FDR, Although A Great Leader, Is Overrated

I want to first clear up any misconceptions that may arise from this debate. I am not saying that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a bad president. He was a good president, but he definitely doesn't deserve his widely accepted position in the top 3 or, arguably, even the top 5. The thing is, Roosevelt was a great orator. He was an amazing public speaker who was able to boost the morale of the American people to get them through the Great Depression and WWII. But let's talk policy. There are some small cons and some huge cons, that all together, outweigh the pros. Let's go over them.

- When the Supreme Court ruled many of his New Deal policies as an unconstitutional over-extent of executive power, he (unsuccessfully) attempted to extend the   Supreme Court to 15 justices so that they could override the previous rulings. This was just a part of his attempt to keep power for much longer than any one man ever should. 

- He refused to sign a piece of legislation that would prevent police officers from lynching African-Americans. This was a part of his redlining policies, where he would deny African-Americans some basic human rights just to stay on the good side of the Southern Democrats (aka Dixiecrats).

- He nominated Hugo Black to become a Supreme Court Justice, who was a well-known and prominent member of the Ku Klux Klan.

- He sat by and watched, and even approved, of harsh legislation that prevented Jewish refugees from Germany to enter the United States, resulting in those refugees being sent back to Germany to suffer from the Holocaust.

Many see Franklin D. Roosevelt's internment as a bad decision, and a terrible response to Pearl Harbor, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to have any effect on how many view his presidency. But, in my opinion, this alone is enough to knock him out of the top 3. He literally authorized the internment of an approximated 120,000 Japanese Americans, the vast majority of whom were innocent and probably loyal American citizens! In those four years that Japanese-Americans were interned, Japanese-American children missed out on years of valuable educational time, and couldn't live normal lives like normal children. Innocent Americans were kept behind barbed wire in miserable conditions for 4 years. EO #9066 was what made us a little more like those we were at war with. Such a disgusting disregard for innocent fellow humans shouldn't have ever happened, and should never, ever happen again.

Okay. Let's talk about the New Deal. Was it really that amazing? First off, let's talk about the First New Deal. Most historians can agree that it didn't work. The First New Deal may have helped some Americans find jobs, but by the end of it, the Depression was still in full force. But then came the Second New Deal. Although the Second New Deal did generate change, it honestly wasn't much different from the First New Deal, other than a redistribution of wealth (sounds pretty Marxist to me), and the controversial NIRA (meant to protect laborers), which was struck down as unconstitutional because it placed over-reaching restrictions on the free market.

Granted, many can agree (and I am one of them) that the Second New Deal eventually did slowly start working. But then, as those programs were still taking effect, FDR decided to just cut the deficit. This caused yet another recession. As the "Roosevelt Recession" was still happening, American involvement in WWII (starting with the Lend-Lease Act) began, causing a need for war machine manufacturing and other important jobs. This brough employment level to nearly 100%, and, almost overnight, ended the Great Depression.

So, in my opinion, we will never truly know whether or not the New Deal programs would have worked. That's why we can't automatically give FDR full credit for fixing the Depression, but instead look at what he was able to accomplish before WWII began. And that's the largest growth of federal government power in American history, a growth that was so drastic and so over-reaching that some programs (as I have already stated twice) that were actually ruled as unconstitutional. Also, it caused the government to take on tens of billions of dollars of debt. It is even estimated that from 1933 to 1936, the federal government's debt grew by an insane 50%, only furthering a long, terrible American tradition of debt crises. 

Greetings and thank you.

Mr. Roosevelt is not overrated. The opposing side's position is that he is.

If Mr. Roosevelt was truly talked about more than any other president, we should see that.

You view the multiple political topics on this site alone, who is not being discussed?

Snipped from the political forum:

I could go on and on . This is just the first page. It's been going on like this for weeks and months probably out to a year over a year. 

So Mr. Roosevelt has been left out very much in this political forum.

Not to mention else where. Where has the elections been discussed involving Mr. Roosevelt?

Where are the comparisons being made with now to back during Mr. Roosevelt's term?

I ask people, who is or was the greatest U.S. president.

Only some , not everyone, a few that will say Mr. Roosevelt.

Yet, in the world of politics when these types of figures are discussed, who is being discussed?

