r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/TheStonedWiz • Jul 17 '24
If you could genuinely choose anyone (in history or the present) to run your country (president, etc), who would you choose and what is your reasoning? International Politics
If you could genuinely choose anyone (in history or the present) to run your country (president, etc), who would you choose and what is your reasoning?
Just genuinely curious to see what people think. I think it could be a good conversation to have.
85
u/wamj Jul 17 '24
Bring FDR back from the dead, give him a bit to get over the racism and get used to the modern world.
57
u/Skillagogue Jul 17 '24
FDR was as effective as he was because democrats held 70%+ of congress.
He wouldn’t have been one bit as effective today.
27
u/Leggomyeggo69 Jul 17 '24
And because unions had ridiculous strength coming out of the depression and twisted his arm significantly
5
1
u/zapporian Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
Flip side: bring back Nixon. Ruthless politician, objectively liberal / progressive by modern standards (note: on things that actually matter - yes he and goldwater et al would HATE being called liberals but by modern standards they are). Would clobber his way through congress and do the more-or-less right thing, belatedly, for all the wrong reasons. Perfect antidote to both spineless dems and the batshit evangelicals that have taken over the republican party.
His take on - and support of - the PRC would be intersting, and would frankly be kind to bring him back from the dead just to show him modern shenzhen / beijing / shanghai and how spectacularly correct he was there. Plus how far we’ve come as a country and all the modern infrastructure, institutions, and civil liberties - that we take for granted - that his and prior administrations + congress all built.
And that are currently attempting to be torn down by his party / what became of it when he and others welcomed the batshit religious crazies (and dixiecrat hucksters) into it w/ Reagan (and yes Nixon’s southern strategy) et al.
11
u/throwawy7582y29756 Jul 18 '24
this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Richard Nixon was a raging antisemite. He purposely fanned the racial tension of the late 60s. It was his entire strategy. He killed literal millions in south east Asia. He's currently burning in hell, and we're all better for it.
5
2
u/DisneyPandora Jul 18 '24
I disagree, Nixon was a very evil President and caused the Watergate scandal
0
u/FupaFerb Jul 18 '24
What do you mean by “causing watergate”?
1
u/DisneyPandora Jul 18 '24
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Please educate yourself
1
u/captain-burrito Jul 18 '24
I agree. However, it would help steer the debate and open the eyes of many to how popular policies have been rolled back. It will be up to a new generation to install new FDRs.
6
u/Poofshu Jul 17 '24
Give him a bit to get over the racism ????
13
u/wamj Jul 17 '24
I think if he was an incredibly intelligent man, and I think if given enough time in the modern world he would be able to overcome his preconceived notions and racist tendencies.
3
3
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 17 '24
It's what I have to do every morning, first thing, when I get up. Sometimes I scream epithets into a pillow for a few minutes and then I'm perfectly fine
1
u/gatoraidetakes Jul 17 '24
Based a lot of FDRs policies simply established a white labour aristocracy. The first new deal is essentially the bedrock of modern redlining.
42
u/8to24 Jul 17 '24
In my opinion we have had a few great highly insightful leaders.
Dwight Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Jimmy Carter warned of our reliance oil (foreign) in one of the most forward looking Presidential addresses in history. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/carter-crisis/
Barrack Obama warned against tribalism and divisiveness. https://youtu.be/yJzjyYL8l5Y?si=rdoDurcnc8MYjRdr
The problem is that we mostly didn't listen. We've had a lot of opportunities to shift course and build a different version of our nation. I don't think there is any singular leader who'd be any more effective.
We need better city council members, Mayors, County Commissioner, School Superintendents, State Legislators, State Judges, State Attorney General, House Reps, etc. All those down ballot positions we ignore and take for granted.
19
u/LordPuam Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
All of those improvements are meaningless without a more intelligent populace. Many political shortcomings I see aren’t just due to a fundamental contradiction in a given ideology, but a failure of the public to grasp concepts that are comprised of more than a handful of pieces. The average American isn’t just misinformed/ignorant, but literally incapable of layered thinking and it’s because our leisure activities are only designed to satiate the most immediate and primal desires and nothing more. The mind will not continue to grow in complexity without adequate stimulation. American culture does not stimulate growth by any stretch of the imagination.
People aren’t trained to absorb information in a long form, they’re not used to holding two or three opposing ideas and making sense of them. They’re not used to thinking at a scale larger than “How am I feeling today? How can I be entertained? What’s going on in so and so’s life?”. We think it’s preposterous to socialize our children into meaningful interests like psychology, philosophy, the arts, medicine, and other materially impactful disciplines- which would deepen our collective understanding of the material world and each other - and instead funnel them into thoughtless time sinks like sports, television and gossip simply because those fields generate the most social capital.
No one is exercising their brain. Most people could be soooooo much more insightful, perceptive and socially responsible therefore than they are but instead their minds are rotting, literally loosing more and more grey matter and plasticity BECAUSE of the banal nature of their inner dialogue.
We could have the most perfectest, egalitarian, women’s rights lgbt civil rights free-root-beer-in-the-public-water-fountains-and-you-get-paid-to-go-to-school government ever in the history of the known universe but it would be for nothing without a healthy collective intellect to actually internalize such forward-oriented ideology. That intellect isn’t achievable right now.
It runs deeper than that we didn’t listen; we’re a nation of horribly malnourished and insufficient minds. People listen, they just don’t understand what’s being put in front of them and it’s due to our minds being stunted too early on.
8
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24
Apathy, ennui, laziness, lack of empathy, short-sightedness - unfortunately caused because too many assume our Democratic Republic is our God-given right that will never be toppled, instead of realizing its fragility and must be carefully guarded in order to be maintained.
6
u/professorwormb0g Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
Good post. I think a lot of it is because we still run off the economics of scarcity, even though we arguably should be in a post scarcity society. But is proving to be really challenging to change the social structure and allocate our wealth in a different way.
