102. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:47 PM PT
Clinton also put about 80 cops on the street!
And changed the old whitehouse switchboard into a modern phone/fax/email/computerized set up.
103. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:48 PM PT
Pseudo:
The conventional wisdom is (and I have no idea if it's correct) is that Reagan accelerated the Soviet Union's decline by beefing up our military to the point where they could not hope to compete, even with their greater numbers, and so underscored the point to the Politburo that their system just wasn't working.
He also softened his stance as Rejkavic (sp?), as he and Gorbachev actually agreed in principle to get rid of ALL nuclear forces. (They both soon after agreed that the time was not right for this, and scuttled the European mid-range forces instead.)
Supposedly Gorbachev was quite impressed with Reagan, and very impressed at his conviction in the American Way.
104. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:50 PM PT
...sometimes the force of personality can be decisive.
You are free to call all of this ludicruous; this is only the tale told round Republican campfires; I'm sure Europeans and American liberals see it far differently.
105. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:50 PM PT
Cal:
Yeah, I have to admit I was puzzled by a few of your calls. Bush rates pretty low all the way around, for his uninspiring leadership, his ham-fisted foreign-policy maneuvers, his disingenous handling of Noriega & Panama, and his patrician faux-populism. Not to mention his woeful sidekick, Mr. Potatoe Head.
Reagan *did* have something to do with ending the Cold War, mainly convincing the Soviets that we could & would outspend them, no matter the social cost, so they might as well give up. He also benefited from the fact that Gorbachev had enough sense to understand this; I'm sure Brezhnev would have kept going.
106. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:53 PM PT
Cartman:
George Bush's "ham-fisted" foreign policy?
Left Noriega in power, would you have?
Left Saddam in Kuwait too, I suppose.
Really. I've come to expect so much better from you.
You're a half-orc passing yourself off as an elf. (Or vice-versa, whichever is more insulting.)
107. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:54 PM PT
Clinton's worst failure, IMO, is the fact that he HAS DONE NOTHING on Russia and in fact is making things worse. Here is the man who could push for a $50 billion loan to Mexico, but could not find it in his imagination to advocate such generosity to fund Russian reforms. If external factors can be blamed for Russia's bungled reforms (and they can be only to a certain extent), it's Clinton's inaction. And now, he has pushed for NATO expansion. A disaster!
108. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:58 PM PT
I agree with #107. The lack of a Marshall Plan Lite for Russia is a tragedy, seems to me. And worse than that, sets the stage for major backlash by Russians against having been thrown to the economic wolves.
109. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:01 PM PT
Pseudo, Coral:
As I understand it, 90% of our previous relief has been diverted to private bank accounts.
What the hell good would more releif do?
110. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:01 PM PT
BobaFett (Message #103)
Well, the collapse of the Soviet Union was precipitated by the rise of Gorbachev and his policies. So in order for Reagan to have had a hand in the fall of the Soviet Union, his actions must have influenced the Central Committee to elect Gorbachev. Yet there is no such evidence. On the contrary, we do have evidence today of internal debates about economic collapse and need for reform in the late 1970s. And even if Reagan's military buildup was so important, how could the pressure really have been felt by 1985? Or was it just the resolution which tired out the Soviets?
111. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:02 PM PT
Russia's problem, it seems to me, was the Shock Therapy plan of economic reorganization. I think they should have gone the course with five or ten years of Communism Light for a while, followed by European socialism.
112. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:05 PM PT
You don't think his simpleminded obsession with ending communism and the defense buildup gave Gorbachev room in which to maneuver?
That's been my understanding; the most recent thing I can remember on the subject was that middlebrow network's bio on him. I shall have to go to Amazon and dig up the book I sat and read at the bookstore one day on the subject.
I generally see it as a matter of furious debate--Reagan the anti-Christ, Reagan Christ returned and, lately, a more realistic balanced view. And that last quite often includes a good deal credit for ending the Cold War. That, coupled with Russian politicians--including Gorbachev--agreement with this view, caused me to tilt in that direction.
I could, of course, be wrong. Since I neither liked nor voted for him, I am not averse to having my opinion changed. But most people who try to convince me are rabid liberals who can't say his name without spitting. I question their objectivity.
113. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:06 PM PT
Pseudo:
Yes, it was the resolution. It was also the rebirth of a feeling of American Triumphalism. Bear in mind the conditions of the Soviet Union at the time (and even now); they lagged ten to twenty or more years technologically behind us and Europe, in medicine, manufacture, computers, electronics, everything.
I just read a book on the KGB, written during the mid-eighties. The author dissected the Soviet Union as it existed at the time; they were aware of all these gaps, and the technology lag was actually growing.
What does this have to do with Reagan?
I don't know. But he did propose Star Wars. Symbolically, this apparently affected the Politburo's thinking quite a bit; they took it more seriously than US or European citizens did. While it was far-fetched for Reagan to propose SDI, it was *absolutely inconceivable* that the SU could even attempt such a thing.
114. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:06 PM PT
Oops--I should have refreshed. Boba said it already.
115. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:08 PM PT
Sigh.
And Cart, too. Serves me right for watching that rerun of ER.
116. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:08 PM PT
Message #109
More relief wouldn't do any good today. I'm saying that a shock therapy (along the lines of Poland) and a more transparent privatisation process would have been possible given an early and large-scale commitment by the United States to help ease the social dislocations of massive reform. But because the Russians were afraid of the social dislocations, thney undertook more piecemeal reforms and privatised their industries by basically giving them away to a handful of apparatchiks, who are now some of the richest men in the world.
117. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:08 PM PT
Boba:
I think you know what you can do with your 8-sided die. Don't knock over your DM screen while you're doing it.
