PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues We are re-living history.


Taco John
11-05-2008, 01:15 AM
George Bush is to Teddy Roosevelt as Barack Obama is to Woodrow Wilson.

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:18 AM
George Bush is to Teddy Roosevelt as Barack Obama is to Woodrow Wilson.

You'd better hope not.

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:20 AM
Bullshit. I'd better hope not. My only son is 13 years old.

Taco John
11-05-2008, 01:21 AM
And if you do your reaseach, I think you'll find good argument for the case that George Bush is to James Buchanan as Barack Obama is to Abraham Lincoln.

GoChiefs
11-05-2008, 01:24 AM
Wilson was elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912) President as a Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party) in 1912. He proved highly successful in leading a Democratic Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) to pass major legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation) that included the Federal Trade Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission), the Clayton Antitrust Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act), the Underwood Tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913), the Federal Farm Loan Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Farm_Loan_Act) and most notably the Federal Reserve System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System).<sup id="cite_ref-autogenerated1_1-0" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#cite_note-autogenerated1-1)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-JNH_Wolgemuth_1959_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#cite_note-JNH_Wolgemuth_1959-2)This time around, a Clayton will marry an Underwood. YES!
</sup>

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:25 AM
And if you do your reaseach, I think you'll find good argument for the case that George Bush is to James Buchanan as Barack Obama is to Abraham Lincoln.

I'd be more comfortable with that. Unfortunately, I think that camparison is not apt.

You should have gone with the first comparison.

Taco John
11-05-2008, 01:26 AM
Wilson maneuvered through Congress three major pieces of legislation. The first was a lower tariff, the Underwood Act; attached to the measure was a graduated Federal income tax. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed. In 1914 antitrust legislation established a Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices.

Another burst of legislation followed in 1916. One new law prohibited child labor; another limited railroad workers to an eight-hour day. By virtue of this legislation and the slogan "he kept us out of war," Wilson narrowly won re-election.

But after the election Wilson concluded that America could not remain neutral in the World War. On April 2,1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany.

Massive American effort slowly tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims--the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations...affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."

After the Germans signed the Armistice in November 1918, Wilson went to Paris to try to build an enduring peace. He later presented to the Senate the Versailles Treaty, containing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and asked, "Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?"

But the election of 1918 had shifted the balance in Congress to the Republicans. By seven votes the Versailles Treaty failed in the Senate.

The President, against the warnings of his doctors, had made a national tour to mobilize public sentiment for the treaty. Exhausted, he suffered a stroke and nearly died. Tenderly nursed by his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, he lived until 1924.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:27 AM
This time around, a Clayton will marry an Underwood. YES!
</sup>

Go the fuck away, you dilettante.

GoChiefs
11-05-2008, 01:27 AM
Basically you're still clinging to the absurd belief that the draft is coming back? Is that it?

SportsRacer
11-05-2008, 01:28 AM
Obama after Bush is like a box of Altoids after a loaf of garlic bread.

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:30 AM
Obama after Bush is like a box of Altoids after a loaf of garlic bread.

Great. Another idiot that doesn't understand the point of the thread.

SportsRacer
11-05-2008, 01:33 AM
Great. Another idiot that doesn't understand the point of the thread.

I thought the point of the thread was analogies.

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:41 AM
I thought the point of the thread was analogies.

Altoids and garlic bread. You're dead on.

Taco John
11-05-2008, 01:42 AM
I'd be more comfortable with that. Unfortunately, I think that camparison is not apt.

You should have gone with the first comparison.


Neither metaphor are perfect - but I'm looking at a broad pallet of patterns here, and the one that strikes me about the Doughboy/Lincoln comparison is that Buchanan was a kind of loose canon cowboy type who started out with no direction (he got expelled from school on conduct charges), but eventually got it all together and managed to unwittingly climb into a career course that swept him into the Office -- where he served out a miserable term and is now widely considered one of the worst presidents in history. And in comes behind him, a tall, lanky, unassuming charmer (from out of nowhere) who climbs his way into the nomination against all odds on a reform agenda in a time of great partisan tension.