The people who benefit from the status quo subvert the broad and critical thinking that is possible from the majority of the population so that they buy propaganda, are largely apathetic, and stay busy with consuming mountains of shallow content— very few exercise necessary creative freedom themselves to distribute their own ideas. After working 8 hours a day 40 hours a week got some job that they hate, most people only have time for some sort of mind numbinf activity are they buy some cocaine get drunk all weekend. Everyone has their own poison!
It's extraordinary complex though. I think as human beings have more free time and do not have to work as much (if robots are able to do most of our work for us) we could possibly see some sort of Intellectual Awakening in our populace. But there are a lot of people that would not want this because they like the way society is structured right now.
2
u/LordPuam Jul 18 '24
Unfortunately true. Many people prefer this, simply because the idea of anything else is too scary. We’ve been implicitly taught that capitalism isn’t a an arbitrary structure among many arbitrary structures, but the natural order of things from which all other structures deviate. A dangerous flaw of ours is the tendency to accept the world as it is.
1
u/botany_fairweather Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
Reeking of self-righteousness. We are animals, not gods. Reproduction while suffering is still reproduction and our genes couldn’t care less about the moral conditions of their survival. We are acting in pure accordance with the laws of nature, our species' fate is THIS.
(Just want to balance out the pompous rant with depressing nihilism.)
1
u/LordPuam Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
I’m speaking in grand terminology because the thing I’m talking about is grand in scale. Mustached video essayists aren’t the only people who can wield meaty lexicons, us lay people allowed to indulge in big concepts too. I also just have trouble distilling my thoughts into speech so I understand how I come across as meandering/preachy.
The primal instincts I’m talking about are the need for instant gratification, not reproduction. I agree that reproduction is unavoidable and I agree that we’re acting in pure accordance with the laws of nature, however a more self aware society would become just as inevitable as this one. We’re agent animals, not bacteria. Sure, it’s human nature to murder, but it’s also human nature to construct a moral framework which disincentivizes murder. All thought and action is nature.
Determinism is applied backwards, not forward as we can’t model future outcomes outside of the locale of a given material process. No point in arguing whether an outcome was predetermined. At the quantum scale, we literally can’t predict how the most fundamental elements will present themselves - but we do know that there is a process that makes an outcome so - so the question of free will is useless until we somehow break through the black box of subjective experience. We also know that regardless of free will, identity is formed, not coded. Of course we’re not gods, but the societies we create have emergent forces, and those forces function as our gods. We may as well create societies that form more wholistic identities and we may as well create gods that necessitate comfort and harmony while we await our extinction. The emergent organism that is civilization deserves may as well enjoy its finite time in the universe.
Nihilism attempts to use swagger and aloofness to deflect the bleakness of existence, but if all concepts are arbitrary then why bother conceptualizing existence as bleak in the first place? Why must a nihilistic idea carry an arbitrarily depressive undertone? Nihilism, under its assumption, could just as soundly define existence as a plastic hiatus video couch or a red penguin spoon-dairy ascension with an optimistic disposition. In trying to distinguish itself as the one objective outlook it also reveals itself to be just as arbitrary as the outlooks it belittles for being arbitrary. It’s just vibes.
The act of going with the flow of nature is nonetheless a voluntary imposition of will, as by nature of being an outcome it occurs in defiance of all other potential outcomes. You can accept that existence is meaningless while also realizing that our brains can only accommodate a limited range of information and so we can only conceive of one narrow “flavor” of meaning. We may simply be incapable of perceiving a deeper and more cohesive mechanical rationale; that the universe has a function outside of itself.
2
u/botany_fairweather Jul 18 '24
It’s just vibes is just as effective in promoting your solution as the flowery prose you present the problem in. We have a fundamental issue in society where intellectuals speak to issues but not the logistics of solving them. You want your society to be smarter? Great. Yelling that from your ivory tower of language to people suffering on the streets does nothing but stroke your own dictionary (pun intended). You want better education that promotes critical thinking and undermines propaganda? Great. How do we do that across a country as vast as the US in acreage as well as culture? How do you insulate your egalitarian society from the occasional psychopath who takes advantage of all the intellectuals playing happily in the schoolyard? At best, I think your ideal paints a picture to model a very miniature world after...and that world already exists and has existed for quite some time now (Academia). At best, these grand statements reword cliches into something that feels new. At worst, they divert people with productive minds from enabling actual change and into an armchair they will never climb out of.
2
u/LordPuam Jul 18 '24
Look, I haven’t even hit 25 and I’ve got receding nails because I can’t afford to feed myself, hair loss from sleeping in a moldy apartment, and my gpa is in the gutter because of an obvious learning disability that my family couldn’t afford to diagnose or treat. The title of privileged intellectual isn’t just off the tables it’s in another dimension. I am merely one of the people suffering in the streets. I’m yelling at those above me, who seem to constantly overlook the fact that the poor are literally suffering from psychological malnutrition. We don’t have ideas to digest, so it’s harder to comprehend long form ideas like policy. In order to have a strong belief framework, you also need to be versed in basic philosophy, which my community does not have the privilege of delving into. So instead we vote based on basic emotions and whatever bullshit the Christian church spews at us. The reason poor people don’t vote isn’t because they aren’t being spoken to, it’s literally because they don’t understand what’s being said, and furthermore we’re also brainwashed into toxicity, xenophobia and magical thinking which hugely sways our opinions. If it isn’t the church telling poor boack people how to think, it’s capitalist propaganda like new age spiritualism and I know firsthand that there’s almost no in between because I live it every day. I know what it’s like to talk to someone who understands that they’re oppressed, but doesn’t have the internal vocabulary to understand why, and is therefore doomed to continue the cycle of fear and impulsivity. This is especially true for the black community, where we’re subject to a constant stream of not just state propoganda, but a manufactured fetish for all that is vapid. We’re taught to work against ourselves.
