I received the following comment on my entry about why I feel Woodrow Wilson felt it was his duty to expand the powers of the Executive Branch:
"With congress as corrupt as it is now, I think it was a good idea that Wilson took some executive power back into the presidential arena. If it was even worse back then, his actions were certainly justified."
A lot of critics say that Wilson and FDR expanded the powers of the Presidency too much, but I think part of the problem is whether or not the President in office can HANDLE the broader Executive powers.
Coolidge and Hoover are great examples of this. Coolidge took office under Wilson's expanded powers, but he looked around and said, "You know what, things aren't going too badly...let's not touch anything and see what happens." What happened was that things were pretty sedate, and Coolidge left office with a surplus budget. The powers of the presidency didn't really tickle his fancy, so he didn't get carried away with them.
Hoover, however, got into office and said, "Okay, I'm going to do this, and this, and change this, and this...and maybe that, too." Hoover left office with the country and economy a wreck. The Stock Market Crash had come and gone, and the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. He took enthusiastic advantage of the expanded powers of the office, but didn't know how to control them appropriately.
FDR, as an additional example, not only took enthusiastic advantage of the Presidency's powers, but expanded them even further than Wilson had. Although his economic successes are debatable, many of us agree that his policies to assist the less fortunate amongst us are of lasting value: in other words, he was well-equipped to handle a lot of power.
But this is definitely just my opinion.
Showing posts with label President Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Wilson. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Watching Twistory Unfold
As I write this, I am reading the collected speeches of President Woodrow Wilson, shopping for a USB to SATA or IDE adapter cable...and enjoying President Obama's Cairo speech live over Twitter, courtesy of the White House's official Twitter profile.
I've said from the get-go that I love Twitter. As a humble member of the hoi polloi, Twitter allows me to rub elbows with those I might not otherwise be able to meet. It also gives the political junkie in me the ability to watch government officials from both parties happily Tweet away, location be damned, as this February 25th article from CNN shows.
What really struck me about this morning, though, was that instead of actually turning on the TV to watch the address, instead of going somewhere on the internet to see the live video broadcast, instead of using an online audio stream, I followed along with President Obama over social media...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is watching history unfold.
As an historian, I often don't feel those historical moments come and go. I'm too stuck in the past to notice history as it's being made here in the present. Somehow though, I got the message today.
Unlike the President's previous speeches, to which the White House's Twitter account provides links, someone sat and Twittered passages of President Obama's speech as he uttered them, and I read along. Not since FDR started bombarding the radio, and Kennedy started asking for television broadcasts, has such an untapped social media been put to this kind of use. I'm looking forward to watching future uses of it by the White house.
As a side not, I found this all very exciting, but it left me wondering how past presidents might have used Twitter.
Wilson, who wrote all his own speeches (as well as many books), would probably like Twitter a lot. He liked to write, wrote well, and was all about being in control of his situation. I think he would've used the medium to make his points and sprinkle his witticisms. He often longed to be loved by the people, and this might have given him the chance.
FDR, I suspect, would use Twitter very differently. Rather than for politics, I suspect we would see a lot of pictures from his family gatherings, and updates about what he was doing. He liked to bond with people, and the people loved him. Twitter offers a way to seem close to people without having to BE close to them.
I've said from the get-go that I love Twitter. As a humble member of the hoi polloi, Twitter allows me to rub elbows with those I might not otherwise be able to meet. It also gives the political junkie in me the ability to watch government officials from both parties happily Tweet away, location be damned, as this February 25th article from CNN shows.
What really struck me about this morning, though, was that instead of actually turning on the TV to watch the address, instead of going somewhere on the internet to see the live video broadcast, instead of using an online audio stream, I followed along with President Obama over social media...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is watching history unfold.
As an historian, I often don't feel those historical moments come and go. I'm too stuck in the past to notice history as it's being made here in the present. Somehow though, I got the message today.
Unlike the President's previous speeches, to which the White House's Twitter account provides links, someone sat and Twittered passages of President Obama's speech as he uttered them, and I read along. Not since FDR started bombarding the radio, and Kennedy started asking for television broadcasts, has such an untapped social media been put to this kind of use. I'm looking forward to watching future uses of it by the White house.
