Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,053
USA
Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988? For the record, you do have the benefit of hindsight here. As for me, here is my list together with the explanations:

1789: George Washington (No Party) due to him being the Father of the Nation.
1792: George Washington (No Party) for the same reason.
1796: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) due to my opposition to Adams's subsequent support of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
1800: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) for the same reason.
1804: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) for the same reason
1808: James Madison (Democratic-Republican) because I don't want to rock the boat and also due to his subsequent support for the War of 1812.
1812: James Madison (Democratic-Republican) for the same reasons.
1816: James Monroe (Democratic-Republican) because I don't want to rock the boat.
1820: James Monroe (Democratic-Republican) for the same reason.
1824: John Quincy Adams (Democratic-Republican) because I think that his vision was better than Jackson's and because I dislike Jackson's subsequent war against the National Bank and Jackson's introduction of the spoils system.
1828: John Quincy Adams (National Republican) for the same reason.
1832: Henry Clay (National Republican) for the same reason.
1836: William Henry Harrison (Whig) due to my opposition to Van Buren due to him being Jackson's Vice President.
1840: William Henry Harrison (Whig) for the same reason.
1844: James Polk (Democrat) due to my strong support for Manifest Destiny.
1848: Lewis Cass (Democrat) for the same reason.
1852: Franklin Piece (Democrat) for the same reason.
1856: John Fremont (Republican) because I want to abolish slavery.
1860: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) for the same reason.
1864: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) for the same reason and also because I want the US to win the American Civil War.
1868: Ulysses Grant (Republican) due to his support of Reconstruction and black rights.
1872: Ulysses Grant (Republican) for the same reason.
1876: Rutherford Hayes (Republican) because I don't see a better alternative.
1880: James Garfield (Republican) because I don't see a better alternative and because I personally like Garfield, his work ethnic, his intellect, and his character.
1884: James Blaine (Republican) because I think that he would be more ambitious in regards to foreign affairs than Cleveland was.
1888: Grover Cleveland (Democrat) due to his support of the gold standard.
1892: Grover Cleveland (Democrat) for the same reason.
1896: William McKinley (Republican) for the same reason.
1900: William McKinley (Republican) for the same reason--though I absolutely loathe his war against the Filipinos who are seeking independence. :(
1904: Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) due to my support for his Square Deal and progressivism.
1908: William Howard Taft (Republican) due to him being endorsed by Theodore Roosevelt.
1912: Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) due to my support for his Square Deal and progressivism.
1916: Charles Evans Hughes (Republican) because I think and hope that he would have handled World War I and its aftermath better than Wilson did.
1920: James Cox (Democrat) because I dislike the Republicans' isolationism during this time.
1924: Robert La Follette (Progressive) because he's the only major progressive candidate in this election.
1928: Al Smith (Democrat) because I think and hope that he would have handled the Great Depression better than Hoover did.
1932: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) due to my support for his New Deal.
1936: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) for the same reason.
1940: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) for the same reason and also due to his relative interventionism in regards to foreign affairs.
1944: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) for the same reasons.
1948: Harry Truman (Democrat) because I think that he's more of a representative of the common people than Dewey was and also because I strongly admire his support of the Marshall Plan and his willingness to rebuild Europe after World War II and confront Communism.
1952: Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) because I want to see the internationalists triumph within the Republican Party.
1956: Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) for the same reason and also because I don't want to rock the boat.
1960: John F. Kennedy (Democrat) because he's young, vibrant, and dynamic and also because I approve of his subsequent handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
1964: Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) due to his support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and Great Society. I do strongly dislike his Vietnam War policy, though. :(
1968: Hubert Humphrey (Democrat) because he's more progressive than Nixon is.
1972: Richard Nixon (Republican) because McGovern appears to be too radical and perhaps also lacks good judgment as evidenced by his initial selection of Thomas Eagleton as his VP pick in spite of Eagleton's mental health problems.
1976: Gerald Ford (Republican) because I hope that he would have handled the turbulent late 1970s better than Carter did.
1980: Ronald Reagan (Republican) because I disapprove of Carter's poor leadership and also because I support the idea of an arms race to bankrupt the Soviet Union and cause it to collapse.
1984: Ronald Reagan (Republican) for the same reasons.
1988: George H. W. Bush (Republican) for the same reasons and also because I support his subsequent decision to use military force to expel Iraq from Kuwait--though I do think that his betrayal of the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds after encouraging them to rebel against Saddam Hussein in 1991 was completely unacceptable.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this list of mine?
This is one of the most impressive works you have contributed here well done Futurist. I agree fully with you're support of FDR. I can directly tell you that in my area we had a vast majority of our population employed in the steel and auto industries during FDRs reign. At one plant alone Republic Steel 15,000 people of Buffalo contributed to the WW2 effort while making a honest middle class salary. For many Americans including me and a WW2 veteran that worked with my Grandpa at Bethlehem steel that I meant a few weeks ago, FDR was the greatest American to ever live... I admit multiple generations of my family prospered in the middle class because of FDR so I have a sort of bias here I suppose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
Well, no--not exactly (although they are very close and the two terms often are used as though they are interchangeable). Morality touches more on an individual's code of behavior and, therefore, varies from person to person. If I were to question someone's moral code, as I have inadvertently, the reaction is quite personal. That being said, and with some trepidation, I argue that Manifest Destiny is (ethically) unconstitutional by logical extension of the First Amendment: whatever one's personal opinion (moral) on the character of the character or even the existence of God, it should play no stated role in setting foreign policy.
One can believe in Manifest Destiny without actually believing in God, though.

