Hey guys I just recently wrote in my blog who I felt were the worst presidents of all time and I of course put FDR up there. However I keep hearing the argument that he gave people hope or he gave people a sense of purpose. I thought people would prefer food in their stomachs instead of some sense of duty. I also belive that in some instances panic, or concern can be a good thing because it causes action. A false sense of hope can sometimes delay people into acting when they should. Am I wrong?? What do you guys think? Is the FDR hope excuse a good one?
Absolutely not. Hitler gave plenty of Germans hope, so it’s not necessarily a good thing. Not only that, but FDR’s entire presidency was the opposite of what he had originally campaigned on. “Hope” indeed.
There is no excuse for wrongdoing. FDR was a villain, plain and simple. As was every President before or since, including those who are called “Founding Fathers”.
Founding Father sounds eerily close to Big Brother to me.
Reminded me of what I read this morning:
[from: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front.html?siteSect=109&ty=st&sid=9795885&front=br&sb=red ]
I promptly conjured up an irish coffee & had a rather grim silence. Whatever hope regarding humanity I previously might’ve had took some hits today.
Why would FDR be one of the worst Presidents of U.S. history?
On the contrary, if he was reelected twice, that speaks a lot about the satisfaction of voters concerning his style of government.
I refer to Dr. Armand Hammer (for a brief biography, please refer to my blog here on www.mises.org). Among the dozens of heads of state he had the privilege to meet and advice, Dr. Hammer unequivocally said that his greatest hero was precisely FDR, as he combined statemanship, humor, and support for American business.
Which in turn speaks on behalf on the normal effects of voting behavior, voting itself, & subsequently, the democratic system.
What would you supplant democracy for? tyranny? dictatorship? oligarchy? monarchy? plutochracy?
Democracy might have its shortcomings, but I do not foresee a suitable replacement.
He brought war, big government and many other diseases. Lets us hope one more time.
Democracy is already a form of tyranny.
No need to act to replace a democracy with a dictatorship, because that’s where it leads naturally.
A democracy is an oligarchy.
Actually I’d prefer a monarchy, by the slightest of margins and putting ethics aside.
What do you think the Federal Reserve is?
Well, good thing you came here then. Most of us here would see democracy replaced by nothing at all, and let alternatives to those services which are now provided by governments be developed within the free market.
Here, read this.
In fact, I’d recommend you read the whole thing for a good overview of what we (with a few exceptions) favor. And it’s a damn good read in any case. There’s even an audio version if you haven’t the time to read.
I will read it in detail some time. I already skimmed through it. The idea is revolutionary and it could take a while and some creativity to put it into practice.
Not here it isn’t.
Panarchy would be a logical extension, methinks.