If Mr. Roosevelt was the greatest, he's being downplayed and outshined.

First of all, you’re all turned around. I’m not talking about this site, I’m talking about America and the media in general. Typically, FDR is viewed as a top 5 or even top 3 president. It has nothing to do with what people say on this site. Also, what does Trump have to do with this? I am not taking about Trump or how much he’s talked about, I am talking about FDR.

I’m not talking about the election! FDR has been dead for nearly 80 years, he has nothing to do with the election. I’m talking about his legacy and where he typically stands compared to other presidents.

Your entire first argument was completely irrelevant, and I’d suggest that you’d start actually trying to prove me wrong. I’m not talking about who’s talked about more. Obviously Trump (don’t know why you brought him up) is being talked about more because he just got elected. I am talking about history, not current events. Please try to prove how FDR is better than what I’m saying, because I thought that’s why you joined this debate, not to talk about Trump.

I understood that being overrated is about a figure being talked about very often and often in relevant circles.

For instance, in the world of comedy and comedians, among the legends of old , you'll hear the name of Richard Pryor most often . 

Now if Mr. Roosevelt is not ubiquitously talked about like the actual political figures or figure that have been, he is not overrated.

This site is a part of media and there are what you call American users on this site.

I bet if Mr. Roosevelt was constantly discussed on many of these platforms, you'd be the first to cite it as an example.

Furthermore ranking is not all encompassing to what overrating is 

I rest my point.

Well show us the last time Mr. Roosevelt's election was talked about for example, his election compared to anybody else's.

The comparison or ranking does not encompass overrating. Jack Johnson is in the top highest ranking in boxing. He still is underrated especially today. 

Ok so you're not talking about who is overrated or not. Ok.

I didn't bring up Trump. I just posted multiple forum topic titles that evidently don't mention Mr. Roosevelt.

I don't have to talk about Trump. Plenty of others do without my help and haven't said one word about Mr. Roosevelt.

So the debate topic doesn't say "Franklin Roosevelt was better than any other president".

So you're moving to the goalpost . Being overrated has nothing exclusively to do with what is best or better. Being overrated or not is controlled by social topical climate.

Next time make the topic " Franklin Roosevelt was better than any other president".

I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but you are, once again, all turned around. You’re claiming that ranking and overrating are different things. They’re the same thing! “Rank” and “rate” are synonymous with each other! It’s not about whether or not FDR is constantly talked about, it’s about how he’s viewed. And, in my opinion, he’s viewed more highly than I think he should be.

You’re also trying to maintain FDR’s election as a topic of discussion. When we rate a president’s performance in office, do we look at his election performance or his performance in office? I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m talking about his presidency, not how good he was at electioneering.

Quote: I didn’t bring up Trump. I just posted multiple forum topic titles that evidently don’t mention Mr. Roosevelt.

First of all, you are bringing up Trump. Most of those forum topic titles are about Donald Trump. Second, of course those forum topic titles evidently don’t mention FDR, because they’re not about FDR! I could do that with literally any debate topic and post any random forum title about any random thing to somehow try to prove that the thing we’re talking about is underrated. It just doesn’t make any sense!

Quote: I don’t have to talk about Trump. Plenty of others do without my help and haven’t said one word about Mr. Roosevelt.

Well, that makes sense, because Trump just got elected President! Of course they’re going to be talking about him more! They don’t need to talk about FDR to prove that he’s overrated. The entire basis of this argument that you are making doesn’t make any sense, because you seem to think that if I was talking about ice cream and not Mike Tyson, that would make Mike Tyson underrated.

Quote: So the debate topic doesn’t say “Franklin Roosevelt was better than any other President”

Well, of course it doesn’t say that, because I’m arguing that he wasn’t better than any other President!

Quote: So you're moving to the goalpost . Being overrated has nothing exclusively to do with what is best or better. Being overrated or not is controlled by social topical climate.

I don’t want to have to say it again, but I guess I will. Being overrated has nearly everything to do with what is best or better. Sure, social topical climate might affect being overrated or not, but that’s NOT THE WHOLE THING. People aren’t talking about FDR on this site because this site only has a little over 1,000 users, and FDR is just one out of the millions of topics that people could pick to talk about.

