Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Apr 2, 2016.
How are we defining shadows? Policy consequences or perceptions?
Missa ab iPhona mea est.
Bit of both, yes. And certainly, the way in which their name is still relevant to discussions we have today.
The reason I ask is because there are things that are significant that we don't talk about and there are things that are irrelevant that we do.
Nixon's creation of the EPA is tremendous on both the substantive environmental level and on the economic level. The regulatory impact is huge too -- all US agencies are a lot more powerful because of EPA regulatory activity. The EPA is one of the most high-impact US agencies.
Similarly, Bush Sr's ability to diplomatically arrange for a unified Germany -- something neither US allies nor the Soviets wanted -- has tremendous consequences for Europe and the world in general.
But we don't talk about it. It's not in the popular awareness. But the EPA is a huge legacy domestically and unified Germany is huge globally.
Missa ab iPhona mea est.
Absolutely. Or Nixon with China, pushing the KMT in Taipei out of "official China" status and waking a sleeping giant - we mostly know Nixon for Watergate.
The question does become a 'cult of personality' one Iello, no doubt. But that's the nature of Presidential system, no?
Well, it's quickly forgotten that Reagan had a number of conservatives turn on him in his second term, mostly for being 'soft' on the Soviet Union in the wake of Able Archer.
GrandAdmiralJello: It's good that you bring up the EPA, but just remember that when historians designate Nixon as the last liberal president, it's not because he was a bleeding heart, but rather because:
1. Nixon was facing the most progressive, overwhelmingly Democratic-dominated Congress, as well as the most engaged, activist citizenry, in American history. He couldn't so much resist legislation, as he could find ways to soften its more sweeping aims.
2. Nixon was largely uninterested in legislation, famously quipping "I didn't come here to build outhouses in Peoria.". His designs were firmly and resolutely global, fomenting a balance of power and mitigating the perils of the Cold War (using the children of Indochina as collateral damage). In a sense, he was the antithesis of LBJ, the consummate New Dealer who saw foreign affairs as an annoyance and, with Vietnam, a curse, which stood in the way of his aim to end poverty and racism in America.
To be fair JFK's influence is greatly exaggerated by historical romanticization.
What the hell is historical romanticization?
See: King Arthur and his Camelot
What is this? Never heard of this historical school in the historiography of the study of presidents before. Oh wait, you mean media romanticization. Yeah, that's not the same.
Yes, because I clearly was talking about the academic study of history, and not the aggregate of historical knowledge of lay people.
Well I wasn't sure. Just checking.
It's too late for me Ender, save yourself.
Getting shot in the back of the head before a live audience will generally minimize any negative criticism of a presidential administration and put the President in question on a tower of martyrdom and mythology.
Pretty much. Same with Lincoln.
Having Obama as a selection, who hasn't even finished his term yet, automatically invalidates this poll. Great job Ghost.
ShaneP, come on. We all know there is no other credible choice.
3. Bush '41
9. Bush '43
I would've put Obama probably 2nd, but I'm reserving my opinion until the end of January.