Well, yeah, its because of the Depression. He agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. This probably made the depression worse. The Revenue act raised taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. Hoover raised corporate taxes by 15% and doubled the estate tax. Hoover’s ideas about the economy just made the depression worse.
Ah, true enough. At the time, however, America probably didn’t have the muscle to smack them down all that far away. Remember how big a change it was just to kill some pirates in Europe’s bathtub.
I mostly like the list, but I’d move Truman up to “Great.” He made the strategic calls that brought the war againt Japan to and end, his implementation of the Marshall Plan saved Western Europe from drowning in war poverty and debt, and his ordering the Berlin airlift proved to the Soviets that the U.S. would remain a force to be reckoned with in Europe.
I’d also downgrade Bush I to below average. In addition to the economic problems of the early 90’s, his wishy-washy behavior in the aftermath of the Gulf’s success brought about a Shia massacre in Iraq. He did a great job of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, but - and I’m saying this realizing what a mess it is trying to install a new government in Iraq - he left Saddam in charge of his country, essentially telling Saddam that he can afford to gamble people’s lives and come out no worse for losing.
I stand corrected. However, Carter should have at least appeared much tougher against the Soviet threat. He appeared quite impotent during it. I still mantain that Carter’s presidency was one of the worst. The Misery Index rose 50% and Carter looked pathetic during the Hostage Crisis. He ignored the plight of the people of East Timor and abandoned diplomatic relations with Taiwan. He sought to pull troops out of South Korea, something which he fortunately didn’t do. Cite and cite
FYI, I just started two new threads to discuss this:
“Was the New Deal a success or failure?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353693
“What caused (and what ended) the Great Depression?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353695
Feel free to weigh in. Fight ignorance!
Yes, I’d consider that option. Though he should’ve done more to stop Mao.
I know I should bring Bush down to above average or average (below average is too low, I think, since he did save Kuwait and Panama). Problem is, if I bring Bush down, I have to shift Ford up, and I just don’t think Ford was a near great either.
Don’t tell me you regard NAFTA as an “achievement”! It doesn’t seem to have done hte U.S. or Mexico any good, so far. (Canada, maybe.) See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315669
So did Saddam Hussein. So what? The shah was a dictator. What good is suffrage without elections (that actually mean something)?
Mohammed Mossadegh. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax.
It’s not the job of the US military to bring justice around the world. It should protect the US (and its immediate allies, under the idea of mutual defense), and maybe occasionally intervene when its presence would avert an immediate crisis, (such as the genocide in Rwanda, and I agree, it’s a black mark against Clinton that he didn’t intervene there), but that’s it. No invasions to spread democracy.
Carter, of course, had no way of knowing that until it happened. That Iran would become a total theocracy, and an incredibly nasty one at that, was by no means a done deal.
Thanks, BG.
One of the more shameful moments in 20th century US history, IMHO. And one that will continue to haunt us for quite some time.
Polk’s so-called imperialism was a very good thing for the country to my mind. Criticizing it today is to impose 20th century standards on 19th century conditions. The territories obtained have been of great benefit to the U.S. and Mexico had no real legitimate claim to them. It’s not like there was a stream of Mexican refugees leaving Colorado and heading back south after the U.S. acquired it. If it was bad for Mexico, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbled. (Cuts off further remarks in order not to become embroiled in a guest worker/immigration thread).
Well, then, we’ll never agree. I do think invasions are needed to spread democracy and freedom.
You seem to have forgotten that the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan. They were invited in by a Communist government that resulted from a purely home-grown revolution. It was a lot more like their support for Cuba than their post-WWII occupation of Europe. Or, put another way, it was a lot like American intervention in Vietnam to prop up an ideologically sympathetic regime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan#Daoud.27s_Republic_of_Afghanistan_.281973-1978.29
At least, it started out that way. Within a few years the Soviets were acting less like defenders and more like a foreign occupying force. But, at that, there are still some Afghans (as I’ve learned in relevant threads) who remember the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as comparing favorably with everything that came before or after, including the present situation.
:rolleyes:
Mexico had no “legitimate claim”? I was under the impression that those territories were part of Mexico. What do you mean no “legitimate claim”?
Well, there are still some Russians who remember Stalin fondly.
Regarding Carter, if he would only stick to Habitat for Humanity. Rembember how the North Korean fooled Carter into believing they’d stop their nuclear program? And how he visited Castro, responsible for the deaths of 7,000?
I mean, just because the dictator in Mexico city had a map in his office with big lines on it that included Colorado inside of Mexico, doesn’t mean that the Mexicans were actually running the place. It was wilderness populated by Indians. If you want to say the Indians had a claim to it I’d agree with you. If you’re saying it was actually part of Mexico other than in the grandiose dreams of the Mexican generals then I’d say you were mistaken. Mexico had no hope of holding onto those territories. It couldn’t hold them militarily and under the 18th century standard of the day that’s what prevailed.
It’s not like the Majlis didn’t have any power in the 50s and 60s. It still could pass laws, even though the Shah had stripped it of a lot of its power after Mossadegh tried to overthrow him. That changed in the 70s, of course.
No William Henry Harrison? His entire presidency was spotless!
I don’t know about Mexico, but free trade is good for the US.
I’ll do more research, but I’m quite sure there were parliamentary and municipial elections under the Shah. If not, I don’t see why the Shah took the trouble to give suffrage to women.
The difference between Saddam and the Shah is that the Shah killed around 16,000 according to Rummel (probably less, Rummel freqeuntly inflated figures), and Saddam killed around 300,000 (according to US govn’t, human rights groups say “some quarter of a million Iraqis”). The Shah didn’t attack four of Iran’s neighboring countries and didn’t try to build a nuclear bomb. He didn’t gas his own people either.
Well, then for a long time the US had “no legitimate claim” over the Louisiana territory.