Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

#34 Dwight D. Eisenhower Legacy

#34 Dwight D. Eisenhower's Legacy  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following Eisenhower decisions/events are positives for his legacy?

    • Unlike many Republicans, he supported much of the New Deal policies, and even increased Social Security
    • Created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
    • Opted to do nothing about "McCarthyism"
    • Signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, even though he personally didn't want to get involved with racial issues
    • Had the highest marginal tax rate in US history at 91%
    • Created the Interstate Highway System; although many thought it was unconstitutional
    • Ended active US involvement in the Korean War, "ending" the war in a stalemate that still continues today
    • Continued Cold War policies against worldwide Communism, including spying on Russia (U-2 Incident), and getting involved in French Indochina (Vietnam)
    • Overthrew the government in Guatemala.
    • Accepted Richard Nixon as his VP. Nixon is generally considered the first modern VP, since he is clearly the first to have extra-constitutional powers, similar to 20th century VPs.
    • Created the White House Chief of Staff
    • Created the National Security Advisor
    • Appointed a progressive Chief Justice in Earl Warren
    • Allowed three recessions to occur so that inflation would decrease. This strategy probably cost his party numerous seats in both houses of Congress
    • Saw a sharp rise in GNP.
    • Criminalized the joining of the Communist Party
    • Did not prevent the Communist takeover of Cuba
    • Operation Wetback -- an aggressive crackdown on illegal Mexican immigration
    • Used federal force to compel desegregation in the South
    • None of the above
      0
  2. 2. part 2 of the above

    • Started the modern Republican precedence of using the public acknowledgement of Christianity and faith as a personal guiding force for presidential governance, decreasing the separation of Church and State.
    • Did not help the Hungarians revolt against the Soviet Union
    • Influenced elections in several 3rd world countries throughout the globe
    • Used foreign aid as a means to bribe countries from turning Communist
    • Lost both Houses of Congress during his presidency
      0
    • Declined to really lead his party by mostly ignoring Congress members and veering from the party line, and refusing to bad mouth the other party.
    • Considered a time of domestic tranquility for the middle class
    • The country begins to strongly veer from an urban/rural dynamic to a urban/suburban dynamic, as more people move to the cities or close to them.
    • Was openly reluctant in supporting his own VP's campaign for president in 1960.
    • Signed legislation to regulate labor unions
    • Saw a major increase in unemployment from 2.9% to 7.5%
      0
    • Signed a Refugee Act allowing 200,000 refugees to enter the country
    • Alaska and Hawaii become US States
    • Defended Taiwan from China, despite not officially recognizing Taiwan
    • Blocked Israel, France and UK from invading Egypt during the Suez Crisis
    • Sent 15,000 troops into Lebanon to prevent a coup backed by Egypt
    • Established NASA in response to Sputnik
    • Tried to prevent nuclear proliferation, but was unsuccessful
    • Appointed William Brennan to the SC, who served for over three decades
    • None of the above
      0
  3. 3. In general, your opinion of Eisenhower is...



Recommended Posts

From now on, I'll put up a new presidential poll after 12 votes:

@Patine @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight

Here's the new poll, which will be used towards a forum ranking. 

All previous presidents have polls in this forum with the number of their presidency before their name.

Please take these polls if you have not done so already. 

If anyone needs clarification/definition of an event/decision, then I'll be glad to provide one. 

****NOTE: IF YOU COULD NOT TAKE THE JAMES BUCHANAN POLL, PLEASE LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS AND LET ME KNOW WHICH EVENTS/DECISIONS (IF ANY) YOU AGREE WITH AS WELL AS YOUR ANSWERS TO QUESTION 2 and 3. You can PM me. THANKS! (I need one more vote)**** 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@victor1313

I'm surprised you rated him positive when he seems to have mostly done things that you usually don't like presidents to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Did not prevent the Communist takeover of Cuba

This is the one unforgivable thing he did.  Ignoring the Monroe Doctrine and allowing a Soviet satellite in our backyard makes his legacy irredeemably negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eisenhower was the first president to ride in a helicopter.