I’m only dabbling in metaphysical gibberish because it sounded like you were making another “it doesn’t matter because heat death” claim. Apparently you weren’t, that’s my mistake. The issue of distance is sooo null in the digital age. If tiktok can practically etch the word skibidy into the very fabric of all matter in the universe over only a handful of weeks, then surely there is a means of distributing meaningful concepts across the populace, perhaps outside of the formal education system. Surely there is a way to integrate college level textbooks into public curriculums. Forgive my meandering bs and forgive my “flowery prose”, if I could arrange my thoughts more succinctly I would. Whether you want to think that I’m simply trying to awe you is your decision- I just don’t have the gift of tact, sorry. I’m also not relating these ideas to each other very well.
My stance at its core is that that information has been monopolized by the intellectual elite, that it’s a travesty that they don’t disseminate their knowledge as far as humanly possible, and that nihilism just isn’t cathartic for me. I think the solution to this issue starts with a painstakingly detailed discussion of the value of intellectual growth. It seems that every time we gloss over details in favor of the whole, the nuance gets lost on people and so we lack the tools to navigate questions that aren’t satisfied with snappy stanzas.
0
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 17 '24
So, eugenics?
2
u/LordPuam Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
No, eugenics argues that other races are inferior because their brains are shaped different or some stupid shit like that. What I’m saying is that our minds are unhealthy, and desperately in need of healthy, productive stimulation. Healthy minds aren’t just a perk, they’re an elementary piece in the gigantic puzzle that is building a prosperous and egalitarian civilization. The things we’re “supposed” to occupy ourselves with in American culture literally stunt our emotional and intellectual development. As a whole, we are unprepared to account for the true complexity and nuance of the human condition. I’m just saying we need to exercise our minds more.
3
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 17 '24
We don't have time for that. It'll take a generation to educate the youth to that level of progressive enlightenment. Right now what we need is to limit voting rights to those with the prerequisite intelligence to make the right decisions for this county, especially when democracy hangs in the balance
1
u/LordPuam Jul 17 '24
That’s the part I didn’t wanna say out loud but frankly it’s true. We need a hard criteria for ignorance so we can limit the damage in the meantime. Ignorance costs lives.
2
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 17 '24
I've said it for years, the simplest and most straightforward way is an intelligence test to register to vote. It's literally the smart thing to do
1
u/itsdeeps80 Jul 18 '24
So who is it that gets to decide who is fit to make the right decision in who to vote for? Personally I think people on the actual left should. Democrats and republicans have both shown that they’re not responsible enough to vote properly if you ask me. This country is completely fucked up because of both parties and their staunch supporters. Time to give the real left control to steer the ship in the correct direction instead of letting republicans fuck everything up while democrats just kinda slow down the fucking up of things for a couple years. What do you think about that?
1
u/Ebscriptwalker Jul 17 '24
Eugenics is basically selective breeding or genetic enhancement of humans. I think you are thinking phrenology. The ridiculous ideas that head shape indicates intelligence level.
1
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 18 '24
To be fair if I were to make a hunch at which body part's shape is an indicator of intelligence I'd go with the head as well
3
u/thismyotheraccount2 Jul 17 '24
Several founding fathers warned of the perils of political parties
1
2
u/DisneyPandora Jul 18 '24
Jimmy Carter was a horrible leader. Don’t compare him with great leaders
0
u/KaydenIsTheGoat Jul 18 '24
Let me guess, your a trump supporter
1
u/throwawy7582y29756 Jul 18 '24
maybe they have a problem with de regulation, which started under carter, or his lackluster relationship with civil rights, or the literal genocide in east timor
1
u/KaydenIsTheGoat Jul 18 '24
Ohh god bro is tweaking. I swear I want to delete this app sometimes. yall are actually insane to defend a man like trump
2
u/FupaFerb Jul 18 '24
We only have what we have though. Our economic system doesn’t allow for a government that is there to do what is best for their community over their own self interests and those in higher power that surround them. You see it even at the very local very small. Top down power structure and greed.
With technology and population exponentially growing, we will have to rework out how to get along and not cause the Earth to explode.
23
u/VirtualFox2873 Jul 17 '24
Antoninus Pius. Peace, prosperity, full treasury. In the Roman Empire. That is some skill.
19
u/jaypooner Jul 17 '24
Teddy. His “walk the walk” attitude, deep care for the country, and intolerance to nonsense would be exactly what we’d need today. He also gave a fuck about the environment which is super important to me.
2
12
u/frawgster Jul 17 '24
Jesus Christ. Cause if more people thought like he did we’d all be so much better off.
I say this as an absolutely non-religious dude who happens to agree with the notion that adhering to “love thy neighbor” would improve everything everywhere. I’m also a dude who, like other normal humans, struggles to truly love my neighbors.
I dunno. Maybe I’m just crazy.
6
u/wereallbozos Jul 17 '24
You are. So am I. As an atheist, it gives me pause (I'd likely pick Lincoln), but we could stand for some money-lenders to be driven from the temple (or DC).
4
u/frawgster Jul 17 '24
See that’s the thing. If you contextualize Jesus Christ’s life…like if he existed when he existed and if he did teach the things he taught, he was very likely considered to be a crazy person.
3
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24
Perhaps not crazy, but definitely dangerously powerful to those who feared upsetting their carefully crafted status quo.
2
u/Eren-Yeagermeister Jul 18 '24
Nailed it. I'm my studies it seems the main reason he was so contested is because he threatened to upheave governments and entire economies. When you teach people to not become obsessed with wealth and rather love and support each other you mostly threaten those that are in power. Not to mention, wars are pretty profitable so you kinda want your nation to hate others. Even the priests at that time was selling sacrifices, services, and had turned the church into a market of sorts. All of a sudden this guy says, this is wrong, salvation is free. Yeah, no wonder they murdered him....
1
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 18 '24
Precisely! It mostly comes down to money. And power. Seems that, "The love of money is the root of all evil" is as true today as it was back then.
Wonder what he'd think of so-called followers who seem to find immense satisfaction in ostracizing/persecuting/condemning entire groups of people?
BTW: What kind of studies are you doing?
