20th Century US Presidents (2 Viewers)

[Njja]

Only two in my opinion added to the prestige of our Presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Most were simply "actors" playing a role.

 

[UKReb]

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

Wow! Brad your comment is way too complicated for me. I didn't write the article I only read it and from that reading assumed "influential" as aligned with 20th century US presidents was a positive influence rather than an analogy with a Nazi dictator-but hey what do I know?

Reb

 

[damian]

Richard Nixon opened China to the world and that alone is important.
Ended the Vietnam War as a draw, was not around when it went pear shaped in 1975.
Went off the Dollar standard and created the modern financial system where the world currencies are all floating and not fixed. So in a way was the father of teh modern globalized economy.
So I would say pretty influential.

 

[jazzeum]

Not to mention that he masterminded a "second rate burglary," a coverup and had to resign in disgrace. Don't get me started.

 

[1879fanatic]

Not to mention that he masterminded a "second rate burglary," a coverup and had to resign in disgrace. Don't get me started.

Now, Now, Brad. Let's be kind to the "influential"
Mike

 

[jazzeum]

As you can tell, he's not one of my favorites. There's a reason he rates rather low.

 

[theBaron]

Wow! Brad your comment is way too complicated for me. I didn't write the article I only read it and from that reading assumed "influential" as aligned with 20th century US presidents was a positive influence rather than an analogy with a Nazi dictator-but hey what do I know?

Reb

Thanks, Reb, I wasn't making a comparison between any US President and Hitler, or between and President and Gandhi, either, just trying to illustrate a difference between meanings of "influence". But you've helped clear it further by your note about the reading of the article, that helps understand what the author meant.

Prost!
Brad

 

[kreddy]

Wow! Brad your comment is way too complicated for me. I didn't write the article I only read it and from that reading assumed "influential" as aligned with 20th century US presidents was a positive influence rather than an analogy with a Nazi dictator-but hey what do I know?

Reb

That makes sense to consider good and bad influences . . . Time magazine has named quite a few less-than-nice people as the "Man of the Year" because of the effect (good or bad) they had on news / on the world. (Hitler was one of them.)

 

[Whistlinghen]

Eleanor Roosevelt. I have heard that it was she who was behind a lot of what have come to be thought of as his better decisions. That aside, the question posed immediately brings us to the entire "Great Man" theory of history and its validity. The idea of choosing a "best" president may betray an American mindset (and I write this as an American). It has been said that the difference between Europe and America is that in Europe, 100 miles is a long distance, and in America, 100 years is a long time. The 1930's was the day of the "strongman" all over the world-perhaps there was a vacuum that any number of men could have stepped into. FDR's effectiveness (aside from his abilities as a communicator) was in bringing in a group of bright people with creative ideas. LBJ set the standard for getting his policies through Congress. Reagan's "one-eighty" on FDR's economic policies will be felt for generations-for good or ill, depending on your ideology. As toy soldier collectors many of us tend to focus on military history and forget that military history is usually just a result of social changes, more often than not driven by economic forces. These changes take centuries to play out. Perhaps someday Gerald Ford's failure to nuke Lichtenstein when we had the chance may be seen as one of the great turning points of history. On the other hand, John Maynard Keynes said, " In the long run, we're all dead.". -Cheers, Emily

 

[The Military Workshop]

Dear Brad,
You have been naughty and wrote
"Not to mention that he masterminded a "second rate burglary," a coverup and had to resign in disgrace. Don't get me started".

Oops. Falling into the very thing you were worried about earlier in the thread.

Frost/Nixon an interesting movie but I won't express any opinion on his Presidency.

I did hear something interesting about Truman the other day and that was when he left office he drove himself home and never took up any offered corporate opportunties as he commented that they were looking to hire the President and he was no longer President. Seems to have been a humble man.

Regards
Brett

 

[jazzeum]

Actually, I was wrong. It was a "third rate burglary" and it was described as such by Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary.

 

[Njja]

Actually, I was wrong. It was a "third rate burglary" and it was described as such by Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary.

..............................................................

