I being born in the USA I was taught to respect the Presiden

Post Reply New Topic

I being born in the USA I was taught to respect the President Most Americans I meet seem to Idolize American Presidents. It is a Cult of Personality in my view. The American Presidents/Politicians are Puppets of the Wealthy/The Rich Big Money/Profit Corporations Banks the Media and the Lobbyists. Many Americans that I know think that the President and other past Presidents and other Politicians care about the people and the poor and the homeless are the Politicians Liars ? Also are these Politicians just good Christians or do they have a agenda thank you ?



Whether lobbyists work for a large organization, a private individual, or the general public, their goals and strategies are the same. First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent. This means tailoring appeals to specific individuals as well as to group voting blocs, such as Southerners or pro-choicers. Lobbyists also occasionally lobby one another. When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective.


http://www.princetonreview.com/careers.aspx?cid=88

1. George Washington was a good president I admire him as a historical figure.
2. Abraham Lincoln was a good president that really helped the country.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a president that cared a lot about the middel and lower class americans the rich hated him.

Those are three of my all time favorite presidents.

I grew up in the age of Clinton and Bush, respecting the office of the presidency is dead.

Perhaps they respect the office of President rather than the actual incumbents? It's just a view.

Yup

Country Music Singers sure seem to idolize the president, that's for sure (except the Dixie Chicks of course)

I've seen cases where just questioning the president is like treason, hrm... how familiar is that to North Korea? to Nazi Germany? Iran? Iraq? etc...

Or the USSR or any of non democracy country where one is free to question the leadership of their leaders with out having to pay for it with their lifes.

I was also raised to respect the President. The Kennedy assassination happened when I was seven, and that was a huge shock to my whole family. Even though my parents voted Republican they grieved for Kennedy. I can't honestly say that I think most Republicans would feel the same way if something happened (heaven forbid) to President Obama. There's a coldness and lack of love in the political atmosphere of the country today that I find disturbing. I remember the Nixon era and his scandal and resignation, and the fact that my dad didn't ever vote Republican again after that. But still we were taught to respect the presidency. Later, in my former career, it was a requirement of my job to respect the President, since I worked for the military.

So it's shocking to me how politics has morphed in recent years, to outright hatred expressed toward presidents. George W. Bush was my least favorite president of all, but I respected his position and I didn't like it when the criticism got too obscenely harsh, even when I honestly thought he should probably be impeached (still do). I still thought some of the public bashing of him was harsh and uncalled for. It was not just hateful toward him, it was also disrespectful of his position. I see no call for that kind of hatred.

The whole "birther" phenomenon and the outright hatred toward Obama, expressed sometimes for I can't fathom what reasons unless some of it is racial, is shocking to me as well. He's so centrist, I would think Republicans would prefer him over others he beat out, and after eight years of Bush/Cheney, I'm not at all surprised a Democrat was elected.

The two best presidents in my lifetime, in my opinion, are Eisenhower and Kennedy. From different parties but IMO equally deserving of respect. (I don't remember Eisenhower, I'm going on what little I've read about him since.) Obama and Clinton come in third and fourth for different reasons, though Clinton's personal escapades detracted from my respect for him (though they were unrelated to his work as President for the most part), and I also think he was more corporatist than he appeared. He balanced the budget, but I am not sure he can take full credit for that, either. Both Obama and Clinton are also too centrist for my liking.

Johnson would beat out Clinton in my estimation based on his support of civil rights and education, except that I find Johnson's decision to fund the Vietnam War rather than the War on Poverty pretty disappointing and something of a sell-out. All of these have their flaws, they have all been human and imperfect. They all made mistakes.

But when you look at that job, how many different interests and crises have had to be addressed, how much opposition each of them dealt with, and how much they aged while in office (those who survived), I can't say I can see any president as a total flop. It's a position that takes a lot of strength, endurance and energy to pull off. I know I couldn't do it!

Be careful to distinguish the Office from the Man.

Jimmy Carter, the man (for example) is a poor specimen of a human being. He was also a poor President.

ruveyn

I would not go that far he was a ok president.

George Washington was an average military commander and decent president sanctified (or deified) by collective memory.

George Washington thoroughly rejected a chance to become a dictator or the first King of America. He scoffed at the notion of fighting to overthrow King George III only to become King George I. G.W. was heroic in his choice and a champion of the Order of Cincinatus. He laid down the sword and took up the pen and the plough.

ruveyn

And exactly how would he have taken power? With his ramshackles, half-trained, dwarf-size guerilla army, the main purpose of whose action was rejection of tyranny? with a British opponent which was more bored of the fight than soundly defeated looming over, waiting for the first sign of weakness to strike again? And why? To take over a system for which he had fought, like so many others? It wasn't heroic, it was plainly sensible. No other person would have taken power, for practical reasons of course, but also because there was no point in it. After all, for a member of the elite, an oligarchy is quite fine.

The comparison to Cincinatus is interesting, because the Roman dictator (in the original sense) was equally mythical.

The military men who fought with Washington and many of the soldiers who fought the war had not been paid the amount promised by Congress. There was a move to form a junta to rule the country. Washington put the kibosh on it pretty damned quick. They guys with the guns would have taken over the country if Washington had gone along (he didn't).

See http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/ ... 11896.html

ruveyn

Right, and lost it to a British invasion in 1786, coining on the internal squabbles following the completely counter-purpose move of Washington to prove the rest of the world the weakness of republican government -- with the help of the very many loyalists not yet gone or just recently moved North.

Oh, and on payment, how would he have payed them? Armies are very costly, even for rich tobacco planters, and I doubt anyone would have agreed to pay taxes his entirely illegal person when they refused them to the at first otherwise accepted king.

But as I said, apart the fact that there was no way it could have worked, there was no reason for him to do it. Besides the fact that most generals do not actually force coups every time they have the only army around (armies are easy to raise anyway), there is the fact that it was against the whole purpose of the rebellion, and no other person would have done otherwise. Bringing up Cincinatus is just a propaganda ploy -- and sucessful at that, he was raised to power a few years later.

It is interesting to note that the United States seem to like to elect victorious generals president (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower). It is, to my knowledge, relatively infrequent everywhere else, with the notable exception of France (though de Gaulle and Louis-Napoléon were rather politicians in army uniforms than generals become president, and they were not really victorious at anything).

I'm not American and he's waaay before my time, but, I'd have to agree with you as far as post-1945 goes. Actually they'd be my all-time favourites but admittedly there are many I don't know from previous eras.

I particularly like Ike. It doesn't seem to have been a very dramatic presidency, and so he often gets overlooked - but it's exactly why I like him. The guy simply did his job to the best of his ability, on the behalf of the people who chose him to do it.