Truman vrs W

klaatu

klaatu

Fusionist
Today ..Harry Truman is revered as the tough no nonsense President. But...in the last few years of his Presidency he was as disliked as G W Bush ... He suffered the lowest ratings ...and was regarded as one of the worst Presidents ever.
The Korean War .., Recession, Inflation, Failed Price Control Policy. He was even disliked within his own party, although the Dems controlled Congress... it was a house divided. There was corruption involving a Tax Collection Scheme in the IRS.. Truman failed to act on it and the scandal spinned out of control. His most controversial moment came when he fired Gen Douglas MacArther.. the Real Deal American Hero. But ..Trumans legacy has improved with time...and some regard him as one of our Great Presidents. They view his toughness and stubborness as a great leadership quality.

Its pretty fascinating to think that back then.. people probably would have considered you crazy if you said that one day Harry Truman would be regarded as one of the greats.

Im not sure if GW will one day be considered great ... I think much will depend on our National Security and what ultimately happens in the Middle East in terms of Freedoms. If Iraq evolves into some kind of Beacon of Freedom .... GW's legacy may grow.
 
His most controversial moment came when he fired Gen Douglas MacArther.. the Real Deal American Hero.

This made me laugh. MacArthur was a psychopath whom I'm glad has been confined to the shitheap of history. He has "Fa-fa-fa-faaaaaaaadeeeeddd aaaaawwwwwwaaaayyy..." and Truman is remembered as the true hero in the situation. Then again, Truman did throw some nukes down, which was a dumb decision.
 
If history comes to judge Bush as a "great", or even merely competent, I think we need to seriously reconsider the value & accuracy of historical judgments.
 
Historical perspective is a hard thing to predict. Who knows how this period will be viewed in 20 years, much less a century?

This could be the era that began the decades long War on Terror, or the era that saddled the nation with universal healthcare it could not afford, or the beginning of the Second Great Depression.

Who knows? We won't have that kind of perspective for quite a while.
 
Onceler said:
If history comes to judge Bush as a "great", or even merely competent, I think we need to seriously reconsider the value & accuracy of historical judgments.
Click to expand...

LMFAO... You already do!

I think the comparisons of Bush and Truman are as accurate as you can compare any two presidents. Certainly they share many of the same distinctions, shunned by the 'elites' and seen as 'simple-minded' dullards... often finding themselves unpopular with members of their own party... making bold and controversial military decisions that change the course of history... winners of razor close elections... no nonsense straight shooters... Of all the former presidents you could compare Bush with, Truman seems the most applicable, in my opinion.

I also think, time has a way of putting things into historical context and perspective. I agree, not many Americans would have thought in 1948, that Truman would be seen as a "great" president, or even a "fair" president. Even presidents like Nixon and Clinton, are viewed more favorably as time passes. This is because we realize the results of the things they put into motion as president, things we can't see at the time, because it takes time.

Bush established the first Democracy in the Arab world, that is huge if it works out. Despite any other flaws or faults he may have had, that one thing could be the greatest contribution to mankind in the past century. It could eventually be the catalyst for lasting mid-east peace, it could usher in a whole new age of prosperity and freedom for that part of the world, we just don't know yet. It is far too early to tell, or to make any final judgments on the Bush presidency. Pinheads like Oncie can, because they have no concept of historical perspectives, they are so bias-thinking because of the koolaid, it is not within them to look past today. In his mind, Bush will always and forever be seen the way he and the liberals see Bush today, and nothing will ever change that.
 
Dixie brings up koolaid again, just a few days after asserting that he'll bash anything Obama does, good or bad, and in the same post that he reveals once again how hopelessly, tragically enamored he is of the man in blue jeans...
 
Onceler said:
Dixie brings up koolaid again, just a few days after asserting that he'll bash anything Obama does, good or bad, and in the same post that he reveals once again how hopelessly, tragically enamored he is of the man in blue jeans...
Click to expand...

