Do you think Dwight Eisenhower was a good President?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I agree with WalterMitty and Tammany Hall Republican.

Eisenhower was a good President, but not a great President. Eisenhower got the federal highway act passed and he led a stable economy.

But on the downside, he was a lackluster President. But, it was not his fault for some part, the congress was very democratic beginning in early 1955 and to the end of his term. Eisenhower put forth good legislation, but it failed to come forth because of the congress.

I believe that eh could have been a near great President, had it not been for the democratic congress. Thank you.

Tell me, Gporter, have you read Master of the Senate?  If you had, then you know that LBJ and Rayburn bent over backwards to work with Eisenhower, and they passed everything he asked for.  Hack!

As a matter of fact I have. Do not under estimate me.

But, if the republicans had controlled congress, then Eisenhower would not have had to worked with congress quite as hard. He would have gotten bills passed eaisly.

If you knew politics, you would know that a republican president can work eaiser with a republican congress, then a GOP president can with a democratic congress even if they are able to work with them. You must have not understood politics to ask a politically dumb question.

As a matter of fact, he would have needed to work just as hard, because of the fillibuster.  You fail to understand that the people who held the power in the Senate in the 1950's were the Dixiecrats like Richard B. Russell of George, James Eastland of Mississippi, Walter George of Georgia, and others just like them.  No Republican had any power comparable to these men.

[dead0man]

overall, meh

He pushed and signed the interstate system (mostly good) and he signed some of the first, modern Civil Rights legislation (good).

On the other hand he put Warren on the bench, he put troops in the Middle East to protect "our" oil from the commies and he made the Federal govt even bigger by expanding many of the New Deal programs and starting some of his own.

[minionofmidas]

Better than many, worse than many. Certainly not "good", not with that crazy at State. But far worse would have been quite possible.

[Maxwell]

He was a fairly good president, which means he's one of the best presidents in the last century.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes, but why did this have to be bumped?

[Donerail]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

[Donerail]

Iranian democracy.

[TNF]

Eisenhower was certainly one of the better presidents on foreign policy issues during the Cold War - his "New Look" calmed down tensions with the Soviet Union significantly and made the 1950s not the decade of the Third World War.

Of course, he also made some missteps there. The Dulles brothers pretty much created a lot of the problems the United States would face down later in the Cold War in meddling in Iran and in Latin America. Treating every third world populist leader as if he were a communist was a huge mistake, and made it literally impossible for the United States to form working relationships with anyone in those countries except for the psychotic military despots and far-right fringes. I do think Ike did the right thing with regard to the Suez Canal, and he handled the Hungarian uprising in a way that also prevented us all from not being born.

He completely mismanaged the economy, presiding over two separate recessions during his term in office. Plus he signed the absolutely awful Landrum-Griffin Act, failed to speak out against McCarthy (he just kind of waited around for the Senate to do anything about that) and completely dragged his feet on Civil Rights, largely because he was uninterested in doing anything on that front as President. When push came to shove, yes, he did send in federal troops, but he waited far too long and let the situation get completely out of hand.

He also gets some negative marks for openly courting the segregationist vote, a first for a Republican candidate.

I wouldn't have voted for him in '52 or '56, but on the whole, I'd say he did a decent job as President. Certainly the best Republican president of the 20th Century, IMO.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Eisenhower was certainly one of the better presidents on foreign policy issues during the Cold War - his "New Look" calmed down tensions with the Soviet Union significantly and made the 1950s not the decade of the Third World War.

Eisenhower should get credit for his handling of the Suez Crisis, avoiding dangerous chain of events that could very well have lead to WWIII.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I agree with WalterMitty and Tammany Hall Republican.

Eisenhower was a good President, but not a great President. Eisenhower got the federal highway act passed and he led a stable economy.

But on the downside, he was a lackluster President. But, it was not his fault for some part, the congress was very democratic beginning in early 1955 and to the end of his term. Eisenhower put forth good legislation, but it failed to come forth because of the congress.

I believe that eh could have been a near great President, had it not been for the democratic congress. Thank you.

Tell me, Gporter, have you read Master of the Senate?  If you had, then you know that LBJ and Rayburn bent over backwards to work with Eisenhower, and they passed everything he asked for.  Hack!

As a matter of fact I have. Do not under estimate me.

