How Would You Rank These Presidents In Terms Of Public Speaking/Oratory?

[bdkane]

I like Kennedy but he's one of the most overrated Presidents in US history. He didn't even serve a full term and has a pretty large black stain on his legacy with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but he gets credit for keeping his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a very nice display of diplomacy. I guess he's known as the Space Race president, so that's something? He just didn't really do enough to warrant his status as one of the most famous Presidents. If he hadn't gotten assassinated and signed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sharked LBJ's Great Society accomplishments like Medicare and Medicaid, that would have gone a long way to legitimizing his status. I think he's middle-bottom tier, but asterisk for unfulfilled potential due to assassination.

This is going to be controversial on here, but Reagan was one of the most important Presidents in American history, at least in terms of consequentiality. The story of post-war America can be divided into pre-Reagan and post-Reagan. The guy absolutely changed the game. If we're looking at presidential qualities like leadership and national vision, Reagan tops out. He has black stains like his treatment of the gay community during the start of the AIDS epidemic, and the treatment of the African-American community with regards to the drug wars and crime. I think Reagan represents the American establishment, so anyone whose political philosophy is anti-establishment will dislike him, and for often legitimate reasons. A lot of people, for both good and bad reasons, link the Reagan era to the start of the social and economic divergence that marks present day America. But if we're ranking Presidential greatness on the scale of impact and ability to mould society in their vision, I have a hard time not placing Reagan up there. A hell of a lot of events and changes took place during his era, from the most transformational economic changes in the post-war era to the beginning of the end of the Cold War and subsequent primacy of America as the sole global hegemony. I think he's top 10.

I'm on the record as stating Obama is currently overrated. His legacy has really benefitted from coming after GWB, but the congressional gridlock he faced means he didn't really get much done during his time in office, and his foreign policy has been an utter disaster. His whole legacy was supposed to be being a bridge to close the division in American society, but he's obviously failed in this regard and he himself seemed to acknowledge the unfulfilled potential when he said in his last State of the Union address "It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office." People point to Obamacare as his signature legislative achievement, but I don't see how it survives the administration after Hillary's, as the President following her from either party would most likely have a large public mandate to enact universal healthcare, and Obamacare will be relegated to a historical stepping stone to that President's healthcare system. He failed in getting gun legislation passed, so Hillary will probably take that. It's not entirely his fault because he inherited one of the worst situations and cultures of any president, but I'm just not seeing what Presidential historians will be able to point to as a sign of Obama's greatness. Like JFK, most of his legacy will be symbolic for being the first non-white male President. Great presidents change the times they live in, but Obama couldn't manage to do it. He played small ball, great Presidents go for home runs. His disposition just wasn't right for this era, he would have done much better in a calmer, more conciliatory period. I place him around George HW Bush, which is no slight.

Trump is such a total wildcard that he would either flame out and be impeached within the first year, or he could spur on great changes to American society. Because make no mistake, there is a revolutionary potential fomenting in American society right now. It's possible a total outsider figure like Trump could capitalize on that potential. His personality type is boom-or-bust. The best case scenario for Trump would be as the President who starts the populist era of America turning away from neoliberal globalization and rescuing the American working and middle class. The legislative victories would be things like universal healthcare, free college tuition, unleashing another era of American prosperity with his Reagnomics 2.0 redux; Trumponomics. Worst case scenario is impeachment, solidifying him as perhaps the worst president of all time.

Funny,that I always thought Reagan was a phony. Maybe because I knew he was a bad actor and horrible governor. With all due respect, AIDS and crack are more than just a stain. Black folk lost almost an entire generation due to those two things alone. This was on his watch. He tapped danced, lied, and skated around the Iran Contra hearings. He never impressed me. He blew a mean dog whistle too. Maybe, because I am black knew about the shyt he did to the Panthers, I looked at him with no more reverence than a Jew would Hitler. Maybe I'm blinded by bias . but I never saw the allure among non whites with this man. Bill Clinton might be the winner here, though I know he was not mentioned.

