Roper made the claim that the best administrations in America were those that didn't create as many laws... or some such nonsense. I want him to back that up.
So I'm starting this thread. I want to know firstly...
1. What were the "best" presidential administrations?
2. What made them the best?
--Ray
PS> I have no clue about other administrations, but those of you who've known history please let me know what you believe. Perhaps you could choose a timeperiod that you think was idyllic in American history to back up your claims... (Frankly I see serious flaws in all of them... )
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Well, believe it or not, there was one thing I do admire Jimmy Carter for...
He got Egypt and Israel to negotiate a lasting peace at least between them. Beyond that, I was probably a bit too young to understand much of what his administration did. And for the most part, I believe he is a good, honest man.
But, aside from George Washington and maybe one or two of the other early presidents (and perhaps Abraham Lincoln), there were some serious flaws in every presidency and administration. I exclude those men and their administrations because they had such a great work to accomplish in their time in office.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Abraham Lincoln--one of the greatest presidents, supported by a stellar supporting cast in his Cabinet. Seward was one of our most gifted Sec.s of State--keeping Britain and France from joining in on behalf of the Confederacy. Stanton was a brilliant administrator as Sec. of War. Chase kept the war effort afloat financially as Sec. of Treasury.
Washington's Cabinet was also a collection of great men: Jefferson at State, Hamilton at Treasury, and Henry Knox at War. They paved the way for everything that came after.
Theodore Roosevelt was an exceptional president, and accomplished a great deal during his years in office, including the Panama Canal, his conservationism, his progressive policies towards industry and labor, and his brokering peace between Japan and Russia.
I also like (in no particular order) Coolidge, Polk, McKinley, Truman, Madison, Grant, Adams, Cleveland, and Jackson.
-- Edited by fear of shiz at 12:03, 2007-03-20
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
If you wouldn't mind, Shiz, could you take a little time to explain what exactly they did that qualifies them as exemplary administrations? Provide a little historical context if you could? I really hope to learn something from this thread...
Also are there others that disagree with your choices, and why would they think that you're wrong?
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 13:10, 2007-03-20
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
First, Lincoln, of course, saved the Union. All of our liberties spring from this, whether we realize it or not. The Founding Fathers knew that they had to keep the original states together, or the North American continent would become a battleground and a plaything for European intrigue. Ever read Harry Turtledove's "Southern Victory" series. He writes an alternative history in which the South won the war, and follows the consequences of that for the next century. Numerous wars and strife convulse the former US, including a Fascist regime and a Mormon rebellion that is put down by military force. Lovely stuff.
Anyway, Lincoln and his Cabinet preserved the Union. I mentioned briefly what parts some of his Cabinet members played in that. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I am a big Lincoln fan and a Civil War buff.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
OK, on to Washington. Obviously, he was the first president, and he and his Cabinet set the precedents for everything else.
First, on Hamilton, from the US Treasury website:
>>>Facing a chaotic treasury burdened by the heavy debt of the Revolutionary War, Hamilton's first interest when he took office was the repayment of the war debt in full. "The debt of the United States ... was the price of liberty,'' he affirmed, and he then put into effect, during 1790 and 1791, a revenue system based on customs duties and excise taxes. Hamilton's attack on the debt helped secure the confidence and respect of foreign nations. He introduced plans for the First Bank of the United States, established in 1791 which was designed to be the financial agent of the Treasury Department. The bank served as a depository for public funds and assisted the government in its financial transactions. The First Bank issued paper currency, used to pay taxes and debts owed to the federal government. Hamilton also introduced plans for a United States Mint.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
As for Lincoln, I agree, though I'm curious whether he fits the big or small government model. I've heard some criticisms of him, claiming that he ushered in the era of a big Federal government, and the death of state's rights... (Not that I agree, but clearly there was a great deal of clarification on exactly what those boundariese entailed due to his actions.)
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
It is true that the Federal government grew in both size and power as a result of the Civil War. It was almost a given, that the central authority would do so, if it was going to keep the state authorities from going off on their own. Up until that time, southerners had been suspicious of a strong federal government, and had used their advantages in the Senate to limit its power.
Of course, the US was also about to launch into an Industrial Revolution, which also promoted the growth of bureaucracy and administration, not just in the US, but in any nation where it occured. Of course, I think most of the small, limited government advocates on here would be happy to have the Federal government doing what it was back in the 1880's or 1920's. The real growth of government was during FDR's administration.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
What makes one administration good and another bad?
I can't comment on adminstrations before my time as I'm not an american history buff.
Kennedy.... I actually think he was a decent president... philanderer yes, but a good leader.
Johnson... Bad, bad, bad, bad... and the welfare state begins.
Nixon... He wasn't a crook, I think he had some great people working for him, they just needed to learn to erase tapes and keep their mouths shut! He did open up relations with China and got us out of Vietnam.
Ford... Uh, pardon me, but I think he was great.
Carter... Decent person, hired unqualified personel. Gave away OUR canal!
Reagan... Great communicator... ended the cold war. Started spending too much.
Bush1... Broke his promise and lost the election because of it... or because of Perot.
Clinton.... "When they who choose evil are more numerous than they who choose good...." sold the farm to North Korea and China. NOT GOOD.
Bush2... He's tried. He's picked some good judges. Thank the Lord for that.
So who do you think was great.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Recent presidents are hard to evaluate, as the passage of time makes it clearer as to just how effective they were, so I avoided anybody too recent. I think Mahonri is right about most of the recent Presidents. Clintion belongs among the worst, with Harding, Buchanan, and both Johnsons. Nixon was actually quite a liberal Republican, and I don't care much for him, myself.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
)
at Treasury, and Henry Knox at War. They paved the way for everything that came after. 
I'll try to oblige.
