The Rival Dynasties of America; Who's Been the Best?

[Dean_the_Young]

There are a number of families who have been in politics or in public service for generations. However, there are three big ones that I'm concerned about; the Bushes (two recent presidents), the Kennedys (one president, the rest died before they could try), and the Roosevelts (two presidents, multiple generations in the armed forces since the century). If you also want to throw in the Clintons, fine. Or any other political family, if you can make a case.

But who do you think has done the most for America? Who has done the most to better America and its position in the world?

I say the Roosevelts, though I don't believe they've been too active politically since FDR and Elanor died away. but they've had two successful Presidencies, have volunteered their men for the military services, and pushed (and I believe still push) for the good of America.

Who do you all think has been the best?



Edit: This got posted by accident before I finished typing it.

[nunya]

I hate the Kennedys with a passion,so...Bush

[ninebucks]

The clear existance of political dynasties in the highest echelons of US politics would be a propaganda goldmine for any state or faction that would seek to belittle the USA's democratic legitimacy.

[Baradas]

I have to say the Roosevelts.

They have also had the largest effect amongst the dynasties, at least in my opinion.

Plus I love FDR.

[Mysterius]

Originally Posted by Baradas

I have to say the Roosevelts.

They have also had the largest effect amongst the dynasties, at least in my opinion.

Plus I love FDR.

Seconded. Though I don't feel that their influence came from any dynastic aspects; rather, both Presidents were simply strong, dynamic leaders in their own rights.

[NapoleonXIV]

There's also the Bentons (I think) who are right right now represented by the Gores. Or is it the Benton-Gores (y'know sometimes wiki is no help at all), And also the Lees of Virginia.

If the Bushes have been more influential on the US then the Roosevelts then by god we are royally screwed.

[Max Sinister]

Roosevelts too.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

If the Bushes have been more influential on the US then the Roosevelts then by god we are royally screwed.

Conjecture. One could counter-charge that FDR's New Deal policy lengthened the Great Depression and made it worse.

[Frost Soldier]

Bush has affected ourselves the most. The second one mostly, as the Iraq War has sort of ruined our foreign reputation, and most likely will lead to our downfall as THE major power of the world.

Roosevelt certainly has been the most helpful, as both of them did will to better their country, FDR through the Great Depression.

[Strategos' Risk]

It's still a shame that none of Teddy Roosevelt's sons really did much afterwards, though his grandson Kermit Jr. was instrumental in the coup against Mossadegh in Iran, which brought about many butterflies.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Frost Soldier

Bush has affected ourselves the most. The second one mostly, as the Iraq War has sort of ruined our foreign reputation, and most likely will lead to our downfall as THE major power of the world.

Roosevelt certainly has been the most helpful, as both of them did will to better their country, FDR through the Great Depression.

<SARCASM> Nice to know we have another new member with such an unbiased view of current events. Certainly is a nice change. <SARCASM>

You give Bush far too much credit and power. The past 50 years have done more to shape the world's opinion of the US than the past 5. The Iraq War is a symptom of the disease, not the cause.

You think the Middle East loved the US before we went in and a attacked a local mass-murdering strongman? You think Latin America fawned over us before we did something in the next hemisphere? You think Russia was going to be content being a broken-down ex-superpower as long as the US toed the proper line of foreign policy?

Don't be naive.

Trying to fit the fall of the Roman Empire in 8 years is ludicrous. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't die in a single reign either.


And if I sound overly critical and harsh, it's because you've given such an unsupported oppinion in your first 10 posts. I don't really care what your politics are, but I've come to greatly enjoy the decorum of this forum. Political views and opinions are best portrayed in the Chat forum. Not so much in the historical debate forum, unless you can bring in unbiased proof.

Please consider this as a helpful suggestion to any new poster.

Good day

[nunya]

Originally Posted by Frost Soldier

Bush has affected ourselves the most. The second one mostly, as the Iraq War has sort of ruined our foreign reputation, and most likely will lead to our downfall as THE major power of the world.