Bush had a lot more to do with Noriega than he'll ever admit. Noriega just got a little too ambitious. Same with Saddam. They're both scumbags, the only problem was they didn't understand that they had to be OUR scumbags. Both situations are perfect examples of the old saying, "You sleep with the dogs and wake up with fleas". Ham-fisted. Emboldening animals like Noriega & Hussein encourages them to get out of line; Bush should have known better, and been prepared to take care of the problem without armed conflict.
"...sometimes the force of personality can be decisive."
I don't think this is ludicrous at all. I made the same point earlier wrt JFK's odd appeal. You phrased it better though.
118. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:10 PM PT
Message #111
Precisely the opposite. There was no shock therapy in Russia, and they should have had one. In a democratic context, a prolonged process of economic reforms erode popular confidence in them.
119. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:12 PM PT
Cart,
Boba's Message #106, sans sarcasm, is why Bush was bumped up. He did okay for a single term pres.
However, both Bush and Carter lacked what Reagan and Clinton have in huge supply. Boba calls it force of personality, above. Or charm. Magnetism. They have it not.
This is why I said that the middle of the list was the toughest.
120. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:13 PM PT
Pseudo, everyone:
I'm sure you've heard about how well Moscow is doing. There all state property was kept as state property/monopolies; it was only sold of slowly, at good market value, rather than at fire sale prices. (Much of Moscow is still state property/monopoly, but people pay fair prices for rents and services.)
Apparently, they're doing just fine, thank you very much.
It strikes me as utterly ridiculous to sell off a huge portion of the state's property at ridiculously low prices to the old party bosses and mafioso.
121. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:13 PM PT
PE:
I doubt if Clinton would have even bothered to bail out Mexico, but he sees NAFTA as a huge feather in his cap, so he went the extra mile to preserve it.
122. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:15 PM PT
Pseudo:
By Shock Therapy, I guess I meant radical and ill-considered privitization, despite the fact that few people in Russia had the capital to buy all of its properties up.
123. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:16 PM PT
The corrupted privatisation process of 1992-93 is the real key to the current mess. Yeltsin basically gave away Russia's prized natural resource monopolies to these "oligarchs" in order to buttress his own political position. And these people are the very obstacles today to the ability of the Russian state to collect taxes. If Clinton (and Bush too) had been willing to be more generous about subsidising Russian reform, I am certain that more state enterprises could have been liquidated or restructured and liquidated, and more foreign capital allowed to invest in the remaining assets, as a means of achieving a more transparent privatisation and wider distribution of state assets.
124. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:17 PM PT
How does Message #120 contradict what I've been saying?
125. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:18 PM PT
Cartman:
Don't be silly. Of course we deal with dictators. We deal with everybody. The world consists of more than Gray Elves and Hobbits, you know; sometimes you have to deal with the Goblins.
I don't understand this disgust about us giving aid to Saddam or Noriega. Saddam was a valuable foe of Iran; he was also secular, which is a nice thing in a Moslem dictator. Noriega was... well, I don't know what he was, but if we cut off foreign aid to every piece of shit tinpot banana republic dictator in the world.... I'd be happy, that's what I'd be.
But we wouldn't be giving out much foriegn aid, either.
126. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:18 PM PT
Cal:
To re-iterate Message #117, I don't count stomping a couple of pissant dictatorships as accomplishments, especially since the interventions seem to be because of inattention to foreign policy (letting Noriega & Hussein accumulate power and become emboldened). Aside from that, Bush did absolutely nothing, so he's a cipher in my book.
127. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:19 PM PT
Pseudo:
Post 120 wasn't supposed to contradict anything. It was an example of rational, slow privitization. Which I agree with.
128. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:20 PM PT
Cart,
Well, he's below the halfway mark. He's certainly not going below Taft or Wilson. That leaves, as I said, McKinley and Coolidge.
129. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:21 PM PT
cartman:
That "pissant" dictator Saddam owned the fourth-largest army in the world at the time of the invasion.
Granted, there's a big drop off from Number 3 to Number 4, but Saddam had a good-sized force.
130. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:24 PM PT
Fett: Actually, the size of the state sector in Russia is now about the same in the West.
At any rate, the problem IMO was not with hurried privatisation so much as unassisted privatisation. After all, Poland's successful privatisation scheme was also hurried, but it got all sorts of financial assistance from Germany and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, especially for unemployment compensation, old-age pensions and food aid.
But Russia required a financial assistance of a much larger order, and not much was forthcoming from the West. Yeltsin basically needed cash and he got it by selling off the state enteprises at rock bottom prices.
131. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:26 PM PT
Pseudo:
I don't understand. Why sell off at all? Why not just sell off small chunks to raise money? Why give away the whole store?
132. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:29 PM PT
Boba:
"I don't understand this disgust about us giving aid to Saddam or Noriega."
Well, it's not so much that it offends my delicate sensibilities, as it is that US foreign policy frequently goes for the most *expedient* rather than practical (in a long-term sense) approach. Think about how much money and time and effort wasted on capturing Noriega or neutering Saddam. Could this money/time/effort have been better spent promoting popular, democratic governance? Is it such a surprise that people of Saddam's ilk do what they do given half a chance? Why give them that chance at all?
Too many miscalculations to justify us dealing with these guys on ANY level. It doesn't pay off in the long run.
133. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:30 PM PT
Cartman:
Oh puhleeze. Name one country -- one -- where the US has made significant headway in advancing the cause of democracy, other than countries we invaded.
134. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:32 PM PT
Boba:
"That 'pissant' dictator Saddam owned the fourth-largest army in the world at the time of the invasion."
