I'm more conservative and Reagan is/was my political hero, but FDR was exactly what we needed at the time as well. I actually like the idea you present, but the costs would be staggering and this economy can't support such an ambitious project.

I nominate Sicarius for Mount Rushmore!

Draugnar, the Stimulus travesty could easily pay for a couple mountain carvings.

I don't think any more faces need to be on Mount Rushmore. I'm a big fan of Reagan, but he was no Washington or Lincoln, or even Jefferson.

Adding other faces your new monument scheme are too political. Mount Rushmore isn't about partisanship and having each side getting a big carving of their idol, it's to honor great men who helped to build and preserve this country.

@ invictus: agreed!

I would like to see Calvin Coolidge or Dwight D. Eisenhower on Mt. Rushmore, but alas, a president is not considered 'Great' unless he has slaughtered hundreds of thousands or millions of people during his term of office...

Eisenhower said the greatest achievement of his presidency was the fact that World War III never happened. Today, a desire for peace in the United States is derided as weak and cowardly. A testament, I suppose, to the fact that no Americans have never even seen their homes become a war zone (save for some particularly rough neighborhoods in some cities which shall go unnamed).

interesting point by Tolstoy, there hasn't been war in North America since the 1860s, but the fact is that most American men over 45(those who have the most influence in this country) have served in a war.

Hamilton, there's a big difference between serving in a war and living in one.

And while I haven't done a head count, I'm pretty sure most Americans over 45 have *not* served in a war - the WWII and Korean War veterans have pretty much all died off (including one grandfather of mine), and the number of Vietnam veterans is a relatively small percentage of the 45+ American population. I know many American men over the age of 45, but none served in Vietnam.

And I'm sure some survivors of the Wounded Knee massacre would've dispute that the last war in North America was in the 1860's.

Well thought out Obiwan. I've become much more conservative as I've gotten older, but agree that both of these presidents were great (perhaps Roosevelt deserves the title moreso that Reagan, but only time will tell. Achievements tend to outshine controversy over time).

So, Tolstoy, who did Reagan "slaughter" to use your term? There was no war during his time in office. Or are you saying he wasn't a great President, something history would disagree with you on?

I think that H.L. Mencken's face ought to be carved in stone somewhere. Maybe, Rushmore, Maybe somewhere else. But it needs to happen.

@Tolstoy

I wouldn't say we honor presidents (primarily) because of war. Look at those on Rushmore. Washington- fought out of office, but that was necessary (otherwise there wouldn't be a US!) and in office he was peaceful, put down the Whiskey Rebellion without firing a shot. Jefferson- no war, and he more than doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase. Theodore Roosevelt- definitely the most aggressive president on Rushmore, but it came at a time when it was necessary (the whole world was being taken over by empires, and he had to show America was not a country to be considered a "psuhover") he fought a war, but out of office, and his biggest accomplishments were progressive reforms for the working man and transforming America into a world power that would be needed in the 20th Century. And finally, Lincoln- the only president who had a war in office, and throughout his whole term nonetheless, but he didn't start the war, various causes lended to the Civil War, and then others' mishandling the situation before his term ignited it; he saw the Union through its darkest hour, came to the eventual realization slavery was wrong and emancipated the slaves (it wasn't his original intent, but I don't know about you, but I like a president who can admit he was wrong and change) and saved the nation.

That's Mt. Rushmore- doesn't seem like we're honoring "slaughterers" to me.....

(In regards to FDR and Reagan- FDR's war was WWII, which he tried to stay out of at first, and in any case I don't think you'll find many who would agree we should have stayed out of WWII; Reagan did perhaps make a mistake with the Nicaaragua situation and others, but still did hasten the death of the USSR and was a monument-worthy president in my opinion.)


And to whoever said we couldn't afford such a project as a mountain-statue of FDR and Reagan standing together joined (again, Reagan facing West, towards his home state of California, and FDR facing East towards his home state of New York) I say- wouldn't such a huge building project create jobs? Create jobs and honor a couple great men, it sounds good to me.......

Draugnar, as far as wars go, most overtly there was the undeclared naval war against Iran, which culminated in the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 - killing almost 300 completely innocent people. While 99.9999% of Americans have forgotten this, in Iran this is still remembered as an act of terrorism a la 9-11. There were also all the covert wars in Central America and Africa, during which hundreds of thousands of people died.

Tell me, Draugnar (and all the other Reagan-worshippers I'm sure are on this forum) - what 'great' things did Reagan do? Granted, he was very personable and knew how to deliver a speech. But is oratory skill really the epitome of greatness?

If you're looking on Reagan as a limited government Messiah, it's time for your reality check. Federal government expenditures almost doubled between 1980-1989.