I would like to have an actual debate where you try to defend FDR’s actions (which would make sense) instead of just trying to define what overrated means by making nonsensical statements like “because people are talking about Trump, FDR obviously isn’t overrated.”

Well there you go, thank you. It is your opinion. I don't have to argue or prove against your opinion. When you say "opinion", you're acknowledging it is not even fact .

So you're telling on yourself that it is not fact that you're saying Mr. Roosevelt is overrated and neither do I, thanks.

Well now let's go over this. Any talk of a figure is rating it. We're sizing up value , right. Something has to be very valuable in what it provides to devote time, so much time to talk about a thing. Talking takes up time. So now, talking about an election related to a person is talking about the person. Anything to do with the person that is relevant to talk about to whatever current pertinence reflects the value in discussing the figure.

With elections themselves, what's involved? Campaigning, campaign trails, campaign strength. So I can say who had the strongest or stronger campaign. What did such and such do compared to another?

So we can compare, we can contrast, we can see who is still talking about Mr. Roosevelt today? Is anybody saying "Well what this president did, reminds of what Mr. Roosevelt did." "This term and events with other nations and the state of the country is reminiscent of Roosevelt's time". "We haven't had this like Mr. Roosevelt". "Let's look at how Roosevelt did it". 

Rating has no relevance when there is no current value. So anybody or anything that has a rating or had a rating doesn't matter if it has no current value now .

Just like a restaurant serving people now. You can say the place is overrated as people constantly receive value from the place now, that rating applies now and which causes a lot of conversations  about the place. 

A place that's closed down had an overrating. Fact, it when on record with an overrating. But it's a rating no longer applicable so it isn't overrated any longer and the proof is in nobody talking about the place as they receive no value from the place. They're time is being filled with whatever they're receiving value from currently.

It makes wonderful sense. Mr. Roosevelt is not overrated because all these raters are not rating Mr. Roosevelt and you admit it's not even fact Mr. Roosevelt is overrated to you.

You'd have to find the relevance from a food to a person. I'm posting things about politics in general and nobody discussing who once was a political figure Mr. Roosevelt and you know that.

Why would I ever think anything is overrated when it is never discussed, evaluated, explained of to get its rating? Do you see? How else does a rating maintain its existence?

There has to be a current value consistently being given and received .

I'm not going to think a thing is overrated when I never hear about it. It won't even be a thought. Something overrated isn't a non thought or absent from thought.

When Mr. Reagan died, there was hardly not a news post nor media not highlighting it. I believe it went on for a week. No matter the ranking of presidents, he was being highly rated that week speaking on his politics.

Then don't expect me to argue it.

See now you say "nearly". That leaves room open to what I said of not being exclusive. You're slowly shifting to my side.

No it ain't "might". It does and will and folks have discussed Mr. Roosevelt. Just not enough to overrate him.

See the more people you have to rate him would excessively overrate him.

You can't overrate something without anybody continuing to input their rate.

Then you should of made the topic "You can't defend Mr. Roosevelt's actions". The topic has "overrated " in it so of course I'll be talking about overrated , explaining what it means demonstrating how my points tie in, through and around the subject of Mr . Roosevelt.

But in summary :

It’s thing like this that give me headaches. If it was a fact, why would be debating about it? You don’t debate over whether or not Tokyo is in Japan, or that tomatoes are a fruit. I have been presenting my opinion, and you have been presenting your opinion, and we are now debating about which opinion is better. Do you see how that works?

I think the real reason that you’re focusing on something as trivial as this is that you don’t have anything else to say to me. Excuse me, what are we debating about? FDR. Not the difference between fact and opinion. You can see in my first argument that I presented my opinion: FDR is overrated. And then, I supported it with facts. That is the exact definition of a debate.

No idea what that’s supposed to mean.

You can say this, but it doesn’t change the fact that we’re not talking about FDR’s electioneering skills! We’re talking about his presidency! You’re trying to explain to me the relevancy of his election to this debate, but that doesn’t change the fact that this whole debate is about his presidency.

You’re right. But the problem with that argument is that FDR does have a lot of current value. When you talk about American presidents and try to list them or try to figure out who’s the best, a good chunk of people would put him higher up on the list than he should be. Some, like CBS, have even put him at the #1 spot!