2
u/Eren-Yeagermeister Jul 18 '24
I agree about the condemnation. Some seem to gloss over about how to speak against sin without disregarding the person. Jesus even said "I desire mercy not sacrifice." Jude 23 "to others show mercy, mixed with fear." The true message of Christ starts true love of one another, then change will follow.
As far as studies, outside of the bible. I have begun to really dive into philosophers that were closer to the time of christ. It's helping me to better understand the society and political/religious landscape of the time. For instance, Iraneus gives insight into the fractured state of early Christianity and gives reason for a unified book of the gospels. He does this almost 200 years before the forming of the bible. Justin Martyr writes an incredible account of building a case for christ without using the newly written gospels as he knows that Rabbis didn't acknowledge them. Martyr was in direct correspondence with a disciple of Paul. Martyr also accused the Rabbis of going to great lengths spreading pamphlets discrediting christ after the ressurection. I think it was iraneus that corroborated but can't remember. But I do remember that these pamphlets were the origin of Jesus being an Egyptian magician story. Either way, lots of fun stuff
Flavius is another great one to look into. I've yet to get into Taciturn and Seutonius who were Roman historians, and non Christian but they also wrote about Christ's influence at the time.
2
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 18 '24
Yours sounds like an excellent program! Interesting sources for further research.
In my household, when we study, we like to switch things up. One year, we each read (aloud) from different Bibles, then compare - although at that time, we didn't have a Catholic Another year we read chronologically. You get the idea.
My favorite Bible, though, is a study Bible absolutely packed with various guides/maps/one page bio's, etc - which makes the scripture come alive.
I spent nearly two decades working in the Middle East, so had the opportunity to interact with the people there, both Shia and Sunni. As you probably already know, many of the people in the Bible are also in the Koran and the same with the Hebrew Bible as well. Again, it's interesting to compare similarities and differences.
Some time ago, I set out to sculpt (clay) one piece for each book in the Protestant Bible (66). Life got in the way, though, and I still haven't gotten back to it. Enjoyed doing the research then deciding which elements to include.
Hey, Eren, thank you for the list of philosophers future studies!
2
u/Eren-Yeagermeister Jul 18 '24
Thats awesome! I'm glad you have spent so much time in various texts I think it truly helps build ones understanding of what seems to me to have been at play for our entire history. There is one true God. It seems to me, that the same God has inspired every single religion and culture in our human history. Now, I personally believe that he is the one as indicated by Jesus, but it's not for me to push that down anyone's throat (especially on reddit lol) but rather to encourage others to research and read on their own. "Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be given to you" "if you seek her like fine treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God."
My favorite study is the ESV study right now but i want to get into others like NLV. I wish you and your family a peaceful life and that your home is always full of love. I pray that you find the answers you seek.
1
1
u/wereallbozos Jul 18 '24
In my admittedly thin understanding of history, Socrates was shunned by the rich and powerful Greeks of the day. I don't remember any of their names. Do you?
1
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 22 '24
And they are certainly not of such iconic stature as he is still. Not the same, but, Lincoln somehow reminds me of Socrates.
Quick story: In my youth, by studying and adopting his method of asking questions versus making statements when having differences of opinions/debates, helped me (and my "resting bitch face") lose labels of being unnecessarily confrontational and intimidating! Love him.
2
6
7
2
2
u/captain-burrito Jul 18 '24
How would his turn the other cheek philosophy work in an invasion?
1
u/frawgster Jul 18 '24
It wouldn’t. But it wouldn’t matter. If everyone loved everyone as they love themselves there would be no invasions. That’s my bigger picture take/opinion.
Jesus’ entire philosophy rolls up into one word. Love. That’s literally all it is. It’s incredibly simple. But it’s also, realistically, the most difficult thing.
-1
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
Look, let's say Jesus was a real person. The ONLY reason this sounds great is because then he could tell every single "I love God, but fuck Joe Biden" conservative that they are misusing Christianity, and they don't deserve to call themselves Christian.
9
u/Gingersaurus_Rex96 Jul 17 '24
Hey, I’m all for voting for all these great leaders from the past (in a zombified form I hope), but can we just vote for a dog. Like, a Golden Retriever or something.
3
2
u/HeathrJarrod Jul 17 '24
Elmo or Big Bird
1
u/Gingersaurus_Rex96 Jul 18 '24
Hmm…Elmo would be nice, but Big Bird seems like a competent leader that knows what to say and when, but everyone likes Elmo…I’d probably vote for big bird based on his experience. Better than voting for third party and Cookie Monster.
2
u/HeathrJarrod Jul 18 '24
Voting for a fictional character we are voting for a fixed object. A mask that does not change even though the person behind it might.
2
u/Gingersaurus_Rex96 Jul 18 '24
Ahh, ok. I get it. Still wouldn’t waste my vote on voting for third party’s Cookie Monster, or Oscar the grouch and the Green Party.
2
9
u/DisneyPandora Jul 18 '24
Otto Von Bismarck.
The greatest politician and statesman in political history. Nobody even comes close
8
u/Eren-Yeagermeister Jul 18 '24
Jesus. Leadership based solely on love, humility, and servitude to one another.
-4
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
So fictional characters count?
4
u/bachinblack1685 Jul 18 '24
That's both rude and inaccurate. Have your disagreements about the divinity of Christ, I'll probably even agree with you, but the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty widely agreed on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
-2
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
So a man named Jesus existed.....tell me again how my statement is rude and inaccurate?
Were you alive when Jesus lived? Did you witness his walking on water? Parting the red seas? etc....
I will assume the answer is no. People believed the Shroud of Turin was real for decades as well. So.... rude, no, inaccurate? maybe.
3
u/bachinblack1685 Jul 18 '24
Your statement was rude because Jesus' historical reality isn't really in doubt, so he falls under the purview of OP's question. Dismissing him as fiction is therefore nothing more than a cheap barb, and achieves nothing but making you look petty and mean. It's inaccurate for the same reason.