Patterns repeating themselves...

Taco John
11-05-2008, 01:44 AM
Basically you're still clinging to the absurd belief that the draft is coming back? Is that it?


Everything is coming back - and going away at the same time.

SportsRacer
11-05-2008, 01:47 AM
Altoids and garlic bread. You're dead on.

I know.

GoChiefs
11-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Everything is coming back - and going away at the same time.

Wouldn't the draft be seen as a huge blunder on Obama's part considering the guy he's replacing?

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Neither metaphor are perfect - but I'm looking at a broad pallet of patterns here, and the one that strikes me about the Doughboy/Lincoln comparison is that Buchanan was a kind of loose canon cowboy type who started out with no direction (he got expelled from school on conduct charges), but eventually got it all together and managed to unwittingly climb into a career course that swept him into the Office -- where he served out a miserable term and is now widely considered one of the worst presidents in history. And in comes behind him, a tall, lanky, unassuming charmer (from out of nowhere) who climbs his way into the nomination against all odds on a reform agenda. All this in a time of great partisan tension.

Patterns repeating themselves...

Truly, I don't see the comparison between Buchannon, who was scared to death to take military action and Bush who wasn't hesitant to take action.

Taco John
11-05-2008, 02:05 AM
Truly, I don't see the comparison between Buchannon, who was scared to death to take military action and Bush who wasn't hesitant to take action.

Indeed. However, you can look at it as an inverse comparison. Buchanan was widely criticized for not taking action. Bush is widely criticized for taking too much action. They're not perfect metaphors.

But the bottom line is that both Wilson and Lincoln were on a path of progressive reform in America, and right now, Barack Obama has just received that type of mandate. In fact, Obama might very well be the single most powerful president in the history of the nation, all things considered (including military strength).

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 02:18 AM
Indeed. However, you can look at it as an inverse comparison. Buchanan was widely criticized for not taking action. Bush is widely criticized for taking too much action. They're not perfect metaphors.

But the bottom line is that both Wilson and Lincoln were on a path of progressive reform in America, and right now, Barack Obama has just received that type of mandate. In fact, Obama might very well be the single most powerful president in the history of the nation, all things considered (including military strength).

I'll be very interested to see how your scenario plays out.

GoChiefs
11-05-2008, 02:21 AM
A draft would be kind of cool. I'd probably make some new friends.

ClevelandBronco
11-05-2008, 03:13 AM
A draft would be kind of cool. I'd probably make some new friends.

There's a great idea. You can make new friends with two Broncos fans who think you still need to write more before you can call yourself a writer.

Good plan.

HolmeZz
11-05-2008, 03:20 AM
A draft would be kind of cool. I'd probably make some new friends.

New friends implies you have old ones.

penchief
11-05-2008, 06:40 AM
Unfortunately, George Bush was nothing like Teddy Roosevelt.

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 07:02 AM
George Bush is to Teddy Roosevelt as Barack Obama is to Woodrow Wilson.

:eek:

Yeah....no.

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 07:03 AM
And if you do your reaseach, I think you'll find good argument for the case that George Bush is to James Buchanan as Barack Obama is to Abraham Lincoln.

No, seriously, WTF are you talking about? I know my history just fine, and I'm completely incapable of seeing any justifiable parallels, unless you think the South will try to secede as a result of yesterday's election results...

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 07:07 AM
Neither metaphor are perfect - but I'm looking at a broad pallet of patterns here, and the one that strikes me about the Doughboy/Lincoln comparison is that Buchanan was a kind of loose canon cowboy type who started out with no direction (he got expelled from school on conduct charges), but eventually got it all together and managed to unwittingly climb into a career course that swept him into the Office -- where he served out a miserable term and is now widely considered one of the worst presidents in history. And in comes behind him, a tall, lanky, unassuming charmer (from out of nowhere) who climbs his way into the nomination against all odds on a reform agenda in a time of great partisan tension.

Patterns repeating themselves...

