we'd know today, but even after this, the US Army was small and poorly equipped. The US entered war with few rifles, almost no machine guns, a small number of artillery, and no military experience. For much of WWI, the US Expeditionary Force was under the command of British or French officers and equipped with British and French surplus. After WWI, isolationism was briefly reaffirmed, the Army was again downsized, and despite the doctrinal desk-work of men like Patton, the US Army remained a dramatically under-equipped and under-trained force until Japan declared war, invaded the Philippines, and destroyed much of it right there. A new US Army was basically built from scratch after that, and it was after the war that the public decided that the US needed a standing army. It was not politically feasible for the US to have a strong army before that because American ideology was particularly distrustful of big government, and a standing army is big government.

Even after the Japanese invasion I'd say they were still kind of under prepared, especially in armor. Even taking into account that the world wasn't prepared for how the tank game was about to change, the M2 Medium was still kind of shit, and the M3 was only just an acceptable stopgap until they could produce the M4 and get out something really good.

E: In all fairness to UMN's point though, the M1 would have been in rifleman's hands before the war started if it weren't for production issues and the BAR and the 1919 were fine weapons as well. Thompson was a bit heavy and expensive but I think it was... fine. I guess. It wasn't nearly as bad as WW1, but I figured it was worth chiming in.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

What he did for them was create their country, as well as enshrine the principles of democratic governance they would go on to inspire republican movements on all six inhabited continents of the globe.

“The things that he created would, decades after his time, eventually go on to become something great” is not exactly a rousing endorsement for a statesman.

And Washington was very explicitly anti-democratic. It’s why even today, two and a half centuries later, right-wingers in the United States oppose democratic reforms because they share Washington’s concern about the masses swaying the government too much.

[Herador]

What he did for them was create their country, as well as enshrine the principles of democratic governance they would go on to inspire republican movements on all six inhabited continents of the globe.

“The things that he created would, decades after his time, eventually go on to become something great” is not exactly a rousing endorsement for a statesman.

And Washington was very explicitly anti-democratic. It’s why even today, two and a half centuries later, right-wingers in the United States oppose democratic reforms because they share Washington’s concern about the masses swaying the government too much.

I think it might be better to say his leadership was, if not essential, then at least a key part of the Union making it through the Revolution and it's earliest years even with his more aristocratic beliefs in mind. I don't know if that puts him at #1, podium finish sure, but I can see the arguments for him not being the GOAT.

[-Ra-]

What he did for them was create their country, as well as enshrine the principles of democratic governance they would go on to inspire republican movements on all six inhabited continents of the globe.

“The things that he created would, decades after his time, eventually go on to become something great” is not exactly a rousing endorsement for a statesman.

The things he created and did were already great in his own time, nevermind the ramifications of his actions. The man set up the core structures of the American government, reaffirmed peace with England, defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown, created the First National Bank, established the American Army and Navy, and, most importantly, surrendered absolute power not once, but twice. All of these are defining achievements in Washington’s own time. It’s only fair to say that FDR is the only president who accomplished more in office, but that’s because he served more terms, and broke with Washington’s precedent of relinquishing power. Washington’s truisms, as I said, inspired democratic and republican ideology during and after his life time. He is second only to John Locke in his influence in the history of liberalism. To quote one such truism:

“ I shall constantly bear in Mind, that as the Sword was the last Resort for the preservation of our Liberties, so it ought to be the first thing laid aside, when those Liberties are firmly established.”

This quote alone makes Washington one of the greatest men to have ever lived, in my book.

And Washington was very explicitly anti-democratic. It’s why even today, two and a half centuries later, right-wingers in the United States oppose democratic reforms because they share Washington’s concern about the masses swaying the government too much.

I challenge you to point to any one of Washington’s works and single out a crumb of anti-democratic ideology. Of course, we should note that the way the founding fathers understood democracy is different from our understanding today. “Democracy” to them meant direct democracy, or the system in Ancient Athens where citizens would go to the boulê and debate laws directly. Unsurprisingly, this system of government gave way to demagoguery and infighting, which contributed to Athens’s decline. The founders worried that the American colonies would meet the same fate, so they thought representative democracy, or republicanism, would suit the nation better. You will notice I called Washington an avatar of republicanism, not democracy.

