20th Century US Presidents (1 Viewer)

[UKReb]

Guys

Just recently read a magazine article (written by a Brit) that considered that the most influential US president of the 20th century was Franklin D Roosevelt. The author presented and articulated a whole raft of reasons why he believed that. However, call me old fashioned but I have always been a little sceptical when US historical articles are written by non-US authors even though from what I have read there is no doubt in my mind that FDR was a brilliant reformer; war-leader and a man of his time. But still held as the most influential?

Consequently, since reading the article I thought it might be interesting to get your views on the men who have held the world's most powerful elective office during the 20th century. From Teddy Roosevelt to Clinton you have had 17 incumbents in the White House that the American electorate have had to either tolerate or at times seemed absolutely beguiled by the men they have chosen.

So, who in your view were the most influential and innovative 20th Century presidents? How well did they handle domestic and foreign crises? And most importantly how are they historically viewed by Americans today?

Reb

 

[skeeterbuck]

Reb,
I no expert on the american presidents, but several of the ones I liked are

Teddy Roosevelt... he seemed to have been made for the job and excelled as the balancing act of doing what's best for the people and doing what's best for the country.

Harry Truman...With his "The buck stops here" policy and knowing that the atomic bomb needed to be used to end WW II the quickest way.

And

Ronald Regan...for having the respect for this country, the office he held and for calling out Communist Russia.

I have not been please with any of the last several presidents, but in the world today with terrorist etc. I think that the job is much harder to obtain clear cut successes.

Chuck

 

[binder001]

Wilson had interesting effects in the early part of the century. TR encouraged America to really embrace their place on the world stage. Before McKinley we were a second-rate agricultural republic toying with democracy in a world run by royalty. FDR gets credit and/or blame for a lot. He had an eventful four terms. His social re-engineering echoes to the present administration. He was the man the US needed at that time and place. Truman is overlooked by some - he made some hard decisions and was the first US president to have to draw a line against Stalinist expansion. Eisenhower made us comfortable with the 50s. Kennedy brought a realtive youth to the presidency. Interestingly, although the Democrat party holds him up with their liberal ideals, Kennedy was actually quite conservative! In international matters he was tougher than Reagan. LBJ was Texas politics at its worst. Nixon was a roller coaster - his highs and lows are legendary. Carter was embarassing. Reagan was actually an underrated president. He put many things in motion that led to the downfall of the Soviet empire and gave us the military power that we have today. Bush 41 tried hard - won internationally but lost domestically. As far as Bush 41 & 43, Clinton, and the new guy - I think it's too early to say. A president leaves ripples that take time to see.

Gary B.

 

[jazzeum]

FDR is the man from my perspective because he altered the political landscape for better or for worse (depending on your perspective; in my view for the better). He forged the political coalition that generally survived until Reagan. Although not generally successful, when faced with the Depression, he attempted to get the country back on his feet, trying everything he could with all the various alphabet agencies. Many of these agencies still survive. For example, in the filed of securities regulation, the basic structure still survives. In international relations, he guided this country successfully into WW II and through WW II.

 

[jazzeum]

Before this thread gets rolling, please avoid the temptation to make this into a discussion of politics, especially using past presidents to compare with the most recent occupants of the White House. Let's make this a historical discussion only. I won't hesitate to close this down if necessary.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - we have nothing to fear but fear itself, faced the Great Depression and World War II, clearly the best and most influential president of the 20th Century.

Teddy Roosevelt - walk softly and carry a big stick, the Panama Canal, a solid number 2.

Harry Truman, the buck stops here, the end of WWII and Korea, plenty of big challenges, rounds out the platform at 3.

 

[theBaron]

Before this thread gets rolling, please avoid the temptation to make this into a discussion of politics, especially using past presidents to compare with the most recent occupants of the White House. Let's make this a historical discussion only. I won't hesitate to close this down if necessary.

For precisely that reason, it's almost impossible to post to this thread and offer any kind of arguments. For example, I'll agree that Franklin Roosevelt was very influential, that is, he exerted a strong influence on the country, that reaches to us today. But I think his influence is, in the balance, a negative one. And it's impossible to be able to expand on that point without getting into a political discussion.

I'm not say this, to complain about moderating or the forum rules. I agree with them and accept them. I'm just saying that it's probably going to be difficult for some of us to post to this thread and not violate the rule. It's a land mine.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

What I don't want is a discussion of the current president, the prior incumbent or Clinton. Now, that's a land mine. Now, if you don't think FDR's policies were beneficial (which I think you talked about before), that should be fine. I want to avoid current politics.

You all know what Shannon likes and doesn't like so let's take that into account.

 

[UKReb]

Before this thread gets rolling, please avoid the temptation to make this into a discussion of politics, especially using past presidents to compare with the most recent occupants of the White House. Let's make this a historical discussion only. I won't hesitate to close this down if necessary.

Brad

You have almost given me a guilt complex but I assure you it was not my intention to post a politically loaded thread. You of all people should know my genuine interest in US history and the particular article that I read prompted my post and was based primarily on whether my American colleagues agreed with the authors choice of most influential chief exec of the 20th century.

That aside Skeeter, Binder, Louis and both Brads thanks for your comments- I best get back to Custer

Reb

 

[jazzeum]

Bob,

I know you have the best of intentions but being of the cynical mind that I am I know that sooner or late this train will jump the track so I just wanted to set a couple of ground rules first.