Roosevelt certainly has been the most helpful, as both of them did will to better their country, FDR through the Great Depression.

Bush is probably,along with Hoover and Nixon,the most underrated Presidents the country has had.Really,is the country that bad right now?Economic growth rates are a lot faster than they were in the golden days of the sixties and seventies,which people seem to think should be the model for today.The "failure" in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand enemies of the United States versus a near-zero American casualty list.We've become hated by people who have zero ability to harm America and shouldnt be taken seriously,really,people like the European Union and the United Nations are very much geopolitical sock puppets of the USA,whose authority exists because the USA threatens to beat up anyone who doesnt do what they say,and serve the purpose of providing some angel on the USA's shoulders.Population growth is healthy,far,far faster then it is the rest of the developed world,at a time where the rest of the world is slowing down,people are generally happier than they were a few decades back,crime rates have been declining for years and arent changing,there hasnt been any succesful strikes on the USA by the pitiful "war" carried out against us by the jihad, the environment is much better generally then it was many years ago, homelessness is down, and the stock market is now above 13000,education has improved,abortion rates are down,teenage births are down,average lifespan is up,people are retiring later,unemployment is lower than it's been ever,Quit your griping,eh?

[Calgacus]

Originally Posted by nunya

Bush is probably,along with Hoover and Nixon,the most underrated Presidents the country has had.Really,is the country that bad right now?Economic growth rates are a lot faster than they were in the golden days of the sixties and seventies,which people seem to think should be the model for today.The "failure" in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand enemies of the United States versus a near-zero American casualty list.We've become hated by people who have zero ability to harm America and shouldnt be taken seriously,really,people like the European Union and the United Nations are very much geopolitical sock puppets of the USA,whose authority exists because the USA threatens to beat up anyone who doesnt do what they say,and serve the purpose of providing some angel on the USA's shoulders.Population growth is healthy,far,far faster then it is the rest of the developed world,at a time where the rest of the world is slowing down,people are generally happier than they were a few decades back,crime rates have been declining for years and arent changing,there hasnt been any succesful strikes on the USA by the pitiful "war" carried out against us by the jihad, the environment is much better generally then it was many years ago, homelessness is down, and the stock market is now above 13000,education has improved,abortion rates are down,teenage births are down,average lifespan is up,people are retiring later,unemployment is lower than it's been ever,Quit your griping,eh?

Holy. Crap.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Calgacus

Holy. Crap.

Which part, the paragraph or the view points?

Paragraph wise, his computer doesn't handle them. This is a long post for him.

Point wise, I agree that it could be put much more accurately, though a number of his points bear remembering.

[Calgacus]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Which part, the paragraph or the view points?

Paragraph wise, his computer doesn't handle them. This is a long post for him.

Point wise, I agree that it could be put much more accurately, though a number of his points bear remembering.

It was the points more than anything. Bush underrated? As if economic growth rates are his personal doing. I wouldn't say they are actually that good, given the incredible debt that is being incurred for relatively little benefit. I won't even get into the foreign policy aspects. Even from the republican point of view, that is all just vastly over-simplistic...

[nunya]

Originally Posted by Calgacus

Holy. Crap.

Sorry bout my rant.I get bored sometimes.Seriously though,dont you ever feel that all the political griping people put out is a little extreme, and that the world we live in is signifigantly better than it ever was? That whenever somebody decided, extreme, irrational change from the current path society was on(Stalin, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, French Republic, Taliban, Iranian Islamic Revolution, African independence,) the result was ghastly, horrible,and ultimatedly pointless?

[Calgacus]

Originally Posted by nunya

Sorry bout my rant.I get bored sometimes.Seriously though,dont you ever feel that all the political griping people put out is a little extreme, and that the world we live in is signifigantly better than it ever was? That whenever somebody decided, extreme, irrational change from the current path society was on(Stalin, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, French Republic, Taliban, Iranian Islamic Revolution, African independence,) the result was ghastly, horrible,and ultimatedly pointless?