 

[King Kreole]

Funny,that I always thought Reagan was a phony. Maybe because I knew he was a bad actor and horrible governor. With all due respect, AIDS and crack are than just a stain. Black folk lost almost an entire generation due to those two things alone. This was on his watch. He tapped danced, lied, and skated around the Iran Contra hearings. He never impressed me. He blew a mean dog whistle too. Maybe, because I am black knew about the shyt he did to the Panthers, I looked at him with no more reverence than a Jew would Hitler. Maybe I'm blinded by bias . but I never saw the allure among non whites with this man. Bill Clinton might be the winner here, though I know he was not mentioned.

Yeah this is fair. You're approaching this from the perspective of a pro-black activist, so it makes complete sense that you would view Reagan in those terms. I was trying to assess them from the perspective of a presidential historian. I think his Iran-Contra performance was actually a pretty good display of political evasion, because that situation could have easily been an impeachment for him. Also, surely Clinton was in the same ballpark as Reagan with regards to shytting on the black community. He just did it in a far more surreptitious and stylish way. But the effects of their policies or lack of attention to the black community were probably of an equal order. I wonder if/when Bill will face the same disregard.

 

[bdkane]

Yeah this is fair. You're approaching this from the perspective of a pro-black activist, so it makes complete sense that you would view Reagan in those terms. I was trying to assess them from the perspective of a presidential historian. I think his Iran-Contra performance was actually a pretty good display of political evasion, because that situation could have easily been an impeachment for him. Also, surely Clinton was in the same ballpark as Reagan with regards to shytting on the black community. He just did it in a far more surreptitious and stylish way. But the effects of their policies or lack of attention to the black community were probably of an equal order. I wonder if/when Bill will face the same disregard.

Whoa, whoa. I didn't fukk with Slick Willie like that, but that dude could get black, poor white, Latin, and Asian to all believe his bullshyt speaking the same message. Ignoring my bias, Reagan did not speak to that broad a group. He just had almost every white person in the US behind him.

 

[King Kreole]

Whoa, whoa. I didn't fukk with Slick Willie like that, but that dude could get black, poor white, Latin, and Asian to all believe his bullshyt speaking the same message. Ignoring my bias, Reagan did not speak to that broad a group. He just had almost every white person in the US behind him.

Oh, you meant just in terms of public speaking. I thought you were referring to the overall presidential rankings.

Yeah I agree, Bill is up there. You hit the nail on the head when you say he was able to do what Reagan did, but for all people. He had such a natural charisma. I think it was Paul Begala who was talking about this after Bill's recent DNC speech, but Bill had this preternatural ability to basically coopting your opposition pov by agreeing with it at first but then reframing it to make his position palatable to you.

This is from a quora question on this topic:

I met Clinton several times (about 4, I think), first as a civilian before he was president and later while working on his first presidential campaign.

The best way I can describe him to you is this: When you are talking to him, you feel like he doesn't care about anything or anybody else around but you. He makes you feel like the most important person in the room, which is an assessment I've heard many people make about him and it's absolutely true. He seems utterly genuinely friendly and will remember you if he's ever met you before. I am critical of many things Clinton has done and said, but I have to admit that if I'm watching him speak I will find myself nodding and often even smiling and admiring him, however much it frustrates me when it happens.

Clinton will look you in the eye and make you feel like he's confiding in you with complete candor. He seems confident in what he's saying without seeming smug or seeming to know he's the smartest guy you've probably ever talked to. It's as if he's telling you something you already knew or felt, but you just somehow hadn't realized yet that you knew or felt it. You feel like he really does understand you, and that you really understand him.

Clinton makes you believe him, and believe in him. Even his enemies in politics, like Newt Gingrich for example, would regularly find themselves taken in by him and persuaded. He made them feel special, he made them feel that he understood them and cared deeply about what they felt and wanted, and he made them feel that what he wanted and what they wanted were the same thing. This last aspect of his personality is the most amazing -- he can convince you to go along with what he wants, while making you feel it was really what you wanted all along.

I still prefer Reagan's style for it's unabashed purity and innocence, but Bill is an OG of this shyt too. You couldn't get away with that Reagan style in the 90s, so I think of Bill as the Reagan of the ironic era.

 

[Dave24]

Oh, you meant just in terms of public speaking. I thought you were referring to the overall presidential rankings.

