Just curious...

[WannaWitness]

As many of you may be aware of by now, I am politically moderate (though pretty conservative when it comes to my personal lifestyle and theology views) -- the reason being is that I personally see morals lacking in all parties. Maybe in different ways, but they do lack.

Now, I have a question (and I sincerely hope I am not out of line in asking this). It's been eating away at me for quite some time, now. It's mainly for those of you here who are Republican (or at least lean toward being conservative politically), though I would like to hear from all sides. This is NOT intended for debate, but rather for satisfying my curiosity, and hearing different points of view.

What are your views of PAST Democrats (such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and perhaps Jimmy Carter) as compared with your views of more recent Democrats (from Bill Clinton onward)? I have heard some Republicans/conservatives express that they didn't think the Democrats of the past were quite as bad as the modern ones. However, I'm inclined to agree that this viewpoint is not shared among the entire world of political conservatives.

Note to moderators: If this thread is deemed unsuitable in any way, please feel free to move, lock, or delete it at your discretion. Please know that my intent is never to cause trouble, but merely to hear some insight on various issues.

Peace to all.

 

[BelindaP]

In what way are you talking about bad? In terms of their morality? Or what they did whilst in office?

 

[Lady Bug]

bumping because I have also wanted to know if Dems are the same as they were, say, 50 to 100 years ago.

(sorry I don't have an answer. I'm really curious about this myself)

 

[WannaWitness]

In what way are you talking about bad? In terms of their morality? Or what they did whilst in office?

Either one (or both, if you want). There are no "right" or "wrong" answers.

 

[BelindaP]

In terms of their personal morality, it is a mixed bag. It is well known that JFK slept around--a lot. His polar opposite would be Jimmy Carter, who is a very devout Baptist. I'm currently reading a book about FDR, and his personal faith is a bit more hazy. I think he was probably a typical mainstream Christian.

In terms of policies, that's a mixed bag, too. FDR was a pragmatist, and it was under his watch that 1000s of Jews were turned away from the US when Hitler was exterminating them. That was because he knew he couldn't let them in because of the rampant anti-semitism in congress at the time. However, he did his level best to help out the Jews when he could. There are even those who say he let the bombing of Pearl Harbor happen so that we could get into the war and stop Hitler.
The social programs he put into place saved literally millions of lives, because starvation was actually happening in the Great Depression. However, the policies of his administration probably did prolong the Great Depression. But again, he was a pragmatist and knew just how much he could push congress.

JFK was the one who got us involved in the Vietnam war, and he oversaw the granting of military contracts to corporations who were so corrupt that they literally didn't deliver weapons to our boys on the front lines. otoh, he stood firm during the Cuban missle crisis and made it very clear to the Soviet Union that America wasn't going to be a wuss. Again, he started many social policies to help out people who were struggling to get ahead. The Peace Corps did wonders for people overseas. Welfare was a good idea, but the way it was implemented destroyed families and got people onto the dole in such a way as it became generational for many. However, that was not something he had planned. Rather, he was trying to help people who needed a hand up in life.

Then, there's Jimmy Carter. He was one of the most ineffectual presidents with getting things through congress. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact he was so moral that he wouldn't make the kinds of dirty deals that one tends to have to do to get legislation passed. Even so, he had a huge committment to world peace. He was instrumental in bringing peace to a number of South American countries. That's something that almost never gets reported about him. He also directed the peace process by which Egypt made peace with Israel. There has never been a credible attack on Israel since then. [By credible, I mean one that actually threatened their status as a nation.]

 

[Cris413]

To be clear...I don't always equate every Democrat as being in line with the Liberal AGENDA...

...I personally feel there are some Dems that have quite a sincere heart to do what's right and good for the country...

I voted Dem....right up through both terms of Clinton...it was about half way through Clinton's second term....I went...hey...wait a minute....this isn't right...this isn't right at all...and nothing is being done that he said would get done....and I started looking into what was being done...and it certainly wasn't helping the poor and needy...but making things WORSE...for THEM too!

...and even after...I didn't place my vote simply on whether or not someone was DEM or REP...but the issues they did or did not support...their voting record and priorities and such...

...but yes...I think there has been a noticable shift in the DEM party platform seems to be pandering more and more to the extreme Left and further removed from the DEM party that I grew up with....which I've noted in some detail in other threads...

But more noticible...is the shift in the modern Liberal mindset....it's just simply gone extreme....and what used to be simply the left lunatic fringe is becoming more and more mainstream...and it's just freaky really.

Personally...I don't think the Dem Party today would have anything to do with JFK if he were alive today and running for office...his views would be considered MUCH to conservative.

