Trend with U.S. presidents.... ever realize this?

It seems the earlier in the spectrum a person served as president in the U.S. the better they were. I mean, those presidents actually did things.- think about george washington....etc.

well, now days, they dont do anything except try to press their own agenda.

what is up with that?

 

Greed. Power.

 

Try some history books on the early period of the US.

I’ve just finished and would recommend "Inventing a Nation" by Gore Vidal, an entertaining (and short) read about that time. It shows such men as Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison as infused with personal and political rivalries and agendas. With often bitter battles between the Federalists and Republicans.

 

While you may have had a good point Balbus, I will never know because the writing is too fucking small.


Think about Teddy Roosevelt, now there was a president....the Roughriders, the new deal.....the monocle.

 

I think those people knew what it was like to be oppressed....they weren't raised to be President in the richest country in the world with no threats to their beliefs or religions or whatever. They had something to look forward to.... people these days just want more of what they already have. I think it's time Jesus came and took us all away...

 

I agree -- too much greed and their own agenda.

Party lines, lobbyists, and SPECIAL INTEREST increasingly change the face of politics, and it seems to only get worse.

Remember when Frank Zappa was going to run for office? Wouldn't it have been great to have that brilliant mind in a position like that.

 

Yeah...then he died and left us alone to do the same. That selfish bastard!!!!

 

People look into the past with rose-colored lenses. I am sure if you pulled a normal citizen of the time they could tell you about how the government is run by a bunch of corrupt beaurcrats whose only purpose is to serve their party's agenda.

 

When you see those who were formerly indicted as criminals for lying under oath to Congress duly pardoned by one outgoing Presidency and subsequently restored to power in yet another, its not hard to see the maintenance of the same status quo as one unbroken line that traverses numerous administrations from both sides of the aisle. Even those not indicted but yet parties to past criminalities have been so restored.

 

"Society is like a stew, if you don't stir it up all the scum rises to the top"
- Edward Abbey

 

I don't think that's the case at all. Those presidents were glorified because they're associated with the founding of the country and so are national heroes. The press nowadays is much less forgiving and perhaps more sensational and less likely to idolize politicians, so it just seems that the politicians today are worse. Also, Presidents today do more because the role of the executive branch has expanded and presidents then really really pushed their own agenda as well.

 

Presidents who accomplished a lot {without regard to party, since the time spectrum is the question here].

Washington --- set up many of the presidential traditions and precedents that we now take for granted -- 2 terms only, Cabinet of appointed advisors and more.

Lincoln -- Saved the Union, freed the slaves 4 score and 7 years later.

FDR -- another 80 years later.

Reagan --- like him or not, he did make some big moves.



At the same time there have been accomplish-little presidents all the way across the spectrum too.

 

No, Andy Jackson, Alexander Hamilton (I know he wasn't president, but only because he wasn't native born or bullet proof), Lincoln and other "good" people from the past were victims of some pretty vicious smear campaigns.
Politics hasn't gotten less gentrified, it was always pretty much a vicious circle jerk.

 

What does the general public remember of those smear campaigns now?

 

its all a sham... A pretty picture to make it seem like things are getting done. And they are. Our politicians use their positions of power to attain priviledged information and use that to make lots of money..... all about the dollar fuckin bill

 

If Lincoln cared about the blacks, he would have freed ALL of the slaves, not just the ones in the south. He didn't though, and was even thinking of colonizing them in Liberia, sending them to Africa. He kept slavery in the border states that fought for the North.

 

Jozak, Lincoln didn't hate half the black people during that time. The law he passed in hopes of freeing the slaves didn't work because the Confederacy didn't listen to him anyway.

 

Think about Teddy Roosevelt, now there was a president....the Roughriders, the new deal.....the monocle.[/QUOTE]
Teddy Roosevelt was the Roughriders {also led the U.S. conquest of the Phillipines, you know, the war with the "shoot anyone over 10" policy}
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the new deal.

 

The only reason that Lincoln didnt free the slaves in the border states is because he feared they would leave the union if he did. Though it is true that perserving the Union is what the civil war was all about to Lincoln.

 

I think you're just being nostalgic. When Old school corporations, "trusts" bought and sold politicians, there was no accountability. Now, at least, there are public records of all campaign contributions so everybody knows who owns who.