[Stormsmith]

I'm a little surprised neither Jack Kennedy or Bill Clinton made the list.

For pragmatic reasons, I'd have selected Clinton.

[Figlio di Moros]

Why would either of them have been on the list? I mean, really, Bill fucking Clinton stacks up against Lincoln, Teddy, or FDR in your book? He'd have a hard time beating Garfield or Polk.

[FallenRaptor]

Lincoln or Teddy

[Stormsmith]

Beacause Jack Kennedy was, and Clinton is, v popular.

As for Clinton, his economic policies yielded good results, and are still current. He has excellent creds in the international community (note the international community is far less likely to get its collective knickers in a knot over trivel matters)

BTW all the choices are a little controversial, depending upon one's particular political stance. Wouldn't you look a little better if you accepted that, and reined in the childish cursing, replacing it with something a little more thought provoking than "How old is this guy?"

[Figlio di Moros]

Beacause Jack Kennedy was, and Clinton is, v popular.

You're criticizing me for "how old is this guy", which is nowhere near what I was getting at, but support JFK and Clinton because they're popular? Popularity is far from the highest qualities of a leader. As far as Clinton's economic expertise goes, he can't take direct credit for the boom during his presidency. Eisenhower was far more directly responsible for the economic prosperity and good internation relations during the fifties, whereas JFK provoked the Soviets during his presidency. Note that Ike, Nixon, and Reagan held the best reputations with the USSR, whereas Clinton lead the nation immediately after the collapse of the USSR and during the internet bubble.

Polk and Garfield also presided over large economic expansionary periods, but they're not the most memorable presidents. The fact of Clinton and Kennedy's popularity means little in the way of good or historic presidential policies, whereas many of the presidents listed in the poll helped alter the course of American history.

[Stormsmith]

They were popular for a reason.

America had a little history to live down with poverty and slavery. The Kennedy bothers turned that around. In the short time Kennedy was in office, he had a marked impact on civil rights and civil liberties. His policies had a direct impact on mores concerning the visible minorities and all women. This must have seemed pretty enlightend coming on the heals of the McCarthy era. His economic policies were fairly successful. And everyone loved the Space Race, because before JFK, the Soviets were ahead. Gave you the kind of pride you like to have, one of accomplishment, following the sorrow-spoiled pride of having faced down the enemy in two grueling wars.

Kennedy didn't get it right all the time. I'm not defending the man, he doesn't require my help. I'm simply surprised that given how popular he was, that he wasn't on the short list.

Oh, by the way, when Bobby was assassinated, there was a little dark humour/conspiracy theory being kicked around by the press. A few of them quipped Nixon was involved because he couldn't bear the thought of being trounced by two Kennedy brothers.

Clinton was more successful. Had he been able to run for a third term, he'd have been a shoe in. And I bet a load of Republicans who backed Bush II privately think it would have been the better option.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

America had a little history to live down with poverty and slavery. The Kennedy bothers turned that around. In the short time Kennedy was in office, he had a marked impact on civil rights and civil liberties. His policies had a direct impact on mores concerning the visible minorities and all women.

That's bull. Most of those policies got enacted by LBJ.

[Stormsmith]

Kennedy laid out the framework, set the policies. Yes your right, LBJ did jolly those policies along - after he took over as President following Kennedy's untimely death, and of course, after his own election.

These things rarely are the sole work of one man. Change in social policy requires political will, and sadly, that takes a long, long time to achieve. The Little Rock Nine only happened because of a Supreme Court Decision. It took a few more years for the nine to be admitted to a high school, and only managed to stay on because the president put troops on campus to guard them. That was Eisenhower.

And these movements are still having to move forward. Women's wages are still substandard, blacks still have to deal with profiling. The point is, Kennedy gave civil liberties and civil rights a good shot in the arm, and it was part of the reason for his popularity.

[Fasces]

Richard M. Nixon.

[Sephardi]

Why Nixon? Why would somebody vote for Nixon.

[Quantum]

Theodore Roosevelt because he was a fine man of his era and a legacy of the Progressives in the early 20th century. Plus, he was a man of calibre and far superior to weak presidents like Barack Obama, who is nothing compared to him. Whilst America improved under Roosevelt, the same can't be said for Obama and some of his predecessors.

[Fasces]

Why Nixon? Why would somebody vote for Nixon.

1. The institution of a foreign policy that rejected the two ideological extremes that have defined the United States - that of a liberal crusader or a staunch isolationist, in favor of a realistic platform that favored American interests above all else. He should be commended above all else for his efforts to squash the influence of the Jewish lobby on American foreign policy, for ending a dangerous policy of containment, and for helping to end the terrifying nuclear arms race.

