Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Obama the worst President in history?

Rate this topic


iflyboats
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just to add some perspective here, can I throw out some more candidates? Hamilton, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter are some of my least favs.

Esp. Hamilton. Can the federal reserve just die already?

Er, Hamilton was never elected President. Indeed, he was ineligible due to his place of birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that is because the Objectivist community is part of the American rightwing, and has all the biases that this entails.

To a Lefty, O'ism is Right-wing; to a Righty, it's Left-wing. So your characterization tells us a whole lot about your politics, and not so much about O'ism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a Lefty, O'ism is Right-wing; to a Righty, it's Left-wing. So your characterization tells us a whole lot about your politics, and not so much about O'ism.

I'd put the point this way: the left is more hostile to Objectivism than the right because the left is more consistent in its adherence to ideas that conflict with Objectivism. But it's easy to find groups on the right that are hostile as well: the religionists and the neo-conservatives, in particular. And it's easy to find Objectivist commentary that is highly critical of the right, if you care to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't being in America before the revolution considered proper citizenship(sans other requirements)

My impression is that 'natural born citizen' at the time was taken to mean born in one of the 13 colonies which formed the union. Hamilton was born and raised in the Caribbean. Even if he had been eligible, though, he never held the office, so picking him as a least favorite President is just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression is that 'natural born citizen' at the time was taken to mean born in one of the 13 colonies which formed the union. Hamilton was born and raised in the Caribbean. Even if he had been eligible, though, he never held the office, so picking him as a least favorite President is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Constitutional_provisions

It specifically mentions Hamilton as someone who could have become president. Your other point still obviously true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It specifically mentions Hamilton as someone who could have become president.

Ok, I stand corrected.

It's interesting, given how active Hamilton was in supporting and opposing other Presidential candidates in the first few elections, that he seems not to have made a serious run for the office himself. I wonder why he didn't? Perhaps he would have had he not been killed in that duel with Burr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

An idea about comparing the socialistic tendencies of the FDR and Obama administrations for my Master's degree thesis sprung up last night, but since I'm rather unfamiliar with American literature, I was wondering if any of you can point me towards some books/articles/essays that deal with the politics and economics of both FDR's administration (from '33 to his death) as well as the current one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea about comparing the socialistic tendencies of the FDR and Obama administrations for my Master's degree thesis sprung up last night, but since I'm rather unfamiliar with American literature, I was wondering if any of you can point me towards some books/articles/essays that deal with the politics and economics of both FDR's administration (from '33 to his death) as well as the current one.

For some reason my reply did not bump the thread from the last post made in March so I hope this remedies it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea about comparing the socialistic tendencies of the FDR and Obama administrations for my Master's degree thesis sprung up last night, but since I'm rather unfamiliar with American literature, I was wondering if any of you can point me towards some books/articles/essays that deal with the politics and economics of both FDR's administration (from '33 to his death) as well as the current one.

At Mises.org, there's also an online version of Murray Rothbard's history "America's Great Depression". I personally did not like the book, but I know that's another one that's often recommended by "Austrian-leaning" folk.

Finally, if you want the pro-FDR line, to test your thoughts, you might try Jonathan Alter's "The Defining Moment"

Added: I just remembered another book that is a good survey, though the author has a Keynesian/Monetarist/eclectic stance: Charles Kindleberger's "The World in Depression"

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

If you're going by who had the most negative effect on the American economy there is no worse than the guy who should have remained an actor : Ronald Reagan. Before him, everyone was trending up, now you don't trend up unless you have a politician bought and paid for in your back pocket. Here's the evidence : http://imgur.com/a/U4FR4#0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try at a cop out, you should have stopped at "those statistics do seem convincing".

Try reading those graphs and comparing it to what Sowell said, then you would realize that the two have nothing do with each other. Ah nevermind, since you were too lazy to do it the first time, I did that for you too. Sowell says, the income disparity isn't true because it is a comparison of "household incomes" -- meanwhile offering no actual evidence to the contrary except lip service. But if you read the first graph at that link you would see it is comparing actual hourly wages and overall compensation -- not household income -- and all of it stemming right from the Reagan economic policies of less regulation, lower taxes, and the mythological idea of trickle down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But if you read the first graph at that link you would see it is comparing actual hourly wages and overall compensation -- not household income -- and all of it stemming right from the Reagan economic policies of less regulation, lower taxes, and the mythological idea of trickle down.
Taking that graph at face value, it shows average hourly wages fell after 1980. How do you make the leap from that to saying "deregulation caused average hourly wages to fall"? Are you suggesting that regulation in the U.S. has steadily and significantly decreased ever since Reagan? If so, that's a false premise.

All sorts of economically important things happened since 1980. Most significant was the opening of China and India. Are you classifying these effects as "deregulation" too? If so, that confuses issues and makes analysis more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas, if you won't acknowledge that household income is mentioned in five of the graphs to which you linked, we can't have a meaningful discusssion.
Here's a rhetorical question: what type of meaningful discussion does one have with a person who is pining for the halcyon days of Nixon, Jimmy Carter, "WIN" buttons, 17% mortgage rates, soaring unemployment, and great movies like "Death Wish".

More generally, the ignorance of history is one of the things that sends each odd generation down the same tired path that their grand-parents took.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...