Manifest Destiny begins with the concept that in some way the American people had special virtues that entitled them to expand and ultimately have control of the North American continent. Part of that entitlement is supposed by the imparted word of God. Another element is based on the origins of the country. To continue the great experiment and make it their mission to spread these ideals across the continent.
Well, I do think that Americans were more capable of building a developed, First World country than Mexicans were (in large part due to the US's much larger "smart fraction"; the US has much more extremely smart people than Mexico has). (This is actually evidenced by the performance of the US and Mexico up to this day.) However, this isn't actually limited to Americans; Europeans and East Asians can also build developed, First World countries without much problem. Heck, even countries such as Turkey don't perform too badly in regards to this.

I don't believe in God and thus I don't believe that God should actually be relevant in this debate. I do, however, have a secular belief that Americans are able to settle the North American continent and transform it into something great--indeed, something much better than what would have been without Americans settling there en masse. Again, though, this isn't actually limited to Americans. For instance, if China was a powerful, industrialized country in the early 1800s, it might have likewise been able to settle a bunch of sparsely populated territory and make this territory great! For that matter, Russian settlement in Siberia and Central Asia might have also improved these regions--though obviously it would have been much better had Russia not went Communist in 1917.

The first and second elements are the two I have issues with. No one is entitled to anything.
You're right. It all depends on who's got the biggest guns.

Claiming some divine right harks back to the monarchies the US was trying step away from.
I don't think that anyone actually has a divine right to land. However, I do think that certain countries can make much better use of land than certain other countries.

Both these concepts involve a superiority that no one is either worth or entitled to.
For what it's worth, though, some countries are much more accomplished than other countries. For instance, most modern technology was probably invented by Europeans (including those who settled elsewhere, such as in the Americas or Australia), Ashkenazi Jews, and East Asians. These groups also tend to have the wealthiest and most successful countries today. Meanwhile, regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa didn't achieve anywhere near as much technological innovation and large parts of them are still struggling even today. They're certainly still poorer than the West, East Asia, and Israel are.

The third element, that of setting the nation a goal to expand across the continent is the one I understand and accept. As someone mentioned earlier, 'might is right' It is not something I like, but it has been a part of human nature since our earliest days.
So, in this regard, we are in agreement. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kotromanic

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
I was trying to encompass all of Kotromic's possibilities--not to pass myself off as Code Blue's Plumed Knight.
Were you referring to yourself here or to Blaine here, though? As in, who does "This Mainer" in your sentence refer to?
 