I much prefer checks and balances between the two parties...I think things work best when the House and Senate are more balanced and I don't like to see one party have complete control over all.

Anyway...this is the first election I have ever voted straight ticket REP...as the balance of power in DC is wildly askewed....

....and again...not because I wanted McCain to win....but I did not want Obama in office....and not simply because he's a DEM...but because of his qualifications....or lack there of....his voting record....his ideologies...his values...his associations....basically I found his entire campaign platform alarming...

And just for the record....I'm not too happy with the REP Party at the mo either........and I am starting to become seriously at a loss how I'm going to place my vote next election if things keep going the way they are for politics in general...


And Jimmy Carter....good grief....he was absolutely worthless as President...as was Gerald Ford...

 

[Auntie]

I don't thik it's possible to put them all in one pot.
Some were worse, some were better.

I liked John Kennedy, I didn't like Carter or Johnson.
But they all had their crosses to bear, I think they all tried their best.
But, imo, Carter is/was a fruitloop. He listens to his conscience, so that's
good, but his conscience is so warped, he's lost all touch with reality.

 

[Nadiine]

The democrats I would consider voting for if we had a really
bad Republican alternative would be Lieberman (iffy)
and Zel Miller. (not that they're running).

Kennedy was 1 President that both parties respected -
"ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU
can do for your country".

This cancer of "progressivism" tears at the fundamental
principles that made this country prosper and grow.

Here's my take on the morality concern you have (which
I happen to agree w/ you)
It isn't about who individually has a moral problem - it's what
the party itself stands for or works against.
The Republican party SUPPORTS a higher moral standard
whether they are moral themselves or not. What I mean is,
they provide the climate for better morals rather than oppose
or work against them legislatively.

You can liken it to an individual Christian who's struggling w/ a
sin - I may sin and stumble in a certain sin, but it doesn't mean
I'm a wolf in sheeps clothing working AGAINST Christians and
Christian morals in opposition.
I'm FOR God and for His moral mandates & support them openly;
I'm just failing in 1 area on a personal level.


That's how I view these parties - one is more conducive to being
in favor of morality legislatively, while the other works to tear it
down thru gay marriage, passing embryonic stem cell research,
embracing illegal entry in the country (rewarding illegal activity)
hate crime legislation that brings us closer to persecution of Christians
speaking out against sexual sins,
he was working to rescind Bush's "right to conscience" act -
http://www.truthout.org/022709R
MANY complained about that one, so I don't know what's been done
with it at this point; I do know he was seeking to overturn it tho &
that's the point.
& Obama opened up the channels to further abortion/PBA availability
for women that was removed by Republicans.
Let's not forget this either:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=551240

Obama says June national LGBT pride month

From onenewsnow.com
======================================================
In a presidential proclamation on the White House website, Barack Obama has lauded what he calls "the determination and dedication" of the LGBT movement by proclaiming June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

"The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress," Obama states in the official proclamation, "but there is more to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect."​

Would republicans promote gay month? No.

See the difference here? One party works against Godly morals legislatively
as a party, the other (while failing individually on a personal scale), supports
these morals without attack. Democrats actually UNDO what republicans
had in place. (ie. literally opposing morality across the board)

That is why I view the left as I do. And this is why I ask why professing
Christians vote left when this party works against God's moral statutes -
(nevermind the welfare states they want to make where they steal from
the hard working & penalize them for it and so many other horrible things).

I see them in stark opposition to God's standards... then I also
look at the PEOPLE who support this leftism -
how supportive are they to Christians & the Christian gospel?
Entertainment/Hollywood? (who mock us every chance they get) the ACLU?

There's a pattern with them that is evident if anyone cares to
look past the lovely facade they paint.

Last point, the more freedom they claim to give, the more
freedom we lose - the means to attaining their "freedom" is
thru restriction. Hardly what I call free.

 

[Nadiine]

I don't thik it's possible to put them all in one pot.
Some were worse, some were better.

I liked John Kennedy, I didn't like Carter or Johnson.
But they all had their crosses to bear, I think they all tried their best.
But, imo, Carter is/was a fruitloop. He listens to his conscience, so that's
good, but his conscience is so warped, he's lost all touch with reality.

agree on the Carter mess.
oy. I remember hearing my parents yell at the TV when
while they watched the news of Carter's handling of the
Iran hostage crisis.

 

[JimfromOhio]

When discussing "moral", if you studied history, moral have been degrading in the past 200 years in America. This is due to depravity of man's sin. Politics cannot stop but they can try to control them.