Right, Boba. And they put up one hell of a fight, didn't they?
135. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:32 PM PT
Which are you asking? Why did Yeltsin sell off so fast? Or why in principle should privatisation take place quickly?
136. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:33 PM PT
Cartman:
Besides, Foreign Policy simply consists of handling one brushfire or inferno after another. We have long-term goals, but pesky little things interfere with these goals all the time.
WRT Saddam, Iran was Public Enemy No. 1. Iraq was at war with Iran. Simple tactic to dealing with Radical Iran and the threat of the spread of fundamentalism: Pin them down by propping Saddam up and arming him. Makes sense to me.
We did the same thing in Afghanistan. There are always repercussions down the road; but I think arming Saddam made a lot of sense at the time, as did arming the Mujahadim.
137. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:35 PM PT
Pseudo:
Both. I don't understand why the SU had to go from a centralized to a private economy in just a couple of years. Europe still has nationalized industries; why couldn't Russia slog along with them for a while, privatizing only shops and farms and professional practices for a while?
I also don't understand why Yeltsin sold when the prices were obviously so low.
138. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:36 PM PT
Message #133
The Philippines. South Korea. There must be a few others, though I basically agree with you and disagree with Cartman.
By the way, the U.S. foreign aid budget is probably about $20 billion. A pittance.
139. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:39 PM PT
Boba:
"Name one country -- one -- where the US has made significant headway in advancing the cause of democracy, other than countries we invaded."
Well, Eastern Europe seems to be giving it a go, to a certain extent. But even if I accept that argument, it still begs the question: Why meddle to such an extent, if it won't work anyway? Certainly we had to know that none of the dictators we propped up would even consider democratic reform.
What countries have we invaded that became democratic? Panama? Please.
140. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:39 PM PT
BobaFett (Message #137)
"I don't understand why the SU had to go from a centralized to a private economy in just a couple of years."
Credibility in reform. To attract foreign capital. To raise revenues for state operations. Improve productivity.
"Europe still has nationalized industries; why couldn't Russia slog along with them for a while, privatizing only shops and farms and professional practices for a while?"
How can you compare Europe's relatively few nationalised industries with Russia's relatively many (or all)? The only thing successfully privatised was small stores.
"I also don't understand why Yeltsin sold when the prices were obviously so low."
Because he needed the fast cash to bribe the voters with.
141. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:39 PM PT
Cartman:
Well, when the Number 4 army comes up against the Number-One-With-a-Bullet army, especially if we're fighting the kind of war we're good at, and especially if Bush decides to drop more tons of bombs on Iraq that fell during the entirety of WW2 (allright, I don't know if that's true, but it sounds good), the Number 4 army is going to come out of it badly.
The US armed forces acquited themselves spectacularly well in Iraq. You can't just say Iraq's army sucked, because they didn't; they were armed with the export version of Russia's main battle tank (not as good as the T-72, but a reasonable fascimile), great artillery, experienced soldiers, a reasonable air force (equal to, say, France's, maybe), plus home court advantage.
142. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:40 PM PT
But had Russia copied Poland's privatisation process, as it should have, a lot of its enterprises would simply have been liquidated.
143. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:41 PM PT
Cartman:
"What countries have we invaded that became democratic?"
I was actually thinking of Germany, Italy, and Japan.
144. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:45 PM PT
PE:
"The Philippines. South Korea. There must be a few others, though I basically agree with you and disagree with Cartman."
Yes, I figured you'd come up with a few. And I agree there's probably more. I'm not debating that point. I simply think that Panama & Iraq could both have been avoided with more judicious foreign policy. I find it very difficult to believe that these were the ideal people for us to aid in leading their respective countries.
"By the way, the U.S. foreign aid budget is probably about $20 billion. A pittance."
I agree. I'm simply saying it should be used more sensibly, and there should be accountability when it backfires, as it undoubtedly will in Afghanistan.
145. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:49 PM PT
Cartman:
"I find it very difficult to believe that these were the ideal people for us to aid in leading their respective countries."
Cartman, this is your problem. We don't get to pick whom we support within a given country; if we support that country at all, we support the regime in power.
If we support someone who isn't in power, we're conducting a campaign to destabilize the regime in power, and we piss everybody off and then the people we support eventually take over and begin massacring everyone anyway.
146. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:49 PM PT
Boba:
Message #143 I assumed you meant post-WW2. My bad.
147. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:50 PM PT
By the way:
correction:
I think now that Saddam had the fourth largest Air Force in the world, not the fourth largest army.
He had the fourth largest something, I know that.
148. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:52 PM PT
PE:
By the way, we invaded SOuth Korea (or rather our massive presence over there is the equivalent of an invasion). So I'm not sure I'd count them. They're also not precisely democratic, from what I understand.
149. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:53 PM PT
Boba:
"We don't get to pick whom we support within a given country; if we support that country at all, we support the regime in power."
Are you serious? Do you honestly think Noriega would have ascended to where he did without our help? Saddam, yes, he was already there, but Noriega had been on the CIA payroll for years before he succeeded Trujillo; he was groomed for the role.
Like you say, we're #1 with a bullet; we can throw our weight behind pretty much anyone we wish.
150. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:57 PM PT
The current Top Ten, through Message 148:
FDR
Truman
T. Roosevelt
Eisenhower
LBJ
Nixon
Reagan
Wilson
Bush
Carter
Harding still holds on to the last spot.
PE:
In your Message #84 and Message #86 you complain that too many people are rating Clinton and JFK highly. Yet no one has rated them higher than the middle of the pack, and neither makes the Top Ten.
151. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:58 PM PT
Cartman:
You missed the second part of my Post:
"If we support someone who isn't in power, we're conducting a campaign to destabilize the regime in power, and we piss everybody off and then the people we support eventually take over and begin massacring everyone anyway."
Honestly, Cartman, these countries we're talking about are tough places where the regime is controlled successively by brutal gangsters, brutal military dictators, brutal Maoist killers, brutal narco-terrorists, brutal School of the Americas graduates.
Who the hell do you think is going to pop up as the next dictator? Ghandi? I don't thinks so. We have our choice of murderous dictators, and that's the only choice we have.
152. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:58 PM PT
Irv:
I saw at least one list with Clinton at number 7, and I think I've seen JFK in the top ten too.
153. jexster - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:00 AM PT
Irv - Right #13 for me is Robert Taft.
154. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:01 AM PT
Three presidents stand head and shoulders above the rest-
1. Teddy Roosevelt- he was the 20th century model for the office. His use of the "Bully Pulpit", creation of national parks, trust busting, Nobel Peaceh Prize, the Great White Fleet and US emergence as a world power set the stage for everything to come. The personal obstacles he overcame- losing his mother, wife and a child on the same day would have destroyed most people, and yet he rebounded to become a popular president. He was the perfect president for his time. He was almost the embodiment of the nation.
2. FDR- he instituted a sea change in the relationship of government to the needs of the people, brought the US to maturity as a world power, was a great ally to Churchill in dealing with Stalin, and restrained Churchill and the French regarding re-establishment of colonialism.
3. Harry S. Truman- Use of the Atomic bomb without flinching at the reality of its necessity, and without mminmizing the necessary evil it was. Integration of the armed forces. The services are still ahead of the rest of society in racial issues. (And yes, they still have problems, just goes to show how far we still have to go). Fired MacArthur- held off right wing lunacy in use of nuclear weapons and protected civilian control of the military. Great knowlege of history and applied it! Understood the nature of the office and that of the person occupying the office as a sacred trust. Only Washington was better at this.
JFK could have made the list had he lived. He gets enough credit for the Cuban missle crisis to offset the Bay of Pigs, and gets high marks for the space program, the green berets, the peace corps, civil rights, might have avoided the disaster LBJ fell into in Vietnam. Too much of what he started LBJ finished, and LBJ may have accomplished more than JFK could have. He was more politically cautious than LBJ and couldn't arm twist as well as LBJ.
Prince Machiavell
155. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:03 AM PT
BobaFett (Message #148)
"By the way, we invaded SOuth Korea (or rather our massive presence over there is the equivalent of an invasion). So I'm not sure I'd count them. They're also not precisely democratic, from what I understand."
Well, I wasn't thinking of the Korean War at all, but the events in the 1980s. Anyway, the U.S. presence in Korea after the war was NOTHING like that in post-war Germany, Italy or Japan. So I don't even see how the Korean War counts. By the way, South Korea today is quite democratic.
156. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:04 AM PT
Prince Machiaveli channeled through me and votes for LBJ as the top, follwed by Reagan (if he meant to do all that)
157. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:07 AM PT
Pseudo:
Well, my only knowlege of South Korean politics is an out of date essay by PJ O'Rourke, from the mid or late eighties.
158. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:08 AM PT
Boba:
Number 7 for me is the middle of the pack, in a list of 17. And one or two people putting them in the bottom of the Top Ten scarcely counts as too many people rating them highly.
159. jexster - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:08 AM PT
ThomasD, I KNOW you are too young to be speaking of LBJ and Vietnam:
"LBJ
deliberately enmeshed the US in Vietnam, knowing that
the US was unlikely to come out victorious (given the level
of commitment)"
I'll grant that LBJ's Vietnam policy was deliberate but there is absolutely no evidence other than hindsight that he believed that we would be victorious. In fact, the evidence points convincingly the other way. Each incremental escalation was supposed to solve the current problems, this per all of his military advisors and theatre commander. Only when LBJ himself became dissillusioned with their advice did he say *enough*. Moreover there is substantial evidence (Kissinger's book) that Nixon's peace with honor was just a code for victory while all the blood was being shed on his watch.
160. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:08 AM PT
Irv:
Well, phooey then.
161. jexster - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:10 AM PT
Its late *would not be victorious*
162. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:11 AM PT
...but Irv, even the unbalanced liberals in the Fray aren't going to put Clinton ahead of TR, FDR, and HST. Probably even Ike. So the highest Clinton could conceivably get is number four or five. By that measure, Number 7 ain't bad.
163. cartman69 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:12 AM PT
Boba:
Message #151 No, I caught the entire post. I totally disagree with it though, not just because it's antithetical to any reasonably moral person, but because it is completely impractical from a long-range perspective, and there are ancillary costs to propping up dictators that counter whatever financial incentives they may give to United Fruit.
"Honestly, Cartman, these countries we're talking about are tough places where the regime is controlled successively by brutal gangsters, brutal military dictators, brutal Maoist killers, brutal narco-terrorists, brutal School of the Americas graduates."
So since that's the way things are done in these countries, it's our obligation to play ball in the same fashion? Nonsense. It might be better altogether to just let them sort it out themselves, if we're not going to do anything constructive to help. Most of these countries are tightly controlled by elite oligarchies, and our support only perpetuates the oppression. I don't see how that's helpful to our interests.
Brutality begets brutality, simple as that. There is no money in caring about that; if there was, it'd be a different story.
I understand what you're talking about; PE and I have argued about this several times. The bottom line is that I don't think there was even much of an effort to find a more humane way to conduct foreign policy ops, and THAT is what repulses me.
164. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:12 AM PT
Bush might have made the list, if he had finished Saddam Hussein off. He gets big points for the alliance created for Desert Storm, but was too much of a cold warrior to finish the job. The "midnight pardons" hurt him as well.
165. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:16 AM PT
Cartman:
Well, obviously I believe that no better way exists.
Countries do not become civilized overnight. Civilization softens men and makes life more precious. No good man or men will change any of these countries. There's too much civilization infrastructure that needs to be built up first; one of the most difficult to achieve is a lack of abject poverty and desperation and willingness to kill or die cheaply.
At any rate, I'm done for the night. Keep your twenty-siders dry for next time.
166. cartman69 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:21 AM PT
Boba:
"Countries do not become civilized overnight. Civilization softens men and makes life more precious. No good man or men will change any of these countries. There's too much civilization infrastructure that needs to be built up first; one of the most difficult to achieve is a lack of abject poverty and desperation and willingness to kill or die cheaply."
That I can agree with 100%. My position is that as the most advanced nation, we have belied our stated principles too often, and for no real benefit. I think we're better than that.
Incidentally, if you're feel the need for some easy Clinton-baiting, check out the News of the Day thread. I posted a link at about #897, which ought to provide a softball for you to hit out of the park. Believe me, it's right up your alley.
167. BunEBear - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:01 AM PT
I usually avoid these historical threads out of fear of displaying my own ignorance, but I thought a systematic approach might be useful here. The following comments probably include as much myth as fact, but are the impressions of someone with at best a casual exposure to the history of this century. I will not even try to give an ordering, only list some plusses and minuses for each.
WJC:
Pluses: Nafta. Balanced budget. Robert Rubin & Alan Greenspan. And yes, parental leave.
Minuses: Monica. Sold out gays.
Bush:
Pluses: Hmm…
Minuses: Slimy.
Reagan:
Pluses: Made us all feel warm and fuzzy.
Minuses: Federal deficit!
Carter:
Pluses: Humans rights integrity.
Minuses: Micro-managed ineffectively.
Ford:
Pluses: Didn't mess anything up particularly.
Minuses: Pardoned Nixon.
Nixon:
Pluses: Opened up China. Environmental reform (formed the EPA, right?)
Minuses: Watergate. Bombing of Cambodia.
LBJ:
Pluses: Civil Rights. Great Society.
Minuses: Vietnam. Great Society.
JFK:
Pluses: Space Program. Good hair. Inspired nation.
Minuses: Bay of Pigs.
Ike:
Pluses: Led us out of Korean War.
Minuses: Can't think of any.
HST:
Pluses: Decision to use Atom bomb to end WWII.
Minuses: can't think of any offhand.
FDR:
Pluses: Led us out of Depression and through WWII.
Minuses: Attempted to extend the powers of the presidency to the point that constitutional balance put out of wack.
Hoover:
Pluses:?
Minuses: Inaction in dealing with Depression.
Coolidge:
Pluses: Did nothing.
Minuses: Did nothing.
Harding:
Pluses: Came from Marion OH (My mom's home town.)
Minuses: Teapot dome.
Earlier than this, my historical ignorance is great enough that I won't bother.
168. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:37 AM PT
Irv--You asked me to comment on my original picks, and why I like them. Some highlights.
It's no wonder FDR is rated number-one because he helped win WWII and kept our country from going communist during the Great Depression.
Of course, some socialism came out of that: Social Security, etc. But with all of SS's problems, Americans love its protections and SS has kept a lot of older citizens from going hungry.
FDR's older cousin, Teddy Roosevelt was probably America's greatest president of this century. Everything about the man was genius. His
energy helped built the Panama Canal, he took on the rich, and gave us wonderful National Parks.
I'm particularly impressed with environmentist John Muir's ability to get Teddy to save California's Yosemite valley (my favorite place in the world).
Reagan won the Cold War by keeping his word on SDI. The Soviets and the liberal Democrats couldn't get him to change and Communists couldn't afford to pay the price.
I didn't vote for him in 1980 but by '84 I was a Reagan Democrat and by 1988 I had changed parties. God bless Reagan.
Selfishly, I love Harry "A-bomb" Truman because I believe he helped save by father's life. And that, in turn, gave me life in 1950.
My dad, who volunteered in 1943, was a Army corporal, slightly wounded in Saipan, who would have been in the second or third wave of any attack on mainland Japan.
My father won the Bronze Star award there. He would never talk much about the fighting and I only learned about his heroic actions from newspaper clippings about him that my grandmother saved.
Continuing the war on the Japanese islands would have been a bloodbath.
Ironically, my dad, who was a Democrat, hated Truman because of the way the president treated General MacArthur during the Korean War.
Reading the history now, I think Truman did the right thing.
169. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
One addition to my comments on FDR:
Our country might have gone "communist" OR "fascist" during the Great Depression. (Either way it wouldn't have been good for our Republic.)
170. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 9:59 AM PT
Completed list in order from best to worst
1.TR
2.FDR
3.HST
4/5 JFK/LBJ running as a single stable entry (LBJ gets cedit for accomplishing the good that JFK started, and looses points for where he divereged- Vietnam
6. Carter- his weapons systems were what the USSR feared- cruise missles and the Trident sub, he gets credit for the end of cold war because of this and his human rights agenda. Far more important to the rest of the world than to us.
7 Wilson
8 Bush- loses points for Willie Horton and no new taxes. Gets points for desert storm alliance and for breaking tax pledge for good of country.
9 Ford
10 Eisenhower
11 Taft
12 Clinton
13 Nixon
14 Coolidge
15 Hoover
16 Reagan
17 Harding
171. aldavis - Dec. 4, 1998 - 10:05 AM PT
Have any of you read the "Communist Manifesto" lately? We have gone more than a little socialist. While one might argue that FDR had pure motives (not my opinion at all), isn't it time we rid ourselves of some of the socialist crap, starting with Social Security.