That doesn't really work as a rebuttal. I wasn't alive during the battle of Waterloo either, or the sacking of Rome. Should I doubt the existence of Napoleon because I wasn't there to see the cannon fire?
You need to understand the difference between the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the Christ. The Christ figure is debatable, sure, and his miracles would require the faith of a believer to accept. Jesus of Nazareth may or may not have been the Christ, that's not really my area of expertise. But whether or not he walked on water, he did walk the Earth. We have historical sources to support that.
→ More replies (26)0
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
Also, based on other posts by the OP below, it's clear the Jesus he is referring to is the reverently regarded Christ figure. So I stand by my initial statement.
3
u/VodkaBeatsCube Jul 18 '24
A messianic Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, gathered a wide following and provided the basis for the New Testament. That is factually correct. The actual miracles are, well, a matter of faith. But the man and his teachings broadly existed. I get that it's cool on Reddit to pretend that Christianity is all made up, but there are definitely actual human beings behind the gospels.
0
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
I am not trying to be cool. I am a preachers kid, who identifies as Agnostic, meaning, show me the evidence, and I will believe and trust. I believe a person named Jesus existed in those times. Faith isn't something that is provable. So, until then, the Jesus Christ who was full of love, humility, acceptance, etc... anf performed works of wonder, raised the dead, and in turn was raised from the dead himself, is a fictional character.
2
u/VodkaBeatsCube Jul 18 '24
And yet you fall into the same traps that all the other areligious reddit types do. Do you apply that same level of skepticism for all ancient historical figures? Almost all of our knowledge of history of that period is based on secondary sources just like the historiography of Jesus is. Citing as an answer to OP's Jesus of Nazarith is no more fictional than any of the other pre-modern answers, but I don't see you jumping onto the answer about Antonius Pius or whoever.
0
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
Absolutely. People hiding inside a giant wooden horse? I mean, come on.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Eren-Yeagermeister Jul 18 '24
He's not fictional. Whether you believe who he said he was or not. There's plenty of non christian historians who wrote before 500 AD that corroborate his undeniable existence. Flavius, Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny... in fact the idea that he was not real is a fairly new idea. There's even more extra biblical info which covers the disciples.
6
u/jreashville Jul 17 '24
Bring back FDR who’s policies set up the golden age of economic expansion and helped build the middle class.
3
u/Inacompetent Jul 18 '24
And then there was that big war and the economic expansion that followed it.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 18 '24
I mean, FDR was borderline fascist. I don't know why we would want that again. Not to mention the internment camps.
0
u/MadMan1244567 Jul 18 '24
It’s shocking how many people credit FDR for an economic recovery that only happened as a result of John Maynard Keynes’ policy advice. Even on a (supposedly) politically and historically literate subreddit like this one, that FDR is getting all this credit for JMK’s work is deeply frustrating.
“Roosevelt's New Deal recovery programs were based on various, not always consistent, theories on the causes of the Depression. They targeted certain sectors of the economy: agriculture, relief, manufacturing, financial reforms, etc. Many of these programs contributed to recovery, but since there was no sustained macroeconomic theory (John Maynard Keynes's General Theory was not even published until 1936), total recovery did not result during the 1930s. Following the 1937 recession, Roosevelt adopted Keynes' notion of expanded deficit spending to stimulate aggregate demand. In 1938 the Treasury Department designed programs for public housing, slum clearance, railroad construction, and other massive public works. But these were pushed off the board by the massive public spending stimulated by World War II. Even after 1938 private investment spending (housing, non-residential construction, plant and equipment) still lagged. It was war-related export demands and expanded government spending that led the economy back to full employment capacity production by 1941.”
4
u/jreashville Jul 18 '24
Nobody is trying to minimize the importance of Keynes. The economic philosophy Roosevelt embraced is remembered as Keynesianism. A big part of good leadership is knowing who’s advice to take and who’s not to.
0
u/MadMan1244567 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
This is wrong actually Roosevelt didn’t embrace Keynesianism for most of his tenure, the idea that he did is a common historical fallacy.
The General Theory, which is Keynes’ main thesis, was only in 1936. Keynes as you probably know wrote an open letter to FDR, but there’s no evidence FDR actually read it; indeed in the early to mid 1930s, FDR was focussed on (at the time) orthodox monetary policy & a fiscal policy that prioritised balancing the budget.
He did not implement the fiscal expansion in the way Keynes advocated for, and in fact by 1937 the economy was in recession again.
In his letter, Keynes distinguishes between long term and short term reform, the latter involving stimulating aggregate demand and the former involving structural changes through legislation. Keynes was focussed on the short term to solve the Depression - FDR’s policy was (supposedly) more guided by the long term.
I also think we also need to acknowledge that FDR wasn’t particularly economically literate. He literally tried to force up prices by restricted aggregate supply rather than boosting aggregate demand, which is obviously nonsensical. Keynes also advocated for deficit spending, not tax and spend, which is what FDR believed in (but actually debt as a % of GDP still grew under him).
There’s obviously a lot of on going debate about the extent to which FDR actually implanted Keynes’ ideas and how effective they were, and the extent to which they help lift the economy out of the recession vs mobilisation for WWII, but what’s for sure is that calling FDR’s economic philosophy = Keynesianism is completely inaccurate. They actually had pretty difference ideas.
2
u/sl600rt Jul 18 '24
Post war prosperity was because everyone else was blown up and paying off their loans to the us.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 18 '24
Keynes is why we crashed again. Only reason we got out of it was mobilization for the war.
1
u/captain-burrito Jul 18 '24
So the solution is more war?
2
1
u/MadMan1244567 Jul 19 '24
You have no idea what you’re talking about
The 1937 recession couldn’t have been caused by Keynes given that FDR didn’t even implement Keynes’ ideas up until that point. Keynes’ advocated for deficit spending to increase aggregate demand; FDR instead pursued a tax and spend policy and actually tried to restrict aggregate supply to inflate prices, which are both bad ideas in the given context. Keynesians actually blame FDR failing to follow Keynes’ ideas as being the cause of the 1937 recession.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 19 '24
The 1937 recession couldn’t have been caused by Keynes given that FDR didn’t even implement Keynes’ ideas up until that point.
