Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not? (1 Viewer)

[Mensch]

Grover Cleveland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are your thoughts?

 

[MajinLink]

Really messed up with the Pullman strike

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Good President for the most part. No-nonsense. Tended to promote and assign because of merit, not patronage. Reduced government where appropriate. Improved the military (Navy especially). Reduced the tariff so the government wouldn't be taking in more money than it needed for operation. Sound economic policies... his repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act helped to bring the economy back from the Panic of 1893. His position on the Pullman strike was Constitutionally sound. Though his opinions on civil rights (he did not support vigorous enforcement of the 15th Amendment) and on Native Americans would probably be seen as racist, today, they were probably appropriate for the time. Overall, one of our better Presidents of the late 19th-early 20th Centuries.

 

[ronpaulvoter]

Good President for the most part. No-nonsense. Tended to promote and assign because of merit, not patronage. Reduced government where appropriate. Improved the military (Navy especially). Reduced the tariff so the government wouldn't be taking in more money than it needed for operation. Sound economic policies... his repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act helped to bring the economy back from the Panic of 1893. His position on the Pullman strike was Constitutionally sound. Though his opinions on civil rights (he did not support vigorous enforcement of the 15th Amendment) and on Native Americans would probably be seen as racist, today, they were probably appropriate for the time. Overall, one of our better Presidents of the late 19th-early 20th Centuries.

He was one of the VERY BEST Presidents.

I wish we had someone like him today.

 

[Mensch]

He was one of the VERY BEST Presidents.

I wish we had someone like him today.

I agree. If anyone ever asks you when we'll have a libertarian president, tell them his name is Grover Cleveland.

 

[Technocratic]

Grover had some good points, but he wasn't that great if you are coming from the perspective of the poor, the unlucky, and non-business community, He was an arch opponent of any type of governmental assistance, even when it was morally justified.

 

[Mensch]

Grover had some good points, but he wasn't that great if you are coming from the perspective of the poor, the unlucky, and non-business community, He was an arch opponent of any type of governmental assistance, even when it was morally justified.

And when, exactly, is it justified (besides the obvious equal protection under the law, which Cleveland supported)?

And how is it justified?

 

[Technocratic]

And when, exactly, is it justified (besides the obvious equal protection under the law, which Cleveland supported)?

And how is it justified?

It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose lives are destroyed by freak accidents or impoverished through systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, the maxim is: "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." A Libertarian has a naive, and very impractical concept of social ethics. They're applying an idealized Sociopathic Disorder to politics. I understand you, as a Libertarian, do not see the moral bankruptcy of your excessively individualist ethic. THat's okay. It's not your fault you were born that way. You just need help.

The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.

 

[Mensch]

It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose livelihoods are destroyed by freak accidents or systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, it's "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.

In that case, a beggar in the street who steals food from the local convenient store should not be punished. Theft, no matter the perpetrator, is unethical. And redistributing wealth through the force of the government is theft.

I don't believe those who meet misfortunes should be "screwed" anymore than you believe we should eat the rich. My idea is that local, private charities and developers should rebuild damaged cities and help those who have fallen victim to unpreventable disasters. The greatest organizations that do this are not run by government. And, who do you think rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 Quake?

 

[Technocratic]

In that case, a beggar in the street who steals food from the local convenient store should not be punished. Theft, no matter the perpetrator, is unethical. And redistributing wealth through the force of the government is theft.

This is a typical Libertarian response, and it fails for the same reason it always does.

1. Theft isn't always necessarily unethical. That's an absolutist Kantian assumption. For example, he wouldn't be morally wrong, unless there was no social support mechanism with greater scope that could avoid the nasty systematic issues of vigilantee justice. And theft in general of the government kind can yield benefits that outweigh the harms. Any proper ethic is a comparison of cost-benefit analysis, not silly absolute rules. The ethics of a problem rest in its consequences, not whether an action is of one type or another. One might say that allowing widespread vigilantee action such as this itself has negative consequences, thus requires punishment anyway, even if it were morally understandable in this specific instance. Likewise, government "theft" would have a justification as well, even if theft in general is wrong.


2. Wealth redistribution isn't theft. That's an emotional term uses by Libertarians to poison the well. Theft is an legal construct. Taxation by definition isn't theft, because theft is the illegal removal of property. To claim taxes are theft, and therefore wrong, is nonsensical literally. You might as well say the DP is murder. It's not, because murder is a legal concept, and death penality doesn't meet the definition any more than taxes do.

