Who were the most transformational presidents in your opinion and do you think Obama is one?

[craigmatic]

Personally I think Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Reagan really changed this country the most. Others come close. I'm not sure about Obama though.

Edited for typos.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Your list is excellent

Perhaps Kennedy? Mostly for the space program.

[dennis4868]

2. Definitely Obama....

and I would also say Kennedy....

[niceypoo]

3. Define 'transormational'

[craigmatic]

7. Creating conditions or policies that noticeably changed the way Americans lived or the

way the government functioned.

[mtnsnake]

10. Then it has to be George W Bush

That no good fucker changed our way of life in some of the worst ways possible with his horrific monstrous wars, his obscene tax handouts to the rich, and how he got practically the entire world to hate our guts. I still can't believe he's not in prison.

[dkf]

4. Obama had the opportunity to transform us by moving us to renewable energy and upgrading

Our infrastructure. That would have been big.

[vaberella]

14. "Obama today announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history."

That would have been big... I thought he did invest and plans to invest more. That's what I heard. Saving the car industry who are creating more efficient cars. Is not the step? Investing heavily in green energy and renewable energy businesses and programs is not big. Because you do realize that happened under him.

So all that those mentioned in those articles are false and Obama did not invest.

http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/renewable-energy-news/by-technology/energy-efficiency/obama-proposes-772m-investment-into-renewable-energy-programmes-in-2011-budget.html

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rperks/obama_budget_what_it_means_for.html

Note this was in 2009.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2009/2009-10-27-095.html

ARCADIA, Florida, October 27, 2009 (ENS) - President Barack Obama today announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history. The federal government has awarded $3.4 billion to 100 private companies, utilities, manufacturers, cities and other partners to fund technologies intended to move America towards what the President called "a smarter, stronger, and more secure electric grid."

These Smart Grid Investment Grant awards represent the largest group of Recovery Act awards ever made in a single day and the largest batch of Recovery Act clean energy grant awards to date. The end result is expected to be energy-saving choices for consumers, increased efficiency, and the growth of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

But you're right. Obama didn't seize on any opportunity or did really nothing for renewable energy.

Because the media forgets in essence to describe his achievements or what he's done, doesn't mean he's done nothing. And just because he's not running around touting his achievements or moves he's made that people are demanding. Doesn't mean he hasn't done anything.

[dkf]

19. He didn't invest enough to name it transformational.

The estimate to upgrade the electrical grid to accommodate renewable energy was a trillion dollars.

[vaberella]

20. Ahhh...so during an economic crisis the problem Obama has is not investing enough.

Of course...when one is lacking money due to financial problems---certain things take cuts. But I have to wonder how much money now is necessary to determine what is transformational. I remember when one man could make a difference. Now not even $1 makes a difference. What in effect would be enough money to make it transformational? I'm sure if I asked 10 other environmentalist each one would also give me a different figure. ~sigh~

[TheKentuckian]

35. It may not be his fault that has not been transformational in this area

but the trajectory is unchanged in our power use, sources, and distribution.

The amount of investment required is not enough to shift us into a new direction. Maybe it was lack of focus but the scope of the issue is quite large and the areas that need effort are many. The truth is we are fixing to spend more on an extension of tax cuts on the top 2%. I'm guessing it wouldn't be too much of the stretch to guess that considering the size of the carbon energy economy that we haven't even got started yet.

Of course you will get different answers from different environmentalists, engineers, climate scientists, and whoever you ask. If you have an accident and go to ten body shops, odds are you'll get ten estimates and that is on a known quantity, a restoration to a standard condition not a new ballgame.

I think the important lesson to be gleaned from your estimates is all of them would be many times our largest effort.

[mtnsnake]

5. Obama said he aspired to be a transformational leader in the model of Ronald Reagan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2009-04-16-raasch-column-04162009_N.htm

Personally, I disagree with Obama on his choice of Reagan and could never understand why he would ooh and ahh over such an overrated president like him. If anyone during Reagan's time was transformational, it was Gorbachev, not Reagan.

edit for typo

[Peregrine Took]

6. Hmmm...I wish I knew that before I voted for him. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. It was widely reported in the media:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Transformation_like_Reagan.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/17/15343/6894

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2009-04-16-raasch-column-04162009_N.htm

[avaistheone1]

46. I wish I understood that better myself.

However there was vehement denial from the Obama echo chamber about Obama's flirtation with Reagan.

[avaistheone1]

47. .

[Uzybone]

8. Nice to grade the President after 2 years

when all the others on your list have at least 2 terms.

But I guess the bar for Obama must be set far higher for some reason.

[craigmatic]

11. He's had the chance to shape conditions before conditions shape him.

I've judged most of the presidents on the list by what they did in their first 2 years. Just look at what FDR and LBJ did in their first 2 years alone. It's true that some of the others did their best work in later parts of their first or second term but really since WWII presidents only have 2 years of pushing their own agenda. If it makes you feel better I think he's done more than reagan in the time he's had.

[northoftheborder]

9. dont' you mean "transFormational"?

Don't know about Obama yet, he seems to be continuing Bush policies. I would include Bush 2 on that list, in a negative way, putting us into a permanent war, great lessoning of privacy with the security state; our national decline economically began years earlier, but his policies exacerbated it greatly.

[craigmatic]

12. yeah thanks for the spell check.

I agree. I'd go further and put Andrew Johnson and James Polk there too. Johnson started the erosion of presidential power to congress in the guilded age and Polk went to war with Mexico to get Texas and the west and threatened war with Canada to get part of Washington state.

[vaberella]

13. You're right. DADT repeal is not transformational. HRC is not transformational.

Just none of those things is transformational.

[whistler162]

15. You mentioned Reagan hence you must be a DINO or a Republican

at least that is the attitude from when President Obama uses Reagan name in that regard!

[craigmatic]

23. All I said was transformational I didn't say it had to be good.

[whistler162]

28. Neither did Obama so it doesn't matter you must be

a DINO or Republican!

<SARCASM>

[Crunchy Frog]

16. FDR and Reagan definitely.

At this stage, Obama would be a "no".

[geek tragedy]

17. FDR and Reagan were in office during inflection points.

Are we going through another one, or are we just muddling on a slightly improved trajectory? To be determined.

[Superstring]

18. Regarding Obama and transformational presidents

When looking just at legislative and executive accomplishments, I'd put Obama in the top 7 presidents who most notably changed the nation...behind (but not equalling) Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ...and right now comparable to Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson. So it could even be argued that he is already in the top 5, or will be by the end of his presidency.

Anyway, I look at "transformational" meaning that the president changed the attitude of the nation for decades to come, and fundamentally set the nation on a new course. In other words, they left behind a lasting and recognizable *political* legacy. By this definition, our transformational presidents were Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan.

It is too soon to say whether or not Obama is transformational. Accomplishing a whole lot does not a transformational president make. LBJ, for instance, definitely changed the nation, but was not transformational in the sense above. We won't know whether or not Obama joins that rank of presidents until after he leaves office.

[StevieM]

21. An interesting topic. Transformational doesn't necessarily mean great.

The greatest U.S. president's in world history were Washington, Jefferson and Kennedy. JFK's greatness in world history lies with the space program. But I don't know if that makes him "transformational." LBJ made some incredibly changes too--life is very different today for the elderly and for minorities due to his presidency. Reagan was a disaster, but he certainly was transformational.

Jefferson is tricky to rank, because the Louisiana purchase definitely changed the trajectory of America. But that isn't the same kind of transformation that we often think of with the other presidents. Jackson is also tricky, because it's debatable as to how much credit he deserves for certain changes. And it was under Polk that we became a coast to coast nation.

I don't think Obama can be ranked yet. And I don't think, when all is said and done, that he will be one of the "transformational" presidents. It may take an even bigger GOP disaster to get the next transformational president.

We also don't know if it will be a Democrat. Our next transformational president may be an even bigger Republican disaster.

I guess the safest list of transformational presidents would be: Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. They are the ones who changed the nature of how politics works in this country.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Big list, and no.

[BklnDem75]

24. At two years, Obama's at a great start

He's already being compared to two and three term presidents.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exilednight]

26. I would also add

Woodrow Wilson. His 14 Points speech along with his actions at the 1919 Peace Conference not only forever changed US foreign policy, but changed the course of the world.

I would also add George W Bush to that list. The legislation passed under Bush's administration has forever transformed this country into a quasi police state and again forever changed our foreign policy.

Obama doesn't even come close to being a transformational president. It doesn't mean he can't be one, he just hasn't chosen to be one. He hasn't changed foreign policy in any drastic way. He has not committed or pushed for a truly transformational domestic policy. He came close with health care, but blew it when he traded away the public option and the Canadian drug deal, and instead settled for minor incremental change that has no drastic bearing on the quality or access to health care.

[mikekohr]

27. JFK averted nuclear war and because of that we are able to engage in these conversations

For that fact ALONE he will always be at the top of my list. President Obama will be in the top 10 by the end of his second term in office.