Despite serving in the military for 35 years, including both world wars, Eisenhower never saw a single day of active combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pilight said:

This is the one unforgivable thing he did.  Ignoring the Monroe Doctrine and allowing a Soviet satellite in our backyard makes his legacy irredeemably negative.

this is great negative point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, victor1313 said:

this is great negative point

Meddling in Cuba would have been just as bad, if not worst. Batista was just as bad a bloody-handed, oppressive, nasty, corrupt tyrant as Castro ever was, he was just US-supported (and in the pocket of horrid Mafia casino interests). I wouldn't regard having stood up to keep Batista in power as a positive, myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion: I may like Ike, but it doesn't mean I like Dick.

17027a_lg.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was of voting age back in '52 or '56, odds are I would have voted for Ike. The man helped bring the GoP into backing NATO, so it isn't to be backed by just one party. This also helped secure an ideological shift within that party: they will- until Trump- embrace interventionism. This shift was one that came with a fight, the 1952 Republican primary. Robert Taft was Ike's biggest opponent, and he represented the conservative wing of the GoP. So much so, that his nickname was "Mr.Republican". Taft felt that the US should revert back to its roots of being non-interventionist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

If I was of voting age back in '52 or '56, odds are I would have voted for Ike. The man helped bring the GoP into backing NATO, so it isn't to be backed by just one party. This also helped secure an ideological shift within that party: they will- until Trump- embrace interventionism. This shift was one that came with a fight, the 1952 Republican primary. Robert Taft was Ike's biggest opponent, and he represented the conservative wing of the GoP. So much so, that his nickname was "Mr.Republican". Taft felt that the US should revert back to its roots of being non-interventionist. 

I would consider embracing interventionism outside the Western Hemisphere as another good reason to rate Eisenhower negatively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a philosophical view of what is the role of the US that determines if interventionism is good or not. While I lean to the left, I know NATO was a force to contain the authoritarian governments of the Soviet world. This goes back to my mixed emotions regarding Wilson- and possibly George W. Bush- is that we(myself, and those two former presidents) believe if given a fair chance, western style democracies can succeed. 

Though, what is funny is that, correct me if I'm wrong, that Taft received more votes than Ike in the primaries leading up to the final convention. Makes you wonder had every state did a primary who would have been the GoP nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I think it is a philosophical view of what is the role of the US that determines if interventionism is good or not. While I lean to the left, I know NATO was a force to contain the authoritarian governments of the Soviet world. This goes back to my mixed emotions regarding Wilson- and possibly George W. Bush- is that we(myself, and those two former presidents) believe if given a fair chance, western style democracies can succeed. 

Though, what is funny is that, correct me if I'm wrong, that Taft received more votes than Ike in the primaries leading up to the final convention. Makes you wonder had every state did a primary who would have been the GoP nominee.

Robert Taft never did that well in primaries. Eisenhower would have crushed him. Primaries have magnified personality over experience, ideology and all other qualities. The advantage of the primaries is that we get a choice, of sorts, but the drawback is that you get a candidate chosen from relatively uninformed people (obviously less informed than those in a Convention Hall). I approve of the primary system, but I wish there was a fair way to get sounder choices. If the 2016 election did not have a primary, Trump would get less than 100 votes, as would Bernie Sanders. We'd be seeing Clinton vs. Bush, or Clinton vs. Rubio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primaries are a disaster.  Candidates now have to appeal to the lowest common denominator of one side of the electorate to even get on the ballot. We had better candidates, better campaigns, and better presidents when the nominations were decided in smoke filled back rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

This goes back to my mixed emotions regarding Wilson- and possibly George W. Bush- is that we(myself, and those two former presidents) believe if given a fair chance, western style democracies can succeed. 

There's not much evidence to support the notion that they can be created by military intervention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm comfortable with a national primary day- no delegates- and instead of a first past the post ballot, we do a single transferable vote style ballot. Where we rank our choices from 1 to whatever the lowest possible number. Take my ballot from this primary as an example: 1) Martin O'Malley, 2) Bernie Sanders, 3) Hillary Clinton, 4) Jim Webb. 