3. Even if we assumed the sensible position that theft in most cases is morally wrong, and that taxes are unethical, your argument has practical applicative problems. It collapses into hypocrisy unless you advocate complete Anarchy, as you must assume the use of theft in your terms to make any system of government work. You, and all "taxes are immoral theft" proponents already are theives, because you actaully support theft, only for the particular hobby horses and sacred cows you support. So cut the bull**** here. You aren't fooling anyone. According to your theory, you are a theif arguing for selective theft. You are not really against government theft. Only theft for reasons you don't like! Not only do you support the crime you accuse others of, you are complicit in its maintenence.

4. Assuming taxes = theft and theft is generally wrong, it's quite clear regulated theft is better than total anarchy and a lack of tax-theft, to a degree. It creates a safer, happier, healthier, more stable society. This is different from allowing random theft without limits from vandals and vigilantees.

I don't believe those who meet misfortunes should be "screwed" anymore than you believe we should eat the rich. My idea is that local, private charities and developers should rebuild damaged cities and help those who have fallen victim to unpreventable disasters. The greatest organizations that do this are not run by government. And, who do you think rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 Quake?

Private charity can easily be just as corrupt and inefficient and slow as government, not to mention entirely of inaequate volume to meet the need. It failed in the 19th century to make any significant impact, so there's little reason to assume it would do much else. Only government has the scope to alleviate any real problems.

 

[The Mark]

In that case, a beggar in the street who steals food from the local convenient store should not be punished. Theft, no matter the perpetrator, is unethical. And redistributing wealth through the force of the government is theft.

I don't believe those who meet misfortunes should be "screwed" anymore than you believe we should eat the rich. My idea is that local, private charities and developers should rebuild damaged cities and help those who have fallen victim to unpreventable disasters. The greatest organizations that do this are not run by government. And, who do you think rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 Quake?

Several highly-trained circuses of fleas.

 

[Technocratic]

Charity has a place, but it's seriously flawed, especially when it's most needed: hard economic times. Many great charities work better during strong economic periods and fail during economic recessions and collapses, when government supports are most needed. We saw this in during most of the Thirites, as well as in the 19th century 1893. Donations fell when they were most needed.

Moreover, charity is random and sporatic, and charitable agencies lack the scope and infrastructure of government, which automatically makes them inferior for large scale, long-term issues.

 

[The Mark]

Personally, regarding the whole shtick of "taxes = theft", "wealth redistribution = theft/bad", vs. "wealth redistribution = good", "taxes = need more".

I probably fall somewhere in between the two extremes, with a lean towards the side of "taxes = bad".

I think our current setup is far too large, demands far too much in taxes, and spends even more than it demands in taxes.

I also think too small a government and/or no government welfare/whatever is a bad idea.

I think a basic, low-level "safety net" to prevent those who fall through the cracks from outright dieing is necessary.

But I also think that our current system, supposedly designed for that purpose, needs major overhaul.

Additionally, it needs to, instead of just giving people money, actively demand and force (if necessary) them back into a job/workplace.

To do that, more and better (so that people can move upwards out of the basic ones) jobs are necessary...

To do THAT, targeted tax breaks/incentives are necessary, IMO.

Targeted at those businesses/groups of people that, given enough incentive, are willing to start/expand a business - and in the process, hire more people.

And even more closely targeted, so that the start/expansion is required to get said tax break.

My underlying theory here is that, if the economy is going downhill (or at a low point after doing so previously), tax cuts/breaks and overall budget cuts are the way to go, in a generalized way.

Obviously, if there's an imbalance in tax rates (as an extreme hypothetical example, say if the tax rate on those making $1m or more were 15%, and on those below that, 30%), then such can be addressed into the mix.

But really, this current idea of "expect a tax increase on those making $250,000 or more per year" is a bad idea.

If anything, it should be at least only on those making $1m or more per year.

Small - medium businesses probably fit into the $250,000 - $1,000,000 range, depending on how they are put together legally, I would think.

Further, I strongly disapprove of the seemly current theme of “we must raise taxes to make up our budget shortfalls…

No, damnit, the reverse is the case - you must make budget cuts to meet your tax income.

 

[earthworm]

It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose lives are destroyed by freak accidents or impoverished through systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, the maxim is: "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." A Libertarian has a naive, and very impractical concept of social ethics. They're applying an idealized Sociopathic Disorder to politics. I understand you, as a Libertarian, do not see the moral bankruptcy of your excessively individualist ethic. THat's okay. It's not your fault you were born that way. You just need help.

The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.

One excellent response!
What would have Mr Cleveland done with the Gulf oil spill or Katrina, or the Oklahoma drought and dust bowl ?

 

[Technocratic]

One excellent response!
What would have Mr Cleveland done with the Gulf oil spill or Katrina, or the Oklahoma drought and dust bowl ?