Ok. I will, sort of, give you that. Other than the fact that he was in general better qualified for the Presidency than Bush -- he wasn't a drifter in life who had one political job, and didn't get his offices because of his father's political connections -- you're right that Buchanan was immensely pathetic as President, and Lincoln did sort of come out of nowhere as well.

But that's really not much of a connection. It's more or less like saying that Snickers bars and a squirrel's digestive tract are similar in that they both have nuts in them...

:p

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 07:11 AM
Indeed. However, you can look at it as an inverse comparison. Buchanan was widely criticized for not taking action. Bush is widely criticized for taking too much action. They're not perfect metaphors.

But the bottom line is that both Wilson and Lincoln were on a path of progressive reform in America, and right now, Barack Obama has just received that type of mandate. In fact, Obama might very well be the single most powerful president in the history of the nation, all things considered (including military strength).

This I would agree with.

I think that comparisons can't be too narrow or they become useless. Your mediocre President followed by a charismatic one could equally apply to Carter-Reagan, Hoover-FDR, John Quincy Adams - Jackson, and probably a fair number of others.

The most direct parallel I see is Hoover-FDR, just in terms of the economic crisis that Obama is inheriting. And of course LBJ-Nixon for the ongoing war situation. But both of those have problems also.

alanm
11-05-2008, 07:50 AM
And if you do your reaseach, I think you'll find good argument for the case that George Bush is to James Buchanan as Barack Obama is to Abraham Lincoln.
Cool, War between the States coming. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
11-05-2008, 07:54 AM
I'd say Bush is Hoover and Obama is FDR on domestic for Bush, don't know about war yet with Barack

But I'd say Bush was Lincoln

StcChief
11-05-2008, 08:09 AM
Cool, War between the States coming. :thumb:
sold bring on the Libs, Black Panthers.

tiptap
11-05-2008, 09:22 AM
You do know that the blue states still have greater industrial capacity as with the Civil War. You don't want that. You don't even have a ditch or fence up.

tiptap
11-05-2008, 09:23 AM
Win in the arena of ideas first.

Garcia Bronco
11-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Wilson maneuvered through Congress three major pieces of legislation. The first was a lower tariff, the Underwood Act; attached to the measure was a graduated Federal income tax. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act provided the Nation with the more elastic money supply it badly needed. In 1914 antitrust legislation established a Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices.

Another burst of legislation followed in 1916. One new law prohibited child labor; another limited railroad workers to an eight-hour day. By virtue of this legislation and the slogan "he kept us out of war," Wilson narrowly won re-election.

But after the election Wilson concluded that America could not remain neutral in the World War. On April 2,1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany.

Massive American effort slowly tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims--the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations...affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."

After the Germans signed the Armistice in November 1918, Wilson went to Paris to try to build an enduring peace. He later presented to the Senate the Versailles Treaty, containing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and asked, "Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?"

But the election of 1918 had shifted the balance in Congress to the Republicans. By seven votes the Versailles Treaty failed in the Senate.

The President, against the warnings of his doctors, had made a national tour to mobilize public sentiment for the treaty. Exhausted, he suffered a stroke and nearly died. Tenderly nursed by his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, he lived until 1924.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html

The treaty did so poorly because just about none of the 14 points were in there, and the result treaty basically created the economic environment that led to the socialist Nazi's.

Duck Dog
11-05-2008, 09:39 AM
You do know that the blue states still have greater industrial capacity as with the Civil War. You don't want that. You don't even have a ditch or fence up.

Texas does have an enormous amount of State heavy armor and military personnel. Provided the Federal military were to stay out of it, the south could pull off a military defeat of the north.

Ari Chi3fs
11-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Woodrow Wilson was one of the shittiest presidents in US History. Let's hope this isn't the parallel of comparison.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 11:04 AM
Woodrow Wilson was one of the shittiest presidents in US History. Let's hope this isn't the parallel of comparison.


Wilson is often over-rated; in fairness, he concluded the Progressive era on a positive note. His failures on race, women's suffrage, and the end of WWI....are definite shortcomings though.

I'm quite confident Obama can, and will do better. I hope. :thumb: