Political History

[CaptainWagner]

Is there a political figure from history that you feel is overrated or underrated? Do you have strong feelings about past political policies and decisions? If so, this is the place for all history buffs to come and discuss the politics of the past!

 

[SV Fan]

I feel Reagan is overrated, and even worse is the Republican revised version of Reagan that is the greatest conservative ever to live who believes exactly everything they do

Reagan to me is the start of Big Spending government, income inequality and his war on drugs was a complete failure. The Republicans fictionalized version of Reagan also doesn't pass the reality test

 

[Decepticonus]

Reagan was a joke. he was originally a New Deal Democrat, but conservatives just sponged that out of history. He did begin big government spending and actually raised taxes but don't say that to them, they assume you're lying. His war on drugs was a joke but that dates back to Nixon really, it just carried it on and re-ignited it since Ford & Carter didn't push it much, they had their own problems. He didn't want MLK Day and borrowed alot of Southern states right rhetoric and was against ERA. His Star Wars program, HA, what a joke.

I'm not fond of FDR very much. Kennedy is the most over-rated & mediocre president, who had no heart in his own country but just making a name for himself on the international stage.

 

[summerteeth]

Reagan was a joke. he was originally a New Deal Democrat, but conservatives just sponged that out of history. He did begin big government spending and actually raised taxes but don't say that to them, they assume you're lying.


Because they know his Presidency resulted in net tax cuts. Even after he raised taxes 11 times it only put a dent in about half of his massive initial tax cuts.

 

[SV Fan]

I think the thing that makes me laugh about Reagan's record compared to how Republicans sort of ignore it is his to be his stance on gun control. Regan makes Obama look like a card carrying member of the NRA when it comes to all the stuff he passed and pushed.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I feel that some figures are overrated like Adolf Hitler. In importance, I mean. Hitler is obviously a very important figure, but the way people talk about him, you would think he had God-like powers. In reality, he could have been killed in 1914 by Tandey, and history would probably have played out very similarly. Egomaniacal racist fascists were a dime a dozen in Germany.

As for underrated, a few people come to mind. Stalin in a way. He's gotten more attention, but considering he's one of the greatest villains in history, he should get a bit more attention.

In American history Grant and Polk come to mind. Also some unsung heroes like George Marshall.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I think Neville Chamberlain gets unfairly maligned. He wasn't great by any means, but he was stuck in an impossible situation between war and appeasement, with memories of the massive loss of life in The Great War (aka World War I) still scarring the psyche of Great Britain. What's often forgotten is he was the one who eventually did declare war on Germany in September 1939 after the Nazis invaded Poland, not Churchill.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have very little good to say about Chamberlain as far as foreign policy goes. Having said that, the grandfather of appeasement and disengagement was actually his predecessor, Stanley Baldwin. Chamberlain was actually a critic of Baldwin because he was such a doormat for the Nazis.

Baldwin pushed for disarmament, and insisted on appeasement as the only option in dealing with Nazi Germany in a time when they could still be stopped.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I'm not saying he was good. I think he was mediocre. But I think it's overkill that his name has basically been turned into a political slur. It's no small thing sending your nation to war (especially an early 20th century war in which you know hundreds of thousands of your citizens, if not millions, will die). He was wrong in his actions obviously, but so much of the blame seems directed by those who have modern 20/20 hindsight, instead of understanding the historical context in which he was operating from. The Third Reich was unprecedented in what it ended up doing, and it was hard to imagine the complete extent of Hitler's ambitions at the time.

 

[Venom75]

As for underrated, a few people come to mind. Stalin in a way. He's gotten more attention, but considering he's one of the greatest villains in history, he should get a bit more attention.

I feel the same. At least to me,Stalin the biggest butcher of the 20th century.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I feel the same. At least to me,Stalin the biggest butcher of the 20th century.

The problem with Stalin is that he didn't murder Westerners, and the mass killing was mostly domestic.