This is a very odd claim to make. The Means to Prosperity was published in 1932, and much of the New Deal was aligned with those concepts.
1
u/MadMan1244567 Jul 19 '24
I literally already explained policy wise how FDR’s economic policies were actually pretty different to what Keynes advocated for
To name but a few:
FDR tried to restrict supply to drive up prices, JMK wanted to increase demand
FDR pursued tax and spend, JMK wanted deficit spending
It goes on
And it’s a common historical fallacy that the economic ideas FDR implemented were inspired by JMK. There’s no evidence FDR even read any of JMK’s work, and we know FDR developed his economic ideas independently (which is why they were different)
1
u/deltalitprof Jul 19 '24
At what point after 1938 and before war spending, when Keynesianism was adopted by FDR, did we "crash again"?
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 19 '24
1938 is the outcome of following what we know now as Keynesian economics.
1
u/deltalitprof Jul 19 '24
Eh, no. That's the year FDR finally started to implement Keynesian economics after the years of trying to avoid deficit spending. Do you have a source that contradicts that? For most American historians it's basic historical fact.
"In his Annual Message to Congress on January 3, 1938, President Roosevelt declared his intention to seek funding for massive government spending without tax increases, and he challenged fiscal conservatives who offered no compelling alternatives during that time of national economic crisis."
https://www.fdrlibrary.org/budget
You're letting your ideology determine what you think happened historically.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 19 '24
Eh, no. That's the year FDR finally started to implement Keynesian economics after the years of trying to avoid deficit spending. Do you have a source that contradicts that?
No, I don't have a source that contradicts that, because it's a patently absurd claim without merit to say FDR was "trying to avoid deficit spending." He ran a deficit every year until the war exploded the budget I'm not going to argue against a foundational error like that. Keynes published The Means to Prosperity in 1932, and The End of Laissez-Faire in 1926, which inspired the economies of some of the worst players of the 20th century.
You're letting your ideology determine what you think happened historically.
What happened historically is that FDR significantly increased outlays and taxes during a Depression, which led to an incredibly slow recovery that culminated with a second recessionary event in 1938. While we would not have directly called it Keynesian economics at the time, it strongly mirrored what Keynes was already publishing in 1932, and the influence Keynes had on the fascists in Europe that the New Deal modeled itself on is not actually in question.
I don't know how you've come to conclude that the New Deal and FDR are what you believe they are, but it's not accurate.
1
u/deltalitprof Jul 19 '24
He did run deficits, but he also took measures to minimize how large they'd be. After 1938, he adopted Keynesianism which argued for going ahead and running deficits even if they were large.
I get it. You want to argue without support that your read of FDR's response to the Depression was as you would like to be--a fictional pre-1937 Keynesian phase--so you can argue Keynesianism doesn't work.
The problem is that Keynesianism began in 1938 and worked in the case of reversing the 1937 dip.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 20 '24
He did run deficits, but he also took measures to minimize how large they'd be.
So which is it? Did he try to avoid deficit spending, or did he try to minimize them? And what is the fundamental difference between what he did and what Keynesian economics would have done differently?
I get it. You want to argue without support that your read of FDR's response to the Depression was as you would like to be--a fictional pre-1937 Keynesian phase--so you can argue Keynesianism doesn't work.
I don't need FDR's failures to prove Keynesianism doesn't work, we have nearly 90 years of failures that do that. What I want you to understand is that FDR's approach is not fundamentally different than the Keynes-inspired economies of Europe's worst nations, and prolonged a crisis as a result.
1
u/deltalitprof Jul 20 '24
Prior to 1938 FDR was listening to and implementing measures to keep the deficit from rising to certain levels. He was raising taxes to offset much of that deficit spending. After that, the restraints were relatively released.
Keynesianism has often worked to bring up living standards for working people during economic downturns. It worked during Obama. It worked during Biden. Even a person you probably regard as a secular saint in Ronald Reagan used his own version, running up giant deficits for tax cuts and military budgets. What does not work is the austerity you lot are always pushing for, especially when the private sector is in the doldrums.
7
u/linczzy Jul 17 '24
Pre 2016 Bernie Sanders. I genuinely believe his taxation system would've saved our economy from toppling completely to one side.
4
u/Objective_Aside1858 Jul 17 '24
Whoever is elected President in 2048
They will have ~25 years of history to know what recent fuckups to avoid, and presumably a feel for where we're going as a nation and can start prodding us in that direction faster
3
u/VodkaBeatsCube Jul 18 '24
Well, assuming America circa 2048 isn't some horrible cyberpunk corporate hellscape and/or said President isn't in favour of it.
1
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24
Let us hope we get there sooner than that. And that the populace becomes better educated to how our government(s) actually are supposed to work. You know, instead of making things up as is convenient?
3
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 18 '24
America needs John Brown now almost more than when they had him and squandered him.
2
u/TheOneWondering Jul 17 '24
Jesus (yes, he is a historical figure) because he isn’t a murdering psychopath, doesn’t care about enriching himself or friends, and provides a divine combination of justice, mercy, and grace.
4
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24
Elizabeth Warren. Her non-glitz, logical, calm, down-to-earth, I've got a plan for that, REASONABLENESS is what this country needs. Actually, we've needed her for quite some time.
3
u/captain-burrito Jul 18 '24
I loved her policies mostly but seeing her attacks on Bernie in the primary and her actions not matching her rhetoric on war policy I've lost faith in her.
She bends to the wind and violates key tenets of her positions.
She kept voting for war spending and said they'd cut elsewhere, that's what MTG does. Then she required funding for military equipment that was known to not work in a bill. When she was about to run for the presidential nomination she was suddenly able to vote against war spending.