As a side not, I found this all very exciting, but it left me wondering how past presidents might have used Twitter.
Wilson, who wrote all his own speeches (as well as many books), would probably like Twitter a lot. He liked to write, wrote well, and was all about being in control of his situation. I think he would've used the medium to make his points and sprinkle his witticisms. He often longed to be loved by the people, and this might have given him the chance.
FDR, I suspect, would use Twitter very differently. Rather than for politics, I suspect we would see a lot of pictures from his family gatherings, and updates about what he was doing. He liked to bond with people, and the people loved him. Twitter offers a way to seem close to people without having to BE close to them.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Four reasons NOT to hate the Federal Reserve system...
Now keep in mind I'm not saying that the Fed is perfect and couldn't use a review and an overhaul...it totally could. I just wanted to point out that it isn't necessary to hate it with the blind and mistrustful loathing the general public seems to have for it.
Four reasons to support the Federal Reserve System:
1) Despite people's fears and misgivings, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a completely independent entity. It is still responsible to Congress, so even though it's 'private', it's only partially private. Congress writes all its rules, so to speak, and the Senate approves all heads of the Fed.
2) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1907? The very basics: the Panic was caused by a lot of brand new businesses popping up (think 'dot.com bubble' and the internet) to take advantage of the blossoming railroad industry: everyone was looking to make their dime. This put a strain on the economy and caused corrupt behavior, such as people buying shares of their own stock to boost prices. That, in turn, led to bank failures - where people pulled out more money than banks had.
3) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1893? Basically, a drop in gold, which backed currency at that time, and mishandling of silver, set off an economic depression. That caused people to panic and try to withdraw more money than what the banks had on hand. Between the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, these sorts of failures have not happened again.
4) There were, quite literally, THOUSANDS of different types of currencies during the 'free banking era', which everyone here seems to want to return to. These were state run banks and free banks, and often, money that was good in one state was worthless in another.
In this day and age of frequent and far-reaching travel, would you really want your New York currency to be worthless in Florida...and on the gold standard when your bank is on the silver standard?
I repeat - this is not a praise of the Federal Reserve System. The current set-up has a lot of problems and could use a good tweaking. This entry is just meant to be food for thought on a subject that takes a lot of hard (and sometimes unnecessary) hits. Considering that the Fed doesn't even have a full 100 years under its belt yet, it's not doing as badly as it might.
As for President Wilson's mandating it into existence, I know a lot of average Joes really hate him for it, but given the circumstances in the 30 years preceding the Federal Reserve Act, I can't say that I blame him for at least giving it a try.
Four reasons to support the Federal Reserve System:
1) Despite people's fears and misgivings, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a completely independent entity. It is still responsible to Congress, so even though it's 'private', it's only partially private. Congress writes all its rules, so to speak, and the Senate approves all heads of the Fed.
2) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1907? The very basics: the Panic was caused by a lot of brand new businesses popping up (think 'dot.com bubble' and the internet) to take advantage of the blossoming railroad industry: everyone was looking to make their dime. This put a strain on the economy and caused corrupt behavior, such as people buying shares of their own stock to boost prices. That, in turn, led to bank failures - where people pulled out more money than banks had.
3) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1893? Basically, a drop in gold, which backed currency at that time, and mishandling of silver, set off an economic depression. That caused people to panic and try to withdraw more money than what the banks had on hand. Between the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, these sorts of failures have not happened again.
4) There were, quite literally, THOUSANDS of different types of currencies during the 'free banking era', which everyone here seems to want to return to. These were state run banks and free banks, and often, money that was good in one state was worthless in another.
In this day and age of frequent and far-reaching travel, would you really want your New York currency to be worthless in Florida...and on the gold standard when your bank is on the silver standard?
I repeat - this is not a praise of the Federal Reserve System. The current set-up has a lot of problems and could use a good tweaking. This entry is just meant to be food for thought on a subject that takes a lot of hard (and sometimes unnecessary) hits. Considering that the Fed doesn't even have a full 100 years under its belt yet, it's not doing as badly as it might.
As for President Wilson's mandating it into existence, I know a lot of average Joes really hate him for it, but given the circumstances in the 30 years preceding the Federal Reserve Act, I can't say that I blame him for at least giving it a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
