10

Which U.S. President would have shrugged?

Posted by $ Radio_Randy 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
71 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

With the race for President in full swing, there is a great deal of chatter about which former leader was good and which was bad for the country. A former President's name is thrown out there and all the negative comments begin to flow.

Okay, if we insist upon having these discussions, let's answer the question. Who, of our 44 previous Presidents, would John Galt have invited to the Gulch (if any) and why?

Keep in mind that every President, since Washington, has perpetuated some of a previous leaders policies, both good and bad.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 4 months ago
    Calvin Coolidge. He shrugged while in office.
    "Although he did eventually name Secretary Hoover to a commission in charge of flood relief, Coolidge's lack of interest in federal flood control has been criticized.[122] Coolidge did not believe that personally visiting the region after the floods would accomplish anything, but it would be seen only as political grandstanding. He also did not want to incur the federal spending that flood control would require; he believed property owners should bear much of the cost.[123] " -- Wikipedia.

    He also slept a lot while in office: 10 hours a night and two hours in the afternoon. That may have been a symptom of depression following the death of his son in 1924. -- http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/g30.htm
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 4 months ago
    My criteria for a good president would be that he is the type to do the right thing or nothing at all. I'd narrow it down to Washington, Reagan, Coolidge.
    Finally, Washington would be the man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
    My short list has George Washington and Calvin Coolidge. A case can be made for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and perhaps Reagan.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 4 months ago
    George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge...and quite probably Ronald Regan. It's likely that these creatures are not even aware of the first 3.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 4 years, 4 months ago
    No one placed in a position of such power would ever shrug.
    But after a president leaves office is an entirely different situation.
    And once you've served as president, you are called "Mr. President" for life. Just sayin'.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 4 months ago
    Didn't John Galt seek to lead? He was just as much an ideologue, and in fact, given his long-winded, impassioned speech, even more so than any President that's ever held office. I just wanted to make that point, since I see so many comments about how the desire to be POTUS is incompatible with the Gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 4 years, 4 months ago
    It seems ridiculous to think that Galt would have
    tried to recruit any government official. Govern-
    ment does not create business and move the coun-
    try,as an industrialist like Rearden does. Possib-
    ly he would have recruited a local deputy sheriff,
    or somebody like that, but any higher up? I
    don't think so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 4 months ago
      However...many (if not all) of our Founders were businessmen, in addition to being our leaders. Remember, this was the time before politicians made their offices their careers. Most times, when a politician left office, he had to go back to his old profession.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 4 years, 4 months ago
        But at the time they lived, the conditions to make
        such a strike necessary did not exist. More likely,
        Galt would have done like Nat Taggart, and been
        involved in his own private endeavors. (Or perhaps,
        a Harriet Tubman-like abolitionist).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 4 years, 4 months ago
          That is true...we hadn't, yet, entered the Industrial Revolution, so the question of which President(s) should have been limited to those elected after that period began.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 4 months ago
    I think the safe bet would be the citizen-leaders. John Adams, Andrew Jackson (barely-educated frontier lawyer), Teddy Roosevelt (was a cowboy in North Dakota), Herbert Hoover (a mining engineer - employed 175,000 and specialized in buying & fixing failed mining companies), Lincoln (only president to hold a patent I believe), Harding was a newspaper entrepreneur, James Madison ("The problem to be solved is, not what form of government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect." ), William Harrison ("But I contend that the strongest of all governments is that which is most free.").

    Teddy Roosevelt, after all, was actually the governor of New York, but he was added to the VP ticket to get him out of New York because the party didn't trust him to do their bidding... Seems to qualify to me. After the presidency, he went on to hunt big game in Africa, volunteered for the war, etc.

    A natural icon is Reagan, but he was actually a strong member of the political machine prior to his presidency, and was the president of the screen actor's guild, etc. He was also heavily in the pocket of California business when governor (famously arguing that a packet of ketchup met the state's requirement for a piece of fruit in school lunches).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 4 years, 4 months ago
    The problem I see is that we tend to judge earlier era decisions by contemporary values. Slavery is wrong in the "land of the free". However, is there much difference from the never-ending indentured servitude? Each past President tried to live up to the ideals of the era that they lived. Growing up in the '70s, I could never envision a society that we have today, just as much as most people of the '50's and '60's thought Ayn Rand was ridiculous when she wrote AS. It's as futile as asking if the '74 Steelers could beat the '85 Bears..

