The last President of the Republic of the United States of America was not the most popular person at the time. He lost his re-election campaign by a
landslide to a charismatic Democrat who promised the people of America hope and change. The promise was fulfilled and not all Americans liked the
results of his promise. But it was hard to fight back against him when your party was nearly demolished from government for a decade.
Throughout his campaign he ran warning people against the ideas of this radical Democrat who wished to alter the life of every American. Concluding it
was not a natural process this country was used to and that he firmly objected to all the principles of the platform laid out by his opponent.
However the people just did not trust him with managing the economy, he asked business leaders to voluntarily help stop the free-fall but it basically
fell on deaf ears. He lost the trust of the people and lost the election as a result. People were easily enticed with the promise of revolutionary
change… which they did get. You could never win that election if you were the incumbent.
To this day his presidency has been labeled as an example of failed governance and mismanagement of the economy. The failure of government to actively
intervene far enough into the economy so as the basically seize it under government management for temporary period of time. No worries though, his
successor did just that and all people suffered as a result of it.
By this point I am sure you know who it is that I speak about, President Herbert Hoover. Even now most people look back on his administration and pin
it to the wall as utter failure. But did he really do it all wrong? Arguably the depression began because of the meddling of government so why do
academics, economists, and historians almost unanimously declare that it was the lack of government interference which caused the Great Depression?
I do not argue that his management of the economic crisis was good or even okay, but it was much better than that of his interventionist successor. By
July 1933 the United States was exiting the Great Depression, just 4 months after the departure of Hoover. Many people look back on this and declare
it was the swift actions of Roosevelt which immediately began to bring us out. But for those of us who reside within the realm of reality then you
know that just as it is the policies of years prior which initiate a recession/depression so too it is the policies of the year(s) before the closing
of any recession/depression which bring the nation out of it.
Unfortunately however the United States was not pulled out of the Great Depression in 1933 because our economic slump lasted well into 1936 with
modest gains until the Recession of 1937 which sent us spiraling back into the economic crisis we had been in for nearly a decade already.
Throughout his time in office Roosevelt used his powers to push through legislation which would grow the size of government faster than any time in
history before and after. He created the welfare state, warfare state, dependency, centralization, internationalism, interventionism, and statism.
Arguably his presidency destroyed every value our nation was founded upon and to prove his lust for power he ruled this country for 12 years seeking 3
re-elections and winning all of them.
Pres. Roosevelt fought hard for US involvement in WWII even when it was no nation had ever threatened us. He decided to play trade wars with Japan,
Germany, and Italy, he attacked German ships at sea, and halting sales of crucial materials to Japan knowing full well it would lead to a Japanese
attack on the United States. The man was itching for war because he knew, like any smart authoritarian does, that nothing grows the size of state more
than a war.
Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, and German Americans were herded into camps set up by his administration to imprison, without judicial review
or any court actions, innocent Americans under the suspicion they could be aiding the enemy just because of their ethnic heritage. Movie theatres
showed the glory of war, people were fired for opposing US entrance into WWII, and they were slandered as Nazis, anti-Semites, and worse just for
speaking out against the idea that the war would not be good for America.
Under the Presidency of Roosevelt we witnessed the creation of the welfare-warfare state which has only been expanded upon since. No President has
done anything significant to cut both the welfare and the warfare state. Reagan cut the welfare state but enlarged the warfare state by running up
deficits. Johnson, Bush, Bush, and Obama have expanded both.
It is my argument that President Herbert Hoover, Republican from the state of Iowa, was the last President of our Republic, just as Julius Caesar was
in Rome. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan,
George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all share one thing in common, they are Emperors.
I do have one question remaining however, will we continue to have Emperors or will we have Presidents? In the end the choice is left with the people,
or so they say. If you make enough noise they have no choice but to listen.
Originally posted by Misoir
This will be a *bump* for this thread because I do believe many people will find it very interesting.
It actually is very interesting and a very good argument. Unfortunately, we Americans have a very short attention span, can't think three steps
ahead, and consider the things like the royal wedding and American Idol more important.
The only issue I take with the points you make is that you try and make far too many points.
For example - Non-intervention is not always in our best interest. The expansion of Hitler's power and the Japanese was not going to work out very
well for us. Both states were ideologically incompatible with our own, and would ultimately have lead to a clash.
Though it could also be argued that World War II saw the rise of the USSR and also lead to a similar clash ('cold' of a war as it may have been) - I
don't think it is a sound argument that getting involved in World War II was a bad idea.
That said - I agree with you on the economic and policy points. I just think you're being a bit too idealistic when it comes to foreign policy. The
days of "minute men" defending the nation are pretty much over. While the concept should not be overlooked - the machinations of war have evolved
and they require constant upkeep and a supply of trained personnel. Idealistic isolationism is simply not realistic.
Ideally Hitler should have invaded Russia and won that war. That would have been my preference. Utterly destroy the entire idea of Communism, a
disease which has plagued man since its idealistic founding in the French Revolution. Fascism is an ideology which is incompatible with much of the
world and was simply unrealistic, it would have quickly collapsed in upon itself. Hitler and Mussolini had no chances of even lasting to 1950. Japan
would have drained itself dry with its wars throughout the pacific. How long do you think people would have accepted the harsh rationing that occurred
just so their leaders could create an empire?
Quick as Fascism came to the scene it would have destroyed itself. Sure Hitler and Mussolini could have taken the entire European continent but they
were already wearing themselves thin and running into debt beyond the point of return. With that occurring we could have taken the opportunity to
build up our national security and military in preparation for any potential conflicts. Instead we built planes and weapons then shipped them off to
Great Britain to aid them.
Roosevelt was itching for war and every competent person knows this. He even did the horrible deed of recognizing the Stalin as the official leader of
the Soviet Union and then we became their ally in the war. Fascism can be controlled and easily stamped out, Communism cannot. We fought a cold war
because of the choices of Roosevelt.
Yes I am a Non-Interventionist, we should only involve ourselves in a conflict when we are being directly threatened and not because we are provoking
anyone either. No allies and no enemies. Keep and maintain an adequate military for safeguarding the republic from harm but do not let it grow past
that point. We should be officially neutral on everything, refuse to take sides and the chances of you being threatened drop.
I am a realist, just not an interventionist. If you support pre-emptive war, or encourage war, or support the maintenance of a military larger than
one solely intended for national defense, then you are a big-government authoritarian. There is no arguing with that fact. We can argue about how
large the military should necessarily be but always remain neutral and oppose pre-emptive wars. Unless you want to be a big government authoritarian,
then you can say or do whatever you want you're just a moron.
edit on 4/30/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.