2. The re-adoption of the American School of Economics and extensive institutions of necessary wage and price controls in the American economy, as well as ending the gold standard to allow for unprecedented economic growth, as every other western nation had at the time.

3. For realizing the need for a smart environmental policy, years ahead of its time, founding the EPA.

4. For the proposal of a universal health care policy in the United States many times more expansive than the current bill that passed Congress.

5. For placing Blackmum, author of the Roe v Wade decision, on the Supreme Court.

6. For his attempts to preserve peace in India and Pakistan when few others did.

7. For putting a human man on the moon.

Why would anyone vote for anyone but Nixon? He was without a doubt the greatest president in American history.

[olgregg]

Why would anyone vote for anyone but Nixon? He was without a doubt the greatest president in American history.

what?? for those reasons you listed??

so, nothing FDR, TR, Jefferson, or Lincoln did compares to that? really??

[Nets]

extensive institutions of necessary wage and price controls in the American economy

Wage and price controls are epic fail, and never work. Nixon would not have had to resort to such drastic measures if he hadn't forced the Fed to ramp up the money supply in preparation for the '72 election, anyway.

I am a big Nixon fan, but I think he was awful in these areas.

[Kman]

Thomas Jefferson.

I remember when I read a collection of his most famous quotes and like 30% of them were variations of what I had already expressed on this forum in one way or another.

I basicly couldnt find any of his quotes that I disagreed with, he strikes me as having been a very smart man.

[Figlio di Moros]

Why would anyone vote for anyone but Nixon? He was without a doubt the greatest president in American history.

so, nothing FDR, TR, Jefferson, or Lincoln did compares to that? really??

They all had their strong points, but Nixon was constistant across the board and quite impressive for the period of his presidency; I won't say he's the best, but he was certainly up there. Unfortunately, because he wasn't a Dem the left hates him, and because he wasn't a paleocon the Reaganite Republicans don't sing his praises, either.

As far as Jefferson goes, I'm not really sure why he's considered such a spectacular president by anyone but rabid libertarians who jerk off to Ayn Rand and the Anti-Federalist papers. His strongest suit was foreign policy, and he deserves a lot of respect for the Barbary Wars. However, the Louisiana Purchase fell in his lap and he wasn't able to persuade Congress to declare war against Britain when we had legitimate greviences.

[The Immortal Goon]

As far as Jefferson goes, I'm not really sure why he's considered such a spectacular president by anyone but rabid libertarians who jerk off to Ayn Rand and the Anti-Federalist papers. His strongest suit was foreign policy, and he deserves a lot of respect for the Barbary Wars. However, the Louisiana Purchase fell in his lap and he wasn't able to persuade Congress to declare war against Britain when we had legitimate greviences.

Ah, the Libertarians have you fooled. Jefferson would have murdered all the Libertarians had he gotten the chance. His chief rival, Hamilton, had this vision of the United States:

The idea of an actual representation of all classes of the people, by persons of each class, is altogether visionary...Mechanics and manufacturers will always be inclined, with few exceptions, to give their votes to merchants, in preference to persons of their own professions or trades. Those discerning citizens are well aware that the mechanic and manufacturing arts furnish the materials of mercantile enterprise and industry. Many of them, indeed, are immediately connected with the operations of commerce. They know that the merchant is their natural patron and friend; and they are aware, that however great the confidence they may justly feel in their own good sense, their interests can be more effectually promoted by the merchant than by themselves. They are sensible that their habits in life have not been such as to give them those acquired endowments, without which, in a deliberative assembly, the greatest natural abilities are for the most part useless; and that the influence and weight, and superior acquirements of the merchants render them more equal to a contest with any spirit which might happen to infuse itself into the public councils, unfriendly to the manufacturing and trading interests. These considerations, and many others that might be mentioned prove, and experience confirms it, that artisans and manufacturers will commonly be disposed to bestow their votes upon merchants and those whom they recommend. We must therefore consider merchants as the natural representatives of all these classes of the community.

Jefferson, on the other hand, was a fan of landed interests and opposed the power of capitalism as it was developing:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.

Then there was his support of the Jacobins in France when they began executing the wealthy and his back-handed support of such a policy in the United States.

But Jefferson is sexier than Hamilton and since Libertarians are all either liars or idiots these days, having no factual basis for their claims hasn't stopped them from spewing lies and propaganda with no evidence. Jefferson actively supported the French Revolution in its most extreme forms curbing capitalism. He actively opposed commercial capitalism in the United States. And yet libertarians claim him as their own in the same way religious people do - despite all evidence to the contrary.