Perchaps....but to his credit did he not give us the term

Tricky Dick

 

[Capitolron]

Not to mention that he masterminded a "second rate burglary," a coverup and had to resign in disgrace. Don't get me started.

Glad we are not being political here !

 

[jazzeum]

Nixons own people referred to it as a third rate burglary, there was a cover up, so how do you call that political? And if you don't call the circumstances under which he resigned a disgrace, no matter your leaning, what is?

 

[kreddy]

Nixons own people referred to it as a third rate burglary, there was a cover up, so how do you call that political? And if you don't call the circumstances under which he resigned a disgrace, no matter your leaning, what is?

By the way, everybody, please think twice (maybe three times!) before coming up with examples for that "what is?" response!

 

[DCN1898]

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

America has a habit of electing war heroes for public office. Name recognition never hurts and "War Hero" is pretty strong recognition.

 

[UKReb]

America has a habit of electing war heroes for public office. Name recognition never hurts and "War Hero" is pretty strong recognition.

Yes-fair point and I suppose one must ask did that make them exceptional presidents? Grant and Eisenhower come to mind.

America has always had a sense of destiny that has come to be associated with a small group of exceptional Presidents-Washington; Jefferson; Lincoln; Teddy Roosevelt; Wilson; FDR and JFK among them. These presidents have shaped the history of America and indeed the world, while-shall we say less charismatic presidents have been forgotten. Most of them had to overcome huge historical crises particularly wars or the threat of wars-such as the War of Independence; The Civil War; First and Second World Wars and the Cuban Missile Crisis. While there has usually been a natural reaction against those presidents whose handling of wars/crises did not result in outright victories such as Johnson (who I consider was a pretty good president on the domestic front) but was simply overwhelmed with the escalation of the Vietnam War.

In 1899 a very perceptive commentator called William Allen White described Teddy Roosevelt as "the coming American of the 20th century". That proved to be very true because fate enabled him to come to the world's stage due to TR becoming president by accident. The 20th century saw the development of an American empire and TR was an empire builder who just may have laid the foundation blocks and a presidential template that every other president over the next 100 years had to try and aspire to.
I find this stuff fascinating.

Reb

 

[jazzeum]

Contrary to popular belief, I never cared for Ike. This feeling was further confirmed with the way he treated George C. Marshall, one of our finest patriots. When Marshall was being savaged by the right wing in the 50s, Eisenhower never came to his defense, notwithstanding that but for Marshall no one would have never heard of Ike. He made him commander of Torch and when offered the job of commander of Overlord, he selflessly turned it down, feeling that the country needed his services more as Chief of Staff of the Army. This is what propelled Ike to ultimately becoming President.

 

[DCN1898]

It's not 20th century but two presidents come to mind who were war veterans and kept the U.S. out of war. In 1870 the ship Virginius, was was captured by Spanish authorities in Cuba smuggling guns to Cuban insurgents. The American crew was executed and there was an outcry for war with Spain. President Grant refused to be pulled into another war so soon after the Civil War.
In 1896, President McKinley, (a Civil War Veteran) resisted for a long time, a growing sentiment in the U.S. for war with Spain and the ejection of Spain from Cuba. With the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, McKinley had to bow to pressure and declare war.
These are two examples of war experience making presidents less eager for the war option.

 

[UKReb]

Contrary to popular belief, I never cared for Ike. This feeling was further confirmed with the way he treated George C. Marshall, one of our finest patriots. When Marshall was being savaged by the right wing in the 50s, Eisenhower never came to his defense, notwithstanding that but for Marshall no one would have never heard of Ike. He made him commander of Torch and when offered the job of commander of Overlord, he selflessly turned it down, feeling that the country needed his services more as Chief of Staff of the Army. This is what propelled Ike to ultimately becoming President.

Yes I agree one of Ike's biographers (whose name escapes me now) summed up his presidency on the lines of:

"As a man who knew war and detested it, he kept the country at peace and this was his signal achievement but it was secured at a heavy price as he completely failed as a civilian in understanding and building a lasting foreign policy. Neither a saviour nor a creator, he was quite simply, a five star general out of his depth in the White House"...... or something like that.

Reb