[Herador]

If the Depression had been restrained to an ordinary Recession, I'm sure the US people would have been much more open to a huge foreign sacrifice. Hard times narrow people's horizons.

That said, there's no way of knowing.

The Great Depression was a worldwide event, even in the US it started under an entirely different President, and who knows how many Presidents we have to go back to start undoing the things the led to the things that led to how the US was affected by the Stock Market crash and everything that came after.

I know you're just giving an example and not defending the point per se, but still, it's wild to even consider.

E: This isn't as coherent as I hoped it would be. Hard day, heat exhaustion, I'm not going to try and unfuck it.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The things he created and did were already great in his own time, nevermind the ramifications of his actions. The man set up the core structures of the American government,

Again, of no consequence to the vast majority of American residents who didn’t have any more political power under the Republic than they did under the Crown,

reaffirmed peace with England,

Certainly an achievement, but hardly one that puts him at the top of the great Presidents’ list.

defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown, created the First National Bank, established the American Army and Navy,

None of which I consider to be notable Presidential achievements.

and, most importantly, surrendered absolute power not once, but twice.

It’s a sad commentary on American politics these days that abiding by the most basic principle of the rule of law makes you into some kind of hero figure.

Washington’s truisms, as I said, inspired democratic and republican ideology during and after his life time. He is second only to John Locke in his influence in the history of liberalism.

There’s only so much credit with which a man can be charged for the labours of other people which he merely inspired.

I challenge you to point to any one of Washington’s works and single out a crumb of anti-democratic ideology. Of course, we should note that the way the founding fathers understood democracy is different from our understanding today. “Democracy” to them meant direct democracy, or the system in Ancient Athens where citizens would go to the boulê and debate laws directly. Unsurprisingly, this system of government gave way to demagoguery and infighting, which contributed to Athens’s decline. The founders worried that the American colonies would meet the same fate, so they thought representative democracy, or republicanism, would suit the nation better. You will notice I called Washington an avatar of republicanism, not democracy.

The US was similar to Athenian “democracy” in all the ways that made Athens not a democracy in the modern sense of that term: disenfranchisement of women, discrimination against cultural minorities, and widespread slavery. I’m using “democracy” in the modern sense of the word, not the Athenian, and these are the things I’m talking about, not a structural distinction between American republicanism and Athenian direct democracy.

Oh, and also disenfranchisement of anyone who wasn’t a landowner and whatever the Senate is supposed to be.

Washington very much didn’t want what the unwashed masses swaying the government, representatives or no. A liberal pioneer, I’d grant, but “enshrining the principles of democratic governance”? The United States at the time wasn’t a democracy - in the sense that we understand that term, not the Athenian definition - and Washington was definitely hostile to the idea of democracy - again in the sense that we understand that term.

He was a great leader for the 1700s, but when your competition is Qing absolutism and the fattened nobles of Versailles, that’s not a high bar to jump.

[Tyrassueb]

My top five (and I recognize there are problems with every single one of them because no one is perfect)
1) FDR
2) Teddy Roosevelt
3) Lincoln
4) Grant
5) Carter

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

William Henry Harrison.

[Duvniask]

Explain exactly how FDR could possibly get Congressional approval for such an act and garner public support. In 1936, mind you.

Earlier you mentioned that you felt FDR overreached constitutionally. Now you want him to send a Marine division into Germany. Reconcile that.

Explain exactly how Reagan could possibly get Congressional approval to:

1) Install intermediate range nuclear missiles in Western Europe in 1984.
2) Support myriad anti-Soviet proxies in Africa, Central America, and Asia
3) Dramatically increase US defense spending
4) Begin R&D on a revolutionary anti-ballistic missile system (SDI)
5) Become the first leader to successfully remove a communist nation from power
6) Break the will of the USSR and bring them to the negotiating table

The list goes on and on.

The threat Reagan faced from global communism in 1981 was far more dangerous than the threat FDR faced from Nazi Germany in 1936.

So, instead of answering the question, you ask another question, which you then proceed to give an answer to.

You're not very good at arguing you know.