But, if the republicans had controlled congress, then Eisenhower would not have had to worked with congress quite as hard. He would have gotten bills passed eaisly.

If you knew politics, you would know that a republican president can work eaiser with a republican congress, then a GOP president can with a democratic congress even if they are able to work with them. You must have not understood politics to ask a politically dumb question.

Yes.  Just as a Democratic president works easier with a Democratic Congress than a Republican one (Clinton being an exception).  

Ike was definitely a good president.  I would put him in the top 10.  And I reject the notion that he "dragged his feet" on civil rights.  Truman may have issued an executive order integrating the military, but it was never enforced until Eisenhower took office.  Remember, too, his sending of federal marshals to Little Rock Central.  He also appointed Earl Warren, the Chief Justice who presided over Brown v. Board.  He pushed for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 as well.  He receives too little credit from overwhelmingly liberal historians because he was a Republican, and as such, Truman, JFK, and LBJ also receive too much credit because they were Democrats.  
On the foreign policy front, Ike was even better.  He certainly stood up to the Soviet Union they way he should have.  His experience as a general and the fact that he was primarily a military man probably helped there.
His presicency was certainly not without its flaws (the economic recessions, U2, etc.), but over all it was a time of relative peace and economic prosperity.  Of course, he wasn't entirely responsible for that (much like Clinton in the 90s), but he wasn't entirely responsible for the recessions either.  In all, he is one of my favorite presidents, if not my very favorite.  I certainly would have voted for him both times he ran.

He also gets some negative marks for openly courting the segregationist vote, a first for a Republican candidate.

I have never heard this charge, and I don't know how he did that.  The Democrats nominated a known racist (Adlai Stevenson) to run against him twice, and the first time around, in 1952, they also nominated a segregationist (John Sparkman) for vice president.  Not exactly smart to court segregationists with those kind of candidates running against you (much like Nixon against Wallace in 1968).  
And remember, when Eisenhower ran for reelection in 1956, the Republican platform came out in support of the Brown decision, but the Democratic platform did not.

[Peter the Lefty]

Imperialist warmonger who destroyed Iranian democracy for oil.

[Blue3]

Eisenhower usually ranks around 5th or 6th as the greatest president the United States ever had.

Which says more about the rest of America's presidents, than Eisenhower itself, I think.

But while Eisenhower definitely made mistakes, overall he was a very good president who tried to build consensus across parties. He supported change, including Civil Rights, but he wanted to move slowly so a consensus would be built and the issue didn't become divisive. I wish we had more Republicans like him today.

[Simfan34]

Imperialist warmonger who destroyed Iranian democracy for oil.

Oh shut up. The lot of you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Imperialist warmonger who destroyed Iranian democracy for oil.

Oh shut up. The lot of you.

Eisenhower['s CIA] did in fact do that, regardless of whether or not one thinks it was a good idea.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Eisenhower usually ranks around 5th or 6th as the greatest president the United States ever had.

Which says more about the rest of America's presidents, than Eisenhower itself, I think.

But while Eisenhower definitely made mistakes, overall he was a very good president who tried to build consensus across parties. He supported change, including Civil Rights, but he wanted to move slowly so a consensus would be built and the issue didn't become divisive. I wish we had more Republicans like him today.

Thank you so much for giving us a breath of fresh air on this issue!

[Simfan34]

Imperialist warmonger who destroyed Iranian democracy for oil.

Oh shut up. The lot of you.

Eisenhower['s CIA] did in fact do that, regardless of whether or not one thinks it was a good idea.

Operation Ajax can be summarized as "Kermit Roosevelt spreads some money around to hire some weightlifters to act thuggish and say bad things about Mossadegh so he resigns." It's a joke. There was little resistance to the "coup". Mossadegh didn't try to stay in power and crush the it. Mossadegh had popularity, but the people against him were many, and at the time the coup didn't seem to generate much popular opposition. It was only much later in the 1970s as the new intellectual class was attempting to get political power that the Mossadegh era was seen as some kind of golden era where democracy was nipped in the bud by the "evil CIA". It was a myth.

Mossadegh was a secularist who had said some nice things about democracy, but his actions did not support his words. At the end of his term, he was ruling by decree and accumulating more and more power to himself. He was resisting the Shah's dismissal and indeed trying to overthrow the Shah by the end of the whole thing.