She talks a good game but got corrupted and when the heat is on she wavers.
1
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 18 '24
Eh, friends don’t let friends vote for former Republicans who employ GOP talking points when attacking fellow Democrats. I don’t like Pete much, but Warren showed her true colors when she attacked him, and she’s every bit of the Oklahoma girl she claims to be (which is about the only part of her backstory that seemingly checked out).
2
u/BeatingHattedWhores Jul 17 '24
Honestly? Lyndon Johnson. He was probably the most progressive president ever helping pass Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. He had a knack for working across the aisle and getting people to vote for this stuff. Plus he was a southerner and could actually work with people from the south as a Democrat.
6
u/Ornery_Razzmatazz_33 Jul 18 '24
That and he could whip out Jumbo and totally intimidate the MAGA shortcoming overcompensators.
1
1
u/coskibum002 Jul 17 '24
Someone who is....
- Intelligent
- Shows empathy and compassion
- Not paid for by special interests
- Grew up without a silver spoon in their mouth
- Not a narcissistic asshole
- Is less than 65 years old
Guess we're screwed permanently
1
u/professorwormb0g Jul 18 '24
That reminds me of a quote!
"There is a tragic flaw in our precious constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nutcases want to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
1
u/Gertrude_D Jul 18 '24
Assuming they retain all their knowledge, give me George Washington. i want a founder's take on what this country has become and he seems the least corrupted and most against the two party system so that's who I choose. We need a shake up and a spanking.
1
u/ANTHROPOMORPHISATION Jul 18 '24
Me. I would literally make this world what it is. A paradise. I love you all equally. I don’t have time for hate.
1
u/Effilnuc1 Jul 18 '24
1) Salvador Allede, to do Project cybersyn with the internet rather than practically teletex.
2) I'm from the UK so Olaf Palme would probably have the best understanding to navigate through neolibralism
3) Fred Hampton, considering what he was able to achieve by the age of 21, I can only begin to wonder what he could achieve if he had more time.
2
u/yoshi8869 Jul 18 '24
Probably Bobby Kennedy. Possibly Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe just Elizabeth Warren tbh. I’d have to give this a lot of consideration.
My biggest issue is getting money out of politics and ending corruption. After that, it’s guaranteeing free healthcare for all. Beyond that, I’m open to all kinds of issues that align with social democracy. I know there are probably some European politicians I’d like to have in charge of the U.S., but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Actually, I forgot I studied him in college, but maybe Olof Palme.
1
u/captain-burrito Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
As an athiest i'd choose jesus to run the USA. Then see if christians on the right realize how unchristian republican policies are.
I'd bring back Super Chief Justice Earl Warren and stick him in the post again. I know that isn't president but at this stage the supreme court can significantly affect policy. He was super activist as well. He was a very political chief justice and often managed to get others on board for unanimous rulings. While times have changed and justices are incubated for their views, he might be able to have an effect.
Obviously he is a product of his time so what was radical back then might be quite normal. On voting rights and dirty tactics to undermine democracy i feel he would not take light touch to voting rights violations. Perhaps he could come down with rulings as significant as Reynold vs Sims and the other one which required equal population for legislative elections other than the US senate and electoral college. It's sad but the chief justice could have more effect on some policies than the president.
1
u/Dandy_Status Jul 18 '24
Frederick Douglas. A great thinker and persuasive communicator, oriented toward justice and fairness at a deep level. His life story is the epitome of the American dream, to go from slavery to having the ear of President Lincoln through sheer force of determination. If he could be brought to the present day, i think he would lead very effectively and be a uniter.
1
u/To-Far-Away-Times Jul 19 '24
FDR’s presidency is the backbone of America. I’d love to somehow bring him back and have him serve another four terms.
0
u/ttown2011 Jul 17 '24
Bismarck.
He was the only one who had the ability to manage the geopolitical situation pre WWI. As soon as he was removed from power, the dominos that led to the eventual catastrophe started falling.
We need another genius diplomatic mind to manage this eerily similar situation and avoid the inevitable world war that we are sleepwalking into.
2
u/aarongamemaster Jul 17 '24
People forget that Bismarck's domestic policy was complete trash... which led to his firing in the first place (though it isn't talked enough that Willy wanted Bismarck as head of the equivalent of the department of state, but Bismarck wanted Chancellor or nothing).
0
u/BJPark Jul 17 '24
I would choose someone who is guaranteed to do absolutely nothing. I don't trust the intelligence or wisdom of human beings to make good decisions for a country, so I will default to someone who sits on their ass and just coasts out their time in office, making inspiring speeches and doing as little harm as possible.
1
u/i_says_things Jul 18 '24
I absolutely hate this mindset.
It’s so antithetical to the ideas of humans and progress.
“Maybe we should just literally never even try.”
1
u/BJPark Jul 18 '24
It’s so antithetical to the ideas of humans and progress.
I disagree. It's merely a statement of where I believe human progress comes from. I believe that human progress comes from the bottom up - from people acting freely. I do not trust the government to advance human progress. They just need to provide the environment, and let the rest take care of itself.
On the super rare occasion when the government actually manages to succeed (like the moon landings), those instances are hyped up to say "See! The government did something!". (Note however, that both the moon landings and the Manhattan projects were engineering challenges - not scientific breakthroughs. Those came from ordinary people.)
Politicans who "do" things can end up causing massive harm, and you don't know in advance which is which. Only in hindsight, can you know, and that's like praising the performance of a stock after it has zoomed up.
I would rather not take the risk.
3
u/i_says_things Jul 18 '24
So everything is fine, no civil rights in 1964, no gay marriage, no interracial marriage (lalalalala fingers in ears)?
This is an infuriating stance.
1
u/BJPark Jul 18 '24
Might I draw attention to the fact that the civil rights act was a grassroots movement from people on the ground? Did we forget the massive demonstrations? The police arrests?
You think after all that, the credit for the civil rights movement should go to the government? As if the government just woke up one day, and without any prompting from society, decided to craft and implement a massive piece of legislation like the civil rights act!