But whether you see him as the world's greatest democidal monster, or as a man who took a floundering peasant kingdom and turned it into a nuclear empire that ushered in humanity's space age, he just doesn't get enough attention.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I think it's pointless to argue who was worse, Stalin or Hitler. They both reached that rare ceiling of evil, where it's impossible to be a worse monster than you already are. They expressed their murderous intents in different ways and may have had slightly different body counts (but after millions and millions, who's counting?) but they were equally evil. Which is to say, completely.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would argue that Hitler – while evil by any reasonable definition of the word – had more redeeming qualities. His immediate staff always spoke highly of him, even those who denounced him said he was a good boss. He also had a sense of personal loyalty, a trait that Stalin lacked.

Stalin was far more paranoid. So much so that he killed thousands of his own loyal supporters on whims. Some of Stalin's policies were also perverse even by totalitarian standards, such as his treatment of his own POW's.

Stalin by his own accounts felt nothing. I have read multiple biographies of Stalin, and it's quite hard to find any human qualities in the man. He is a certifiable sociopath.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Well.... fair point. But on the other hand, Stalin wasn't trying to render extinct entire races of people (at least afaik). I think there's points to be made on both sides.

Stalin's later paranoia may have been rooted in a degenerative brain disease.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Stalin-had-degenerative-brain-condition.html

 

[CaptainWagner]

One of the main reasons Stalin isn't as well known as Hitler is that he was on the right side of WW2. Therefore, his atrocities are often glossed over, in fear of making his allies look bad for teaming with him.


As for Reagon, I think he will be remembered not for any of his actual political agenda, but for his ability to simply make people like him, and work together with the opposing party.

 

[hippie_hunter]

While one can agree or disagree with Reagan's policies, to call him overrated in the political history of the United States is absurd. Reagan created a massive political shift within the culture of the United States, turning it from the center-left nation that was created by FDR and LBJ into a center-right one. Good or bad, the man created a massive impact.

JFK is by far the most overrated political figure IMO. Most of the things that people fondly remember him for are either completely false or an accomplishment of LBJ.

 

[SV Fan]

Good or bad, the man created a massive impact.

Creating a massive impact doesn't equal being a good president though. Also you could argue the shift started before Reagan, Nixon kicked butt in 1972.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Creating a massive impact doesn't equal being a good president though.

We're not talking about good or bad. We're talking about political figures who deserve their importance in political history. That's a big difference.

Also you could argue the shift started before Reagan, Nixon kicked butt in 1972.

Nixon IMO is more along the lines of the Republicans' version of Bill Clinton, but without the charm. The same way that Bill Clinton ran the Democrats in the era where the United States was a center-right nation, Richard Nixon ran the Republicans where the United States was a center-left nation. And as a result, Nixon did things that are completely unacceptable in the modern GOP like opening relations with China, detente, affirmative action, creation of the EPA, etc. Sorta like how Clinton had to do a lot of things that are completely unacceptable in the modern Democratic Party like support for DOMA and DADT, welfare reform, NAFTA, etc.

While Reagan was able to build upon a lot of what Nixon did, Reagan was the one who was able to really shift things due to his courting of the Reagan Democrats, make the Republican Party more conservative, and dare I say even pull off the almost impossible with his VP getting the Presidency, giving a rare feat of three terms for a political party.

 

[Decepticonus]

I feel that some figures are overrated like Adolf Hitler. In importance, I mean. Hitler is obviously a very important figure, but the way people talk about him, you would think he had God-like powers. In reality, he could have been killed in 1914 by Tandey, and history would probably have played out very similarly. Egomaniacal racist fascists were a dime a dozen in Germany.

Egomanicial? Not so much. Racist? Oh yeah. Fascist? Kinda

I think you're downplaying him. Hitler was very charismatic and a great speaker. He was clever in his ways of coming from a socialist/populist background to pin the economical woes on the Jews and Versailles rather than typical down with corporations leftist talk. God-like? Well that may be taking it too far or could be spot on. Read Goebbels, the first time he meets him in person, it's as if he has a full blown crush on Hitler. He was able to attract the working class, attract business through his anti-communist & pro-property talk. He was able to get the loyalty of the military and this is very important. President Hindenburg had the loyalty of the military being both president and national war hero in Germany. On his death they should of had new elections, but they didn't. Instead, Hitler combined the offices of Reich Chancellery and Reich President, w/o any restraint.
You had the General Ludendorff who campaigned for president and was in Hitler's camp but his campaign was mainly "vote for me I served in WWI and was General". They did nothing, he took no action, no initiative. All while Hitler was returning from prison. Meanwhile, most of the other racist fascists as you put it downplayed the nationalism part and upped the socialism instead like Goebbels or the Strassers.