[-Ra-]

Again, of no consequence to the vast majority of American residents who didn’t have any more political power under the Republic than they did under the Crown,

You are mistaken about the extent of suffrage denied during the early Republic. While it is true that most states had property restrictions on who could and could not vote, they were not as stringent as you think. Universal white manhood suffrage came under Jackson, but most white men could vote in Washington's time, in addition to some African Americans and, exceptionally, landed women. Of course, these measures are incredibly restrictive compared to us today, but you have to note that access to the ballot box was more open in the American Republic than in Britain, the home colony, and indeed anywhere else in the world, where the vast, vast majority of people had no say in their government whatsoever. I also don't understand how restricted suffrage is Washington's fault. These laws were passed and enacted by the state legislatures, over whom Washington had no control.

As for the disenfranchised, the bulk of Washington's army was made up by poor, property-less men. Washington was considered a hero and an icon by all strata of Americans, regardless of their wealth. I am sure even for those who could not vote a majority would have preferred rule in their own country as opposed to rule by the British Empire. Casting off the British yoke is, of course, one of Washington's achievements.

Certainly an achievement, but hardly one that puts him at the top of the great Presidents’ list.

It certainly stands on its own as a superlative achievement, Jay's Treaty. Establishing peace with the country you once considered your enslavers is a defining achievement of his administration, not to mention his declared neutrality when France and England were fighting, setting the tone for American foreign policy well into this day.

None of which I consider to be notable Presidential achievements.

They are objectively achievements.

It’s a sad commentary on American politics these days that abiding by the most basic principle of the rule of law makes you into some kind of hero figure.

Yeah, these days. In these times, we expect our leaders to voluntarily relinquish power and return to their homes once their time is up. But that certainly wasn't the case back then. As I mentioned in my OP, it is incredibly rare in history for a leader who, having absolute power at their fingertips, instead relinquishes that power and puts that power in the hands of others. There are really only two prominent examples: Cincinnatus and George Washington. History is littered with examples of revolutionaries who ditched their so-called democratic ideals and ruled autocratically once they attained power: Lenin, Nkrumah, Mugabe, Castro, Robespierre, Cromwell, etc.

Following the Revolution, Washington could have marched on the Continental Congress, dissolved it, and made himself king. He could have stayed in office following the two terms he stayed in office, dissolved Congress, and instituted martial rule. Instead, he voluntarily surrendered power into the hands of men he never even trusted that much not once, but twice, thereby setting the precedent for a peaceful transition of power and limiting the number of terms an American president could serve to you, his sterling achievement. The reason we expect our leaders to behave in this way is because of the behaviour that Washington modeled. The reason he is such an important figure in the history of liberal democracy is that, without him, democracy would have never taken root in America or really anywhere else in the world aside from possibly the British Isles. It takes a one-in-a-millennium type of person to forfeit it all in the name of principle alone.

There’s only so much credit with which a man can be charged for the labours of other people which he merely inspired.

The idea that Washington's achievements were only realised by people who came after him, and that he therefore does not deserve the credit, is absolutely silly. That would be like denying Newton the credit for inventing calculus or Graham Bell the credit for creating the first telephone because subsequent generations made significant improvements on their model. Washington created the world's first liberal republic, and it is primarily his work that insured its survival to this day. All of the other men followed in his footsteps.

The US was similar to Athenian “democracy” in all the ways that made Athens not a democracy in the modern sense of that term: disenfranchisement of women, discrimination against cultural minorities, and widespread slavery. I’m using “democracy” in the modern sense of the word, not the Athenian, and these are the things I’m talking about, not a structural distinction between American republicanism and Athenian direct democracy.

The U.S. was not at all similar to Athenian democracy. That's the point. Democracy in the 21st century, the one you are talking about, is based on the democracy they enshrined in the 18th century. It's a continuation of it. The same liberal institutions that Washington created exist today. We've just expanded who can participate.

Oh, and also disenfranchisement of anyone who wasn’t a landowner and whatever the Senate is supposed to be.

See top of post.

Washington very much didn’t want what the unwashed masses swaying the government, representatives or no. A liberal pioneer, I’d grant, but “enshrining the principles of democratic governance”? The United States at the time wasn’t a democracy - in the sense that we understand that term, not the Athenian definition - and Washington was definitely hostile to the idea of democracy - again in the sense that we understand that term.

