Most belligerent US president possible

The title says all, which nominee from the republican or the democratic party, between 1900 and 2010 could be the most warlike one possible if elected?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The title says all, which nominee from the republican or the democratic party, between 1900 and 2010 could be the most warlike one possible if elected?

Teddy Roosevelt never saw a fight he didn't like. Had he won in 1912 the U.S. would have been in WW I by spring of 1915.

Everyone talks about Goldwater, but he was more of a "won't back down" than a "pick a fight" type with a military professional's view of warfare.
 
Some military guy, probably. Patton or MacArthur or LeMay, perhaps, although I'm not sure the latter would have the popularity to get elected.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Some military guy, probably. Patton or MacArthur or LeMay, perhaps, although I'm not sure the latter would have the popularity to get elected.

None of them ever ran for the office.
 
Teddy Roosevelt never saw a fight he didn't like. Had he won in 1912 the U.S. would have been in WW I by spring of 1915.

Everyone talks about Goldwater, but he was more of a "won't back down" than a "pick a fight" type with a military professional's view of warfare.

My understanding is that a lot of Goldwater's supposedly outrageous comments were basically what today would be called Kinsley Gaffes.

For example, he said "We need to make sure that we can get a nuclear missile into the Kremlin men's room", and this freaked people out. But really, unless you're someone who wants to abolish all nuclear weapons(which the Democrats certainly weren't advocating), it's completely logical to think that the weapons you do have should be capable of striking your rival country in the seat of power. Even if you fervently hope that they are never used for anything but a deterrent, the other side has to know just how imperilled they would be should they choose to move against you.
 

nbcman

Donor
MacArthur ran for the nomination in 1948.

Not exactly. He didn't run or campaign as he was in active duty serving in Japan but he did make it clear that he would accept the nomination if it as offered to him. If that was the case, General Eisenhower was a 'nominee' for both the Republicans and the Democrats in the same election since President Truman offered to run with Eisenhower if MacArthur was the Republican's nominee.
 
My understanding is that a lot of Goldwater's supposedly outrageous comments were basically what today would be called Kinsley Gaffes.

For example, he said "We need to make sure that we can get a nuclear missile into the Kremlin men's room", and this freaked people out. But really, unless you're someone who wants to abolish all nuclear weapons(which the Democrats certainly weren't advocating), it's completely logical to think that the weapons you do have should be capable of striking your rival country in the seat of power. Even if you fervently hope that they are never used for anything but a deterrent, the other side has to know just how imperilled they would be should they choose to move against you.

So he just badly worded his statements?
 

ben0628

Banned
The title says all, which nominee from the republican or the democratic party, between 1900 and 2010 could be the most warlike one possible if elected?

Reagan had his fair share hawkish moments. He could have had a few more had certain situations turned out differently.
 
Teddy Roosevelt never saw a fight he didn't like. Had he won in 1912 the U.S. would have been in WW I by spring of 1915.

Everyone talks about Goldwater, but he was more of a "won't back down" than a "pick a fight" type with a military professional's view of warfare.

His belligerence probably would have gotten him thrown out of office in 1916, no?
 
Reagan in his early political career, maybe have him somehow get elected in 1968 or have him get elected in 1976. He was much more fringe and hawkish in those days than he was in 1980.

Another possibility is have McCain get elected in 2008 (either have Edwards get the democratic nomination in 2008 and his love child is revealed, or have Kerry beats Bush in 2004 and then have McCain beat Romney for the nomination). He'd still have us in Iraq, and he would've invaded Syria, gone full scaled in Libya, and possibly would've invaded Iran or North Korea.
 
How about Hillary Clinton, John Kasich, Chris Christie, or Lindsey Graham?

You need to distinguish between rhetoric and what they'd be likely to actually do in office. People like Kennedy and Reagan were full of tough talk while campaigning, but exercised more restraint when they reached the White House.
 
You need to distinguish between rhetoric and what they'd be likely to actually do in office. People like Kennedy and Reagan were full of tough talk while campaigning, but exercised more restraint when they reached the White House.
Anecdotal evidence warning!

Apparently during the Cold War there were command post exercises with the various Presidents, Vice-Presidents and I believe some nominees who didn't win.

What's curious is the tougher their rhetoric, the less likely they were to push 'the button'. They were confident that a suitable show of force could get the Soviets to back down without the need to end the world. When they did go nuclear (the exercise being designed so they would) it was only as a last resort and very reluctantly.

The ones who just wanted to get along with the USSR got rattled very quickly when the USSR decided that it was playing hardball, panicked, and made a beeline for the launch codes.
 
Teddy Roosevelt never saw a fight he didn't like. Had he won in 1912 the U.S. would have been in WW I by spring of 1915.

Many people think that - but when he was President he didn't start any wars, even a small one.

Also, it's not at all clear he would have wanted to jump in the war.

H.L. Mencken noted sardonically that when the war started in 1914, lots of reporters camped out on TR's doorstep waiting for him to denounce the Rape of Belgium - and they waited in vain for months. TR admired Germany and read a lot of Nietzche; his sympathies were with the Germans.
 
So he just badly worded his statements?

That's always been my impression, though I'm open to hearing an alternative view of Goldwater.

If you go to The Living Room Candidate website, you can see a bunch of Democratic campaign ads from the '64 campaign. In addition to THAT ad, there are a bunch of others that also seek to portray AuH20 as a war-crazed maniac, but I think the most damning line they quote is "the nuclear bomb is just another weapon", which the narrator repeats in a horrified tone just for effect. Assuming that was the worst they could find, I'd say that's not a very solid case for the guy being a real-life Jack D. Ripper.

And David Halberstam says something in The Best And The Brightest to the effect that Goldwater didn't actually advocate nuclear war, he just talked about the subject too much.
 
Top