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
@Tobias: Obama wasn't a great President to begin with; history will remember him for failing to defuse the political climate that brought us Donald Trump, and furthermore for refusing to roll back the Bush era expansions of executive power out of a (presumably sincere) belief that it wouldn't end up falling into the wrong hands. I still consider him to be the best President of my lifetime, but his entire policy legacy is about to go up in ashes immediately after he's leaving office, so that kind of precludes him from a list of the best American presidents.
Let me say this...No.
No, Capsase, you don't get to just cavalierly say this now. You're blaming Obama for 'failing to defuse the political climate that brought us Donald Trump?" This strikes me as hideously akin to victim blaming. Obama had not even been inaugurated when Republicans vowed to oppose him on everything to cripple his Presidency. He proposed a stimulus the Republicans had been kicking around in the House with the Democrats, only for John Boehner to screech about and rail against it...oh, and then came the Tea Party. you know the We're-Mad-At-Bush-Too-But-Sat-On-Our-Asses-For-Eight-Years-Until-President-Blacky-Mc Blackerton-Was-Elected movement. Obama reached out time and time and time again and even tried to incorporate some of their ideas. They decided that wasn't remotely sufficient. Not only that, but Obama was an anti-American enemy.
Blame the black guy in office because he didn't do enough to stop people being obstructionist and/or racist against him? What are you on about?
![]()
And that is relevant how?
edited 9th Feb '17 5:44:03 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.I feel like it's important to mention that Cap did say he preferred to say 'great presidencies' than 'great presidents'- i.e. its more about the impact they had on the country than anything about them as people.
Which is a position I can respect. Keeping one's standards for greatness high enough that only three presidencies qualify is also a position I can respect.
But, well, that means greatness isn't a terribly useful term in this context, y'know?
edited 9th Feb '17 5:45:49 PM by Gilphon
I think it's quite difficult for any leader of a country, let alone one like the United States, to have no blood on their hands. If we're using that as a yardstick there is no great US President, most likely, and that would apply to most any nation.
Literally no one said that. The point is moreso that if you were born during that age you probably wouldn't have been any different. There is a certain amount of Values Dissonance at play when you are judging history. It doesn't mean thinking it was ok.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:46:52 PM by Draghinazzo
I wouldn't go as far as Cap's "morality is entirely relative" but I'll say it again for emphasis: pretty much everyone in history has believed in something we now know to be wrong (morally, factually o otherwise) because it was the prevailing belief of their time. So it's pointless to completely condemn the person for a fault every human has.
![]()
FDR's executive branch essentially created the modern welfare state. He committed an atrocity, but literally every post-war president (and if you made it retroactive, every pre-war president) would be tried in the Hague and a fair number of them sentenced to death if we applied the principles established in the original Hague trials. Without Washington the American political system is unrecognizable, and while it's a aged and decrepit system, it's relatively hard to imagine something better that could have realistically been implemented in the 18th century, and very easy to imagine something far, far worse.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:54:20 PM by CaptainCapsase
Regardless of personal failings, it is difficult to have a standard for Great President that does not include Washington. Jay's Treaty is one of the most important things ever signed in the history of the United States.
In addition? He stepped away from power. Something very, very few human beings in all of history had ever done. Washington achieved a number of things in office and set the course for the country. Also, his support of Hamilton's national bank...well, hard to fault him for that.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:50:07 PM by Lightysnake
Yeah most presidents would be war criminals today.
We're smart enough to realize great doesn't equal perfect.
Washington and FDR did more overall good for the US than bad moreso than most presidents.
@Lightysnake: My point wasn't that Obama was a bad President, just that he's not all that spectacular; above average is what I'd peg him at in terms of his presidency. Unfortunately, he was in office in a time when a truly remarkable executive branch was required, and neither he nor his subordinates were up to the Herculean task they were faced with.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:53:30 PM by CaptainCapsase
I do consider that.
![]()
I agree with the last sentence.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:53:00 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.With old values like slavery, I think the way to look at it is that Washington didn't make the situation worse-he just participated in something he was taught to believe was normal. In fact, he wasn't even that fond of slavery-he was progressing beyond the starting point of his upbringing.
By contrast, someone like Jefferson Davis was actively protecting slavery and getting the way of its abolition. A modern white supremacist is even worse, since they actively reject the virtues of modern society.
Leviticus 19:34For all of Washington's faults, he set the precedent for peacefully giving up power, a precedent that (so far) has survived to this day in the USA. That's definitely worth something.
I'll second that. Regressive reactionaries are almost always awful regardless of the era.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:54:10 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Lightysnake: My point wasn't that Obama was a bad President, just that he's not all that spectacular; above average is what I'd peg him at in terms of his presidency. Unfortunately, he was in office in a time when a truly remarkable executive branch was required, and neither he nor his subordinates were up to the Herculean task they were faced with.
Capsase, you're just shifting the goalposts and giving platitudes now, with no real definition of what you actually want. Obama got a lot done, and if you think preventing a second great depression, passing healthcare reform (something no Democratic President had achieved for 70 years) and his record on civil rights and the environment are just 'average,' I don't know what to tell you.
Regarding slavery...I think it's worth noting Washington grew as a human being. The war changed his views on blacks and slavery.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:56:53 PM by Lightysnake
Obama used tried and tested methods to combat the recession. In contrast, during the great depression FDR and his contemporaries were in completely uncharted waters. His healthcare reform, while a good first step, is not going to be a durable part of his legacy one way or another. The same goes for his environmental and civil rights record.
That will all be gone within a matter of months, whereas the bones of the welfare system, the fact that we're one country rather than two or more, and the political system of the three presidents I named as "great" are still around to this day.
edited 9th Feb '17 6:01:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's an argument against counting him as "great" because his long term impact will likely be rather small, and mostly concentrated in the negative aspects of his tenure as President. I still think he's probably the best leader the United States has had in my lifetime, and by all measures, that he was a decent enough President, but in the end he failed to rise to the occasion, and everything good he's done is going up in smoke.
edited 9th Feb '17 6:04:27 PM by CaptainCapsase

@smokeycut, Alexa: Morality is a human construct with no basis in natural law; it's subjective and largely arbitrary, and the only way to make any reasonable sense of it when studying spans of time much larger than a human lifespan (or when looking at contemporary societies with radically different value systems) is to make judgments relative to the norms of society at the time/place. Otherwise you end up concluding that virtually every man, woman and child who lived more than around 100 years ago was evil with maybe a handful of remarkably forward thinking fringe figures.
edited 9th Feb '17 5:43:59 PM by CaptainCapsase