Yeah I agree, Bill is up there. You hit the nail on the head when you say he was able to do what Reagan did, but for all people. He had such a natural charisma. I think it was Paul Begala who was talking about this after Bill's recent DNC speech, but Bill had this preternatural ability to basically coopting your opposition pov by agreeing with it at first but then reframing it to make his position palatable to you.

This is from a quora question on this topic:





I still prefer Reagan's style for it's unabashed purity and innocence, but Bill is an OG of this shyt too. You couldn't get away with that Reagan style in the 90s, so I think of Bill as the Reagan of the ironic era.

Regarding Reagan's speeches do you feel they were simplified and not as intellectual as Kennedy's?

This is Kennedy's greatest speech in my opinion.

 

[King Kreole]

Regarding Reagan's speeches do you feel they were simplified and not as intellectual as Kennedy's?

This is Kennedy's greatest speech in my opinion.

Ah yeah, the American University "Peace" speech was a classic. Forgot to mention it earlier.

I do think Reagan's speeches were often more simplified and not as intellectual as Kennedy's.

One reason was because of the different eras they were living in. Even though Reagan was actually older than Kennedy, Kennedy was president during a time when politics was still the domain of "adult conversation" (although he was really the first figure to start to break down that construct) so seriousness and erudition from political leaders was more acceptable. It was a much more formal time and the political speeches of that day reflected that. Kennedy was the first president of the TV era, where messages are expected to be more digestible and widely accessible, so political messaging was still trying to find its way around this new medium. You can still hear that radio style in Kennedy's speeches. By the time Reagan took office, TV was a fully established medium, and there was no one better suited to take advantage of it than former actor Ronald Reagan. He was basically born to give speeches to a television audience. He would speak more colloquially and aim at a universal audience. He was a natural. Also, Reagan was the oldest president, and so his whole political image was grandfatherly and based on simplifying the world into good and bad, which was an acceptable narrative because it was right in the thick of the Cold War. Kennedy is the youngest president to be elected, which was the source of his main criticisms, so he had to project gravitas and wisdom beyond his years. It was only the beginning of the Cold War, so it was a complex time. Neither Reagan nor Kennedy were particularly intellectual presidents, but Reagan uncommonly so. Gore Vidal had a famous joke that Ronald Reagan's library had burned down and both books were destroyed . JFK least had "written" a Pulitzer Prize winning book.

 

[Dave24]

I like Kennedy but he's one of the most overrated Presidents in US history. He didn't even serve a full term and has a pretty large black stain on his legacy with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but he gets credit for keeping his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a very nice display of diplomacy. I guess he's known as the Space Race president, so that's something? He just didn't really do enough to warrant his status as one of the most famous Presidents. If he hadn't gotten assassinated and signed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sharked LBJ's Great Society accomplishments like Medicare and Medicaid, that would have gone a long way to legitimizing his status. I think he's middle-bottom tier, but asterisk for unfulfilled potential due to assassination.

This is going to be controversial on here, but Reagan was one of the most important Presidents in American history, at least in terms of consequentiality. The story of post-war America can be divided into pre-Reagan and post-Reagan. The guy absolutely changed the game. If we're looking at presidential qualities like leadership and national vision, Reagan tops out. He has black stains like his treatment of the gay community during the start of the AIDS epidemic, and the treatment of the African-American community with regards to the drug wars and crime. I think Reagan represents the American establishment, so anyone whose political philosophy is anti-establishment will dislike him, and for often legitimate reasons. A lot of people, for both good and bad reasons, link the Reagan era to the start of the social and economic divergence that marks present day America. But if we're ranking Presidential greatness on the scale of impact and ability to mould society in their vision, I have a hard time not placing Reagan up there. A hell of a lot of events and changes took place during his era, from the most transformational economic changes in the post-war era to the beginning of the end of the Cold War and subsequent primacy of America as the sole global hegemony. I think he's top 10.

