I can’t recall Johnson starting a war to provoke regime change. Cite please ?
Johnson was involved in a little war in south east Asia, but it seemed to be designed to prevent (rather than provoke) regime change in Saigon.
OP, just to clarify, are we talking about the “most liberal” President in absolute terms, or are we talking about the most liberal President when compared to his contemporaries?
The most “statist” presidents in American history were Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. All three combined relentless expansion of domestic government spending, increased government regulation of the economy (remember Nixon’s wage and price controls?), disregard for individual rights, and a bellicose foreign policy. FDR and George W. Bush were in the next echelon, equal on some metrics but not on all four.
He sent 20,000 troops into the Dominican Republic in 1965 for that purpose, after covertly supporting the 1964 military coup in Brazil.
If instead you’re quibbling over the word “starting” instead of “escalating” in reference to Vietnam, that isn’t really a winning argument.
There was that small matter of the Louisiana Purchase, however.
Yes, he certainly wrote and spoke that way, and he was far from the only white Southerner to rape his slaves and sell his own children.
Even assuming that all of the Hemings children were Jefferson’s, he never sold any of them. Both Beverly and Harriet, the older two children, were allowed to leave the plantation and pass for white (in all likelihood, they went to Philadelphia together). Madison and Eston, the younger two, were both freed in Jefferson’s will and moved to Ohio.
“The moral character of Jefferson was repulsive. Continually puling about liberty, equality and the degrading curse of slavery, he brought his own children to the hammer, and money of his debaucheries.” – Alexander Hamilton
Perhaps he meant children by other slaves?
I think this is the core of the problem in discussing this issue. Most people seem to be defining past presidents by using many of today’s liberal/conservative issues but measuring them on a scale based on their own times.
So, for example, if Lincoln freed the slaves but would not have supported affirmative action favoring African-Americans, he’s a “liberal” in that he favored increased rights for African-Americans, but he’s a “conservative” in that he wouldn’t support some of what purports to favor them now.
The reason this is significant is because these discussions frequently take place in a similar context to the thread that spawned this one - public policy. And for purposes of public policy, what counts is whether this particular public policy will have a positive or negative impact, not whether other policies that would have carried similar labels in their time had positive or negative impacts.
So, in the example above, if someone believes that AA would be a net negative for this country, it doesn’t matter that other similarly “liberal” policies in the past were positive. It only matters whether this specific policy would be good or bad.
So in the example of Obama specifically, if one were to suggest that a) he is the most left-wing president in history, and b) that this is not a Good Thing, you can’t contradict this by saying that the second most left-wing president had a positive impact, if the specific policies of that other president were actually far to the right of Obama and were only left-wing when measured by contemporary standards.
You are kidding, right? You are using THIS as a cite for Jefferson’s supposed actions? This is the equivalent of using the statements of the Swift Boaters to prove Kerry’s war record (to put it in terms you’d understand).
-XT
Alexander Hamilton’s face is on the $10 banknote. Jefferson’s is on the 5¢ nickel.
$10 is more than 5¢, therefore Hamilton’s opinion is more credible.
(One excludes Mt Rushmore because granite is not a piece of currency. That would be a fallacy.)
No way. Wilson’s strange views on race were not driven by any sense on conservatism - social Darwinism and eugenics (which he enthusiastically backed) were progressive notions backed by most of the preeminent liberal thinkers of the day.
As for Wilson’s overall stance, examined as a whole it goes way beyond liberalism as it is commonly understood in America. If you include things like eugenics, the Palmer raids and the American Protective League - you’re getting awfully close to fascism, if you look at it objectively.
There was also the attempted Embargo of 1807, which shows the even Jefferson wasn’t completely conservative. Still, if “small government” is part of the definition of a conservative there was no president more conservative than Jefferson.
Jefferson may have had the weakest character of any president but I’m not sure what that has to do with being conservative or liberal.
But Tom Jefferson is also on the $2 bill. Two items of currency beat one item, regardless of denomination.
Depends on what version of “conservative” we’re using here - fiscal, government-size, or social.
The voice of a contemporary who knew him well (and hated him, yes).
Is it or is it not true that Jefferson didn’t walk his talk? :dubious:
I’ll vote for Mr Washington. That independence thing’s pretty liberal, you know. 
Under Wilsons term we got
progressive income tax
Clayton anti trust act
FTC
Fed, Farm Loan Act
League of nations
Pretty progressive for a Princeton Prof.
How do those things in any way contradict what I said about Wilson above?
I’m still not sure how his character determines his politics. Are you implying that his foibles somehow makes him liberal?