Unluckiest U.S. politicians

[Mechaman]

A few more come to mind.

[Mechaman]

I know this is months later, but I just have to comment now considering the bastardization of history in AdamFitzgerald's posts that are just bizarre beyond all intentions.  I mean yeah, I look at the poster name I guess I shouldn't be so shocked to see such an utter extreme distortion of reality, but there is just so much wrong with this post I have to comment.
And again, considering the source, I must say it's absolutely impressive how much wrong it is compared to the normal post.

Let's give some credit where credit is due.  You (AdamFitzgerald) at least acknowledges that Wilson has a "pacifist, but pro-Allies, policy".  However, while this does recognize the basic fact that said policy was indeed biased, I question the bias of someone who uses "pacifist" instead of "neutral" in regards to World War I.  A foreign policy is not by any means "pacifist" if it includes such blatant favoritism towards any side during such a violent conflict.  Then again, I think it would be even dishonest to categorize it as "neutral", even though that is what the establishment media sold it as at the time.

I could go on and on about the sham neutrality referenced by Ernest, but that's a topic for another day.  There is plenty of debatable points that could be made on both sides and I don't really consider the biased position of the aforementioned poster to be that shameful of an aberration of history to comment at length about.  Though I disagree, fundamentally, on what he views as the facts of the matter this is an issue that could be viewed in many different ways and I shall respect his opinion on it and will address it later as need be or demanded by another poster.  Unfortunately the character length is 11000 characters, so I will condense as need be.

What I can't put up with, what I can't respect, what is really grinding my gears is the utter insanity that is the rest of his post which seems to blame the victims of the Wilson regime for his problems.  That the victims of his repressive borderline tyrannical second term just hated him for no reason and that Wilson and crew did little to deserve such resentment.  German Americans were subjected to a period of intense discrimination and bigotry that warmongers, prohibitionists, and a wide assortment of other "noble" characters waged against an entire culture of America that included Prohibition, job discrimination, language restrictions in education, and again a wide variety of other prejudices.  South and Eastern European minorities, demonized as wholesale blood thirsty communistic anarchists, saw draconian actions taken against them as well that was by no means discouraged by the enlightened progressive Woodrow Wilson.  What you, good sir have done, is no different from KKK members who say that blacks deserved segregation.

Also further, I need to address the hypocrisy of Wilson in pursuing pro-British foreign policy.  When Wilson got us into World War I he made a guarantee to the Irish American community that he would bring up Irish Independence at any possible post war conference.  Now I know this is hard to comprehend for many of you, given that American history is written for and by the people who have no interest in sharing the story of the Irish, but British rule in that country while it wasn't Nazi rule or even Imperial German rule (who waged a number of genocides against African tribes), it was far from the enlightened freedomdonia that many Brittitania wonkers want you to believe.  British rule, up to the early 20th century, disenfranchised large portions of the native Irish population (especially unlanded Catholics) to the point that most political decisions made in Ireland were that on the whims of a small Anglican elite (some Irish, some English) that had every reason to support policies that further filled their coffers off of the labor of the poor and the oppressed of that country.  I do not see how anybody who claims to have a solid ideological ground based in social justice or equality or democracy could find a moral superiority to lending arms to a British Empire that enabled such a society to arise in Ireland that should go against any decent American sense of liberty and fairness.
And of course, this is without touching on the massive amounts of other injustices the British committed around the world at the time.  Hell, at least some of the Irish did have voting rights and they were recognized as British citizens.  You could not say the same about Africans or Indians, who did not enjoy any sort of real democracy rights or a say in how they were represented in the colonies.  That Wilson was so in favor of such an Empire while lamenting the horribleness of German Empire (which granted, was pretty goddamn awful) shows that he has a certain failure of morals in regards to his consistency of standing up for the oppressed and small nations of the world.  There weren't just two sides to it, believe it or not there was a clear third option in this conflict, one that made the most sense.  And that was, simply, to stay the hell out of it!
The League of Nations, as most objective observers would say, was a good idea.  Unfortunately, due to the mental malaise of Wilson as well as the bias of the WINNING! Allied representatives, it really turned into little more than an arrangement where the losers had to give up everything while the winners lost nothing.  Oppressed nations were given freedom, as long as that didn't inconvenience Allied Imperialists.  So yes, very good and well meaning in theory, in practice though it was quite horrible (especially given the implications of the "responsibility" of nations to intervene in conflicts of other nations).

I do not hesitate when I say that Woodrow Wilson's anti-civil liberties (and civil rights, if you consider his re-segregating of the US Federal Government) record exceeds that of George W Bush by a country mile and that he rivals Richard Nixon in terms of the extremism of his paranoia.  This isn't some Koch brothers Murray Rothbard Lew Rockwellerite libertarian view to have, it's objective history.  All of this might've been excusable if he had operated like he had up to 1919, but the appointment of A. Mitchell Palmer as Attorney General easily makes Wilson one of the worst leaders in western history.  But of course, many other red avatars will recognize his paranoia, his racism, and his imperialistic hypocrisy regarding Britain as just minor negatives compared to OMG PASSING THE INCOME TAX AMENDMENT, DIRECT ELECTIONS OF SENATORS, AND FEDERAL RESERVE OMG!!!!!!!!  Despite the fact that, as the esteemed moderator who has also addressed this before countless times, we would've had those things if Roosevelt or even Taft was elected.  And while he did sign Women's Voting Rights, I should note that many of the Republican opposition also supported it and that Wilson was practically harassed into signing it.  I won't even get started on Prohibition, which I think even you (though this is somewhat doubtful, given your posting history) would've been opposed to.

But oh, how dare us!  Wilson was just a poor bullied man who was dealing with a lot of haters!

Two years from now you are going to realize how dumb your first post was, most likely.  Or you'll become Benconstine.

If anybody was unlucky, it wasn't Wilson, it was America.