The government have a televised announcement and say "Buck up kiddos. We can't help you, because it would endanger the ideal of Amercan Rugged Individualism."

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose lives are destroyed by freak accidents or impoverished through systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, the maxim is: "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." A Libertarian has a naive, and very impractical concept of social ethics. They're applying an idealized Sociopathic Disorder to politics. I understand you, as a Libertarian, do not see the moral bankruptcy of your excessively individualist ethic. THat's okay. It's not your fault you were born that way. You just need help.

The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.

Your ideology is just government jackboots pressing down on us. Rich people, **** em. Different people **** em. We all need to be forced together to serve the interests of the state.

See I can make silly attacks on ideologies I disagree with too.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

If race wasn't an issue in 19th century American politics, I'd probably be a pretty good Democrat.

Kind of funny how a Progressive, Bryan, became the Democratic Presidential candidate only four years after a much more Classical Liberal Grover Cleveland ran.

 

[Technocratic]

Your ideology is just government jackboots pressing down on us. Rich people, **** em. Different people **** em. We all need to be forced together to serve the interests of the state.

See I can make silly attacks on ideologies I disagree with too.

Ahh, the difference is that I know what your ideology is. You don't know mine. You don't need to make things up, because Libertarians are blunt about their policies and the "screw you" mentality. They don't hide it. Every once of their policies involves, unsurprisingly, favouring the wealthy or advantaged. That's not a coincidence. :2razz:

You should pause and self-reflect about Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism, and just where it comes from exactly. Objectivism is pretty close to Libertarianism ideologically given the Libertarian party is an offshoot of Objectivist thought.

 

[Technocratic]

If race wasn't an issue in 19th century American politics, I'd probably be a pretty good Democrat.

Kind of funny how a Progressive, Bryan, became the Democratic Presidential candidate only four years after a much more Classical Liberal Grover Cleveland ran.

Why is that funny? The 1890s was the beginning of the era of Progressivism, and parties themselves are practical organizations of many diverse groups. Parties change. Bryan wasn't really a progressive, though. HE was a Populist.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Ahh, the difference is that I know what your ideology is. You don't know mine. :2razz:

I know you believe in more government than me. The argument stands, you made a silly attack on Libertarianism based on accusations of selfishness.

You should pause and self-reflect about Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism, and just where it comes from exactly.

I know what Objectivism is, and I'm not an Objectivist. I believe that helping others is good, but the government forcing me to help others should only be done sparingly.

Objectivism is pretty close to Libertarianism ideologically given the Libertarian party is an offshoot of Objectivist thought.

I don't care what the LP thinks about Objectivism. That party doesn't define me. I'm ideologically a Libertarian, but I'm politically an independent.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Why is that funny? The 1890s was the beginning of the era of Progressivism, and parties themselves are practical organizations of many diverse groups.

I'm just noting that it's interesting that the party experienced such a large shift in such a short period of time.

Parties change. Bryan wasn't really a progressive, though. HE was a Populist.

How wasn't he a Progressive?

 

[Technocratic]

How wasn't he a Progressive?

You may be right. I have actually never heard of him labelled a progressive. I was taught he was a member of the Populist movement more than anything. Progessives were a middle class urban political movement that came later. Populism was a western rural phenomenon focusd around farmer interests. If he was a progressive later, it must be overshadowed by his populist affiliations. Progressives didn't tend to be as big into farmer's issues and the free silver stuff.

But you could be right. Thanks for making me aware.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You may be right. I have actually never heard of him labelled a progressive. I was taught he was a member of the Populist movement. Progessives were a middle class urban political movement. Populism was a western rural phenomenon. If he was a progressive later, it must be overshadowed by his populist positions.

Progressive is broadly just anyone who generally favors reforms. The Populists were just another facet of the Progressive Movement.

 

[Technocratic]

Progressive is broadly just anyone who generally favors reforms. The Populists were just another facet of the Progressive Movement.

Well, if progressivism is just anyone who generally favour's reform, then wouldn't everyone be progressives? No one really thinks he's being regressive. They always claim it's reform. I think the actual Progressive movement had a very difficult membership and demographic, although Populists became Progressives and their views sometimes overlapped, yea. Populists tended to be poor rurals who were staunchy "anti elite and intellectual." But progressives weren't.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If race wasn't an issue in 19th century American politics, I'd probably be a pretty good Democrat.

Kind of funny how a Progressive, Bryan, became the Democratic Presidential candidate only four years after a much more Classical Liberal Grover Cleveland ran.

Interesting, though. Cleveland, in some circles, was seen as a reformer. He was a pretty active President, and took his "veto" role seriously, vetoing a lot of legislation. I think this just shows that, sometimes, comparing political parties or even ideologies from era to era doesn't necessarily work.