In this scenario, if O'Malley failed to get the required number of votes(more than 50%), my ballot then goes to Bernie, and O'Malley is taken out of the running. And so on until there is a candidate with a majority of votes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Personally, I'm comfortable with a national primary day- no delegates- and instead of a first past the post ballot, we do a single transferable vote style ballot. Where we rank our choices from 1 to whatever the lowest possible number. Take my ballot from this primary as an example: 1) Martin O'Malley, 2) Bernie Sanders, 3) Hillary Clinton, 4) Jim Webb. 

In this scenario, if O'Malley failed to get the required number of votes(more than 50%), my ballot then goes to Bernie, and O'Malley is taken out of the running. And so on until there is a candidate with a majority of votes. 

 

I think all the primaries should be on the same day, and that all candidates that have declared themselves nominees must stay in the race. It bothers me that Iowa and New Hampshire get choices, but by the time primaries get to other states there really isn't anyone left, and there is less incentive to vote in the primary (although, I always vote out of principle). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primaries are mainly taxpayer supported advertisements for the larger parties.  It gives the impression that they are the only legitimate parties, and all the others that don't have government authorized primaries with results reported by the mainstream media are fringe lunatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pilight said:

Primaries are mainly taxpayer supported advertisements for the larger parties.  It gives the impression that they are the only legitimate parties, and all the others that don't have government authorized primaries with results reported by the mainstream media are fringe lunatics.

Some of the candidates in "main legitimate" party primaries are effectively fringe lunatics, other than getting to tromp around such primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎04‎-‎14 at 8:05 PM, vcczar said:

From now on, I'll put up a new presidential poll after 12 votes:

@Patine @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight

Here's the new poll, which will be used towards a forum ranking. 

All previous presidents have polls in this forum with the number of their presidency before their name.

Please take these polls if you have not done so already. 

If anyone needs clarification/definition of an event/decision, then I'll be glad to provide one. 

****NOTE: IF YOU COULD NOT TAKE THE JAMES BUCHANAN POLL, PLEASE LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS AND LET ME KNOW WHICH EVENTS/DECISIONS (IF ANY) YOU AGREE WITH AS WELL AS YOUR ANSWERS TO QUESTION 2 and 3. You can PM me. THANKS! (I need one more vote)**** 

I didn't check Alaska and Hawaii receiving statehood because I only really strongly support Alaskan statehood (despite the state having become a hard Republican political bastion nowadays. I still retain reservation with Hawaii even legally, morally, or defensibly being part of the US in any form. The "theft and fencing of a black market nation" with Sanford Dole and William McKinley is still not something I can get behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I didn't check Alaska and Hawaii receiving statehood because I only really strongly support Alaskan statehood (despite the state having become a hard Republican political bastion nowadays. I still retain reservation with Hawaii even legally, morally, or defensibly being part of the US in any form. The "theft and fencing of a black market nation" with Sanford Dole and William McKinley is still not something I can get behind.

Even though I also have personal reservations about Hawaii, it's still boosting his legacy to have been President when Hawaii and Alaska were incorporated into the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 10:53 PM, pilight said:

This is the one unforgivable thing he did.  Ignoring the Monroe Doctrine and allowing a Soviet satellite in our backyard makes his legacy irredeemably negative.

I don't consider that unforgivable. They weren't a danger, as Eisenhower knew that we had allies in their backyard as well (Turkey, Greece, Japan, South Korea), and wasn't willing to risk war over an island ruled by an evil, but not suicidal, dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

Even though I also have personal reservations about Hawaii, it's still boosting his legacy to have been President when Hawaii and Alaska were incorporated into the union.

The 48 star flag looked better, admit it, it's true. I say we merge the Dakotas, and the Virginias to bring it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LokiLoki22 said:

The 48 star flag looked better, admit it, it's true. I say we merge the Dakotas, and the Virginias to bring it back.

I'm particularly fond of the 44 star flag myself. Time to kick Hawaii and Alaska out too, merge the Carolinas, and merge Rhode Island into Mass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...