Many of us have had this experience when we hear people say "Don't do as I do but do as I say". It is either you practice what you teach/preach or you don't. If the politicians can't control their own moral, why should the average unsaved Americans? Abraham Lincoln famously said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Within the broad field of God's sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good and evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way [but] as responsible beings, we must make our choice in the present moral situation." A.W. Tozer (1897-1963)

Rather than forcing moral standards, we are to set examples and allow God to change people's lives. Christians probably understand this principle as well or even better than the general population, since we believe that the Bible is correct in claiming that all people are sinners and have a tendency to be self-centered. It is hard for Christians to strive for and to legislate humanitarian values while at the same time refraining from advocating the enactment of specifically Christian values. As a "community", we all are to seek to live with everyone. Christians are involved in politics because they want their interests represented whenever new legislation is considered. Their primary concern is that they don't want to be forced to compromise their moral values due to politically-correct legislation. Christians are involved in the political process in the United States while at the same, Christians do NOT want to initiate any kind of religious theocracy. Christians just want their rights protected so that they are not required to participate in a society that can compromise their Christian moral values.

 

[heymikey80]

I see democrats -- well, politicians, really -- as being on a sliding scale. The culture slides, and democrats consistently fall to the left, republicans fall to the right. The culture has definitely been on a moral downhill slide since the early 1900's. While "tolerance" holds for correcting some major prejudice issues in the culture, it has done damage to many other cultural structures.

But if you're asking for political left / right, it's downright obvious. The culture has shifted left, and is accelerating. I think it's largely because most of the current voters have no experience of what is likely to come. All the talk about late 2008 being a bad economy is just that. Talk. There was no dearth of available goods. There was no walking through the grocery store to an aisle with no food.

I remember what I went through as a child. When people are still fawning over iPhones and aren't quietly asking one another where they can find food -- it's not a problem. It's a panic, but it's not an economic problem.

But the spending over the start of this year: unprecedented. Last time we vaulted into this much spending we didn't really recover for a decade. And that was when we had a healthy economy without much debt. =shudder=

Roosevelt was willing to try anything, in truly tough times. Now we're going way beyond Roosevelt, and I can still buy food from here & around the world at low prices. So that one's obvious.

Kennedy, protectionist. We don't seem to be protectionist any more, maybe because our import doors are forced open by our debt.

Johnson, social spending. We're all that and trillions more.

Carter, disorganized emotional leadership.

Clinton, social liberal, spending conservative, as far as "conservative" means you're only spending billions you have taxed so far, not trillions you haven't yet. Oh, I wish. Only half-bad.

The Congress controls the purse-strings. They only control it with a super-majority in the Senate. And they're all afraid of losing their jobs, so they'll spend to buy votes. It's easier than persuasion.

 

[Sketcher]

I always hear Hannity speak the world of Kennedy, but when I look at him, I see a TV star and the Cuban Missile Crisis - which may not have happened if he'd shown some guts earlier in his presidency. Johnson, IMO, was the worst President of the 20th century. Whether it was his massive spending or his getting us into Vietnam, he's done things that people on both sides of the fence can hate. That, and I think he was in on assassinating Kennedy. Roosevelt did some good things, but creating Social Security, much of the New Deal, and his threats to pack the Supreme Court were not among them. He was a good leader, but that's all I can really give him credit for. And Jimmy Carter - let's just say he should have skipped being president and gone straight in to Habitat for Humanity.

 

[Cris413]

It's interesting...I do remember (after I was a bit older....I was 3 when Kennedy was shot) comments about Kennedy and the concerns the Dems had because he was Catholic....and birth control was the up and coming issue....

...and back then abortion wasn't the killing field it is today....

....and gay marriage....wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye

again....Kennedy wouldn't run on the DEM ticket today....it's hard to understand that he and Teddy are even related

 

[WannaWitness]

As many of you may be aware of by now, I am politically moderate (though pretty conservative when it comes to my personal lifestyle and theology views) -- the reason being is that I personally see morals lacking in all parties. Maybe in different ways, but they do lack.

Now, I have a question (and I sincerely hope I am not out of line in asking this). It's been eating away at me for quite some time, now. It's mainly for those of you here who are Republican (or at least lean toward being conservative politically), though I would like to hear from all sides. This is NOT intended for debate, but rather for satisfying my curiosity, and hearing different points of view.

What are your views of PAST Democrats (such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and perhaps Jimmy Carter) as compared with your views of more recent Democrats (from Bill Clinton onward)? I have heard some Republicans/conservatives express that they didn't think the Democrats of the past were quite as bad as the modern ones. However, I'm inclined to agree that this viewpoint is not shared among the entire world of political conservatives.