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,865
Ohio, USA
One can believe in Manifest Destiny without actually believing in God, though.


Well, I do think that Americans were more capable of building a developed, First World country than Mexicans were (in large part due to the US's much larger "smart fraction"; the US has much more extremely smart people than Mexico has). (This is actually evidenced by the performance of the US and Mexico up to this day.) However, this isn't actually limited to Americans; Europeans and East Asians can also build developed, First World countries without much problem. Heck, even countries such as Turkey don't perform too badly in regards to this.

I don't believe in God and thus I don't believe that God should actually be relevant in this debate. I do, however, have a secular belief that Americans are able to settle the North American continent and transform it into something great--indeed, something much better than what would have been without Americans settling there en masse. Again, though, this isn't actually limited to Americans. For instance, if China was a powerful, industrialized country in the early 1800s, it might have likewise been able to settle a bunch of sparsely populated territory and make this territory great! For that matter, Russian settlement in Siberia and Central Asia might have also improved these regions--though obviously it would have been much better had Russia not went Communist in 1917.



You're right. It all depends on who's got the biggest guns.



I don't think that anyone actually has a divine right to land. However, I do think that certain countries can make much better use of land than certain other countries.



For what it's worth, though, some countries are much more accomplished than other countries. For instance, most modern technology was probably invented by Europeans (including those who settled elsewhere, such as in the Americas or Australia), Ashkenazi Jews, and East Asians. These groups also tend to have the wealthiest and most successful countries today. Meanwhile, regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa didn't achieve anywhere near as much technological innovation and large parts of them are still struggling even today. They're certainly still poorer than the West, East Asia, and Israel are.



So, in this regard, we are in agreement. :)
Futurist, what's the obsession about land use and 'making a territory great'? There will be just as many who will say that it is better to leave as much land as possible to unspoiled nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
Futurist, what's the obsession about land use and 'making a territory great'? There will be just as many who will say that it is better to leave as much land as possible to unspoiled nature.
This is coming from someone who lives in a giant metropolitan area (the Los Angeles metropolitan area) and who really enjoys it--with the exception of the housing costs. First World metropolitan areas--with the exception of ghetto neighborhoods--are actually very nice to live in and it would be nice to see more of them. There are so many things to do, so many places to visit, et cetera.

By the way, one can have giant metropolitan areas and still have a lot of space be devoted to nature. Indeed, the metropolitan areas in southern California actually don't take up that much space:

 

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,865
Ohio, USA
This is coming from someone who lives in a giant metropolitan area (the Los Angeles metropolitan area) and who really enjoys it--with the exception of the housing costs. First World metropolitan areas--with the exception of ghetto neighborhoods--are actually very nice to live in and it would be nice to see more of them. There are so many things to do, so many places to visit, et cetera.

By the way, one can have giant metropolitan areas and still have a lot of space be devoted to nature. Indeed, the metropolitan areas in southern California actually don't take up that much space:

Fair enough, particularly if you're mostly referencing relatively nice urban areas. Still, I think it's nice that plenty of wild areas such as Siberia, western China, and (for now) Amazonia still exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
Is that the politically correct way of saying that?
Members of a smart fraction can be of any race. After all, there are extremely smart people of every race. It's the numbers that differ. For instance, Asians and Jews are heavily overrepresented among geniuses in the US.

Here's an article about smart fractions:


Pages 12-14 and their tables are relevant here. If I am understanding their tables correctly on these pages, then the smartest 5% of Mexico's test-takers (or population) had an average IQ of 105.47 while the smartest 5% of the US's test-takers (or population) had an average IQ of 120.30. So, a gap of almost 15 IQ points, or one standard deviation.

Now, if you want to challenge this data and present different data, then go ahead and do so.