I think we whitewashed Reagan's image since his tenure personally, but Roosevelt was a thug. Grover Cleveland was a great president, but no one remembers him. Eh. What're you going to do?

You're being absurd, Tolstoy. There's no question Reagan was a great President. His policy of rollback and confronting the Soviet Union contributed immensely to the demise of the Soviet Union, and his domestic policies totally changed the paradigm of American politics.

As for that Iranian airliner, you could point out a tragedy during the tenure of any US President or world leader. I'm sure almost NO ONE in America knows about how President Pierce ordered the Navy to pretty much destroy Greytown, Nicaragua, but they sure know it there. Just like how I'm sure British history glosses over the Boston Massacre and Mongolian history leaves out Genghis Khan piling heads outside rebellious cities.

You don't actually beleive Ronald Reagan go on the phone with Central Command and ordered a civilian airliner to be shot down, do you? Of course it was a tragedy, but this did take place in a war zone and I'm sure the military had reason to think that this civilian jet was a bomber or something. That's no excuse, but it is a reasonable explanation.



All the incredibly petty bickering aside, I still think that this "plan," while well intentioned, is flawed. You shouldn't have to build one monument for Republicans and one for Democrats. Something on this scale ought just to be honoring a man for his effect on America, not a partisan orgy for one side to show how great "their" guy was.

Plus there's already a Roosevelt Memorial and Reagan's gonna be on the dime next Republican Congress we get. I see no need for another chiseled bust on a mountain.

It also might turn into a shameful tourist trap like the Crazy Horse one.

Well myself being conservative is that there should be a reagan memorial in washington there already is a memorial to FDR so that would equalize there presence in the capitol
as far as anywhere else the east and west facing sculptures would be great but at the moment more liberals in califoria and the pacific coast as well as new york and the northeast while conservatives inthe heartland and south so mayba change of location or direction

What kind of a message is that? You want to literally etch in stone the Red State/Blue State nonsense?

Obiwan, did you know Lincoln was the first head of state to order the use of poison gas on civilians? That crime (among others) was considered enough by some as justification to overthrow and execute Saddam Hussein. Can you believe the irony? Lincoln's war was entirely one of choice - a choice which killed over a half million people and left the southern states in ruin, taking almost a hundred years to recover. As for 'freeing' the slaves, I would remind you that after Reconstruction, blacks lived as a definite legal and economic underclass in the South that was very similar to slavery - while every other country on earth was able to end slavery without bloodshed. I could go on at length about what a horrible racist butcher Lincoln was, but I won't - seeing as several books have already been written about Lincoln's crimes (if you want I can give you a reading list).

As for the rest, Washington's subduance of the Whiskey Revolt was a blatant oppression of the frontier people (who produced their own alcoholic beverages and were taxed by the gallon) in favor of large distillers (who only had to pay a low flat fee). Washington (largely under the influence of monarchy-sympathizer Alexander Hamilton) did a great deal to centralize power in New York (the capital at the time), much to the horror of many Revolutionary War heroes like Patrick Henry who thought that a strong central government would be every bit as oppressive as a king (and they were right). And as for wars and bloodshed, forget not the Northwest Indian War which was largely fought during Washington's term in office, which killed thousands to make Ohio safe for white settlers to have free land.

As for Jefferson, he had no legal authority to make the Louisiana Purchase without approval from the Congress. Jefferson also waged war without congressional approval against the Barbary Pirates. Also, his economic embargoes against France and Britain were devastating for America - causing more economic harm and turmoil in the United States than even the Great Depression. Ironically, Jefferson isn't really on anyone's top ten presidents' list any more - mostly because, domestically, he was a very "do-nothing" president (the kind I generally like).

Roosevelt was roundly and justly denounced as a wanna-be dictator by many in his time - a kindler, gentler Mussolini if you will who sought to pack the Supreme Court with sycophants when the SC said no to his power grabs. He increased the size, scope, and power of the federal government unlike any other president before or since, prolonging the Great Depression until after his death (and the end of the war) in 1946. Roosevelt very much wanted to get involved in WWII from the very beginning, and did a great deal to drag us into the war (like the undeclared naval war against Germany in 1940-41).

The best presidents are those who don't do much and let people live out their lives in peace and freedom. Unfortunately, this doesn't earn them a place in the history books - what historian wants to write about a president who didn't do anything? My feeling is that anyone who has a statue or monument was probably a rotten bastard. Unfortunately, people who do good are generally not the engines of history.

@invictus:

I would feel sick to my stomach if they gave Reagan FDR's dime. It's nothing against Reagan, he can have a coin, why not (put him on the $1 coin, and maybe folks will actually want to USE them) but the dime and FDR are connected in obvious ways (FDR's Deal coming along after "Can you spare a...... DIME?") and it would just be wrong to split them up.

