Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you compare any of U.S. Presidents to great figures of the past? Can any of them be compared to Napoleon, Caesar, Augustus, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc? Or do the Presidents lack the amount of individual power and imperial influence that these other people had?
For example, I've heard Andrew Jackson referred to as the "Napoleon of America"...
Not really. Of the folks on your above list, none were subject to any legal checks on their power or duration as rulers. The most powerful or aggressive of the US presidents, still had to contend with the other two branches of government, and were holders of power only on an ephemeral basis.
It would be a waste of our time because the vast majority of such comparisons. from both sides within the political arena, simply accuse a sitting President of imperious conduct, to the obvious detriment of the affected minority views, and the not-so-obvious detriment of what is presented as the "common good" .... or whatever. Even a "benevolent despot" doesn't want to be portrayed or acknowledged as such.
It would be a waste of our time because the vast majority of such comparisons. from both sides within the political arena, simply accuse a sitting President of imperious conduct, to the obvious detriment of the affected minority views, and the not-so-obvious detriment of what is presented as the "common good" .... or whatever. Even a "benevolent despot" doesn't want to be portrayed or acknowledged as such.
Except I would take Augustus off the list have to a great extent having restored Roman "democracy," not so much a conquerer as a military leader/statesmen. That being the case if you combined Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln you'd have an Augustus.
Except I would take Augustus off the list have to a great extent having restored Roman "democracy," not so much a conquerer as a military leader/statesmen. That being the case if you combined Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln you'd have an Augustus.
By bracketing the word "democracy" I am guessing that you correctly suggesting that it was democracy in form rather than substance. The Senate under Augustus was reduced to a rubber stamp dynamic. In terms of an absolute leader vs a leader in a true democracy whose power is limited, no US president compares with any of the Roman emperors, conquerors or not.
Isn't it true that the Presidency has gained huge power over the years, and recent Presidents are much closer to "kings" than the first Presidents were?
Isn't it true that the Presidency has gained huge power over the years, and recent Presidents are much closer to "kings" than the first Presidents were?
"Kings"? Hardly. You need to read up on monarchial type governments.
In the 19th century, Congress was much more dominant than the POTUS. Before the Civil War, the POTUS was almost a figure-head except for those individuals with strong personalities: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson. Lincoln was the first "modern" president, forced by the necessity of leading the country in the face of Civil War into taking actions that he needed to do in order to prosecute the war, but his immediate successors had less need to do that ... and didn't.
Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century, the US started to see more assertive POTUS. Woodrow Wilson also expanded presidential powers. The crises of economic collapse in the 1930s and world war in the 1940s enabled/necessitated expansion of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt. The advent of first the Cold War and later international terrorism have led to continued expansion of presidential powers.
In the last 20 years or so, Congress has attempted to take back some power, especially when the Congress has been Republican and the POTUS Democratic, but the fact is that government by committee has never been an effective means of governing. It's especially not an effective means of governing a diverse nation of 320-330 million people that's the leading economic and military power on the planet. Somebody has to be the man or woman to say, as Harry Truman did nearly 70 years ago, "the buck stops here."
By bracketing the word "democracy" I am guessing that you correctly suggesting that it was democracy in form rather than substance. The Senate under Augustus was reduced to a rubber stamp dynamic. In terms of an absolute leader vs a leader in a true democracy whose power is limited, no US president compares with any of the Roman emperors, conquerors or not.
You got the use of quotations right!
As for comparing Augustus with any American president, right again, but it was an interesting question and I just thought that I would bump the thread a little.
Bill Clinton: Caligula
Obama: DeGaulle
Obama: Neville Chamberlain
Hillary: Tokyo Rose
Trump: Ghengis Khan
GW: Gilligan
Carter: Popeye without spinach
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