    Just my opinion..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
    I'd content any of the first 3-4 may have...but overall I think none would - each, save may be Washington, wanted to lead, to steer the nation for one reason or another. Shrug, to me, means seeing the creeping life draining futility of collectivism and wanting to escape to do your own thing; generally not something I would associate with a POTUS..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 4 months ago
      Thank you...I was afraid my question might not have been worded the best way it could have been. You are correct that the position of POTUS would indicate a desire to remain and lead...not to abandon mankind to his own devices.

      I should simply have asked which President J.G. would have tried to save and left it at that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
        If thats the question the I would answer for sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Perhaps, but I can't be sure, J.Q. Adams. and Jackson.

        Absolutely no contemporary president - not even Reagan.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
          Jefferson was deeply philosophically flawed with his hundreds of slaves so HE could have HIS plantation cheaply. To help with individual rights when it came to HIS finances
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by teri-amborn 4 years, 4 months ago
            At that particular place and time, there was no other way to run a plantation.
            Mechanized farming would soon change the landscape of agriculture and make the Civil War unnecessary.

            Too bad that Lincoln wasn't much too see things "big picture". We could use the sperm bank lost to that war.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
              I visited Jefferson's house last month. Was a real eye opener. I don't accept the idea there was no other way to run a plantation. If he freed his slaves most would have stayed right there for safety reasons.

              I could make the same argument that I need slaves in my business to compete with Chinese workers and make more money.

              There was no excuse for the civil war. The southern states just wanted OUT. The North had to beat them into submission and invade them. Our history is pretty sordid really. Obama is just one of a long line of ststists
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by teri-amborn 4 years, 4 months ago
                You are correct that the slaves would have stayed and also that there was no call for the Civil War.
                My ancestors WERE the Underground Railroad and they were literally taking their lives into their own hands because of the slave situation and the attitudes of the southern slaveholders.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 4 months ago
                  You're assuming that Lincoln and the rest had a clear view of what was happening to the country. Remember, industrialization didn't take off until after the civil war. I'm sure Lincoln, et al, couldn't see the big picture, certainly not the outcome of economies of scale. That's like expecting Sanders and Clinton (and even Trump) to understand that technology is shrinking economies of scale, which means that the jobs are NEVER coming back. The point is, NEVER trust a politician with your future.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by teri-amborn 4 years, 4 months ago
                    Actually, the cotton gin was invented in 1799, John Deere invented the first tractor in 1845 and the locomotive and steam power were available before the Civil War so technically, industrialization had begun...the impact and growth of it followed the war...
                    But yes, politicians don't have a real-world grasp except on the floating abstraction of money without ownership.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Raw human nature isnt really that far different from that of the lions on the african plain- especially when we humans dont think the try to take advantage of ways to effectively get along and cooperate (like trying objectivist principles...).

                  I would have had a great plantation by freeing my slaves. I bet their production would have doubled and I would have made money even after paying them.

                  My neighbors probably would have stoned ME for doing it though. I would have been a traitor in their eyes, trying to spoil the deal they had.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 4 months ago
      No, no slave-owners would be allowed in the Gulch. Free your slaves first, then we can talk about your role here...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
        Silly criteria.

        Slavery at that time was a matter of economics more than oppression.Industrialism would have done away with slavery with little bloodshed.

        Besides, who/what makes you the arbiter of who does or doesn't enter the Gulch? Aren't you assuming a leadership role, enslaving others in the Gulch by imposing your rules and criteria to act on behalf of the group?

        Yes, I'm being difficult. But individuals, particularly in the Gulch, do not require others to make rules for them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 4 months ago
          I'm sorry AJ, but any man who does not respect liberty would not be asked by John Galt to come to the Gulch. That should be self-evident. No excuses.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
            No need to apologize. I was thinking we were talking about a potential reality.Just who would John Galt be in reality to ask or not to ask? Why would that specific individual be elevated as gate keeper?