Note to moderators: If this thread is deemed unsuitable in any way, please feel free to move, lock, or delete it at your discretion. Please know that my intent is never to cause trouble, but merely to hear some insight on various issues.

Peace to all.

Bumped for the sake of newcomers and to get more opinions.

 

[Albion]

It's probably safe to say that the average Democrat politician is more extreme, i.e. further to the Left, than his predecessors in the mid-20th century were. Beyond that, we'd have to compare specific people on all issues, which would be quite an undertaking.

 

[Faith.Man]

As many of you may be aware of by now, I am politically moderate (though pretty conservative when it comes to my personal lifestyle and theology views) -- the reason being is that I personally see morals lacking in all parties. Maybe in different ways, but they do lack.

Now, I have a question (and I sincerely hope I am not out of line in asking this). It's been eating away at me for quite some time, now. It's mainly for those of you here who are Republican (or at least lean toward being conservative politically), though I would like to hear from all sides. This is NOT intended for debate, but rather for satisfying my curiosity, and hearing different points of view.

What are your views of PAST Democrats (such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and perhaps Jimmy Carter) as compared with your views of more recent Democrats (from Bill Clinton onward)? I have heard some Republicans/conservatives express that they didn't think the Democrats of the past were quite as bad as the modern ones. However, I'm inclined to agree that this viewpoint is not shared among the entire world of political conservatives.

Note to moderators: If this thread is deemed unsuitable in any way, please feel free to move, lock, or delete it at your discretion. Please know that my intent is never to cause trouble, but merely to hear some insight on various issues.

Peace to all.

Good question.

Beginning with FDR, I was't around at the time but I have been reading a lot about him lately. A lot of his policies were geared to bringing a European style government to this country. He, a lot of advisors on his staff and close personal friends all leaned toward the leftist socialist agenda. There are many good books on FDR now. The one I am currently reading is "The Forgotten Man", but it is by no means the only one. A lot of our current fiscal policy is a rehash of the Keynesian economics which failed and extended the Great Depression. Now we're applying the same policies expecting a different result. This is the definition of insanity.

As for JFK, I was in parochial school at the time and we are liked him a lot. Looking at him from this side of history, he made some good decisions but one really bad one. Of course I'm referring to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Fortunately, he learned from his mistake and had the stones during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Compared to today's politicians, he'd be a moderate to conservative on most issues. I don't know how much he was involved with the Civil Rights Movement, but he deserves a lot of credit for getting the ball rolling.

As for Jimmy Carter, I am sorry to say I voted for him ... twice. But in my defense, I was a liberal back then and I basically voted for him on moral grounds. I believe he was a more moral man than Ronald Reagan. Boy was I wrong.

 

[Simon_Templar]

As many of you may be aware of by now, I am politically moderate (though pretty conservative when it comes to my personal lifestyle and theology views) -- the reason being is that I personally see morals lacking in all parties. Maybe in different ways, but they do lack.

Now, I have a question (and I sincerely hope I am not out of line in asking this). It's been eating away at me for quite some time, now. It's mainly for those of you here who are Republican (or at least lean toward being conservative politically), though I would like to hear from all sides. This is NOT intended for debate, but rather for satisfying my curiosity, and hearing different points of view.

What are your views of PAST Democrats (such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and perhaps Jimmy Carter) as compared with your views of more recent Democrats (from Bill Clinton onward)? I have heard some Republicans/conservatives express that they didn't think the Democrats of the past were quite as bad as the modern ones. However, I'm inclined to agree that this viewpoint is not shared among the entire world of political conservatives.

Note to moderators: If this thread is deemed unsuitable in any way, please feel free to move, lock, or delete it at your discretion. Please know that my intent is never to cause trouble, but merely to hear some insight on various issues.

Peace to all.

Hi

I would like to begin by saying I'm not a "party" man. I'm not a loyal republican etc. I generally vote republican because I think they most closely reflect my own views, but to be honest in most cases only very slightly more so than the democrats do.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the first two democratic presidents of the 20th century.

In my opinion they were both essentially facists. Many people use that word as an attack on anyone they disagree with but I mean to use it as simply an accurate description of the political policies of those two administrations.
If you were to ask for a purely moral assessment I would tend to think that both Wilson and FDR were probably a great deal more moral than most politicians today either democrat or republican.

However, the beginning of the 20th century was the birth period of facism and it was very popular in the US as well as in Europe. In the cases of both Wilson and FDR they implemented a number of policies that were very similar to the initial phases of facism in Italy and Germany.

Wilson's administration was probably what people would consider more classically fascist leaning, and her personally was more devoted to the ideas which are at the core of facism, specifically about the use of power etc.

