Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Not rolling back the Bush-era overreach is cetianly the biggest policy beef I have with Obama, and if you'd asked me four years ago they're what I would have pointed at as the basis for a "both parties are mostly the same" argument. He did do good things but it's the things he couldn't or didn't do (granted, in some cases, with the deck very stacked against him) that weigh them down. FDR is probably the most recent one I'd put on the "truly great" list too, whether you agree with his politics o not.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:22:55 PM by Elle
Washington? The slaveholder? Great?
He's a warlord who won the popularity contest by asskicking and not much more.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:21:58 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.
Great in the sense that he basically defined what the executive branch is and does by precedent, and the resulting system, however flawed, has only suffered one breakdown of constitutional democracy so far (the civil war). Our constitution is ridiculously vague about things that are kind of important to be specific about, and whatever else can be said about him, the American system has functioned better than most other Presidential systems.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:25:01 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Without Washington, the country would literally be unrecognizable (for better or worse), since as I said, he was the one who basically defined the on the ground reality of how our political system started out, particularly in regards to the executive branch and judicial branch. It's very easy to imagine a much less stable arrangement, and hard to realistically see something significantly better being put into place in that time period.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:28:12 PM by CaptainCapsase
Great
adjective, greater, greatest.
1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions: A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.
2. large in number; numerous: Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.
3. unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.: great pain.
4. wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great!
5. being such in an extreme or notable degree: great friends; a great talker.
6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding: a great occasion.
7. important; highly significant or consequential: the great issues in American history.
I don't think recognizing the country is my priority right now.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:30:12 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.Let's not forget (my favorite) President Theodore Roosevelt, the all around Bad Ass and the first real Super Power President who actually understood how to use the Powers he had for the betterment of America (and the World).
Washington was ultimately a human of his time, with all the flaws that entails. But as a leader he saw the country through its early growing pains and, perhaps most importantly, when he was done he stepped down. This was a radical move in his era for a head of state. It defined the nature of American democracy, that the government should not be forever vested in just one man.
![]()
"It's okay because I did it 200 years ago" is not an excuse I can accept.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:31:35 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.
People 200 years from now may very well look at your beliefs and actions as every bit as barbaric as the ones you are condemning. One of the first rules of historians is not to moralize history; different time periods had radically different value systems from our modern civilization, and it's not fair to judge people harshly for simply conforming to those norms. Singling out people who were exceptions to that rule, either by being very forward thinking or unusually reprehensible even for the time period is fair game though.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:35:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
And? Does that make my action more barbaric? Why should I care about slavers' morals?
edited 9th Feb '17 5:34:49 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.
Because if you'd been born 200 years ago you'd be one of them in all likelihood. If you insist on moralizing history, judge people relative to their contemporaries rather than by modern standards, becaus you'll find at best a handful of fringe thinkers espousing ideas that are even remotely palatable to a modern audience.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:36:38 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'm not asking you to accept slavery as ok. But being great does not mean without flaw and all humans are subject to the flaw of having, at one point, believed something we now know to be wrong because everybody else believed it at the time. In this he is average. It is the things he did that were not average for which he's held in high regard and it's probable very few people who lived in that time could have done them.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:38:53 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
I'm saying it's completely pointless to judge historical figures by modern standards unless you're doing it relative to the norms of their time, because pretty much every single one of them held beliefs that would be absolutely abhorrent in the modern day if they lived more than a few decades ago.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:38:54 PM by CaptainCapsase
There is only "standard." Not "historical" or "modern."
"I did it because everyone did it" is also an unacceptable excuse.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:41:35 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.I'm with Alexa on this. I cannot consider Washington great while knowing he was a slave owner, and while knowing he used the country as his own personal piggy bank. Great president my ass.
Likewise, I will never consider FDR great, entirely due to him creating the Japanese internment camps. It wasn't okay then, it's not okay now.
I can't really call a slaveholder in the 18th century "evil" in the Hitler sense of evil. At least not just because they're slaveholders. Values Dissonance requires me to at least take that into account.

I think FDR should be considered a great president though, because a few huge missteps aside, he spearheaded the creation of the welfare state and was the one who finally got the US out of the Great Depression, while suffering from polio the whole time. He was a man who was dedicated to his job.