Of course, few politicians right or left will dare touch it; too many of us old farts vote.
172. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 10:08 AM PT
BunEBear,
Ike also sold out gays.
In WW2, he approached his female secretary/assistant and told her he was concerned about lesbians in the forces, and that he wanted to get rid of them. She told him, well, if you do, you'll have to get rid of me, too. Ike backed off. But in peacetime, as president, he reversed himself and backed a major purge of gays in the military, more or less concurrent with McCarthyism and the removal of homosexuals (described in the headline of a front-page story in The New York Times as "perverts") from the State Department and other agencies.
The military story was told by the woman herself in the documentary, "Before Stonewall," if I remember the source correctly, which has been shown several times on PBS.
jonesatlaw,
Where do you get the idea that FDR backed Churchill against Stalin? Churchill said he wanted to march to Warsaw (Riga would have been better), but FDR had no stomach for it and sold out Eastern Europe. About the only thing Stalin did not get among those things he wanted was the opportunity to invade Switzerland, having said the Swiss were among the peoples he most detested.
173. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 10:19 AM PT
jones--You're the first person I have ever heard who gives Carter the credit for ending the Cold War.
Actually he caused the Cold War to heat up because of the ways he handled the Alghanistan invasion and his feeble response of not sending Americans to the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.
According to CNN's "Cold War" videos that I've been been watching, he blew it big time in his one and only 1979 summit meeting with the Soviets. The communists just didn't take him seriously.
He also mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis which diminished America's prestige in the Middle East. We're still living with that mistake.
Now, I voted for the man twice so it's hard for me to put him down because he is a good person. But he wasn't a good president.
The Camp David agreements were the best thing he accomplished. But even that wasn't perfect as we still can see.
174. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 10:28 AM PT
jones: For the record, it was Senator Al Gore (D-TN) who first made the released murderer Willie Horton an issue in 1988.
And I'm glad Gore did since Horton escaped Mass. and ended up in Maryland where he raped a woman and "bobbied" her husband with his knife-attack.
175. Raskolnikov - Dec. 4, 1998 - 11:05 AM PT
My rankings, with a few comments:
1) FDR - WWII, social reforms.
2) Truman - Begat the policy of containment against the Soviet Union, and brought an unwilling country along with him, fighting isolationism and post-war complacency. Also Integrated the armed forces.
3) TR - Great reformer. Early tree hugger. I love the guy.
Beyond that, I have trouble really ranking, but I do have more comments
Clinton: I think Pseudo is being too hard on him regarding Russia. The misbeggoten privatization began and largely occurred under Bush's watch. Clinton was a new president still getting his feet wet, and I'm not sure what he really could have done to halt the process once he took office in '93. I do give Clinton credit for fighting for a balanced budget, fiscal honesty, expanding the EITC, GATT, NAFTA, the Mexican bail out, midwiving several peace accords, the FMLA, lighting a fire under the ass of the health care industry, and primarily for being an excellent executive, requiring performance measurement, reforming procurement, and allowing states to experiment with welfare reform, among other things. The jury is still out on whether his scandals will cripple him for the next couple of years.
176. Raskolnikov - Dec. 4, 1998 - 11:15 AM PT
other comments:
Wilson: I find him a very interesting figure, one of our most tragic leaders, but not a particularly good president.
Carter: damned unlucky, which isn't his fault, but he was a notorious micro-manager, and wasn't much of a leader.
Bush: Plusses for his management of the Gulf War. Minuses for his handling of Russia. Will be a very forgotten President, like Ford, Taft, and Franklin Pierce.
Reagan: Horrid fiscal management, has some culpability for the S&L crisis, and appointed people like James Watt and Anne Gorsuch to positions of power.
Kennedy: Didn't do much. His only value is as a symbol of idealism, and that value has been tainted steadily in recent years.
Ike: I like the Freeways. But he had Dulles as Secretary of State.
177. Raskolnikov - Dec. 4, 1998 - 11:39 AM PT
Oh what the hell, I'll rank them all
The Good
1) FDR
2) Truman
3) TR
4) Clinton (big gap here between TR and Bill)
5) Johnson
6) Nixon
The Mediocre
7) Eisenhower
8) Carter
9) Taft
10) Bush
11) Ford
12) Kennedy
The Bad
13) Coolidge
14) Wilson
15) Reagan
16) Harding
17) Hoover
And Pseudo, in the Fringe thread, we (and others) made what I believe was a convincing case that inaction can be a wrong. I think this applies to presidents as well.
178. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 11:49 AM PT
"Actually he caused the Cold War to heat up because of the ways he handled the Alghanistan invasion and his feeble response of not sending Americans to the 1980 Olympics in Moscow."
This is absolutely untrue. There is no evidence that spy activities increased directly as a result of the way the US responded to the Afganistan invasion, no evidence that tensions increased to a dangerous level (comparatively speaking), no evidence at all for this statement.
"He also mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis which diminished America's prestige in the Middle East. We're still living with that mistake."
Again, pure hyperbole. What analysis do you present that America's prestige was significantly damages as a result of this one event? What evidence is there that our current problems with prestige in the Middle East are tied to that event?
In other words, your points are nonsense.
179. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 11:51 AM PT
"jones: For the record, it was Senator Al Gore (D-TN) who first made the released murderer Willie Horton an issue in 1988."
For the record Gore neither mentioned Hortons name or race in his discussion of the case. Both of which became the issue in the Bush campaign around it. Race baiting at its lowest.
180. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:05 PM PT
I stand by my earlier assertion, the weapons that USSR feared were the subs and the cruise missle. They are both Carter programs. The soviets couldn't hit either with a pre-emptive strike, and couldn't be assured that a decaptiation strike would prevent retaliation. As for star wars, they still can't effectively attack these systems (as far as anyone outside of high security clearance knows) with star wars type technology. I find it hard to believe the cherished GOP myth that RR and star wars broke the soviet's back. The threat of a system that still hasn't materialized in any significant way in 20 years would hardly worry them as much as a bunch of accurate nukes with a guaranteed delivery system that they couldn't effectively match or counter counted most.
181. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:18 PM PT
Ronski- FDR backed Churchill in resisting opening a western front until '44. The Italian campaign was WRC's idea and FDR rejected Stalin's demand that it be discarded in favor of a western front in '43. Wrt eastern europe, Stalin had what he had by the strength of the Red Army. We did push him out of Austria and held Berlin in part. With a large part of our forces concentrated on the pacific and later the occupation of Japan, and being fresh out of atomic bombs there were no really attractive options in '45.
182. Raskolnikov - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:18 PM PT
The seventies were a period of detente. Detente ended with the invasion of Afghanistan. The blame for increases in tensions resulting from Afghanistan lies solely at the feet of the Soviets, not Carter.
183. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:24 PM PT
MsIvoryTower: In the 1988 New York Democratic state primary, Senator Al Gore brought up Willie Horton as an issue. That's the first time his name was mentioned to the general public. That's a fact.
American diplomats were murdered when the Soviet-backed Afghan communists and the KGB took over in Afghanistan in 1979. It was a direct challenge to the West, and the Soviets did it because they perceived the weakness of Clinton.
The Iranian hostage crisis and our military screwup in trying to save our people caused us to lose face in the mid-East. Clearly, that was one of the reasons by Reagan was elected in 1980.
Iran's change of goverments lead Iraq to attack Iran the next year which eventually setup the Persian Gulf War.
184. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:29 PM PT
MsIvoryTower: In the 1988 New York Democratic state primary, Senator Al Gore brought up Willie Horton as an issue. That's the first time his name was mentioned to the public.
American diplomats were murdered when the Soviet-backed Afghan communists and the KGB took over in Afghanistan in 1979. It was a direct challenge to the West, and the Soviets did it because they perceived the weakness of Clinton.
The Iranian hostage crisis and our military screwup in trying to save our people caused us to lose face. Clearly, that was one of the reasons why Reagan was elected in 1980.
Iran's change of goverments lead Iraq to attack Iran the next year which eventually setup the Persian Gulf War.
185. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
Regarding the hostage crisis, admittedly this was not a shining moment in American history. However, the hostages arrived home alive because of Carter's forebearance, and had the rescue come off, he'd been lionized. As for damaging American credibility, the October 23rd bombing of the Marines in Beruit hurt us far more. Further it was unecessary political meddling by the WH that placed them in that position. I'm no tactical expert by any measure, but common sense tells you that you do not barracks troops in a combat zone, you spread them out within a defended perimeter. RR and Co. nixed this as too militarily aggressive. So they did what they disparaged the dems for doing in Vietnam, the political overrode the practical and the soldiers paid for it.
186. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:40 PM PT
sorry about the double post. caught some typos in the first one and didn't realize that it went through.
jones: Both sides had enough nuclear weapons and weapon systems to keep MAD effective in the 1970s.
It was only after Reagan proposed SDI (and wouldn't give up on "the future technology" of protecting our country from missle attack) that the Soviets blinked. They couldn't afford to pay the price and didn't know if Star Wars would work or not.
Again, I use CNN's "Cold War" series as a reference point to this. We own the videos so I've seen the whole 24 hours of programs.
187. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 12:56 PM PT
Envision:
The US diplomats you were referring to were killed after they had been taken hostage by antigovernment terrorists. I believe that this occurred before the Soviet invasion. Soviet antiterrorist authorities "advised" the Afghan government on how to deal with the situation, and botched it badly.
188. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:05 PM PT
Wombat:
According to the CNN video on the topic, KGB officers were with the communists who invaded the American embassy. They weren't in the room where the Americans were killed but were on the property.
Close enough for me.
189. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:15 PM PT
SDI was as serious a threat as dense pack a.k.a. dunce pack was using the MX. Neither got off the ground, and neither was anything other than a pipe dream. The soviets were trying to keep up with the existing threat and losing. The American attach subs were too good to give the soviets complete confidence. They couldn't match the Tomahawks or defend against them.
In the Carter era, I and a few college students spent a memorable evening drinking Polish vodka and smoking Cuban cigars with the First Secretary of the Soviet embassy in Washington. He spent the evening calling the space shuttle a space weapon, and bemoaning plans to place cruise missles in europe. The soviets were worried about their satelites for intelligence and targeting, not wheather Rayguns would be able to stop an attack by ICBMs.
190. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:17 PM PT
jones
Your take on SDI is contradicted by the record. I make no claims one way or the other as to its capability, but the Soviets were convinced it was a threat, and 1980s disarmament diplomacy was shaped by that bargaining chip and Soviet attempts to match the technology.
191. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:18 PM PT
Also wrt to the Soviets fearing SDI, remember the spy scandals? Their intelligence would have given them some hint of the timeline for any effective deployment.