Well.... fair point. But on the other hand, Stalin wasn't trying to render extinct entire races of people (at least afaik). I think there's points to be made on both sides.

Stalin's later paranoia may have been rooted in a degenerative brain disease.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Stalin-had-degenerative-brain-condition.html

Intriguing, I'll have to check that out. But his paranoia may also be psychologically rooted. As a boy in seminary school he made a friend (which even at his young age was a feat, being a quiet one.) He told him a secret - Stalin had webbed/fused toes. Think ninja turtles. One day the boys go out for a swim with other from their class but Stalin refuses to take his shoes off, he's ashamed or embarrassed. Maybe both. He didn't want to take his shoes but his best friend gets out to force the shoes off him, telling the other kids the secret. After this day Stalin, never trusted anyone. Later he made another friend, one who was willing and did beat the boy within an inch in his life. Stalin didn't get caught but his new friend did and no was none the wiser.
You can learn about it here...
https://youtu.be/8sDvq_iEeGs?t=14m20s

While one can agree or disagree with Reagan's policies, to call him overrated in the political history of the United States is absurd. Reagan created a massive political shift within the culture of the United States, turning it from the center-left nation that was created by FDR and LBJ into a center-right one. Good or bad, the man created a massive impact.

JFK is by far the most overrated political figure IMO. Most of the things that people fondly remember him for are either completely false or an accomplishment of LBJ.

You make a solid point. I think we all just dislike his policies and the golde image the conservatives paint but he did make an impact. Under Regan it became cool, hip and trendy to be conservative. He was good speaker, quite humorous and charming. He did make America feel like we were some superpower again unlike in the 70's. With that famous "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem" still rings truth for both sides to be honest.

But yeah, you are 100% right on JFK. **** him!

 

[SV Fan]

We're not talking about good or bad. We're talking about political figures who deserve their importance in political history. That's a big difference.

Technically we are talking about overrated or underrated, it doesn't specify overrated or underrated in what sense. Fair enough in your point about Reagan and impact though, I won't argue that(but I will argue the fact he is over rated as being a good president)

 

[hippie_hunter]

Technically we are talking about overrated or underrated, it doesn't specify overrated or underrated in what sense.

From the original poster: "Is there a political figure from history that you feel is overrated or underrated?" Which I read more as determining their impact because political figures go well beyond just Presidents.

Fair enough in your point about Reagan and impact though, I won't argue that(but I will argue the fact he is over rated as being a good president)

In terms of arguing whether or not he's overrated as President, there can be a very valid argument on both sides of the fence. IMO, Reagan is to America what Margaret Thatcher is for the United Kingdom, you're going to have your people who are going to either love or hate them. The left is going to hate these people for oh so many reasons, whether you're an American Progressive or someone with Marxist leanings. But the right has a lot of reasons to love them.

 

[SV Fan]

In terms of arguing whether or not he's overrated as President, there can be a very valid argument on both sides of the fence. IMO, Reagan is to America what Margaret Thatcher is for the United Kingdom, you're going to have your people who are going to either love or hate them. The left is going to hate these people for oh so many reasons, whether you're an American Progressive or someone with Marxist leanings. But the right has a lot of reasons to love them.

Hey I just point out 3 bad things he did(start of big government spending, created alot of policies that lead to income inequality(this could be debatable) we have today and war on drugs was a complete and utter failure). I am not saying he was a terrible president but I do think some people give him way to much credit, also the right paint this unrealistic picture of Reagan that isn't true(completely white washing stuff they don't like such as his immigration policies or stance on gun control) which probably increases my belief how overrated he has become by some people.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You can argue that the left does the same thing with Bill Clinton to justify to themselves that they supported him.

 

[SV Fan]

You can argue that the left does the same thing with Bill Clinton to justify to themselves that they supported him.

I don't like some things Clinton did but it's tough to argue his presidency(rightly or wrongly) given the economy at the time and the economy before and after he was president.

In the comparing them going against the base I think Clinton basically did it for political purposes when it came to stuff like Doma, in the case of Regan I believe his stance on gun control was out of personal belief(ironically the one of the few things I heavily agree with Reagan. lol) and would be sacreligious to today's conservative card carrying NRA member. I see Republicans constantly bring up Reagans name on many issues but not once have I seen a Republican bring up Reagan's name when it comes to gun laws(ie I am with Reagan ont his, personally I think Democrats should use Reagan as their go to person when it comes to control just to shove it in the rights face). lol

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't like some things Clinton did but it's tough to argue his presidency(rightly or wrongly) given the economy at the time and the economy before and after he was president.

I personally find it very easy to argue the Clinton economy. To sum it up, Clinton was lucky. He inherited the post-Cold War economic boom of the United States being the world's sole superpower in a unipolar world. The economy of the Clinton era is a lot like the economy of the late-1940s/1950's. The United States was in such a dominant global position economically due to global events. In Clinton's case the collapse of the Soviet Union, a stagnant Japan, and Europe not yet fully forming the European Union; and The United States didn't have the competition from China, Brazil, and India that we're seeing today.

And a lot of economic problems of the Bush/Obama Eras, Clinton can be directly held responsible for. Like his economic team supporting the banking reforms that ended up leading to the 2008 financial meltdown and his housing policies that made it easier for people to get houses that they couldn't afford, that also ended up leading to the 2008 financial meltdown. Yet Dubya got all the heat for that one while Clinton got off scott free from the public.

In the comparing them going against the base I think Clinton basically did it for political purposes when it came to stuff like Doma,

Keep in mind that Clinton was an Arkansas Democrat. His Administration was very, very centrist and embraced some socially conservative values like opposing same-sex marriage. While Clinton thought that DOMA was unnecessary, the man was still against gays getting married. If anything I would say the Clinton's shift in the 2000's was for political purposes to keep themselves relevant in a Democratic Party that was shifting to the left on social issues rapidly.

in the case of Regan I believe his stance on gun control was out of personal belief(ironically the one of the few things I heavily agree with Reagan. lol) and would be sacreligious to today's conservative card carrying NRA member.

I would say Reagan getting shot might have something to do with that. I'm pretty sure I would be looking at things differently as well if I had a bullet hole in me. Also, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

While the Firearms Owners Protection Act implemented some gun control measures like banning fully automatic guns, the law was written with the support of gun rights groups like the NRA, worked to provide protections for gun owners, and eased restrictions like making it easier to transport long rifles across the United States, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored.

And when Reagan was running for President in the 1970's, he made himself to be a very vocal proponent of gun rights.

I see Republicans constantly bring up Reagans name on many issues but not once have I seen a Republican bring up Reagan's name when it comes to gun laws(ie I am with Reagan ont his, personally I think Democrats should use Reagan as their go to person when it comes to control just to shove it in the rights face). lol

While Reagan in his post-Presidency period supporting assault weapons bans and implemented some gun controls, the Reagan Administration was still rather supportive of gun rights. Trying to portray Reagan as some bastion of gun control is as inaccurate as trying to portray Obama as someone who is personally going to come to your house to take your guns away.

I would say that Reagan looks more pro-gun control in perception than the reality actually is comes from the fact that the gun rights movement and NRA and the legal situation has changed dramatically. The gun rights movement has become so radicalized and political to the point where even a pro-gun rights advocate like Ronald Reagan would be chastised today for even moderate positions as opposed to exclusively holding absolutist positions. And the legal situation changed in the 1990's and 2000's. During that time, the Supreme Court changed the interpretation of the Second Amendment from the citizens right to bear arms as a group into individual gun ownership. That helped pave the way to the radicalization we're seeing today now that the Second Amendment does guarantee individual gun rights.