            Its my contention, given a different time to exist in, that those Presidents would be the most likely to appreciate and applaud the absence of slavery AND thrive in a gulch-like environment using their own ability to find happiness.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 4 months ago
          I retract my reply. You opened the question: Of the 44 U.S. Presidents, whom would John Galt have invited to the Gulch? In that context, perhaps Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or some others might have been induced to walk away from everything. The question of slavery would be independent of that. Leaving it all and going off into the wilderness would have erased the discussion.

          In addition to leaving behind his slaves, Jefferson, in particular, would have left behind a pile of debts. He was a poor financial manager and often over-extended his credit. That would be different from Hank Rearden or Midas Mulligan. Jefferson was not a producer. Perhaps his bright ideas would been his admission ticket. But he was not alone in those.

          As for the personal attack - that I am not the arbiter who decides for everyone, imposing my will on the group - that was both ingenuous and illogical. You offered the question. Anyone who answered would be the final judge by their own standards. One can argue the standards. One cannot argue the authority: it was granted in the question.

          And I stand by my beliefs: they all knew that slavery was morally wrong. They all were making a pragmatic compromise. Moreover, slavery was not economically sustainable until after the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was a social fact. It was not an economic imperative. I will have more to say about that in a separate post on that subject.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
            I didn't intend for the statement to be taken personally, Mike. The illustration would have been the same no matter who made the comment. If I slighted you I do apologize.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 4 months ago
          Many people of those times were opposed to slavery on moral grounds, among them both the Jesuits and the Quakers. I am not issuing a mandate, although it is my view. Perhaps, I should have made that subjunctive or put it in quotes as from a hypothetical Galt.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
            True, a great many were opposed by the economics of the matter, particularly in the agricultural South, prevented an all out ban in the Constitution (simply to achieve ratification).

            I in no way condone slavery but to judge people back then by todays moral standards is just wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Stormi 4 years, 4 months ago
              I agree, it is hard to judge them by today's standards. What was going through their heads? Did you worry what would happen if they were all suddenly free with no means to support themselves and their families? Some would not have left.
              Today, I have a friend I do not understand. She voted for Obama, saying "better a benevolent dictator" - crazy. But this white lady chose slavery. So too do so many of our college student liberals, reaching for socialism with both hands. I think AS showed us freedom and reason are hard, but some of us know it is worth the struggle. How will history record this era, will Obama be seen as a slave master?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 4 years, 4 months ago
                The only slaves that the USA has had in the last century were in the draft armies and mental hospitals of the past along with isolated instances of husbands or wives keeping the person they marry captive by force along with other isolated cases. In last centuries, since the enlightenment, those who might want to be moral decided that the beliefs of before needed to be more rational and that conscious choice was a necessary condition for morality. I see that The Brights are turning away from that by trying to find morality naturally built into humans and to any animal that shows what might be a form of altruistic behavior. Morality is not naturalistic in the sense of being built in at birth and has to be discovered and today that is being forgotten as more and more people turn to so called moral pronouncements of religious leaders. Morality stops when thinking blanks out and goes automatic.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 4 months ago
                It is not hard to judge them as many people new it was wrong back then. Moral standards are always the same no mater what time period you live in. Evil is evil.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Stormi 4 years, 4 months ago
                  I try not to use "Evil", unless I have proof of deliberate attempt at harm. Is not Obama in that category, the way he deliberately enslaves blacks via free (we pay for them) Obamaphones, and empty promises for his own power? Was slavery in fact really any worse than black families and neighborhoods being destroyed and the next generation enslaved to the entitlement ideology, and seeking to kill each other in the quest for things to which they feel entitled, from drugs to tennis shoes? Are not the people of socialist coutries really slaves to powerful dictators? Would Hillary not join them as the one who would take private property rights, parental rights, and Constitutional rights and make us all slaves? We get hung up on slavery in another era, but it has morphed into the present times unrecognized. Yet, why is no one condemned and judged for it in its current incarnation?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 4 months ago
              Read the Constitution. They set in place the end of slavery by forbidding the import of slaves twenty years in their future. In fact, Congress pass the required legislation at the beginning of that 20th year, not the end. They could not wait to end slavery, most of them. The committed slave-owners fought for another 40 years to hold on to their ill-gotten gains.

              Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 4 months ago
              Again, AJ, I disagree. Moral standards are eternal. Enslaving men is wrong no matter if it is in the past, present, or future. A is A. Many people understood this back then so there is just no excuse for those who captured these men in there own homeland and brought them to the US under horrible conditions and then continued to treat them as sub-humans. It was clear back then that it was wrong and it is clear now.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
                We'll have to agree to disagree. Morality changes...look at today compared to 20-30 years ago. Based on their writings I doubt, with economics out of the picture, that they would have supported slavery or owned slaves.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 4 months ago
                  What is right and what is wrong never changes. They are constants. Excuses and evasions of the truth also never change.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
                    I firmly believe this too ( I have a belief in a God, after all). Still, slavery has been something mankind has used since the dawn of time. It was commonplace to many societies throughout the millennia. Before machines, manpower was the only way to get large things (agriculture, construction) done and slavery was less expensive and more productive than constantly hiring help.

                    No matter, its all speculation. Depending on who the gate keeper is at the Gulch, I suspect I'd be turned away.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
              But how could Jefferson wrote all that stuff about men being created equal, yet keep hundreds of slaves so HE could have a big plantation. Forget the constitution for the moment. This was HIS plantation. He could have freed them but allowed them to live and work on the plantation
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
                In his day and prior people saw slavery as nothing more than a tool used to get work done. Running a plantation required labor. Slavery was labor.

                It obvious because he "wrote all that stuff" that there was a personal compromise between his financial necessity and his personal philosophical leanings. Why should the people of his day be any different than those today.

                Despite what many people here contend, and often insult, those who have objectivit idea can and do also believe in God; little difference.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Its just difficult for me to understand people who "believe" anything. Beliefs are the antithesis of reality, especially when they are encoded in a book theoretically written by humans thousands of years ago.

                  If you think, after considering evidence, that there is some sort of supreme being ("god"), I have no problem with that. However there are hundreds of "gods" that people have sworn allegiance to over the ages- and many religions have sprung up that attract "believers". So which "god" is the real one??
                  I remember Bush saying 'god is on our side" when he invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein also said the same thing "god is on OUR side". This battle of the gods seems to me irrational.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
                    It takes all kinds. Personally, I find it disturbing to believe only in what you can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. It's an arrogant assertion that we, as a microscopic speck in the universe, know everything there is to know about reality, no?

                    In fairness, this could my authors mind talking.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
                      I dont think that I (or we in general) know everything, but does that necessarily mean there has to be some sort of a creature out there that is all powerful, omniscent, and made everything?

                      I know the "idea" of this is appealing to many people, but how could one ever choose among all the versions of the resulting "gods" to pick the real one? If one didnt pick the "true" god, wouldnt that just be believing in potential nonsense?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 4 months ago
                        I do not think that man (humanity) is a random concoction of chemicals that just happened to connect countless times over countless years to reach what we are today. I think there is a certain symmetrical in all things great and small which lead to something greater. I believe we are engineered/created.

                        As far as choosing, anything that happens has a hundred interpretations, some quite similar and some wildly different. Passing any information down through the grapevine over several millennium is bound to account for variance. I would suspect that the religions are no different. I also suspect that some have concocted belief structures that mimic those made by religion simply to excuse their behavior, unify people around themselves, and assert power over others.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
                          Its a big stretch though from thinking that there is some sort of order leading the way our world works- to the very strange beliefs of the catholic church and the pope (who is definitely a socialist). And then there is the idea of a benevolent "god" who does all good things for us, and a "devil" who does all the bad things for us (or to us). Then there is the idea that once we die we go to some place like "heaven" or "hell" depending on how much subjective "bad" you have done in your life. Its all a bit mystical to me. Not to mention the idea that some "gods" encourage killing the "infidels" (Islam), and others really get into whether homosexuality and polygamy are to be permitted.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 4 months ago
        Clearly, slaves and slave owners wouldn't be allowed in the Gulch. However, constantly berating those folks for an institution that they were born into (for THOUSANDS of years) is denigrating their achievement, viz., laying the groundwork for the ending of slavery. Just note that England and the US were the FIRST countries in HISTORY that outlawed slavery. England even backed up its commitment with the Royal Navy. Given that that was a complete, 180 degree turn from ALL of history makes their accomplishment nearly miraculous, in spite of their failings.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo