The discussion about conservative posters here interests me. Here is an attempt at a fairly neutral political conversation (if such a thing can be envisioned). The purpose for this is to see if I can put myside in the shoes of the other side and see history from their viewpoint (as Bob Butler has tried to do on the gun control issue).

Below I give lists of what in IMO is as list of American political greats from a Red vs. Blue perspective. Please comment. Note, George Washington isn't included because I figured both sides would claim him, so you can mentally append him to the top of each list. Also, I rule out any president who didn't serve a full term as having had too-short of a time in power.

Red Political Greats:

Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Coolidge, Reagan

Blue Political Greats:

Hamilton, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F Roosevelt, Eisenhower

I tired to pick at least one great from each saeculum. Lots of good choices for the 1794-1865 saeculum on both sides. I picked the biggest guns, Lincoln of course, and Hamilton. Jefferson and Jackson seem a pretty good fit for today's conservatives. Polk may be a bit of a surprise. I chose him because the Red side has been more hawkish than the Blue in recent decades and Polk is the greatest of American conquerors having seized California, Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico.

1865-1946 saeculum: For the Blues, this was easy, both Roosevelts. T. Roosevelt was founder of the Progressive party and magazine, FDR is probably the greatest of all for the Blues. Wilson was a racist and fought a war that accomplished nothing except getting a lot of doughboys killed. Grover Cleveland was a conservative, even for his day, so he doesn't qualify.

The Red side was harder. I picked Coolidge because he left office as a success, never lost an election, served a full term, and has a decent rep from modern conservatives (he was Reagan's favorite president). Would conservatives here prefer McKinley or Taft? Grant was pretty corrupt and the other guys in the 1865-1946 saeculum either did not serve full terms or are really forgettable.

For the 1946-present it was easy for the Red: Reagan. For the blues it was a lot harder. Kennedy didn't serve a full term so he's disqualified. Johnson is no good because of Vietnam. Obama, its too soon. Nothing Clinton accomplished still remains, and he was impeached. Carter has no respect as a president (although a lot as a man). This leaves Eisenhower and Truman. I chose the former because Eisenhower was more recent (and still a long time ago). Our side really needs a hero

So what do people think?

Interesting. I don't know why Polk is claimed for the red side. I see why you claim Jefferson and Jackson as red, for their libertarian orientations, but that's questionable. In their time, their policies were left-wing populist. I would pick Truman over Eisenhower, because the latter initiated no blue policies but just maintained the status quo. I don't think Coolidge gets a good rep from historians, but I see your point. McKinley was more of a trailblazer for red policies.

I really question Polk as "great" in terms of anything other than a list of "sweet super-villain hairstyles". I mean, I guess by going coast to coast with the US you could make a pretty sweet Sith Lord out of him, as he both carried out the prophecy set forth in the Monroe Doctrine and set the stage for the American empire. I dunno, underrated? Sure maybe, but still not great.

I wouldn't throw T. Roosevelt as a blue style guy. Same with Eisenhower. They're both aspects of both sides. Choosing either is kinda arbitrary.

Overall, I think that the idea that politics in this saeculum is all part of this grand American tradition, mostly because after 80 years the parties don't look anything like what they used to platform wise.

It's telling that many Obama supporters consider Eisenhower a model of a President. It's also amazing that in 2012 Barack Obama did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. Sure, you say -- but he won one state that Nixon lost in 1972 and one state that Reagan lost in 1984, but that does not mean much. What is more remarkable is that Eisenhower won both Massachusetts and Minnesota twice, which no Republican has since done even once. Eisenhower won every state that one now considers liberal except Hawaii -- which was not then a state.

Jefferson is a tricky case because his presidency wasn't quite as Jeffersonian as advertised (Louisiana Purchase, retention of the national bank). That said, I don't know who else you could go for during that time period--there's a similar conflict with Madison.

Jackson is the most accurate one on this list, and it's also why I consider him the Worst. President. Ever.

Polk is an excellent choice, especially when you consider the new land acquired from Mexico was a convenient way to advocate expanding the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific.

I agree that Coolidge is a difficult choice due to perception of greatness. I also agree that you could easily swap him out with McKinley.

Reagan, for better or worse, has earned his spot there.

On the other side, Hamilton, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts are all pretty much "duh" choices, although TR sometimes strikes me as overrated.

Finally, if LBJ is dinged for Vietnam, Eisenhower (and Kennedy, for that matter) need to be dinged as well for the events leading up to the war. You also have the Iran and Guatemala coups to deal with (ugh, why is an airport named after Dulles?), and LBJ got more done on civil rights even though the path was complicated. Despite Vietnam I think the Great Society easily seals LBJ for the spot. (I'd ding Truman for the atomic bombings and his Supreme Court choices).

I was trying to rate these guys in terms of today's red vs. blue, not what would correspond to liberal vs. conservation at the time. Polk was a Southerner, supported slavery, and was a successful war maker. He corresponds well to a champion of the southern white man's party.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was trying to rate these guys in terms of today's red vs. blue, not what would correspond to liberal vs. conservation at the time. Polk was a Southerner, supported slavery, and was a successful war maker. He corresponds well to a champion of the southern white man's party.

Yeah, I quickly found it futile to judge on spectrums past--thus why I agree with your take on Polk.

Hamilton was a Statist, yet, much like our current 'blue' partisans - but his Statism was not rooted in anything approaching egalitarian liberalism.

Analyzing the political eclecticism of the early Republic is a real problem for virtually any historian, because the entire context is alien to our own.

In particular, the entire sociocultural structure of colonial and Republican America was forged by the status quo of mercantilism. Mercantilism was the dominant economic system of the late feudalist and proto-capitalist historical period, and it has no parallel today.

On the one hand, like the 'blue' ethos, mercantilism was primarily State-directed. Unlike the 'blue' ethos, its aim was capital accumulation and not capital distribution, and so it was hierarchical and anti-egalitarian, much like the 'red' economic system.

And so Eric The Green is quite right when he says that, for his time, a small-government partisan like Jefferson was on the "populist left", despite being a minarchist. Consequentially, Hamilton and the Federalists were on the Right because of their Statism, not despite it.

Ike/Obama.

Jefferson was considered a liberal in his time, though nowadays he'd be considered a libertarian, or a tea party conservative. Eisenhower was considered a conservative in his time, though both sides may want to claim him nowadays. Libertarians like him for his anti-military industrial complex position, conservatives like him for his social conservatism, and liberals liked the tax policies during his postwar presidency. Everyone still likes Ike it seems.

Lincoln's a strange case because, even back then, it was hard to label him as liberal or conservative. Still, if I had to pick one, I'd say he was more conservative than liberal. He was a moderate Republican in comparison to the more radical Republicans of the time and he was considered a conservative by at least half the country during his presidency. You have to keep in mind that conservative and liberal didn't mean back then what it does today. Before the progressive era of the 1890s, a conservative was a federalist who believed in the power of big government. Monarchists were the ultra-right wingers of the 1800s. For example, Washington, Adams and Hamilton were all conservatives who believed in a strong federal government. Small government types, like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Adam Smith, and John Locke, were considered Liberals. These classical liberals were minarchists vehemently against the central banking system and wanted to limit the power of the federal government. They were the ancestors of the present day libertarians. Libertarians, in a sense, are the true liberals.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Jefferson is a tricky case because his presidency wasn't quite as Jeffersonian as advertised (Louisiana Purchase, retention of the national bank). That said, I don't know who else you could go for during that time period--there's a similar conflict with Madison.

Jefferson is in there because he is the opposing side to Hamilton. Hamiliton saw the US as a potential great power, an industrial and commercial giant, with a strong central government. He believed in Progress, the Whig theory of history and so represents the progressive side. Yes, he was an elitist and certainly was no egalitarian. The blue side today is the progressive side. The meaning of progress is different today, but it still
contains elements of developing into a better country. Conservatives do not believe in human perfectability, for them progress is a dangerous illusion.

Jefferson saw the US as simply a continuation of the agrarian nation is already was, with its existing social order. He saw no need for a strong government since most nonimperial governmental tasks could be handled locally by the local gentry. He was then a conservative, but like Burke (the father of modern conservatism) he was anti-Tory, which put him on the leftl. But all of the founding fathers were on the left in that sense. The red and blue sides came from the rise of factions represented by Hamilton and Jefferson.

Jackson is the most accurate one on this list....Polk is an excellent choice, especially when you consider the new land acquired from Mexico was a convenient way to advocate expanding the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific.

Yes precisely, these two and Reagan are the purest exponents. Jackson was an "old republican" one of those who sought to move the party back to Jefferson's foundations. The Jefferson-Jackson dinner celebrate this link. That is why they sit at the head of the list.

On the other side, Hamilton, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts are all pretty much "duh" choices, although TR sometimes strikes me as overrated.

Would you choose Wilson instead? There's not much to choose among for blues over that saeculum, and the picking are worse for the next one.

Finally, if LBJ is dinged for Vietnam, Eisenhower (and Kennedy, for that matter) need to be dinged as well for the events leading up to the war.

Neither of these guys had progressives asking them Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?

LBJ got more done on civil rights even though the path was complicated. Despite Vietnam I think the Great Society easily seals LBJ for the spot.

I would choose LBJ in NY minute. For me, LBJs domestic accomplishments greatly outweigh Vietnam. But many progressives and other blues feel that Vietnam left a stain that cannot be washed off. How do the blue here feel? Is LBJ a better choice?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Jefferson is in there because he is the opposing side to Hamilton. Hamiliton saw the US as a potential great power, an industrial and commercial giant, with a strong central government. He believed in Progress, the Whig theory of history and so represents the progressive side. Yes, he was an elitist and certainly was no egalitarian. The blue side today is the progressive side. The meaning of progress is different today, but it still
contains elements of developing into a better country. Conservatives do not believe in human perfectability, for them progress is a dangerous illusion.

Jefferson saw the US as simply a continuation of the agrarian nation is already was, with its existing social order. He saw no need for a strong government since most nonimperial governmental tasks could be handled locally by the local gentry. He was then a conservative, but like Burke (the father of modern conservatism) he was anti-Tory, which put him on the leftl. But all of the founding fathers were on the left in that sense. The red and blue sides came from the rise of factions represented by Hamilton and Jefferson.

You know what, I was judging Jefferson solely on his presidency, which I thought we were doing here until I realized I wasn't paying closer attention to Hamilton's inclusion on this list. Oops. If we judge Jefferson as a whole then I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Originally Posted by Bronco80

On the other side, Hamilton, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts are all pretty much "duh" choices, although TR sometimes strikes me as overrated.

Would you choose Wilson instead? There's not much to choose among for blues over that saeculum, and the picking are worse for the next one.

If Wilson wasn't such a racist prick that pissed on civil liberties during WWI then I might consider him more seriously. Since Hamilton doesn't limit us to Presidents, how about William Jennings Bryan? He's not perfect either but did make a huge impact.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Finally, if LBJ is dinged for Vietnam, Eisenhower (and Kennedy, for that matter) need to be dinged as well for the events leading up to the war.

Neither of these guys had progressives asking them Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?

If either of them were President in the mid-late 60s (Kennedy, especially), I think it's likely they would have put themselves into the position to "earn" those chants. There's a habit of people to overrate JFK and underrate LBJ due to the parts of the 60s they were president in. IF JFK wasn't killed I think S&H would have had a ball writing about the perception of a president in a 1T/2T transition.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I would choose LBJ in NY minute. For me, LBJs domestic accomplishments greatly outweigh Vietnam. But many progressives and other blues feel that Vietnam left a stain that cannot be washed off. How do the blue here feel? Is LBJ a better choice?

Maybe there's a generation gap in play here. I can easily see Millennials rehabilitating LBJ as they have no direct memory of Vietnam, while Boomers were so uniquely scarred from the Vietnam experience that they may permanently hold it against him (though we'll see if enrollment in Medicare changes any minds). What does the Boomer contingent here think? Eric, I'd be particularly interested in your opinion.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Jefferson was considered a liberal in his time, though nowadays he'd be considered a libertarian, or a tea party conservative. Eisenhower was considered a conservative in his time, though both sides may want to claim him nowadays. Libertarians like him for his anti-military industrial complex position, conservatives like him for his social conservatism, and liberals liked the tax policies during his postwar presidency. Everyone still likes Ike it seems.

Jefferson would have changed with the times. He would have been concerned about the inequality caused by corporate CEOs amassing all the wealth. He would have known that "free enterprise" is not free but tyrannical, monopolistic exploitation by a powerful few of the people.

Lincoln's a strange case because, even back then, it was hard to label him as liberal or conservative. Still, if I had to pick one, I'd say he was more conservative than liberal. He was a moderate Republican in comparison to the more radical Republicans of the time and he was considered a conservative by at least half the country during his presidency. You have to keep in mind that conservative and liberal didn't mean back then what it does today. Before the progressive era of the 1890s, a conservative was a federalist who believed in the power of big government. Monarchists were the ultra-right wingers of the 1800s. For example, Washington, Adams and Hamilton were all conservatives who believed in a strong federal government. Small government types, like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Adam Smith, and John Locke, were considered Liberals. These classical liberals were minarchists vehemently against the central banking system and wanted to limit the power of the federal government. They were the ancestors of the present day libertarians. Libertarians, in a sense, are the true liberals.

Yes, that's the trouble with lining up 19th century and 18th century leaders under today's red and blue banners.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

If Wilson wasn't such a racist prick that pissed on civil liberties during WWI then I might consider him more seriously. Since Hamilton doesn't limit us to Presidents, how about William Jennings Bryan? He's not perfect either but did make a huge impact.

Good points; I agree.

If either of them were President in the mid-late 60s (Kennedy, especially), I think it's likely they would have put themselves into the position to "earn" those chants. There's a habit of people to overrate JFK and underrate LBJ due to the parts of the 60s they were president in. IF JFK wasn't killed I think S&H would have had a ball writing about the perception of a president in a 1T/2T transition.

I think Kennedy is not over-rated, but under-rated these days, but mikebert is right in not including presidents who didn't serve out a term. I think JFK was already pulling back from Vietnam, as he revealed in his interview with Chronkite. Over-rated or not, the Kennedys were cautious and had political sense enough not to make huge blunders like LBJ did. For LBJ, it was let's go in whole hog, regardless of consequences, whether it was civil rights or war. LBJ was larger than life, and lacked any sense of proportion or balance.

Maybe there's a generation gap in play here. I can easily see Millennials rehabilitating LBJ as they have no direct memory of Vietnam, while Boomers were so uniquely scarred from the Vietnam experience that they may permanently hold it against him (though we'll see if enrollment in Medicare changes any minds). What does the Boomer contingent here think? Eric, I'd be particularly interested in your opinion.

LBJ is indeed permanently scarred in my boomer mind. But he does have credentials as a blue president. Blue is relatively anti-war now, but only since Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Kennedy is not over-rated, but under-rated these days, but mikebert is right in not including presidents who didn't serve out a term. I think JFK was already pulling back from Vietnam, as he revealed in his interview with Chronkite. Over-rated or not, the Kennedys were cautious and had political sense enough not to make huge blunders like LBJ did. For LBJ, it was let's go in whole hog, regardless of consequences, whether it was civil rights or war. LBJ was larger than life, and lacked any sense of proportion or balance.

What I can't shake from my mind is that the CIA had Diem overthrown just two months after that interview. I would think that if JFK was ready to pull back, it would make more sense to just leave Diem to his own devices and let the chips fall on their own.

Thanks for the LBJ perspective, by the way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Jefferson would have changed with the times. He would have been concerned about the inequality caused by corporate CEOs amassing all the wealth. He would have known that "free enterprise" is not free but tyrannical, monopolistic exploitation by a powerful few of the people.

I think he would have recognized that the corruption of the government by central banking interests (ie the fed) among other things is what enabled that monopolistic exploitation. He was against that from the start. He'd be a libertarian for sure.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I think he would have recognized that the corruption of the government by central banking interests (ie the fed) among other things is what enabled that monopolistic exploitation. He was against that from the start. He'd be a libertarian for sure.

I think he would have seen through that charade. The Fed does not enable monopolistic exploitation; that predates the Fed by many decades. I wouldn't say for sure that he would favor the FED; however he would not be a libertarian, because he would recognize that allowing big and powerful corporations to run everything is against the interests of small business and the common people.

"corruption of the government by central banking interests" is not what causes global warming and pollution, nor the bloated salaries of CEOs. It does not cause outsourcing and automation. I'm not even sure there is much such corruption. The corruption that exists consists of government officials who are bought by corporate lobbyists. Public financing of elections, not libertarian opposition to the public sector, is the answer to such corruption.

Libertarian is just a fanciful, failed utopian ideology that does not deal with the real facts of human nature and society. It buys into Reagan's trickle-down economics, and is naive about the need for world policing. It assumes government is bad and business is good, when the reverse is usually the case.

It doesn't assume anything. It's an application of the non-aggression principle. The only real difference between the government and any other private entity is that the people allow the government to initiate the use of force against others, and often ourselves. Governments are just glorified protection rackets and that's all they've ever been throughout history. Businesses as long as they don't initiate the use of force as leverage (often using the government towards those ends) are good because they are engaging in voluntary transactions towards mutual benefit. How often do private businesses invade peoples' homes with an army and tanks, or bombtheir homes, or held them as prisoners and tortured them? Sure sometimes businesses profit off of war, but they wouldn't be able to do so without government.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

It doesn't assume anything. It's an application of the non-aggression principle. The only real difference between the government and any other private entity is that the people allow the government to initiate the use of force against others, and often ourselves. Governments are just glorified protection rackets and that's all they've ever been throughout history. Businesses as long as they don't initiate the use of force as leverage (often using the government towards those ends) are good because they are engaging in voluntary transactions towards mutual benefit. How often do private businesses invade peoples' homes with an army and tanks, or bomb their homes, or held them as prisoners and tortured them? Sure sometimes businesses profit off of war, but they wouldn't be able to do so without government.

I don't know how you can embrace such fanciful thinking. I know it's an Xer tendency, because of cynicism and individualism, but I don't like to leave it unanswered, even though it is impossible to convince you of the problem with this line of thought.

Government is basic; it defines the country you live in. Business takes place within it. Government can protect rights, or it can abuse them. But rights don't even exist in practice without government, even if they do exist in principle without it. Unless you have police and courts and laws, you are at the mercy of whoever has the strongest pistol. Anarchy is not a viable system, because strong people still abuse and take advantage of the weak. We need that "protection racket" in order to protect ourselves from the barbarians and vandals. In periods where your philosophy is in force, small businesses are forced out, people are unemployed and the rich get richer. That's where we are today after 34 years of your philosophy in power.

Business depends on government and its use of force for all its activities. The government enforces private property rights; it prints money and jails people who steal it or what it can buy. It provides the infrastructure that business needs. Without government, business fails. Unless government restrains business and makes it behave, society fails utterly. A few powerful companies then dictate the market. They charge high prices and pay low wages, and make dangerous and useless products. They rule the government and send us off to wars to protect their profits. People die in factories, like they do in Bangladesh. There is no safety net and charity fails, so homeless and starving people fill the streets.

We have a say in our government, and it belongs to the people. The bottom line is a working society. Business belongs to a few people and we have no say in what it does. It exists to serve those few people and no-one else. The bottom line is profit. A powerful business can collude with others and take over our government. The peoples' job in those cases is to take it back. A powerful business is also a government unto itself, where workers must obey the bosses and accept what they give you or be fired. Being fired is not easy, and may condemn someone to the streets and an early death. There is no such thing as freedom to work anywhere, or to shop anywhere, if business is too powerful. Such businesses dictate and rule whether and where we work and what we can buy; that is fascism.

I wish I had better understood the above post 10 to 15 years ago--well said, Eric.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

It doesn't assume anything. It's an application of the non-aggression principle.

...and sometimes the aggression is appropriate.

The only real difference between the government and any other private entity is that the people allow the government to initiate the use of force against others, and often ourselves.

Allowing the government to use force is a drastic measure -- but we obviously need cops, courts, and prisons. The exercise of police power is wisely left to a government accountable to the People, and not to private entities far less trustworthy with human rights. Better a formal government which can back-track from a judicial error than a lynch mob or a death squad responsible to nobody or to untrustworthy persons.

Governments are just glorified protection rackets and that's all they've ever been throughout history.

Which might well describe some thug regimes. Even the most benign governments get mixed results. Obviously, governments that depend upon appealing to the worst in human nature get bad results. Government at the least must mitigate disputes and enforce the consequences of the mitigation.

Businesses as long as they don't initiate the use of force as leverage (often using the government towards those ends) are good because they are engaging in voluntary transactions towards mutual benefit.

Some businesses have a dubious connection between their objects of commerce (examples: pornography, tobacco, strong drink, predatory lending) and service to humanity. Add to that -- business has used the government to enforce slavery, peonage contracts, and loan-sharking in all but name.

How often do private businesses invade peoples' homes with an army and tanks, or bomb their homes, or held them as prisoners and tortured them? Sure sometimes businesses profit off of war, but they wouldn't be able to do so without government.

Through the agency of a corrupt or 'owned' government, in which the private businesses have some culpability.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know how you can embrace such fanciful thinking. I know it's an Xer tendency, because of cynicism and individualism, but I don't like to leave it unanswered, even though it is impossible to convince you of the problem with this line of thought.

Government is basic; it defines the country you live in. Business takes place within it. Government can protect rights, or it can abuse them. But rights don't even exist in practice without government, even if they do exist in principle without it. Unless you have police and courts and laws, you are at the mercy of whoever has the strongest pistol. Anarchy is not a viable system, because strong people still abuse and take advantage of the weak. We need that "protection racket" in order to protect ourselves from the barbarians and vandals. In periods where your philosophy is in force, small businesses are forced out, people are unemployed and the rich get richer. That's where we are today after 34 years of your philosophy in power.

Business depends on government and its use of force for all its activities. The government enforces private property rights; it prints money and jails people who steal it or what it can buy. It provides the infrastructure that business needs. Without government, business fails. Unless government restrains business and makes it behave, society fails utterly. A few powerful companies then dictate the market. They charge high prices and pay low wages, and make dangerous and useless products. They rule the government and send us off to wars to protect their profits. People die in factories, like they do in Bangladesh. There is no safety net and charity fails, so homeless and starving people fill the streets.

We have a say in our government, and it belongs to the people. The bottom line is a working society. Business belongs to a few people and we have no say in what it does. It exists to serve those few people and no-one else. The bottom line is profit. A powerful business can collude with others and take over our government. The peoples' job in those cases is to take it back. A powerful business is also a government unto itself, where workers must obey the bosses and accept what they give you or be fired. Being fired is not easy, and may condemn someone to the streets and an early death. There is no such thing as freedom to work anywhere, or to shop anywhere, if business is too powerful. Such businesses dictate and rule whether and where we work and what we can buy; that is fascism.

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economis, in his book Free to Choosehe says,

“A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance…The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. We know of no other that has been able to exist for long without the direct assistance of governments.”

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economis, in his book Free to Choosehe says,

“A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance…The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. We know of no other that has been able to exist for long without the direct assistance of governments.”

As I said, all business depends on government to exist. Otherwise, life reverts to brigandry, unless all the people in that society are spiritually enlightened, or are innocent as isolated savages on Tahiti with no needs other than what grows freely. So Friedman's statement means nothing. He was a dunce and an ideologue, and should never be deferred to. You know as well as I that monopolies predated the Fed. Robber barons forced others out of business and cornered the market. That's how corporations came to be. The government did not do that; the businessmen did that. Without government regulation, we have unfettered monopoly and trusts. Yes, the government still protects their property rights, and it jails protesters and workers who dare to question these rights if they step out of line even a little bit. And Jefferson would have been well aware of corporate tyranny, and opposed it.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economis, in his book Free to Choosehe says,

“A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance…The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. We know of no other that has been able to exist for long without the direct assistance of governments.”

Friedman should know about government monopolies. He had a hand in propping up the tyrannical Chilean monopoly, after all.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

If Wilson wasn't such a racist prick that pissed on civil liberties during WWI then I might consider him more seriously. Since Hamilton doesn't limit us to Presidents, how about William Jennings Bryan? He's not perfect either but did make a huge impact.

I was trying to come up with a list of greats for today's red vs blue factions. I ruled out Wilson because he was a racist. Bryan was a Creationist, and that doesn't fit with todays blue side. Although both men were economic progressives, the social issues are still very important to partisans on both sides.