You're viewing a single thread.
He's definitely not radical left, but he's the most pro-union president since at least Carter. Yes - I'm aware of the rail strike fuckery... are you aware of the stuff he's passed?
Id say the problem is that the bar is quite low.
It is, but it's important to recognise that he's raising that bar with genuinely good, pro-union policy that will likely have a snowball effect, strengthening unions, and the left by extension over time.
Certainly, but a country so far off the rails as the US is when it comes to social justice and worker protection, won't be fixed over night. Fixing this will take decades and it will be a bloody uphill battle all the way.
I'm genuinely very happy with Biden's first term. He is left, he is dangerously close to being a Social Democrat. If any antitrust action happens in the next year, I'd label him that. He is currently walking a very fine line of giving people leverage while also handsomely paying capital for following along. Its like he has paved the path for them to do the right thing.
He is left, he is dangerously close to being a Social Democrat. If any antitrust action happens in the next year, I'd label him that.
What aspect of the private economy has he socialized? He is progressive for America....but that doesn't mean he's a leftist. Unless you are willing to actually have the state socialize a market from private industry you aren't "left".
It's debatable if social democrats are anything but center left, most socialist believe that profit motive will drive social democratic states to slowly repatriate state assets to the privet market.
a very fine line of giving people leverage while also handsomely paying capital for following along.
The people already have the leverage, the only thing he's done is stay out of their way, unlike what he did with the rail workers.
Again, I'm not saying he's terrible compared to some of our recent leaders, but it's sad to think people believe he's some warrior for the workers. The man has been in the higher echelons of American government for the last 50 years, and has a pretty awful track record.
I believe he’s the greatest president since Wilson.
I don't know if I've ever met anyone who claimed Wilson to be one of their favorite presidents..... can I ask why?
Also how do you make peace with his overtly racist sentiment, which was know to be aggressive even for the time?
I always thought his benefits outweigh his cost: Brought peace to Europe via the new radical idea of the League of Nations, fought for self determination for nations, supported progressivism in America, created the Federal Reserve, helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
As for his racism, it’s hard press to find a president who didn’t happen to hate an ethnic group. He deserve fault for it, no doubt about that, especially with segregating the Federal Government, but I try to look beyond that and his impact on the world and the nation at large. Hell, one of my other favorite presidents is FDR, despite the Japanese American Internment Camps, but I value his contributions to ending the Great Depression and bringing America to victory in WW2.
Brought peace to Europe via the new radical idea of the League of Nations, fought for self determination for nations, supported progressivism in America, created the Federal Reserve, helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
I think you may want to do a bit more of an in depth dive and into his time as president. I think you may be seeing his image through the rose tinted glasses we are usually taught in school.
The league of nations, while in theory may have been a progressive idea. I don't think any modern historian is going to attribute it to "bringing peace to Europe", in fact I don't think it was accredited to stopping any conflict post ww1. It was effectively the UN, but with even less teeth, and was often seen to give member states participating in conflict legitimacy, as the league would rarely enact any policy to stop them.
fought for self determination for nations
This is where the racism conflicts with his proposed progressive image. Wilson fought for self determination, but only for white Europeans. During the same time he was preaching peace and self determination he was also sending interventional military forces to places like Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Russia where European imperialism was being challenged.
helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
I'm not quite sure if most people would consider this entirely correct. Wilson was a staunch isolationist and campaigned as such for both of his terms. Though i think this belief stems from duplicity on Wilson's part. For his second term he won on keeping America out of the war, but just a few months later he would be making calls to arm and intervene. However, America would return to it's isolationist tendency as soon as the war ended, that is until pearl harbor. Fdr is widely recognized as the president who ended American isolation.
As for his racism, it’s hard press to find a president who didn’t happen to hate an ethnic group. He deserve fault for it, no doubt about that, especially with segregating the Federal Government, but I try to look beyond that and his impact on the world and the nation at large.
While I agree that we have to judge a person within their historical context. Woodrow's racism was seen as extreme even during his term in office, and was pervasive in all his policies both domestic and abroad .
Hell, one of my other favorite presidents is FDR, despite the Japanese American Internment Camps, but I value his contributions to ending the Great Depression and bringing America to victory in WW2.
The biggest difference is that fdr deserves criticism for signing the executive order despite knowing it was racist, not because he himself was racist.
Eleanor Roosevelt was very vocal about the racist motive to intern Japanese Americans and pushed FDR to listen to his conscious. However, decades of yellow peril and a vast amount of pressure from military advisors forced his hand. He was worried about the political blow back of ignoring calls to action, and was worried about the possibility of fermenting a military coup similar to what happened in 33' with the business plot.
He still deserves the criticism of actually signing the order, and all the misery that it entailed, but it's hardly the same as Wilsons hardened racism.
Of course, I’ve no doubt my opinion will change when I read a biography on him.