Wow, you are now suffering mental delusion and reading things that aren't there! You need to seek serious psycho help Onzie, I fear for your sanity.
 
klaatu said:
Today ..Harry Truman is revered as the tough no nonsense President. But...in the last few years of his Presidency he was as disliked as G W Bush ... He suffered the lowest ratings ...and was regarded as one of the worst Presidents ever.
The Korean War .., Recession, Inflation, Failed Price Control Policy. He was even disliked within his own party, although the Dems controlled Congress... it was a house divided. There was corruption involving a Tax Collection Scheme in the IRS.. Truman failed to act on it and the scandal spinned out of control. His most controversial moment came when he fired Gen Douglas MacArther.. the Real Deal American Hero. But ..Trumans legacy has improved with time...and some regard him as one of our Great Presidents. They view his toughness and stubborness as a great leadership quality.

Its pretty fascinating to think that back then.. people probably would have considered you crazy if you said that one day Harry Truman would be regarded as one of the greats.

Im not sure if GW will one day be considered great ... I think much will depend on our National Security and what ultimately happens in the Middle East in terms of Freedoms. If Iraq evolves into some kind of Beacon of Freedom .... GW's legacy may grow.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal with Truman. He did much to make himself unpopular. His integration of the military and defense of civil rights legislation completely alienated the south and his intervention in Korea was very unpopular not to mention his intervention in the Republic Steel strike alienated unions.

But time showed that in many things he was right. Truman (and only a moron think's it's Reagan) was the architecht for the collapse of the soviet empire and communist expansionism. He was right on civil rights, just ask Colin Powell or Barak Obama and he was right in how he managed the end of WWII, including the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.

As for W. This to could happen to him but it all boils down to what happens in Iraq. In all other areas W is a failed President with no hope of history resurecting his legacy, except for one area. Iraq.

Iraq is the most strategically important region of the oil bearing states of the middle east. Vastly more important that Saudi Arabia because it has what no other Middle eastern nation has. Water. If 20, 30, 40 years from now Iraq is a prosperous, stable and modern representative republic, it's impact on the middle east will be profound and W will have been the architect and it would be considered a great historic achievement.

Considering all of W's other failures, if that doesn't happen, he'll be rightly considered in the same likes as Warren G. Harding. An inept bumbler who should have never been elected.
 
Dixie said:
LMFAO... You already do!

I think the comparisons of Bush and Truman are as accurate as you can compare any two presidents. Certainly they share many of the same distinctions, shunned by the 'elites' and seen as 'simple-minded' dullards... often finding themselves unpopular with members of their own party... making bold and controversial military decisions that change the course of history... winners of razor close elections... no nonsense straight shooters... Of all the former presidents you could compare Bush with, Truman seems the most applicable, in my opinion.

I also think, time has a way of putting things into historical context and perspective. I agree, not many Americans would have thought in 1948, that Truman would be seen as a "great" president, or even a "fair" president. Even presidents like Nixon and Clinton, are viewed more favorably as time passes. This is because we realize the results of the things they put into motion as president, things we can't see at the time, because it takes time.

Bush established the first Democracy in the Arab world, that is huge if it works out. Despite any other flaws or faults he may have had, that one thing could be the greatest contribution to mankind in the past century. It could eventually be the catalyst for lasting mid-east peace, it could usher in a whole new age of prosperity and freedom for that part of the world, we just don't know yet. It is far too early to tell, or to make any final judgments on the Bush presidency. Pinheads like Oncie can, because they have no concept of historical perspectives, they are so bias-thinking because of the koolaid, it is not within them to look past today. In his mind, Bush will always and forever be seen the way he and the liberals see Bush today, and nothing will ever change that.
Click to expand...

Actually Dixie's point is valid. The problem is the odd's are against him. But that was true with Truman too.