I'm on the record as stating Obama is currently overrated. His legacy has really benefitted from coming after GWB, but the congressional gridlock he faced means he didn't really get much done during his time in office, and his foreign policy has been an utter disaster. His whole legacy was supposed to be being a bridge to close the division in American society, but he's obviously failed in this regard and he himself seemed to acknowledge the unfulfilled potential when he said in his last State of the Union address "It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office." People point to Obamacare as his signature legislative achievement, but I don't see how it survives the administration after Hillary's, as the President following her from either party would most likely have a large public mandate to enact universal healthcare, and Obamacare will be relegated to a historical stepping stone to that President's healthcare system. He failed in getting gun legislation passed, so Hillary will probably take that. It's not entirely his fault because he inherited one of the worst situations and cultures of any president, but I'm just not seeing what Presidential historians will be able to point to as a sign of Obama's greatness. Like JFK, most of his legacy will be symbolic for being the first non-white male President. Great presidents change the times they live in, but Obama couldn't manage to do it. He played small ball, great Presidents go for home runs. His disposition just wasn't right for this era, he would have done much better in a calmer, more conciliatory period. I place him around George HW Bush, which is no slight.

Trump is such a total wildcard that he would either flame out and be impeached within the first year, or he could spur on great changes to American society. Because make no mistake, there is a revolutionary potential fomenting in American society right now. It's possible a total outsider figure like Trump could capitalize on that potential. His personality type is boom-or-bust. The best case scenario for Trump would be as the President who starts the populist era of America turning away from neoliberal globalization and rescuing the American working and middle class. The legislative victories would be things like universal healthcare, free college tuition, unleashing another era of American prosperity with his Reagnomics 2.0 redux; Trumponomics. Worst case scenario is impeachment, solidifying him as perhaps the worst president of all time.

1. In your opinion who do you consider the top 10 U.S. Presidents out of all of them?

2. What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton and Nixon in terms of their presidency?

3. What are your thoughts on blacks who are conservative/Republican such a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Ben Carson, the Sheriff of Milwaukee, etc. Is it right/wrong to call someone a sell out/uncle tom?

4. Regarding Obama not being able to bridge the gap, do you think it was racial reasons he couldn't do it? I remember Joe Wilson yelling at him saying "you lie" when Obama gave a State of the Union. Obama said he didn't have the skills of a Lincoln or a FDR and that is why he couldn't bridge the gap. Do you feel that is true? Or was it because of race that caused so much resistance against him?

5. What are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter and the police issue in general?

 

[King Kreole]

1. In your opinion who do you consider the top 10 U.S. Presidents out of all of them?

2. What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton and Nixon in terms of their presidency?

3. What are your thoughts on blacks who are conservative/Republican such a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Ben Carson, the Sheriff of Milwaukee, etc. Is it right/wrong to call someone a sell out/uncle tom?

4. Regarding Obama not being able to bridge the gap, do you think it was racial reasons he couldn't do it? I remember Joe Wilson yelling at him saying "you lie" when Obama gave a State of the Union. Obama said he didn't have the skills of a Lincoln or a FDR and that is why he couldn't bridge the gap. Do you feel that is true? Or was it because of race that caused so much resistance against him?

5. What are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter and the police issue in general?

1. These aren't my necessarily my favourites, but the ones I think are the greatest, as in they moulded America to their vision: FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington, Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Reagan, Jefferson, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ.

That was tougher than expected.

2. Bill Clinton in currently overrated, but he presided over a period of general prosperity and had a good Presidency. Got quite a lot done and didn't have any catastrophes. In terms of moulding society to his vision, he gets points for completing the transformation of the Democrats into a centrist party, and opening the door for the globalization of capital that defines our modern economic situation. In fact, he might not even be that overrated. I'd probably put him somewhere in the middle to bottom of 11-20, and that's about where he's mostly ranked.

Nixon is perhaps the most underrated President, because of Watergate. He actually did a hell of a lot. Watergate is a very big black mark though, because it permanently damaged a fundamental level of trust the American public had in the Presidency. I think as time goes on though, his image will be rehabilitated to some degree. He's a really one of the most enigmatic presidents in US history.

3. I personally don't refer to people as c00ns. I just don't like the word and the effect it has on discourse. But I understand the sentiment if you're talking about black people who are willingly doing the bidding of white supremacy for material gain. I think there are conservatives/Republicans who fit that bill, and I think there are liberals/Democrats who fit that bill. I think a lot of people just automatically see a black person who votes Republican and call them a c00n, but I think it's an oversimplification that obscures how deeply white supremacy is rooted in American society. Colin Powell, for example, I don't see how he could be accurately described as a c00n. Sheriff David Clark, on the other hand...that looks like a pretty strong case of c00ning. Either way, I prefer to judge black people, and anyone else for that matter, on their individual merits. Groupthink is repulsive to me.

4. I think Obama obviously faced a stacked deck being the first black President presiding over a racist nation, but I agree with him that someone with legendary skills would have been able to do it. He faced opposition, but he had a decently popular mandate because he was following a pretty universally condemned President. There have been great Presidents who faced even greater opposition than Obama and succeeded. What Lincoln attempted to do in abolishing slavery in the 19th Century was a far greater task than Obama trying to bridge the cultural divide in the 21st century. Lincoln has the hole in his head to prove it. What FDR tried to do with the New Deal in the depths of the Great Depression was a greater task than anything Obama had to face. Obama really just didn't have the skill or gift to change the times he lived in. Which is fine, not every President can or has to be great. Greatness requires an environmental context. A challenge to overcome. Obama had that, he just didn't hit a home run. But I don't think he was a particularly bad President. He's like Kennedy. If you just look at the surface it's impressive, but dig deeper and there's just not much there.

5. I don't know much about the actual organization that goes by the name of Black Lives Matter, but in terms of the general movement I think it's a historical reckoning of America's white supremacist roots, and as such I support it. I think it's exposing a lot of ugly sentiments that have been swept under the rug instead of dealt with. I think America cannot become a just nation until it has acknowledged and come to terms with it's ugly historical past. Whether or not the movement will be successful, I don't know and I don't have much faith tbh. In the words of Cornel West, America is "a very fragile democratic experiment predicted on the dispossession of the lands of indigenous peoples and enslavement of African peoples and the subjugation of women and the marginalization of gays and lesbians." It's an inherently violent, discriminatory nation birthed in blood and pain. I don't think it will have, or deserves, a particularly peaceful ending.

 

[Dave24]

1. These aren't my necessarily my favourites, but the ones I think are the greatest, as in they moulded America to their vision: FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington, Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Reagan, Jefferson, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ.

That was tougher than expected.

2. Bill Clinton in currently overrated, but he presided over a period of general prosperity and had a good Presidency. Got quite a lot done and didn't have any catastrophes. In terms of moulding society to his vision, he gets points for completing the transformation of the Democrats into a centrist party, and opening the door for the globalization of capital that defines our modern economic situation. In fact, he might not even be that overrated. I'd probably put him somewhere in the middle to bottom of 11-20, and that's about where he's mostly ranked.

Nixon is perhaps the most underrated President, because of Watergate. He actually did a hell of a lot. Watergate is a very big black mark though, because it permanently damaged a fundamental level of trust the American public had in the Presidency. I think as time goes on though, his image will be rehabilitated to some degree. He's a really one of the most enigmatic presidents in US history.

3. I personally don't refer to people as c00ns. I just don't like the word and the effect it has on discourse. But I understand the sentiment if you're talking about black people who are willingly doing the bidding of white supremacy for material gain. I think there are conservatives/Republicans who fit that bill, and I think there are liberals/Democrats who fit that bill. I think a lot of people just automatically see a black person who votes Republican and call them a c00n, but I think it's an oversimplification that obscures how deeply white supremacy is rooted in American society. Colin Powell, for example, I don't see how he could be accurately described as a c00n. Sheriff David Clark, on the other hand...that looks like a pretty strong case of c00ning. Either way, I prefer to judge black people, and anyone else for that matter, on their individual merits. Groupthink is repulsive to me.

4. I think Obama obviously faced a stacked deck being the first black President presiding over a racist nation, but I agree with him that someone with legendary skills would have been able to do it. He faced opposition, but he had a decently popular mandate because he was following a pretty universally condemned President. There have been great Presidents who faced even greater opposition than Obama and succeeded. What Lincoln attempted to do in abolishing slavery in the 19th Century was a far greater task than Obama trying to bridge the cultural divide in the 21st century. Lincoln has the hole in his head to prove it. What FDR tried to do with the New Deal in the depths of the Great Depression was a greater task than anything Obama had to face. Obama really just didn't have the skill or gift to change the times he lived in. Which is fine, not every President can or has to be great. Greatness requires an environmental context. A challenge to overcome. Obama had that, he just didn't hit a home run. But I don't think he was a particularly bad President. He's like Kennedy. If you just look at the surface it's impressive, but dig deeper and there's just not much there.