Really, this probably developed because he was an advocate of privacy - which the initial Libertarians supported. After the reLOVEution tard-fest the ignorant scum that makes up the reactionary Black Hundreds just dimly applied whatever financial position they felt like on Jefferson having never read his complete letters.

[Red_Army]

Fig, you don't seriously think Dems = leftists do you?

Nixon being a scumbag has nothing to do with his party.

[Kman]

Ah, the Libertarians have you fooled. Jefferson would have murdered all the Libertarians had he gotten the chance.

No he wouldnt, it is Hamilton (Jeffersons political adversary) who was the one who wanted to murder people after they rebelled against the increasing taxes coming out of Washington (and libertarians typically dont like taxes).

Hamilton was a frenetic tax increaser as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary. He championed a standing army as well, not so much to defend against foreign invaders as to intimidate Americans into paying all those burdensome taxes he had in mind for them. He proved this when he accompanied George Washington and 10,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt over Hamilton’s federal whiskey tax by Pennsylvania farmers. Hamilton wanted to hang the two dozen or so tax protesters that were rounded up, but George Washington pardoned them all, infuriating the nation’s first Tax Collector-in-Chief.

His chief rival, Hamilton, had this vision of the United States:

So basicly he wanted to establish some sort of aristocracy of merchants since he considered the ''people'' to stupid to govern themselves.

Jefferson, on the other hand, was a fan of landed interests and opposed the power of capitalism as it was developing:

Jefferson wasnt opposed to capitalism, he was opposed to central banking because he considered them vessels for the central government to grow its power and rob the people, which history has since shown is correct as shown with the federal reserve that have continuasly debased the dollar since 1913, causing it to lose aprox. 95% of its value in the last 100 years (it gained 13% of in value in the 100 or so years before the fed was implemented).

He was also very hostile towards businesses that grew to big and would abuse their market dominance and become a threat to independent ''capitalists'' (a view he shared with Adam Smith the author of the book Wealth of Nations) Jefferson was opposed to corporatism which is an economy where a few huge companies control most of the economy and use their immense power to squeeze out their competitors.

That is why Libertarians usually like Jefferson, it is because he understood capitalism and he understood the pitfalls of it while still being an ardent supporter of having a small government that let people keep what they earned as shown in this quote:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

That quote pretty much sums up libertarianism, so it is only natural that Libertarians like Thomas Jefferson.

But Jefferson is sexier than Hamilton and since Libertarians are all either liars or idiots these days, having no factual basis for their claims hasn't stopped them from spewing lies and propaganda with no evidence.

Jefferson is sexier than Hamilton because Hamilton was a crook that wanted to grow the central government immensily and build an american empire (who americans would be required to pay for ofc), im not surprised that you as a commie like a man like Hamilton who wanted to grow the central government immensily.

Jefferson actively supported the French Revolution in its most extreme forms curbing capitalism.

He understood that mistakes happened in revolutions but I somehow question your claim that he opposed capitalism IE private ownership of capital, I would like some proof to this claim.

He actively opposed commercial capitalism in the United States.

No he opposed corporatism and he wasnt sure it was healthy for americans to leave their life of farming in exchange for working in factories but later in his life he fully embraced and supported the manufacturing sector in the US.

And yet libertarians claim him as their own in the same way religious people do - despite all evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to provide this evidence.

[The Immortal Goon]

No he wouldnt [sic], it is Hamilton (Jeffersons [sic] political adversary) who was the one who wanted to murder people after they rebelled against the increasing taxes coming out of Washington (and libertarians typically dont [sic] like taxes).

Jefferson says nothing about taxes in the issue, that's just another libertarian lie they try to put in to history. Jefferson isn't even necessarily for the revolt, he explicitly frames it as a way to demonstrate that the British are lying by claiming the same kind of clap-trap you're ignorantly spreading:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.

Implicitly, he's here endorsing the violence of the French Revolution which is starting to take off. For Jefferson the French Revolution is the key to overthrowing the commercial and high capitalist order that the Federalists are attempting to foster with Britain. While Jefferson wouldn't be opposed to capitalism per se, he endorsed the Jacobins - who had stringent state control over commerce in order to feed the poor.

Thomas DiLorenzo wrote...

Having no factual basis for their [Libertarian] claims hasn't stopped them from spewing lies and propaganda with no evidence.

So basicly [sic] he wanted to establish some sort of aristocracy of merchants since he considered the ''people'' to stupid to govern themselves.

Just as the libertarians do.

The context Jefferson was working in is considerably different than what you propose. Jefferson wanted an agricultural basis with stronger local governments. Ultimately, his ideal was the Ward Republic, which is basically an agricultural soviet. The other tenant, which he expressly says needs to be included in such a scheme, is public education.

There are a few reasons and conclusions to be drawn from this. The first is that this started popping up early, but gained more traction after La Feyette was recognized as the leader of the National Guard and Bailly's authority in Paris was recognized by the king, the door opened and a lot of local authorities all over France started to pop up and gain traction. The idea was that this limited the power of the monarchy - which was a specter that republicans (small s) like Jefferson continued to fear.

Also, this was a stronger agricultural basis than a commercial (capitalistic) basis. The result strengthened Virginia and hurt big capital. From his writings, I think it's clear that Jefferson favored the former over the latter. Reagardless, this is why the Democratic Party that Jefferson started ended up getting Kentucky Fried during the Civil War - it favored agricultural land and interests over that of cities and modern capitalism. It's also why the Democratic Party as we know it today developed - in opposition to the same interests only this time on the side of the industrial workers.

The important thing to remember though, is that Jefferson opposed capitalism as we currently understand it. He favored a different kind of agricultural capitalism optimally, but he was a notorious cheerleader and supporter of the Jacobin's attempt to string up big capitalists and use the government for price controls and food distribution. Now this is something that can't be summed up neatly in one or two quotes (unfortunately) it's something that's readily apparent though. The link I used above is a direct enthusiastic cheer against the Feulliants (who wanted a steady capitalistic market) in favor of the Jacobins.

That quote pretty much sums up libertarianism, so it is only natural that Libertarians like Thomas Jefferson.

Really, this probably developed because he was an advocate of privacy - which the initial Libertarians supported. After the reLOVEution tard-fest the ignorant scum that makes up the reactionary Black Hundreds just dimly applied whatever financial position they felt like on Jefferson having never read his complete letters.

Jefferson is sexier than Hamilton because Hamilton was a crook that wanted to grow the central government immensily [sic] and build an american [sic] empire (who americans [sic] would be required to pay for ofc), im [sic] not surprised that you as a commie like a man like Hamilton who wanted to grow the central government immensily. [sic]

1. Hamilton wanted a commercial empire. He wanted the merchants and capitalists to be in exclusive control with as much power as possible - exactly as the libertarians do. Only he was working in a more unstable time and needed to shore up their control more.

2. Where in the world did you get the idea that I would be for a capitalist adventurer that wanted to limit political power to capitalists only and strengthen private enterprise in Europe?

He understood that mistakes happened in revolutions but I somehow question your claim that he opposed capitalism IE private ownership of capital, I would like some proof to this claim.

I said that he "supported the French Revolution in its most extreme forms curbing capitalism" as he supported the Jacobins:

The Jacobin Club developed into a bureau for French Republicanism and revolutionary purity, and abandoned its original laissez faire economic views in favor of interventionism. In power, they completed the abolition of feudalism that had been formally decided 4 August 1789, but had been held in check by a clause requiring compensation for the abrogation of the feudal privileges...The ultimate political vehicle for the Jacobin movement was the Reign of Terror overseen by the Committee of Public Safety, who were given executive powers to purify and unify the Republic. The Committee instituted requisitioning, rationing, and conscription to consolidate new citizen armies. They instituted the Terror as a means of destroying those they perceived as enemies within: "Terror", said Robespierre, "is only justice that is prompt, severe and inflexible".

Feel free to provide this evidence.

That libertarians claim Jefferson despite all evidence to the contrary? How about your last post? But you're not alone - most people do. Socialists sometimes do because he was a revolutionary - and revolution is their game. So could the Ku Klux Klan as he had slavery. So could (and did) the abolitionists because he wrote against slavery.

The fact is that Jefferson belonged to a time centuries ago that doesn't really parallel our own political conceptions. You take what you like and ignore the rest. I do that too - everyone does - but I'm under no illusions that Jefferson some how exemplifies my political beliefs. I respect him as an intellectual and revolutionary - but I'm going to take to task anyone that distorts him and tries to use him as a beacon for the ignorant to fetishize in the name of an ideology he probably would have abhorred. I don't care if that's fascism, some form of socialism, or slavery. I'll especially do that when t comes to libertarianism though as they're such an empty ideology (of late) that they can't do anything except for try to do a slide in hand in falsely associating and changing history to suit their needs.