Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (18759)	2/13/2002 10:52:41 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

marginally relevant to so rate their foreign policies Yeah if you want to understand the reasons we are in this fine mess, you have to read History. One recent book I have really enjoyed is: "The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II" by Thomas Fleming It is certainly revisionist, but I think it will stand the test of time. You might try your Library's new on line reserve system for it.

To: JohnM who wrote (18759)	2/14/2002 7:11:55 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Under a variety of reasons, mostly ethical, I would concur with rating Nixon the lowest. Similarly, I would put Coolidge next, not Hoover, because Hoover was not so much corrupt as ineffectual after being handed a Depression not of his origin (which also ran counter to his great works during WWI, in lesser positions) For being ineffectual, the worst tier would include Ford, Carter, Wilson, Hoover and probably Harding again, though I'd be hard put to define the order. On the other hand, for pure ethics, Carter would lead my list of the best. When it comes to the art of campaigning & getting elected, which are a different art from leading post-election, Clinton and Nixon are at the top. It gets very difficult to rate some, like LBJ, who effectively passed great Civil Rights legislation that probably no-one else coulda done, and more good domestic stuff, but his war handling was fair to poor, some of his domestic stuff was decidely sour, and he was personally offensive and crude. How dya summarize that in a rating scheme? For the capacity to inspire others to action, I'd say Kennedy, TR, FDR and Reagan lapped the field. But Kennedy is also a tough one to rate because though he's been heavily critiqued for events such as the Bay of Pigs, it seemed he was heading in a different foreign policy direction than his initial efforts suggest, yet his voice is lost to us on such matters, leaving a trail of critics from a highly charged time of racial conflict. I rate him higher than many but there's too many areas of uncertainty to do so with unqualifed confidence. Reagan knew how to lead and to command respect. But I have ethical problems with him that go back to his days as Governor, so I'd rate him behind the highest tier in terms of leadership, ethics, ability to inspire, ability to get things done effectively. Bush the Elder was one I fully expected would know how to conduct a war reasonably well; his domestic policies kinda sucked though. And even though I have some political differences with each of them, I'd clearly put the two Roosevelts, Truman and -perhaps surprising to some - Eisenhower in that top tier. Reagan, Kennedy and LBJ would be in the second best tier. Okay, so I ventured into the breach of off-topicism again. Too bad; it's my religion, you infidels. <GG>