Once again, I challenge you to point me to any of Washington's personal correspondence to suggest that he was hostile to the emerging democratic institutions that propped up after the Revolution. You won't find any. He did enshrine the principles of democracy as we understand them. We only just expanded who those principles applied to.

He was a great leader for the 1700s, but when your competition is Qing absolutism and the fattened nobles of Versailles, that’s not a high bar to jump.

We tend to rate leaders based on the standards of their time and the mores of their societies. But Washington is one of the rare leaders in history whose achievements are so great that, in my opinion, his person transcends the time in which he lived. Not of his age, but of all time.

[Punished UMN]

Explain exactly how FDR could possibly get Congressional approval for such an act and garner public support. In 1936, mind you.

Earlier you mentioned that you felt FDR overreached constitutionally. Now you want him to send a Marine division into Germany. Reconcile that.

Explain exactly how Reagan could possibly get Congressional approval to:

1) Install intermediate range nuclear missiles in Western Europe in 1984.
2) Support myriad anti-Soviet proxies in Africa, Central America, and Asia
3) Dramatically increase US defense spending
4) Begin R&D on a revolutionary anti-ballistic missile system (SDI)
5) Become the first leader to successfully remove a communist nation from power
6) Break the will of the USSR and bring them to the negotiating table
7) Inherited and ended the most severe recession since WWII before the midway point in his first term

The list goes on and on.

And Reagan DID get bi-partisan Congressional approval for these enterprises and in one case (Contra aid), his agents in the bureaucracy illegally got it down.

They didn't call Reagan the Great Communicator for nothing. Also, he played longtime Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill like a cheap harmonica.

The threat Reagan faced from global communism in 1981 was far more dangerous than the threat FDR faced from Nazi Germany in 1936.

FDR was no Ronald Reagan.

Part of the reason Reagan got congressional approval for those things is that the public wasn't told about many of those policies or their implications.

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

Washington's reputation is massively puffed up by the personality cult that sprung up around him and the other founding fathers, particularly by a wide range of apocrypha and myths about his life that sprang up after his death. It should also be noted that he was responsible for starting a world war that killed over 800,000 people, which isn't exactly a good thing in my book.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Washington's reputation is massively puffed up by the personality cult that sprung up around him and the other founding fathers, particularly by a wide range of apocrypha and myths about his life that sprang up after his death. It should also be noted that he was responsible for starting a world war that killed over 800,000 people, which isn't exactly a good thing in my book.

What?

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

Washington's reputation is massively puffed up by the personality cult that sprung up around him and the other founding fathers, particularly by a wide range of apocrypha and myths about his life that sprang up after his death. It should also be noted that he was responsible for starting a world war that killed over 800,000 people, which isn't exactly a good thing in my book.

What?

What are you asking about?

[Ifreann]

Washington's reputation is massively puffed up by the personality cult that sprung up around him and the other founding fathers, particularly by a wide range of apocrypha and myths about his life that sprang up after his death. It should also be noted that he was responsible for starting a world war that killed over 800,000 people, which isn't exactly a good thing in my book.

What?

During his time as a colonial military officer, Washington attacked French forces who were on a diplomatic mission, which lead to the French and Indian War between the British and French colonies, with each side being supported by various Native tribes, which was itself part of the Seven Years War between Britain and France, an early world war.

[-Ra-]

What?

During his time as a colonial military officer, Washington attacked French forces who were on a diplomatic mission, which lead to the French and Indian War between the British and French colonies, with each side being supported by various Native tribes, which was itself part of the Seven Years War between Britain and France, an early world war.

Responsibility for “starting” the Seven Years’ War can hardly be placed at Washington’s feet. The French were already seizing forts in the Ohio Valley, meaning war was inevitable. Washington just fired the first shot. He made a mistake in attacking a camp and killing a commander, Jumonville, but he was hardly alone and the bulk of the atrocities were instigated by Washington’s Indian ally Half King.

Washington was also only 22 at the time. Not the best age for making decisions.

[LibRight Libertarianism]

Lincoln. FDR is quite overrated.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Lincoln. FDR is quite overrated.

Pulling the US out of a depression is a big feat. I'd hardly say he's overrated.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The threat Reagan faced from global communism in 1981 was far more dangerous than the threat FDR faced from Nazi Germany in 1936.

You know that thing people were saying, about you not understanding history very well? You keep proving them right.