He was a charismatic demagogue, and was doing nothing to further the rule of law. Instead, the picture is of Mossadegh doing very little to build democracy (indeed dissolving the legislature), that there was widespread opposition to Mossadegh, that his own actions prevented an end to the crisis, that Iran was becoming dangerously unstable. There was very little complaint about the countercoup after it was done because the country became stable again (again, nostalgia for Mossadegh would grow and eventually become a major factor in the mid seventies, and that Mossadegh lived afterwards (albeit under house arrest).

We see this in other figures in history like Porforio Diaz in Mexico, leaders initially sympathetic to democracy, who accrue absolute power, neuter the legislature, and always seem to think that people "are not ready" for democracy.

Personally, I don't see Mossadegh as a real democratic figure. He certainly wasn't a good leader and positioned Iran in a very dangerous position. Mossadegh made a good myth though, but just that middle class Iranians in the 1970s believed the myth was true doesn't make it so.

[Simfan34]

And of course, I am right.

Two great leaders.

[Donerail]

Operation Ajax can be summarized as "Kermit Roosevelt spreads some money around to hire some weightlifters to act thuggish and say bad things about Mossadegh so he resigns." It's a joke. There was little resistance to the "coup". Mossadegh didn't try to stay in power and crush the it. Mossadegh had popularity, but the people against him were many, and at the time the coup didn't seem to generate much popular opposition. It was only much later in the 1970s as the new intellectual class was attempting to get political power that the Mossadegh era was seen as some kind of golden era where democracy was nipped in the bud by the "evil CIA". It was a myth.

Ajax involved Roosevelt paying thugs to create violent clashes in the street and loot/burn mosques & newspapers, with troops storming the capital and attacking the prime minister's residence on Roosevelt's signal. Mossadegh did try to stay in power; he surrendered because there were tanks firing on his house. Mossadegh had the popular support, more support than the Shah (otherwise why did the Shah flee to Rome?)

Mossadegh was a secularist who had said some nice things about democracy, but his actions did not support his words. At the end of his term, he was ruling by decree and accumulating more and more power to himself. He was resisting the Shah's dismissal and indeed trying to overthrow the Shah by the end of the whole thing.

What's wrong with that? As for his rule by decree, he strengthened democracy by his decrees, limiting the powers of the monarchy and weakening the aristocracy. In a battle between two forces, his was unarguably the more democratic, but more importantly, there was a vote to dissolve Parliament, which passed.

He was a charismatic demagogue, and was doing nothing to further the rule of law. Instead, the picture is of Mossadegh doing very little to build democracy (indeed dissolving the legislature), that there was widespread opposition to Mossadegh, that his own actions prevented an end to the crisis, that Iran was becoming dangerously unstable. There was very little complaint about the countercoup after it was done because the country became stable again (again, nostalgia for Mossadegh would grow and eventually become a major factor in the mid seventies, and that Mossadegh lived afterwards (albeit under house arrest).

His legislative dissolution, again, was approved by the voters. 'Stable' in this case means an autocratic regime that repressed all political dissent; hard to express dissent when it means trial, imprisonment, torture, and execution.

Personally, I don't see Mossadegh as a real democratic figure. He certainly wasn't a good leader and positioned Iran in a very dangerous position. Mossadegh made a good myth though, but just that middle class Iranians in the 1970s believed the myth was true doesn't make it so.

He was more democratic and a better leader, than, say, Zahedi, who was literally a Nazi. And the 'dangerous position' he placed Iran in was the correct move to make (nationalization of AIOC).

So yes, you're wrong. And here's a couple of real great leaders.

[opebo]

What the heck Simfan, you're a Shah supporter?  I thought you were an exiled Ethiopian, not an exiled Iranian.

[Simfan34]

What the heck Simfan, you're a Shah supporter?  I thought you were an exiled Ethiopian, not an exiled Iranian.

I've long seen parallel between Iran and Ethiopia. Two ancient empires, two regional players, both overthrown in the 70s.

Operation Ajax can be summarized as "Kermit Roosevelt spreads some money around to hire some weightlifters to act thuggish and say bad things about Mossadegh so he resigns." It's a joke. There was little resistance to the "coup". Mossadegh didn't try to stay in power and crush the it. Mossadegh had popularity, but the people against him were many, and at the time the coup didn't seem to generate much popular opposition. It was only much later in the 1970s as the new intellectual class was attempting to get political power that the Mossadegh era was seen as some kind of golden era where democracy was nipped in the bud by the "evil CIA". It was a myth.

