<p>[Courtesy, please -- moderator]</p>
<p>lol at iloveagoodbrew. Talking about history lessons, how come historians consistently rate Lincoln as one of the top 3 Presidents? FDR's legacy may be more questionable, but overall things worked out OK at a time when there could have been (arguably) catastrophic disaster. I'd say Washington was a man of his century, Lincoln of his, FDR of his, and if we only have Bush to judge by now, Obama will be the man of his due to limited competition.</p>
<p>[Courtesy, please -moderator]</p>
<p>mors..I don't know how Lincoln is consistently rated as one of the top 3. Only good side effect he had was emancipating the slaves. Even then, look up 'Crown Amendment'. Civil was=not about slavery for the most part. It was a huge abuse of federal power in all levels, including conscription and suspension of freedoms (speech, habeus corpus, etc)...</p>
<p>FDR...no you are flat our wrong on that part. FDR's Folly is a good place to start. Washington was good (well there were only a couple prez in 18th century), thought I like Jefferson better. FDR was a disaster, Obama is a disastrous disaster in the same vein.</p>
<p>p.s. and you do realize that being rated by consensus or whatever doesn't it absolute truth. The number one selling book is the bible, and the number one single is some number by elton john...just for thought.</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>Evaluating Lincoln as only an "emancipator" is a bit narrow. Lincoln as preserved the Union, which is undoubtedly one of the most important events in the history of the United States. He did, of course, commit the malefeasences with which he is indicted: suspension of habeus corpus and broad abuses of his authority. </p>
<p>However, we don't evaluate a leader's accomplishments outside of the context. </p>
<p>FDR, despite the absurd knee-jerk reaction that CATOites have toward him, was a buttress for the country during one of its weakest times. Whether or not one believes the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression (this is not easily demonstrated either way), it's true that he gave the country a sense of hope and spirit that was lacking for years. He also helped lead the United States toward a successful conclusion in the Second World War, one of the most important events in the nation's history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama is a disastrous disaster in the same vein.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, he may be. Unless you possess a crystal ball with which you can gaze clearly into the future, you do not know for certain. A careful prognosticator crouches his predictions in the language of uncertainty.</p>
<p>I understand consensus doesn't equal absolute truth but it adds ethos to my argument when people who have had years of rigorous study and a career in that subject agree with me as opposed to you whom presumably has no special qualifications at all. I think this argument is going to be very pointless, as are all ones on politics, but rest assured that you seem to be displaying ignorance to most on this board on your knowledge of Lincoln. FDR is certainly more questionable, and it is a subject of worthy debate of how great a President he was, but the bottom line is, many people will always respect him highly because he was President in a time that all we knew and loved was in serious danger and America prevailed. I understand that correlation doesn't equal causation but under certain Presidents we've had most of us can agree that WWII could have been a disaster of epic proportions. No one knows if Obama will be great or not, but we'll just have to wait and see, now won't we?</p>
<p>It's scary, people actually continue to believe that FDR did good things for this country. Market crash of '37, anyone?</p>
<p>^shhh legion. You and I should check the consensus before actually, you know...thinking about facts and "displaying our ignorance on this board".</p>
<p>Legion12,</p>
<p>If you think that FDR caused the market crash of '37, then:</p>
<p>1) I'd like to see your argument and evidence for this;
2) Do we also ascribe every following market crash to those president during the crash?</p>
<p>I don't find it "scary" that people think FDR did good. Considering that FDR set the course for the US to become the preeminent world power following WW2, I think his policy paradigm at least helped vault the US to the top. </p>
<p>Unless, of course, you think US hegemony is/was bad. </p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>Consensus isn't an indication of squat, but neither are broad generalizations lacking any sort of supporting evidence/argumentation.</p>
<p>FDR's Follies by Theodore Darymple lays out the case against his policies. Don't have it with me to quote/cite, b/c I'm back at my parents' for break.</p>
<p>I don't have time for a new read at the moment-- I'm reading something from Freeman Dyson-- but surely there must be something in the journals that I can read for free that would make Darymple's case. </p>
<p>And the point is not that FDR made mistakes. He clearly did, no matter how you look at it (well, except for internment, if you listen to Malkin...) But to say he did NO good is not really helpful, either.</p>
<p>You guys do know that if FDR was to just let the market run its course the Depression would have been substantially shorter, He extended it greatly to around 15 years of pain. </p>
<p>University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | FDR prolonged -- not ended -- great depression</p>
<p>FDR was in my opinion one of the worst presidents in history. Id say even worse then GWB. Creating a nation of dependencies through social programs is not a good thing.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with the internment part by Malkin. I like Malkin a decent but, but internment opens up a huge ride down a slippery slope.</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>Well, glad to hear you aren't one of the people who went, "OMG MALKIN SAID INTERNMENT WAS GOOD THEREFORE IT IS GOOD LULZ."</p>
<p>I'm going to look at what the good Prof. Ohanian wrote and get back to you Dr. Horse.</p>