 

[UKReb]

Bob,

I know you have the best of intentions but being of the cynical mind that I am I know that sooner or late this train will jump the track so I just wanted to set a couple of ground rules first.

Thanks Brad-I thought I had it covered historically by quoting just 20th century but I realise now that Bill C could still be a problem-sorry about that.

Bob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Before this thread gets rolling, please avoid the temptation to make this into a discussion of politics, especially using past presidents to compare with the most recent occupants of the White House. Let's make this a historical discussion only. I won't hesitate to close this down if necessary.

Yes but all means, let us not discuss anything that would tempt a rationale debate of anything controversial. Of course history is plenty controversial and driven by it politics but c'est la vie. I would agree a discussion of the current President, who is not in the 2Oth Century of course, would be "interesting".

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Wilson- National Income Tax

FDR- New Deal, Social Security, etc.

Reagan- AKA "Ronaldus Magnus", defeated the USSR, ended the Cold War, purveyor of freedom, best speaker EVER!!! "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!", "The only difference between this Soviet leader and the other is that he is alive and they are dead!"

Vick

 

[Combat]

"Influential" can mean both good and bad. So in order:

FDR - for the reasons stated (presiding over the depresssion and WWII) also his lengthy term in office.

Lyndon Johnson - Upside was his record on civil rights surpassing the collective efforts of every other President except maybe Lincoln. Downside Vietnam. BTW: the best books on any 20th Century President may be the Robert Caro series on LBJ.

Reagan - cold war.

 

[DCN1898]

In timeline, and historical interest
Teddy Roosevelt Strengthened the Navy from a 20th rank to 5th from the time that he was assistant Secretary of the Navy till the end of his presidency. He sent the Great White Fleet around the world in an exhibition of the Growing American influence. He was also a great proponent of conservationism and campaigned for Yellowstone to become our fist National Park.
FDR for his preparations for our country to enter World War II. Through lend-lease, the United States was able to contribute to the air war in europe and Anti-submarine warfare months earlier than if no preparations were taken
Ronald Reagan for confronting the Soviet Union and saying the things that other presidents wouldn't say.

 

[UKReb]

Guys

Thanks for your inputs albeit the posts were a little truncated due no doubt to my OP misconstruing the impact on the political rather than the historical comments I had hoped would have been generated.

However, all of you who listed presidents- bar one I believe- did in fact include FDR which aligned with the conclusions of the author's article of the most influential president of the 20th century. I have no evidence for my next statement but if the question had been for Brits to come up with the most influential British Prime Minister of the 20th century it's a fair bet Sir Winston Churchill would have been prominent amongst the lists.

So do we conclude that world war brings out the best in a leader rather than a peace-time premier/chief exec? Sure there is a common cause to conquer the enemy and rallying round the flag in such a situation is a natural reaction by a populace but do we just historically admire war-time leaders as being the best?............Interesting!

I'm sure somewhere beyond those obvious reasons is a darn good final dissertation for someone's history degree-minus the politics of course

Reb

 

[The Military Workshop]

Hey guys,
I noticed Winston Churchill got a mention here. I am still upset with Time magazine for when they chose Einstein as their Man of the 20th Century. Churchill was robbed !!
My vote would have to be Teddy Roosevelt only becuase he has his own Rough Rider figure series !!! Oh yes and Ike as he has his own figure.
Regards
Brett

 

[1879fanatic]

I would go with The Wackmaster Teddy for reasons of personality, experience and leadership.
Now, for a guy that Lord Kitchener refused to have in theatre or anywhere around him because he thought he was such a dud, Churchill has the resume that proves he IS the man to go down in history as the finest Leader!
Mike

 

[theBaron]

....So do we conclude that world war brings out the best in a leader rather than a peace-time premier/chief exec? Sure there is a common cause to conquer the enemy and rallying round the flag in such a situation is a natural reaction by a populace but do we just historically admire war-time leaders as being the best...

Hi, Reb, that part of your question makes me ask a followup, to ask to clarify--does "most influential" necessarily mean "best"? I think some people will interpret it that way, but the two terms aren't synonymous, unless, in this case, that was the intent of the columnist.

I mean, Gandhi and Hitler were both influential men, but I think everyone would agree that one had a positive influence while the other had a negative influence.

I'm sorry to repeat this question, because I do think it was brought up in at least one earlier post in this thread, but I think it's important always to maintain clarity in a discussion.

Prost!
Brad

 

[kreddy]

. . . So do we conclude that world war brings out the best in a leader rather than a peace-time premier/chief exec? Sure there is a common cause to conquer the enemy and rallying round the flag in such a situation is a natural reaction by a populace but do we just historically admire war-time leaders as being the best?............Interesting!
Reb

Is it just world war, or was it the combination of global economic crisis and global conflict together? And you have WWII as the last "good" war . . . many of the conflicts since then haven't been as easy to define in terms of "us" against "them" without getting really political.

And for the "Great War", is it just too far in the past, or doesn't Wilson have the same clout as FDR in terms of history? Does the delay of the U.S. in getting actively involved take some of the shine off, or his health during the war also effect our looking back with as much favor on him? Or was it the failure of the League of Nations?