FDR on the other hand also pursued fascist policies but he was more utilitarian than devoted to a specific ideology. However, his administration was almost entirely responsible for the birth of the modern welfare state in america. A feet he pulled off with complete disregard for legality and the constitution. He had no qualms about doing unconstitutional things so long as he thought they would work and he also had no qualms about stacking the courts with his own people in order to change interpetations of the constitution and essentially over come the consitition.

FDR's welfare programs, in the past, have been lauded and credited with ending the depression. In reality most economists now realize that FRD's programs didn't end the depression and in fact may have prolonged it. WWII and the accompanying industrial surge is what actually ended the depression.

FDR is also largely responsible for condemning most of eastern europe to a half century of communist oppression (because of his basically giving Stalin whatever he wanted at the Yalta conference).

He proved to be a relatively good leader in terms of leading the country through WWII, but he has also left a legacy that I consider to be extremely negative.

Truman, I really haven't studied enough to say much but on the surface I'd take him to any current day democrat and probably most current republicans.

John F Kennedy obviously had some moral issues involving women, but sadly thats rather mild for today's standards. I think he handled the Cuban Missle crisis well, but I also think he badly mishandled the bay of pigs (He should have either cancelled it completely or went all out. Letting it go forward but denying most of the support that was promised simply caused a slaughter of people that we promised to support).

Who knows what he would have done for good or for ill had he lived.

Carter... to be honest I think he was one of the worst presidents we ever had. I think he was pretty much incompetent. I suspect that he's pretty good morally, but virtually every time he has involved himself in foreign affairs it has been an unqualified disaster and his term in office was pretty much without question the low point of the US in the 20th century in almost every area of measure.

 

[Faith.Man]

One thing I should add about Kennedy, he was stuck with SEATO, the South East Asia Treaty Organization, which was signed while Eisenhower was President. In order to intervene in South East Asia, you needed unanimous assent by the member nations:

• 
  Australia
• 
  Bangladesh (as East Pakistan)
• 
  France
• 
  New Zealand
• 
  Pakistan
• 
  Philippines
• 
  Thailand
• 
  United Kingdom
• 
  United States

It was President Johnson who really ramped up the war. Despite being intended to provide a collective, anti-communist shield to Southeast Asia, SEATO was unable to intervene in the conflicts in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam because an intervention required a decision of unanimity, which was never reached; France and the Philippines objected. Intervention in the Vietnam conflict was sought again later, but France and Pakistan withheld support.

Unlike the NATO alliance, SEATO had no joint commands with standing forces. Also unlike NATO, an attack on one member was not automatically considered an attack on all. Consequently, each member could effectively block any or all collective SEATO action. Given the declining interest of France (after 1954) and the United Kingdom (after the end of the Indonesian-Malaysian conflict, in 1966) in Southeast Asia, SEATO failed to be effective as a collective security organization.

Because of the 1954 Accords settling the First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were not SEATO members. The United States sought, but failed, to make the Vietnam War into a SEATO collective defense problem.

Consequently, questions of dissolving the organization arose as early as 1973. Pakistan withdrew on November 7, 1973. and France withdrew on June 30, 1974. The organization formally ended in 1977.

 

[WannaWitness]

Bumping again, for the sake of newcomers (as I've been seeing a few new faces).

 

[Tunderz]

Carter? Complete loon - worst president in US history (imho), until now.
Roosevelt? President who probably did the most lasting damage to the US, until now.
Kennedy? Well, I respected him...
Clinton? "I did not have sex with that woman..." ..."depends on your definition of what "is" means." 'Nuff said.

Dunno, Kennedy was probably the only true Democrat of the lot - statesman whom both sides respected.

But ever since Woodrow Wilson - second most damaging president ever (third, now) - got the real leftist agenda inserted into the Democrat platform. Once called him a progressive - not the case - a true leftist. Succeeded by FDR, who to took the ball and ran with it for over 3 terms - and now our current prez, the most dangerous leftist of all.

Personally, I think we're all created somewhere left or right of center - like male and female, there is a place, and necessarily so for countering opinions/views. But leftism has inserted itself as a malignant cancer into this country, invading the Democrat party and taking it over. The adverse polarity we're seeing in the nation today is a natural response to any infection - an emergence of serious anti-leftism from the right to counter the infestation - something wholly foreign to the US until Woodrow Wilson opened the door to leftist influence, an insidious influence that has been growing ever since - infesting our schools and colleges, incrementally teaching one generation to the next until such a time as their influence allowed someone like our current prez and the Pelosi-Reid congress to literally thumb their noses at the American people and assume they could arrogantly usurp their power as their own.

Anyway, those are my thoughts...