[boppers]

33. JFK averted a nuclear showdown he created.

You don't become a hero by creating a crisis, and then solving your own mess.

[mikekohr]

39. The Facts Do Not Bear Out Your Statement, -this started in 1958/1959-

The Cuban Missile Crisis (known as The October Crisis in Cuba or Russian: Карибский кризис Caribbean Crisis in Russia) was a confrontation between the Soviet Union, Cuba and the United States in October 1962, during the Cold War. In September 1962, the Cuban and Soviet governments began to surreptitiously build bases in Cuba for a number of medium- and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) with the ability to strike most of the continental United States. This action followed the 1958 deployment of Thor IRBMs in the UK and Jupiter IRBMs to Italy and Turkey in 1961 – more than 100 U.S.-built missiles having the capability to strike Moscow with nuclear warheads. On October 14, 1962, a United States U-2 photoreconnaissance plane captured photographic proof of Soviet missile bases under construction in Cuba.

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


According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/colc.html


Cuban Missle Crisis Timeline:
January 1, 1959
After a six-year long revolution President Fulgencio Batista flees Cuba and Fidel Castro assumes power after proclaiming victory in Santiago.

February 2, 1959
Cuba declares Fidel Castro to be the new premier and president.

October 28, 1959
Turkey and the United States agree to deploy fifteen nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles in Turkey starting on June 1, 1961. Turkey is member of NATO and shares a border with the Soviet Union.

February 4-13, 1960
During his trip to Cuba Soviet First Deputy Prime Minister Anastas Mikoyan negotiates economic and trade agreements that help Fidel Castro to deccrease Cuba's economic dependence on the United States.

May 7, 1960
The Soviet Union and Cuba establish diplomatic relations.

May 27, 1960
The United States ends its foreign aid program to Cuba.

July 8, 1960
The United States stops the import of Cuban sugar, effectively cutting off 80 percent of Cuban exports to the United States.

July 9, 1960
The Soviet Union agrees to buy sugar previously destined for the U.S. market.

July 12, 1960
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev supports Cuba in dispute with U.S. over Guatanamo Bay military base.

August 16, 1960
The U.S. plans to assassinate Fidel Castro by poisoning a box of Castro's favorite cigars.

August 28, 1960
The United States imposes a trade embargo against Cuba.

September 1960
The first large Soviet Bloc arms shipment arrives in Cuba. Soon afterward, Czech and Soviet technicians are reportedly assisting the Cuban military in assembling equipment and installing weapons such as anti-aircraft batteries. Soviet Bloc personnel also begin to be employed as military instructors, advisers and technicians.

October 6, 1960
Cuba nationalizes U.S. private investments on the island worth approximately one billion dollars.

October 14, 1960
Cuba nationalizes all foreign banks in Cuba.

December 19, 1960
Cuba and the Soviet Union issue a joint communiqué in which Cuba openly aligns itself with the domestic and foreign policies of the Soviet Union and indicates its solidarity with the Sino-Soviet Bloc.

January 2, 1961
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev tells a gathering at the Cuban embassy in Moscow: "Alarming news is coming from Cuba at present, news that the most aggressive American monopolists are preparing a direc t attack on Cuba. What is more, they are trying to present the case as though rocket bases of the Soviet Union are being set up or are already established in Cuba. It is well known that this is a foul slander. There is no Soviet military base in Cuba."

January 3, 1961
The United States and Cuba sever diplomatic and consular relations.

January 20, 1961
John F. Kennedy is inaugurated as the thirty-fifth president of the United States.

read more: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis/timeline.htm

[boppers]

40. When was the US supported invasion?

April 12, 1961
On the eve of the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy decides that U.S. armed forces will not take part in the operation. Any conflict that takes place, Kennedy tells his aides in private, will be "between the Cubans themselves."

April 14, 1961
Early in the morning, a group of B-26 bombers piloted by Cuban exiles attack air bases in Cuba. The raid, coordinated by the CIA, is designed to destroy as much of Castro's air power as possible before the scheduled landing of a force of U.S.-trained Cuban exiles. However, to keep the U.S. connection from becoming public, an additional set of airstrikes on Cuban airfields is canceled.

April 17-18, 1961
With U.S. direction, training, and support, a group of about fourteen hundred Cuban emigrés attempt an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Cuban government aircraft which survived the earlier airstrikes are able to pin the invasion force on the beachhead, and without additional supplies of ammunition, the invaders are quickly crushed by Cuban ground forces. Of the anti-Castro emigrés, 114 are killed and 1,189 are captured. In response to the invasion, Fidel Castro orders the arrest of some two hundred thousand suspected dissidents to prevent internal uprisings.