The differance is, excluding Iraq, which is presently considered the greatest strategic mistake in modern US history, Bush has been a failed presidency. His economic and domestic agenda's have all failed, even his beloved "No Child Left Behind" has died on the vine. His hopes for his legacy are all in one bag. Iraq, and Dixie is right. If they turn out to be the first stable modern middle eastern Republic (they don't even have to be a democracy) then that will be a huge historical acheivement. Truman had failure and successes as President. Some of the extremely unpopular things he did were moral stances that were, as history has proven, the right thing to do. I can't think of any instance where Bush has shown any such vision.

20 years from now we'll all have a better idea about Bush's true legacy but if I was Dixie, I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
klaatu said:
Today ..Harry Truman is revered as the tough no nonsense President. But...in the last few years of his Presidency he was as disliked as G W Bush ... He suffered the lowest ratings ...and was regarded as one of the worst Presidents ever.
The Korean War .., Recession, Inflation, Failed Price Control Policy. He was even disliked within his own party, although the Dems controlled Congress... it was a house divided. There was corruption involving a Tax Collection Scheme in the IRS.. Truman failed to act on it and the scandal spinned out of control. His most controversial moment came when he fired Gen Douglas MacArther.. the Real Deal American Hero. But ..Trumans legacy has improved with time...and some regard him as one of our Great Presidents. They view his toughness and stubborness as a great leadership quality.

Its pretty fascinating to think that back then.. people probably would have considered you crazy if you said that one day Harry Truman would be regarded as one of the greats.

Im not sure if GW will one day be considered great ... I think much will depend on our National Security and what ultimately happens in the Middle East in terms of Freedoms. If Iraq evolves into some kind of Beacon of Freedom .... GW's legacy may grow.
Click to expand...

Truman was never disliked as much as Bush is.
 
Dixie said...

"Even presidents like Nixon and Clinton, are viewed more favorably as time passes."


Do you have any idea how poular Clinton was when he left office? Also did you know that Bush's approval ratings are lower than Nixon's were when he left office?
 
Watermark said:
His disapproval rating was never as high as Bush's. It's also notable that polling wasn't as accurate back then - see Truman vs. Dewey.
Click to expand...

Truman's disapproval was within a few points of Bush's. Close enough you hair splitting little red head. And yes Bush had a slightly lower approval and slightly higher disapproval, but all within the margins of error in both polls. Truman was highly disliked in the late 40s early 50's. Close enough to the same dislike of W.

Hair splitter. And you always pretend you knew this stuff off the top of your melon, when its obvious that you most certainly did not.
 
Watermark said:
His disapproval rating was never as high as Bush's. It's also notable that polling wasn't as accurate back then - see Truman vs. Dewey.
Click to expand...

So are we going to split hairs over a percent or two, or which polling methods are more accurate, or the difference between "approval" and "disapproval" ratings? The point is, both Truman and Bush are comparable in terms of public perception of their time. Truman was highly unpopular, and Bush is highly unpopular. Much of it to do with similar sets of circumstances, unpopular military decisions, unpopular positions on party line issues, stubborn arrogance, or the perception of such as a result of their personalities. There is a remarkable similarity in the two presidencies.

That said, we can look at how history views Truman today, not one of the arguably worst presidents in history, but with some degree of respect for what he did. Whether you see his actions as right or wrong, he ended WWII, and saved countless American lives in the process. This established the US as THE Superpower of the world, and only the Soviets have come close to rivaling that since. Not to say Truman didn't have his faults, or can't be criticized, he certainly can be, as can any president. But in attempting to look into the future and see how history might view Bush, I think the Truman presidency gives us great insight.
 
Beefy said:
Truman's disapproval was within a few points of Bush's. Close enough you hair splitting little red head. And yes Bush had a slightly lower approval and slightly higher disapproval, but all within the margins of error in both polls. Truman was highly disliked in the late 40s early 50's. Close enough to the same dislike of W.

Hair splitter. And you always pretend you knew this stuff off the top of your melon, when its obvious that you most certainly did not.
Click to expand...

I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top