The world is not as bad as it used to be, and I'm generally positive about things, but I don't think we have Bush to thank for that. By that measure, you should also be thanking Clinton...

[nunya]

Originally Posted by Calgacus

It was the points more than anything. Bush underrated? As if economic growth rates are his personal doing. I wouldn't say they are actually that good, given the incredible debt that is being incurred for relatively little benefit. I won't even get into the foreign policy aspects. Even from the republican point of view, that is all just vastly over-simplistic...

Yes,I sometimes get into big arguments with people who like to blame gas prices and hurricanes(yes,hurricanes.Some people are beyond reason.Bush should be blamed for Katrina?) on Bush. Really, his influence isnt that great.
Sometimes I think that with the growth of government and its annexation of various things or perceived omnipotence, we begin to view the U.S. goverment as all-powerful, and that everything can be attributed or blamed to them, that government policy determines everything,and that thus going to the government is the solution to all lifes problems. This has a number of effects.The US government(Bush specifically,because he is perceived as the king of sorts in the minds of these people, even though his influence in such a vast state is limited, and soon finds itself under attack for every last thing in the world that goes wrong, so Bush is unfairly tarnished, not by any one issue, but by a general cynicism about the Presidency that is quite new to America-Clinton suffered from this also,notably.

[nunya]

Originally Posted by Calgacus

The world is not as bad as it used to be, and I'm generally positive about things, but I don't think we have Bush to thank for that. By that measure, you should also be thanking Clinton...

Im not as mad at Clinton as some other people are in the Republican Party.(although im not very old either,) Yes,he was a player, that can be established pretty clearly.Still,the country prospered quite a lot under Clinton, and he was generally quite agreeable.I think,Im not sure about this, but psychology had a lot to do with why Clinton is generally praised and Bush panned, although both had excellent Presidencys.As I said,people see the government as omnipotent now,so generally people blame and praise it for the general state of society.The people were just in a better mood, and people decided that since everything was going well, obviously Clinton was an excellent President(debatable.The country had a grand old time under Clinton, but it also did under Coolidge.)

[Calgacus]

Originally Posted by nunya

Yes,I sometimes get into big arguments with people who like to blame gas prices and hurricanes(yes,hurricanes.Some people are beyond reason.Bush should be blamed for Katrina?) on Bush. Really, his influence isnt that great.
Sometimes I think that with the growth of government and its annexation of various things or perceived omnipotence, we begin to view the U.S. goverment as all-powerful, and that everything can be attributed or blamed to them, that government policy determines everything,and that thus going to the government is the solution to all lifes problems. This has a number of effects.The US government(Bush specifically,because he is perceived as the king of sorts in the minds of these people, even though his influence in such a vast state is limited, and soon finds itself under attack for every last thing in the world that goes wrong, so Bush is unfairly tarnished, not by any one issue, but by a general cynicism about the Presidency that is quite new to America-Clinton suffered from this also,notably.

That is mostly true. I think the president has an influence over some key things though, and the Iraq war is the obvious one. It was that which destroyed the remaining sympathy much of the world still had for the US over 9/11. My point is that what he could affect, he affected negatively. The Patriot Act would be another thing.

I did enjoy blaming Bush for the after-effects of Katrina! Mainly because I don't like him, and when you don't like a leader, you use everything you can to try and damage them. Presidents do seem to be divisive as you say, but I'm not so sure it's a new thing. Many in both parties hated FDR, for a number of reasons. Truman and Johnson came in for some of the same, mostly over civil rights issues. I need hardly mention Lincoln. The idea of everyone getting behind the president is something of a myth, except in a few cases of national crisis. Someone recently posted an excellent quote from a 1917 newspaper, defending their criticism of Woodrow Wilson as patriotic.