I read somewhere that they were thinking of putting Reagan on the OTHER SIDE of the dime, so that'd be good, sort of a coin version of my statue idea.



And to those who knock Roosevelt (and whoever had the audacity to call him a thug) I ask you: why? Not perfect, no one is, but 4 terms, got us through Great Depression (at least as much as Reagan "ended" the Cold War, conseravtives) helped the country through Pearl Harbor, worked with Churchill to both end WWII and played a bit of "diplomacy" in the process to keep Stalin somewhat at bay........

And he did it all with POLIO- YOU try and lead like he did when you are paralyzed and getting worse every year...... THAT's true courage.

THAT's a great man; not many presidents I'll go to the matt over, but I'll defend FDR.....

The dime thing was actually a joke. I have to remember tone doesn't always transfer in writing.

I stand by all my another arguments, though. Particularly the ones about how Tolstoy is wrong.

@Tolstoy

Sir- you make me sad.

A great president is a PRO-ACTIVE one. We elect a president to LEAD, to ACT, to BUILD, to DEFEND.

Presidents are NOT babysitters, they are not dictators, they are leaders subject to the will and vote of the people.



That you have the audacity to grind your axe against all four Rushmore presidents is mind-boggling; to question ONE of those great men is in itself a sad thing, but all four?

Washington? You are going to hurl stones at the founder of our country?

Jefferson? His act was "against" the Constitution, but the nation wanted that land, Jefferson had to make a quick decision, and in any case- are you COMPLAINING we bought that land?

Roosevelt- he was NOT a dictator; that is a dad and uninformed view of the man. He was bursting with energy and optimism, and yes, he took a stonger hand with the country, but it needed it- the presidents before him were weak, and allowed the country to be run by J.P. Morgan and Rockerfeller and strangled by big business. Roosevelt was no dictator- he in fact saved America from becoming one under those men.

Lincoln? He caused the war? He did not have to fight the war? It's acceptable to you to not only have states leave the US, but also have them practice slavery?

For one thing, the Louisiana Purchase was not unconstitutional. Tolstoy's just trolling.

Invictus,

I don't dispute that the downing of the Iranian Airliner was quite possibly an accident (the ship captain who ordered the firing of the missiles later said he thought the airliner was an F-14, and he was engaging Iranian warships shortly before it was sighted), but there are a great many people who believe that it was shot down deliberately as a way of forcing Iran to agree to a cease-fire in their defensive war against American-backed dictator Saddam Hussein. Lots of bad things happen in war, many of them unintentional. But this does not absolve belligerents of responsibility for the evil that is done by their hands, and I'm sure most Iranians don't really care about whether it was an accident or not - I doubt I would were I in their shoes.

And no, I don't think Reagan would've been 'in the loop' on that - I happen to be of the opinion that GW Bush and his crew were really in charge (particularly on matters of foreign policy) in the Reagan White House on most matters. But Reagan had to sign off on probably hundreds of decisions that led up to it, accident or no.

As for Reagan single-handedly bringing down Communism by the power of his word alone (and a deep pocket book), I think that had a helluva lot more to do with the fact that socialist economies always fall eventually. I think Nixon's detente with China in the 70's was a far more serious blow to Soviet military security than the Reagan buildup in the 80's. If you believe the Soviet Union died because of military expenditures (which we're always told by 'mainstream' Keynesian economists is "good for the economy"), why not give the credit to Nixon? The end of communism was inevitable; Reagan simply happened to be at the right place at (almost) the right time.

I can say with complete confidence that GW Bush and his crew were not in charge of the Reagan White House.

The Soviet Union's collapse might have been inevitable due to the inefficiencies of a socialist economy, but the huge military expenditures they needed to carry out to keep their heads above water was undoubtedly what did them in so quickly. Of course Reagan didn't "single-handedly" defeat world communism, that unjustly diminishes the genuine popular discontent which shook off those regimes. There's no denying, however, that Reagan's polices of actually confronting and challenging the Soviet Union were one of the primary factors leading to its destabilization and eventual collapse.

And if you think Keynesianism thinks MILITARY expenditures are what's good for the economy you don't really understand Keynesianism.

Obiwan,

We're not supposed to be electing a leader ("Fuhrer") in this country. The job of the president according to the constitution is to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch (the congress), whose authority was itself clearly defined and limited. The president is not supposed to execute his own will, the will of the power elite, or whatever he claims is the will of the people. Unfortunately, it is a system that has been violated almost constantly since before the ink was dry on the last signature of the constitution. A strong executive power is inherently antithetical to liberty and freedom; look at any country throughout history and the amount of freedom everyday people have is almost always inversely proportional to the power of the King, President, Great Leader, or whatever you want to call him.

As for Lincoln: yes, I think he did not have to fight the war; yes, I think states have the right to secede; no, I don't think slavery should be legal, but war is obviously not the best way to get rid of it. Now let me ask you - do you think it is okay to use poison gas on civilians? Do you think it is okay for the President to arrest newspaper editors and congressmen who criticize him? Do you think it is okay to enslave people to fight in your army, whether they want to or not? There is no doubt Lincoln did *all* of these things (and more!) - are these the acts of someone you would look up to as a great man?

I: I can say with complete confidence that GW Bush and his crew were not in charge of the Reagan White House.

T: Do you really think a Hollywood actor with a short political resume and no Washington experience would be able to outfox an overtly hostile Vice President who'd been in the CIA for twenty-five years? Almost getting assassinated by a Bush family friend two months into his first term also probably made Reagan think twice about disagreeing with "number two".

I: And if you think Keynesianism thinks MILITARY expenditures are what's good for the economy you don't really understand Keynesianism.

T: Are you saying Keynesians *DON'T* think that Roosevelt's massive World War II military expenditures ended the Great Depression? If so, you're contradicting every Keynesian history or economics book I've ever read.

I'm just gonna laugh at you for the first part.

Keynesianism advocates a countercyclical process where the government spends a lot and runs a deficit to stimulate the economy during a downturn, then taxes highly and cuts that spending during periods of prosperity to keep inflation down.

You can never cut military spending meaningfully since there always is an external threat, so in just turns into runaway deficit spending which isn't Keynesianism.

@Tolstoy:

The Constitution was written before the first presidency took off. Things change- the presidency has changed. We are a nation that is undeniably led by the president. You may say that is not what the Founders intended? Some Founders also never intended slaves to be free- as a nation grows and evolves, so must its laws and leadership.

Since our very first president, Washington, we have been a nation, with the excpetion of a few spots here and there (would you REALLY prefer the corruption and weak presidents of the Guilded Age pre-TR?) led by the president.

That doesn't make him a dictator or Fuhrer; you sound like you would be happy with a striaght oligarchy/"rule by council."

Council-alone ruled states have never lasted long......

A strong president doesn't mean a president that ignores the Conress. They may clash, but I see that as a good thing- clashing and differing opinions and options, and then you take the best one after a vote. That strikes me as democratic.....


Your arguments ar just laughable. "We didn't need to fight the Civil War, states should be allowed to secede, slavery is immoral but war is not the best way to be rid of it."

-The fact you think states should be able to secede tells me you don't want a democracy, a close association of states operating and abiding under a single united government- you want a confederacy (sound familiar?) a loose association of states that come and go as they please, sometimes cooperating under an elected body but mostly self-ruling. The trouble with confederacies: from ancient Greece to medevial tribes to the Iroqious to a certain Confedrate States of America, confederacies never last long.

-Abolitionists and notherners (obviosuly not all, seldom can you include "all" in describing anything, but many) were, by 1860 speaking out against/acting against/trying to end slavery. It didn't work. Lincoln thought that the way to kill slavery was to let it suffocate from within- but when he saw the slaves, physically saw them and hwat was happening to them, he decided this needed to be stopped NOW. The war was already underway, so we didn't go to war to free slaves, but we made it a resolution during the war. And if you STILL think war isn't necessary to stop slavery, genocide, or any of that, then perhaps you should take a closer look at the pictures of the pre-War slaves, of the Jews at Auscwitz (and yes I know FDR didn't fight WWII to help Jews) of the suffering in Darfur and Africa today.

And the greatest political philosopher in history have all agreed men need a strong leader; Hobbes in "Leviathan," Locke in his Treatises believes in elected central leadership, Rousseau......

Your ideas for government are what scare me, sir.

I like this debate. I'm mostly going to sit out because I don't think I'm as knowledgeable as you three with regards to American history.

I will say that whether or not military expenditures are a part of Keynesian macroeconomics depends on who you ask. There are definitely economists out there who would say that war-time spending can act as a stimulus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

I'm not a Keynesian, but I personally don't think that military expenditures should be considered Keynesian because while there is a small multiplier effect from the military expenditures, the opportunity cost of sending so many young working-age fellows to war is too great to justify any sort of stimulus. You might as well spend government money to hire people to cut grass with toe-nail clippers. It creates jobs and injects money into the economy, right?

Also, I do have to say that of all the American presidents, I would say FDR is probably the most fascist/dictatorial. Perhaps war time makes this more necessary, but I think it was just because this was a large part of the political zeitgeist at the time. Many governments at the time were more fascist and authoritarian than they have been since the end of WWII, and America was not an exception.