192. glendajean - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:23 PM PT
Jonesatlaw
You blame Johnson for Vietnam, letting Kennedy off the hook. I don't think you can let Kennedy get off so easy. Despite the near his death conversion on Vietnam that his apologists spread in the late 60s and early 70s, Kennedy must be held responsible in part for US involvment in Vietnam. Johnson inherited Kennedy's national security team, listened to them, and followed what was the conventional wisdom of the time. If you read Bechloss' book of the tapes from the first year of the LBJ presidency, you get a feel for the government's movement towards a land war in Vietnam, and Johnson's reluctance at committing to it. But the transition from Kennedy to Johnson meant that US policy followed along tracks that were in great part laid down by Kennedy and his hand picked team.
Interestingly, the one advisor to Johnson in the first year of his presidency who strongly advised against involvement in Vietnam was Georgia Senator Richard Russell. Russell was an avowed segregationist, and tried like hell to prevent the civil rights legislation of the 60s. But he also sounds like quite a dove on Vietnam all during 1964 as he privately advised the President on the telephone.
193. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:24 PM PT
Ronald Reagan deserves induction into the so-called "near great" category of presidents. Reagan's policy of rollback was the perfect complement to erratic policies of containment. Now, rollback induces a natural chicken-before-the-egg debate between people like George Kennan and Richard Perle, or their surrogates. Containment was acceptable to the degree that post-World War II events made Americans temper any belligerent tendencies with charity, i.e., NATO and the Marshall Plan. (The best metaphor for this change in style and substance, however ill advised, resides within the reversal between "arrows" and "olive branches" maintained by America's official icon, the bald eagle.) Nevertheless, Reagan recognized the principal failure of containment: that it was premised on the sincere compliance of one party (the United States) against insincere policies of another (the Soviet Union). Reagan used rhetoric and action (see the president's brave deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe) to kill the Soviet bear.
194. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:24 PM PT
As for SDI, where's the defense against cruise missles even today? Atmospheric destruction of warheads on cruise missles or sub launched ICBMs gives you too little time to avoid massive poisoning of the atmosphere in the area of the attack. Each system is set for positioning near the target areas. Also, each has a small CEP and the soviets couldn't match that.
195. jayackroyd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:25 PM PT
What the hey.
Worst to best:
1. Warren Harding
2. Reagan
3. Hoover
4. Coolidge
5. Kennedy
6. Ford
7. Wilson
8. Bush
9 Carter
10 Nixon
11 Johnson
12 Clinton
13 Taft
14 Truman
15 Teddy Roosevelt
16 Eisenhower
17. FDR
The most interest part of composing this was how hard it is to be a good president. I was surprised to see Truman so high on so many lists, but understood once I started constructing it.
I was surprised at how high Nixon and Clinton came out on the list. Perhaps that reveals ignorance of the administrations of the first half of the century.
196. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:29 PM PT
"I do give Clinton credit for fighting for a balanced budget, fiscal honesty, expanding the EITC, GATT, NAFTA, the Mexican bail out, midwiving several peace accords..."
All rather minor accomplishments, the kind found in any administration and quickly forgotten thereafter, with the exception of the Mideast Accords and GATT.
197. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:29 PM PT
Envision:
You are being--I hope unintentionally--obtuse. According to your description, as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they and their Afghan colleagues, for no particular reason, invaded the US embassy in Kabul and killed US diplomats. Leaving aside the fact that such a deed would have been far worse than the Iranian seizure of the US embassy in Teheran had it happened, you and/or CNN are mistaken in your chronology.
The US embassy in Kabul was seized by antigovernment terrorists after Mohammed Daoud had been deposed by Taraki (a pro-Soviet politician) and before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan government "assisted" by Soviet advisors, sought to end the barricade hostage incident by storming the embassy. It failed, and the US ambassador was killed, along with the terrorists.
198. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:30 PM PT
glendajean- I suppose I let JFK off a bit easy on that one. However, his approach was far more focused on advisors and anti-insurgency tactics rather than the more conventional approach adopted by Johnson. I presume that there wouldn't have been the Americanization of the war under JFK as there was under Johnson. JFK may have been more willing to cut our losses than LBJ was, and had a better chance of sucess with his approach.
199. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:30 PM PT
"And Pseudo, in the Fringe thread, we (and others) made what I believe was a convincing case that inaction can be a wrong. I think this applies to presidents as well."
What the hell are you talking about? Of course an inaction can be wrong. I never said otherwise.
200. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:31 PM PT
''The fact of the matter is that SDI is what gave us the leverage that
permitted the only treaties in history that actually led to a reduction in
nuclear arms."
Henry Cooper, chairman of the group High Frontier and chief negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks with the USSR
"After Reagan became President, I learned, a small group of scientists and businessmen had been set to work secretly in the White House in September 1981, chaired by presidential counsellor Ed Meese. Teller, among others, kept pushing. In December 1982, at one of the President's periodic meetings with the Joint Chiefs, he had asked them whether they thought strategic defense was feasible.
On Feb. 11, the Joint Chiefs gave encouragement and a supportive report.
Once Reagan became sold on SDI, he looked for ways to persuade others that his idea was right. It was a Reagan characteristic I would observe again and again. He had visionary ideas. In pursuing them, he displayed some of his strongest qualities: an ability to break through entrenched thinking to support his vision of a better future and a readiness to stand by his vision regardless of pressure, scorn or setback. At the same time, he could fall prey to a serious weakness: a tendency to rely on his staff and friends to the point of accepting
uncritically -- even wishfully -- advice that was amateurish and even
irresponsible.
Some in the Administration became deeply committed to strategic defense and believed that the program would succeed. To them this meant that SDI should never be mentioned in negotiations. Others saw SDI as a " bargaining chip" in the broadest sense, as a way of getting the Soviets' attention on arms control. President Reagan said SDI would never be a bargaining chip. In our subsequent negotiations with the Soviets, the integrity of the basic program was never compromised. But SDI proved to be of deep concern to the
Soviet