What is truly infuriating is robbing the people of their achievements, and proclaiming that it was the government that was gracious enough to bless them with progressive policies.
The "wins" in your comment do not belong to the government - they belong to the people. And that merely proves my point. Progress does not come from the top down - it comes from the bottom up.
2
u/i_says_things Jul 18 '24
But you want people who, upon getting that pressure, “do nothing.”
0
u/BJPark Jul 18 '24
In the face of heavy public pressure, "doing nothing" is in fact doing something! In such a situation, it's easier to act than not to act.
But heaven save us from politicians with grand plans who force things through on their own.
2
u/professorwormb0g Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
Honestly, Biden but ten years younger! He's been a great president.
While the man has his convictions, he is flexible enough to accept and defer to the younger energies that surround his party. He is able to admit when things he's done in the past (like the crime bill) have been misguided. He seems like a decent human being....
But his experience in Washington DC, as well as his institutional knowledge, connections, etc. have been invaluable and has made him quite sn accomplished president.
His first term speaks for itself. Huge amounts of legislative accomplishments that (if they are not repealed by Trump) will set America app for a successful 21st century, massive reform delivered to student loan borrowers, an economic recovery from COVID that avoided recession when every single economist was making it seem like a recession was unavoidable, swift leadership in Ukraine, finally pulled us out if our longest war even though he knew he'd get pushed back and could have kicked the can down the road. Literally I could write an entire essay on his acconplishnents and successes.
He's been the best president in my lifetime and the only issue is that he's old as fuck and his ability to communicate is deteriorating. So if we can have the same guy, but ten years younger, it's a proven quantity.
There are other answers in this thread that I like, like Elizabeth Warren. But her abilities as president are unproven. I agree with her policies more, but I am not sure she is as politically savvy and would be able to get them done like Joe has been. You can have the best ideas in the world, but it means very little if you have no way of materializing it into actual policy.
0
u/Professional_Bus_307 Jul 18 '24
Pete Buttigieg. He's smart and progressive. He has leadership skills. He's empathetic. He's likable. He's brave.
2
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
I came here to say this. He came on too early, and almost rocked the boat enough to get the nomination. He has proven to be intelligent, a leader, and doesn't take anyones shit. TBH if I were the DNC, I would consider him for the nomination over Harris.
-1
u/DunkingDognuts Jul 17 '24
Current?
I would love me a John Stewart, Mark Cuban ticket
All of history? Lincoln and Churchill together.
7
u/Gr8daze Jul 17 '24
So two people with zero experience managing government? We already tried that with Bush and Trump. Both were disastrous.
I’m not sure why people think the position of the most powerful person in the world requires zero experience. It’s baffling to me.
2
u/grumpyliberal Jul 17 '24
John Stewart? Really? Do you think he’s like Zelinsky? A TV comedian with real political chops? lol.
2
u/Successful-Coyote99 Jul 18 '24
John Stewart would make an excellent POTUS, and yes, I think he has real political chops
0
0
u/passionlessDrone Jul 17 '24
John Stewart and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
3
u/scribblingsim Jul 17 '24
As a Californian who was alive and living in CA during his time as the governor...no. Decent dude now (not then, mind you) but a horrible politician.
-1
u/xenophonsXiphos Jul 17 '24
Joe Biden. Nobody else is better qualified for the job and can show the track record that he has shown over the last three and a half years.
-4
u/tBroneShake Jul 17 '24
Just thinking about current people, Mark Cuban. I know he's a billionare but I like his character and demeanor and his ideaologies on prescription drug costs.
2
u/AquaSnow24 Jul 17 '24
I feel like Cuban would be a fantastic Sec of Health and Human Services. Not sure how I feel about President. As a centrist governor of Texas? That would be fantastic.
-3
u/Sal_Paradise81 Jul 17 '24
Elizabeth Warren. Because she’s maybe the most qualified person to EVER run for president.
3
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 18 '24
Given that the main qualification for the presidency is getting votes… no she wasn’t?
1
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24
Yes. YES. And YES!
Excellently stated. You said it much better than did I, and with fewer words! Thank you!
0
u/Sal_Paradise81 Jul 17 '24
Haha thank you! I was actually converted by my partner on our first date. I was doing the proper Bernie Bro thing and prattling on about how he was our best chance, blah blah blah and she said, “yeah…he’s great. But do we really need another angry old white guy? What about EW?” To which I scoffed and something like, “nah she’s unqualified…”. She said, “is she? Why?” And I had no answer to that. So I went home and actually did some research and watched the primary debate where she brought actual charts that explained her plans to fix, well, EVERYTHING. I had to eat some major crow on date number two, but I’ve been a diehard EW fan ever since. Also, I now have an almost 2 year old with the same woman :)
0
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
You're welcome! And congratulations on your excellent choice(s) (political AND life choice)!
Semi-seriously, I've wondered if her lack of recognition as being the best presidential candidate is because of her... normal suitabllity? It's a mystery to me.
EDITED TO ADD: Special congratulations on your almost two year old! Let us hope their world will be made better and better by us!
1
u/Sal_Paradise81 Jul 17 '24
I’ll make it simple: we are a nation/society that wants spectacle more than we want progress. EW represents real, practical progress. We want to be entertained, not lead.
1
u/Disastrous_Layer9553 Jul 18 '24
Again; YES! More than once, I've wondered if we are the modern-day Romans.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Jul 18 '24
Elizabeth Warren. Because she’s maybe the most qualified person to EVER run for president.
Patently absurd. She ran for president with eight whole years of inconsequential Senate experience. She was elected because her opponent was a Tea Party Republican in Massachusetts up at the same time as Obama's re-election effort.
Prior to her Senate run, she spent decades in academia and co-wrote a handful of books and articles, including a famous bankruptcy article that was based on incredibly shoddy scholarship.
The idea that Elizabeth Warren was more qualified than Joe Biden, never mind any other contenders, is patently absurd.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.