Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!pyrla!cracraft
From: cracraft@pyrla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc,net.rumor
Subject: Re: The Presidents   how I feel they rate in history
Message-ID: <20@pyrla.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-May-86 12:11:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyrla.20
Posted: Sun May 25 12:11:36 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 27-May-86 07:50:10 EDT
References: <133@petrus.UUCP> <480@ihlpf.UUCP>
Reply-To: cracraft@pyrla.UUCP (Stuart Cracraft)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation
Lines: 115
Xref: watmath net.politics:16404 net.misc:9715 net.rumor:2528

I couldn't resist this one. The author of the revised ratings
of our presidents has myopia. Either that or astigmatism.

>				idealism		performance
> F D Roosevelt        		  7			   10+
> Ronald Reagan        		  2			    8
>
Roosevelt given a 10+ for performance??? I have listened year after
year to Roosevelt being deified. The man has almost the reputation
of a god in this country. I won't bore you with citing statistics.

First, he came into office at a crucial time (the time immediately
surrounding the Great Depression). Second, his NEW DEAL did *NOT* solve
our problems during the Great Depression. In fact, after 10 long
hard years of the Great Depression, the tragedy showed almost no signs of
easing with or without the New Deal. It was a monster Depression.
Not even all of economist Keynes deficit spending (on which the New 
Deal and most of Roosevelt's philosophy was based) could get us out 
of the Depression.

So, the conclusion is that Roosevelt did not get us out of the Depression.
What did? World War II did! The gearing up of fantastically high production
levels to meet the demands of supplying troops abroad was what did it.

I admit that Roosevelt had a certain charisma, but we must face facts.
He almost destroyed this country *permanently* and *economically* by
doing a complete brain-surgery of the role of our government. Roosevelt
had intended and publically stated that he would lift many of the 
New Deal programs. However, he died prematurely and was unable to lift
them. As a result, we were saddled with increased deficit spending 
is now at a really obscene level (with the help of a few wars). 

In my humble opinion, Keynes and his ugly philosophy embodied in 
the programs of the New Deal, have done severe damage to our capability 
as a nation to compete internationally and only recently, with Japan and some
other countries leapfrogging us economically, has this been shown.

I don't mean to digress, but the Roosevelt/Keynes brotherhood has
been in place for 50 years. Only recently, with the advent of the
supply-siders, who understand the many good points of *both* the
monetarists and classical-economists as well as some of the major
*reasonable* points of Keynes economic theory, only now, have we
begun to see some major shifts in the way our government deals
with the country. 

The new right on which Reagan bases his philosophy on includes 
Arthur Laffer and George Gilder. In my opinion, these men are 
infinitely more stable both in their personal lives, their personalities,
as well as their economic theories than Keynes ever demonstrated even
the remotest capacity to reach. I am here referring to the fact that
Keynes was a very troubled man, operating during a time when the
Great Depression was wiping out lives, let alone pocketbooks. We
are well aware of what happens when you put such personality structures
into such situations. They come up with the most outlandish, insane
theories, that may look rigorous and may even have some reasonable
points, but which ultimately are born out of the desperation of
the times.

We are very fortunate to have had 8 years of a monetarist/supply-sider
president such as Reagan. What he has done for us is *extremely*
important, and we honestly need another 8 years of someone with
similar *economic* views. (I will not discuss his religious or
many incursions into our personal lives which are substantial,
although we should all acknowledge that the idea of getting
the government off the people's backs economically should include
*everything* (both economically and in our personal lives) is one
of the major contradictions of modern convservativism.)


>F. Roosevelt - Outperformed every other president.  Extra points for
>maintaining a strong presence, but staying out of WWII until we
>were attacked.

Nonsense. See above.

>Reagan - I strongly suspect that I have overrated Regan's Idealism
>because his ideals are a perversion of those which our country was
>based (he is trying to push us back to an earlier moral position,
>feeling that we were a strong nation because of our morals then,
>not in spite of them).  Had he been the first president I am sure
>he would have found a way to squash the Bill of Rights.  His
>idealism would be higher had he been president 100 years ago, but
>then most of the issues he is he is trying to push were de facto then.
>Never the less, he has performed strongly in the office and had a major
>effect on national pride.

You are no doubt here referring to his incursions into our personal
lives. I agree. The major contradiction of modern conservativism
is that it emphasizes getting government out of the person's
pocketbook but into their bedroom and church/synagogue. This major
contradiction has caused many young people to have a tough time
swallowing conservativism as a political philosophy. I myself lean
towards Libertarian philosophy which emphasizes getting the government
out of everything as much as possible, maintaining only a skeleton government
(at most) for doing absolutely crucial things. However, I realize
they could never be elected to offices I would want them in, so
I vote Republican because the economic philosophy of that party
means a lot to how much I can take home out of my paycheck every
two weeks and how I am going to provide for myself decades from now.
I abhor them for what they have done with intruding on our personal
lives, but I have to stick with the bottom line and the bottom line
includes dollars and *sense*.

Finally, the Reagan ERTA tax cut enacted in the early 1980's was one of
the most significant reforms of government policy for decades. If the
current Bell-Packwood bill or Senate bill regarding tax policy
goes through, we will have something very close to a flat tax
(two brackets; 15% & 27% with many deductions eliminated). If this
goes through, which I am praying it does, it will be probably the
most major reform since the New Deal. I think it would be a superb
way for Reagan to "close out" his tenure as our President and I
am really praying that it passes by the end of this year or sometime
in 1987.

    Stuart