April 19, 1961
In a memo for the president, Attorney General Robert Kennedy identifies "three possible courses of action": (1) sending American troops into Cuba; (2) placing a strict blockade around Cuba; or (3) calling on the Organization of American States (OAS) to prohibit the shipment to Cuba of arms from any outside source.

In continuing correspondence with President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs invasion, Premier Khrushchev warns against a policy of "unreasonable actions," that "can lead the world to a new global war."

---

Pretty comprehensive timeline you posted, at numerous times, someone could have said "Uhm, this is stupid, lift the embargoes, and Castro will be gone in 10 years". Instead, they kept punching each other, daring the other to start a war, and turning Castro into a dictator-for-life.

[mikekohr]

41. We are drifting from the subject.

JFK inherited a "Bay of Pigs," operation set in place during the Eisenhower administration. He should have nixed the operation entirely but at least made sure no US forces were involved. JFK did not set the stage that precipitated this nuclear stare down, but was but a player on the stage. The missiles placed in Turkey in 1958/59 are the initial and primary reason this crisis evolved into the closest near-nuclear exchange in history.
Kennedy found a way out of a mess, set in motion years before he took office, and we are having this exchange because he prevented an exchange of another sort. For that, I and history, gives him credit.

[boppers]

44. So, he wasn't a dick. Bravo.

Heroism comes easy these days.

[mikekohr]

45. Sarah Palin Does Not Think JFK Was A Hero Either

This coming from she who ran away from her commitment to the people of Alaska. The 1/2 term Alaskan Chillbilly could learn a thing or two about persistence and courage by studying the life history of John F. Kennedy.

Example: while recuperating from serious back injuries he sustained in the well known heroics on PT 109, JFK volunteered to rescue stranded sailors on what many considerd a suicide mission. The stranded sailors were at an island so remote that if the mission were successful in reaching and rescuing the sailors that Kennedy's PT boat would not have enough fuel to make the trip back to base. He volunteered, rescued the sailors, and brought everyone back alive.

Heroism may indeed come easy these days, but in Kennedy's day a hero had to actually accomplish something, to help people, to lift them up. Tearing down the accomplishment and character of others was the work of Garrett Troopers.

[GreenEyedLefty]

29. Obama transformed American history and politics by the mere fact of being elected.

He gave new meaning to the saying "Politics is the art of the possible."

JMO.

[harun]

30. Washington, still waiting for the second revolutionary.

[niceypoo]

31. Johnson

The jury is still out on Obama

[OhioBlue]

32. I agree with your list

i would add Kennedy and Washington.

I think it is too early to make a call on Obama.

[Kaleva]

34. I think you could add Nixon because of Watergate & his resignation.

The media was very deferential to the sitting President prior to that and would not make public certain things such as affairs, the use of drugs (in JFK's case) or even mentioning or showing a picture of FDR in a wheelchair.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelt's, Reagan, and arguably JFK and Bush II

I think Obama is certainly functioning in the existing paradigm and is pro-establishment. I think it is little chance he will create a shift. He has a much greater chance of being a great President than a transformative one, he is not a boat rocker and he is loathe to ever consider major overhauls much less reinventing broken wheels.

He is a fixer/maintainer not a revolutionary. He may prove politically transformative in any number of directions, most dangerously fully transitioning the Democratic party to the Reagan paradigm and limiting the debate to such a sphere.

[shirlden]

37. In my lifetime

(b. 1936) I would have to say Reagan. The transformation is still going on and it is not good. He is responsible for the mess we have today and ultimately, the loss of our standard of living. His "greed is good" meme changed Americans and brought out the worse in us.

[Raine]

42. Johnson

and his work on civil rights certainly transformed this nation.

[victoryparty]

43. Don't forget Ford - here's why

The only American president who wasn't elected, Gerald Ford transformed the presidency by pardoning his predecessor Richard Nixon. Had Nixon paid for his crimes, then future presidents would have known they weren't "above the law."

Having said that, I would say the JFK had the potential to be the most transformative president of the 20th century had he lived to be re-elected. Sadly, we will never know what he might have accomplished.

Reagan has to be at the top of the list in my lifetime (1964 to ???).

Very interesting discussion, thanks for starting it.

[avaistheone1]

48. Kennedy and Johnson

should definitely be added to the list.

I thought Obama would be transformational. But Obama is taking us backward to Reagan and Nixon, he is not taking us forward