Ajax involved Roosevelt paying thugs to create violent clashes in the street and loot/burn mosques & newspapers, with troops storming the capital and attacking the prime minister's residence on Roosevelt's signal. Mossadegh did try to stay in power; he surrendered because there were tanks firing on his house. Mossadegh had the popular support, more support than the Shah (otherwise why did the Shah flee to Rome?)

Well, you mean Zahedi's. Don't see the problem. Legal action. No, the Shah fled because he feared he'd be arrested.

Mossadegh was a secularist who had said some nice things about democracy, but his actions did not support his words. At the end of his term, he was ruling by decree and accumulating more and more power to himself. He was resisting the Shah's dismissal and indeed trying to overthrow the Shah by the end of the whole thing.

What's wrong with that? As for his rule by decree, he strengthened democracy by his decrees, limiting the powers of the monarchy and weakening the aristocracy. In a battle between two forces, his was unarguably the more democratic, but more importantly, there was a vote to dissolve Parliament, which passed.

What aristocracy? The only real thing approaching one was the clergy, which, as your picutre shows, Mossadegh was in bed with. How did he strengthen democracy? He didn't/

He was a charismatic demagogue, and was doing nothing to further the rule of law. Instead, the picture is of Mossadegh doing very little to build democracy (indeed dissolving the legislature), that there was widespread opposition to Mossadegh, that his own actions prevented an end to the crisis, that Iran was becoming dangerously unstable. There was very little complaint about the countercoup after it was done because the country became stable again (again, nostalgia for Mossadegh would grow and eventually become a major factor in the mid seventies, and that Mossadegh lived afterwards (albeit under house arrest).

His legislative dissolution, again, was approved by the voters. 'Stable' in this case means an autocratic regime that repressed all political dissent; hard to express dissent when it means trial, imprisonment, torture, and execution.[/quote]

I don't recall a referendum.

Personally, I don't see Mossadegh as a real democratic figure. He certainly wasn't a good leader and positioned Iran in a very dangerous position. Mossadegh made a good myth though, but just that middle class Iranians in the 1970s believed the myth was true doesn't make it so.

He was more democratic and a better leader, than, say, Zahedi, who was literally a Nazi. And the 'dangerous position' he placed Iran in was the correct move to make (nationalization of AIOC).

Which was a needlessly provocative move.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren, Brennan, and O douglas was the liberal arm. Potter Stewart came late in the game in affirming Roe lesser to extent.

[traininthedistance]

Ike was basically the quintessential moderate hero.  Who had the good fortune to lead the USA in the one period of our history where, largely because of the burgeoning Cold War, being a moderate hero was not just good, but exactly what we needed at the time.

[MATTROSE94]

Eisenhower was certainly one of the better presidents on foreign policy issues during the Cold War - his "New Look" calmed down tensions with the Soviet Union significantly and made the 1950s not the decade of the Third World War.

Of course, he also made some missteps there. The Dulles brothers pretty much created a lot of the problems the United States would face down later in the Cold War in meddling in Iran and in Latin America. Treating every third world populist leader as if he were a communist was a huge mistake, and made it literally impossible for the United States to form working relationships with anyone in those countries except for the psychotic military despots and far-right fringes. I do think Ike did the right thing with regard to the Suez Canal, and he handled the Hungarian uprising in a way that also prevented us all from not being born.

He completely mismanaged the economy, presiding over two separate recessions during his term in office. Plus he signed the absolutely awful Landrum-Griffin Act, failed to speak out against McCarthy (he just kind of waited around for the Senate to do anything about that) and completely dragged his feet on Civil Rights, largely because he was uninterested in doing anything on that front as President. When push came to shove, yes, he did send in federal troops, but he waited far too long and let the situation get completely out of hand.

He also gets some negative marks for openly courting the segregationist vote, a first for a Republican candidate.

I wouldn't have voted for him in '52 or '56, but on the whole, I'd say he did a decent job as President. Certainly the best Republican president of the 20th Century, IMO.

I thought that Herbert Hoover was the first Republican to court the racist vote in the South when he ran in 1928, at least in a covert way.

[Earthling]

Yes, the last great Republican president. Sad to see what happened to that party since 1960.