5. I don't know much about the actual organization that goes by the name of Black Lives Matter, but in terms of the general movement I think it's a historical reckoning of America's white supremacist roots, and as such I support it. I think it's exposing a lot of ugly sentiments that have been swept under the rug instead of dealt with. I think America cannot become a just nation until it has acknowledged and come to terms with it's ugly historical past. Whether or not the movement will be successful, I don't know and I don't have much faith tbh. In the words of Cornel West, America is "a very fragile democratic experiment predicted on the dispossession of the lands of indigenous peoples and enslavement of African peoples and the subjugation of women and the marginalization of gays and lesbians." It's an inherently violent, discriminatory nation birthed in blood and pain. I don't think it will have, or deserves, a particularly peaceful ending.

Good points on everything, but maybe it is just me but I think Kennedy had it in him to be great/legendary. He was getting there in my opinion before he got killed.

Think of the peace speech, his civil rights speech, etc. I think he had the skill/gift, just my opinion though. Maybe you are right about him.

Also, when you refer to the skill/gift to change the times you live in how do Presidents get that skill needed to do so? Are they born that way/innate??

Yeah, Lincoln has the hole in the head to prove the opposiiton he dealt with. Kennedy has that same hole in the head as well. I think Obama probablyreceived more death threats than any President though.

 

[King Kreole]

Good points on everything, but maybe it is just me but I think Kennedy had it in him to be great/legendary. He was getting there in my opinion before he got killed.

Think of the peace speech, his civil rights speech, etc. I think he had the skill/gift, just my opinion though. Maybe you are right about him.

Oh for sure. I said before that if Kennedy had lived and signed in the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Great Society programs that LBJ later did, he'd solidly be in the top 10, maybe even top 5. He just didn't get around to it because he got assassinated, so his record is basically incomplete.

Also, when you refer to the skill/gift to change the times you live in how do Presidents get that skill needed to do so? Are they born that way/innate??

Part of it is coming to power at a time when the potential for large scale change is in the air, and part of it is having a disposition that matches what needs to be done in that specific time. FDR had a different disposition than Lincoln, but they both presided over times where a great crisis needed resolution. It's like being a batter coming to the plate at the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded down by 3. The situation is primed for a great moment. FDR and Lincoln both stepped up and hit a home run. It's what great presidents do. I think it is an innate thing. I think some people are just destined for greatness.

Yeah, Lincoln has the hole in the head to prove the opposiiton he dealt with. Kennedy has that same hole in the head as well. I think Obama probablyreceived more death threats than any President though.

Obama probably has received more threats, but the nature of the threats may be different. Nowadays any nutcase can go on twitter and say he wants to shoot the President and the Secret Service will log that threat and respond. Back in the day, those guys wouldn't have been monitored like we are nowadays.

 

[Dave24]

Oh for sure. I said before that if Kennedy had lived and signed in the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Great Society programs that LBJ later did, he'd solidly be in the top 10, maybe even top 5. He just didn't get around to it because he got assassinated, so his record is basically incomplete.


Part of it is coming to power at a time when the potential for large scale change is in the air, and part of it is having a disposition that matches what needs to be done in that specific time. FDR had a different disposition than Lincoln, but they both presided over times where a great crisis needed resolution. It's like being a batter coming to the plate at the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded down by 3. The situation is primed for a great moment. FDR and Lincoln both stepped up and hit a home run. It's what great presidents do. I think it is an innate thing. I think some people are just destined for greatness.


Obama probably has received more threats, but the nature of the threats may be different. Nowadays any nutcase can go on twitter and say he wants to shoot the President and the Secret Service will log that threat and respond. Back in the day, those guys wouldn't have been monitored like we are nowadays.

I see what you mean, good points.

1. I was just looking over your Back lives Matter answer and was wondering where do you live? Do you live in the US? I live in Americus, Georgia in the United States. Also, what are your favorite black thinkers/activits/political thinkers? You mentioned Cornel West and I like him.

2. What did you think of Bobby Kennedy? If he would have been President do you think he would have been a great one?

 

[Broke Wave]

@King Kreole youre on the record in this thread saying that Reaganomics will unleash prosperity on to America. That's an opposite world view from the one I and the others youve been trying to convince that Trump would be a better candidate than Clinton hold. Why keep up this charade and keep debating people when you know at heart, you are a Laffer curve economic conservative? Why go in threads trying to convince me that Trump is against Neo Liberalism and for an expansion of the social safety net? Mind boggling.

 

[King Kreole]

1. I was just looking over your Back lives Matter answer and was wondering where do you live? Do you live in the US? I live in Americus, Georgia in the United States. Also, what are your favorite black thinkers/activits/political thinkers? You mentioned Cornel West and I like him.

Yes, I live in the US. Off the top, my favourite black thinker is Malcolm X, but I also like Cornel West, bell hooks, Adolph Reed, Franz Fanon, Thomas Sowell, and Baldwin (but everyone says Baldwin nowadays). I didn't study black history academically though, so I came to know those thinkers organically.

2. What did you think of Bobby Kennedy? If he would have been President do you think he would have been a great one?

I like Bobby Kennedy, he's an interesting case study. Assuming he wins the Democratic primary, which is not a given seeing as the party insiders were for Humphrey even though Bobby was gaining momentum, he'd be going up against a lowkey strong candidate in '68 Nixon. But if he did win the Presidency, he'd be in office during one of those crisis periods I mentioned earlier, so there would be a chance for him to leave a strong legacy. His campaign and support base was distinctly anti-Vietnam War, so he'd have had a mandate to end it which would be a pretty strong point in his favour. Nixon ended the war but marred that accomplishment by committing war crimes to do so, which I doubt Kennedy does.

Kennedy also had large support bases in the poor and African-Americans, so I think he continues LBJ's Great Society vision. Ted Kennedy was the one who pushed the bipartisan bill for universal healthcare in 1970, so it's safe to assume he'd have found a more willing ally in his brother than in Nixon. If RFK gets Universal passed, it's game over, he's top 10 automatically. I think RFK also continues the push for Civil Rights that the Nixon administration tempered in the wake of the Southern Strategy and having to appeal to their new racist coalition members. These were the years when desegregation was really kicking into gear, so I think Kennedy would have done a lot more work on that front than Nixon. Nixon gets credit for his environmental record, and I see no reason to suspect Kennedy wouldn't have pushed for at least the same things on that front.

As far as China, RFK wasn't a political slouch, but the Nixon and Kissinger team were top notch, so I'm not sure if Kennedy opens up China like they did. Nixon and Kissinger's work in China was a political masterclass and was crucial for drawing down the tense relations with the Soviet Union. Overall, I think the traits that made Nixon such an effective President were not traits that RFK was in possession of. Nixon was a good president that got a lot done because he was a shrewd, calculating political genius (also the source of his downfall). Perhaps RFK wouldn't have needed the Nixonian political calculation though, because he would have had an easier time getting his policies passed seeing as both the Senate and the House were Democratic for those years. RFK's greatness would have had to come from being a visionary, kind of like Reagan. I don't know if he's able to have the foreign policy victories with China and the Soviet Union that Nixon had, although he did have decent tactical chops (I believe it was him who negotiated the removal of the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey in exchange for the Soviet's removing their missiles in Cuba to end the Cuba Missile Crisis). I think perhaps it's possible we would have seen the realpolitik introduced by Kissinger replaced with a more "moral" vision of American foreign policy.

 

[Dave24]

Yes, I live in the US. Off the top, my favourite black thinker is Malcolm X, but I also like Cornel West, bell hooks, Adolph Reed, Franz Fanon, Thomas Sowell, and Baldwin (but everyone says Baldwin nowadays). I didn't study black history academically though, so I came to know those thinkers organically.


I like Bobby Kennedy, he's an interesting case study. Assuming he wins the Democratic primary, which is not a given seeing as the party insiders were for Humphrey even though Bobby was gaining momentum, he'd be going up against a lowkey strong candidate in '68 Nixon. But if he did win the Presidency, he'd be in office during one of those crisis periods I mentioned earlier, so there would be a chance for him to leave a strong legacy. His campaign and support base was distinctly anti-Vietnam War, so he'd have had a mandate to end it which would be a pretty strong point in his favour. Nixon ended the war but marred that accomplishment by committing war crimes to do so, which I doubt Kennedy does.

Kennedy also had large support bases in the poor and African-Americans, so I think he continues LBJ's Great Society vision. Ted Kennedy was the one who pushed the bipartisan bill for universal healthcare in 1970, so it's safe to assume he'd have found a more willing ally in his brother than in Nixon. If RFK gets Universal passed, it's game over, he's top 10 automatically. I think RFK also continues the push for Civil Rights that the Nixon administration tempered in the wake of the Southern Strategy and having to appeal to their new racist coalition members. These were the years when desegregation was really kicking into gear, so I think Kennedy would have done a lot more work on that front than Nixon. Nixon gets credit for his environmental record, and I see no reason to suspect Kennedy wouldn't have pushed for at least the same things on that front.

As far as China, RFK wasn't a political slouch, but the Nixon and Kissinger team were top notch, so I'm not sure if Kennedy opens up China like they did. Nixon and Kissinger's work in China was a political masterclass and was crucial for drawing down the tense relations with the Soviet Union. Overall, I think the traits that made Nixon such an effective President were not traits that RFK was in possession of. Nixon was a good president that got a lot done because he was a shrewd, calculating political genius (also the source of his downfall). Perhaps RFK wouldn't have needed the Nixonian political calculation though, because he would have had an easier time getting his policies passed seeing as both the Senate and the House were Democratic for those years. RFK's greatness would have had to come from being a visionary, kind of like Reagan. I don't know if he's able to have the foreign policy victories with China and the Soviet Union that Nixon had, although he did have decent tactical chops (I believe it was him who negotiated the removal of the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey in exchange for the Soviet's removing their missiles in Cuba to end the Cuba Missile Crisis). I think perhaps it's possible we would have seen the realpolitik introduced by Kissinger replaced with a more "moral" vision of American foreign policy.

How do you reconcile supporting Trump and thinkers such as Malcolm X, Cornel West, etc when those individuals probably think Trump is racist and don't support him??

 

[King Kreole]

@King Kreole youre on the record in this thread saying that Reaganomics will unleash prosperity on to America. That's an opposite world view from the one I and the others youve been trying to convince that Trump would be a better candidate than Clinton hold. Why keep up this charade and keep debating people when you know at heart, you are a Laffer curve economic conservative? Why go in threads trying to convince me that Trump is against Neo Liberalism and for an expansion of the social safety net? Mind boggling.

No, I've said two things about Reaganomics in this thread. The first was that it was the most transformational economic changes in the post-war era. The second was that Trump's best case scenario would be his Reaganomics infused Trumponomics unleashing prosperity in America. Reaganomics alone applied today would most likely not do much for American prosperity because we're living in a post-Reaganomics world. There is no 70% tax rate to reduce. Government spending and the deficit is obviously in a different state than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. The monetary situation has obviously changed since the 1970s and 1980s. Trump's populist policies of infrastructure spending, reinvestment in inner cities and other left behind communities, decreasing illegal immigration, and bringing back outsourced jobs are critical elements of his economic policies and they've been ones he's been talking about since his campaign started.

I have never even attempted to hide the fact that I'm a capitalist, so I really have no idea what charade you're talking about. The Laffer curve is a basic economic principle that can be used in favour of increasing or decreasing taxation rates. As I've said before, if taxation rates are too low they should be increased. It's about finding the optimal rate that maximizes and incentivizes prosperity.

I don't know what you call expansion of the social safety net, but I would consider it heavy investment in infrastructure spending so that the people who most need access to resources can obtain them, revitalizing transportation so those in geographically disadvantageous locations can reach pockets of prosperity, investing in urban communities that have been left behind by the current economic regime, decreasing the amount of people who are illegally residing in the country so that legal residents and citizens would have a bigger slice of the economic and government service pie, and stopping the outflow of capital and job loss that has disproportionately targeted marginalized communities. I don't think just throwing welfare dollars at black people is a legitimate expansion of the social safety net, as it does nothing to affect the underlying structural issues causing much the economic racial disparity.