Uh, what?? “Mr. Roosevelt is not overrated because all these eaters are not rating [him]?” Ok, let’s see about that.

CBS ranks FDR #1:

Wikipedia says that FDR is often a competitor for Lincoln’s widely-accepted top spot:

An actual survey that compile the opinions of average Americans says that FDR is #3:

FDR is, once again, rated #3:

I could give you more, but I think I’ve made my point clear, the point being that FDR is talked about enough for him to be overrated, and that you need to do your research before saying something as untrue as “FDR is not talked about much anymore.”

I actually don’t know that. I don’t even know what you were saying right there, it’s a little confusing.

Once again, FDR is one of the most talked-about presidents. You’re just coming up with facts to serve your argument.

First of all, there is a current value consistently being given and received. There are always new presidential ranking surveys made every year, and FDR consistently maintains a spot in the top 3. If you never hear about FDR, then you clearly actually haven’t ever done research on presidential history and shouldn’t be in this debate. Or have you done your research, and you’re just hiding what you’ve seen because it helps your argument?

FDR was mourned by nearly everybody, probably more than Reagan.

If I shouldn’t expect you to argue it, then why are you in this debate?!? You’re here to explain why he isn’t overrated, right? You’ve been arguing it, so why did you need to say that?

You wish. I don’t see how using the word “nearly” provides any evidence of me shifting over to your side. And believe me, I wish I could see your side more clearly, maybe agree on some things and find some common ground. But your side makes absolutely no sense, so I’m afraid I can’t do that.

If folks haven’t discussed FDR enough to overrate him, then what’s overrating? FDR is discussed WAY more than most presidents, so if I used your argument, no president is ever overrated? Okay. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, you’re right, but people are always continuing to input their rate on FDR! Stop using this made-up concept that FDR is a forgotten president, it’s only losing you credibility.

No my friend it doesn't work that way. You don't ever debate opinions. There's no such thing as "better opinion". Just like I can't argue ketchup is better than mustard no more you can do so with mustard over ketchup. Oh no. It's all subjective. There's no right and wrong there. 

The point of arguing something you can demonstrate to be true is there is a correct point to show and an incorrect one after it gets successfully debunked, see.

There's no such thing as a wrong or right opinion. There is no "you're wrong for liking hamburgers, I'm right for liking hotdogs".

I'm presenting fact, not opinion. You trying to split hairs with opinions saying you argue this type of opinion (non fact) 🆚 another type(non fact).

If it's all non fact we're talking about, there's nothing to prove because proving deals with fact.

You admitted it is your opinion . So any "facts" you're claiming is just your opinion and what you THINK are facts. What you THINK are facts is different from proving facts like I did .

You see there folks. I stumped this person on making a rebuttal. That's how I do em'.

Well and so we're the only ones because who else is? Yeah right Mr. Roosevelt is overrated. Nah.

The list is non existent when nobody is talking on a prevalent level to get the person on a list and where have you listed anybody that has got so so on their list?

See, a list is a consensus of individual lists. I don't know of anybody having a list with this person consistently .

I rest my case .

Yes you need way more because nobody around me is talking about Mr. Roosevelt and podcasts and platforms I listen to say not one word about Mr. Roosevelt. I may hear about Bush, Clinton and I think hear about Linden B. Johnson much on the Jesse Lee Peterson radio show.  

A good example would be Michael Jackson all over  the world in the genre of pop music.

You had to prove Mr. Roosevelt was the Michael Jackson of presidents or Tito or somebody. Overrated is all over the world, talked about, renowned baby.

Obtuse of you I'll add .

One of the most talked about by some isn't overrated partner . Of course I'm coming up with facts. Better than fiction or opinion.

Yea the research is I don't hear anybody talking about Mr. Roosevelt including folks on this site. Their lists count. That's how the list of consensus is made. These people on this site count to. You're dismissing them.

Well you should of made this challenge when your boy died. Probably would of helped you out.

I'm talking about don't expect me to argue anything outside the topic and you know it.

Ok you can tell me you agree in private, that's good .

That's not my argument. To use my argument you have to use it right. I made the point about the restaurant. You can be overrated at a point and time. See you didn't touch that example . Just stand down in silence in agreement.

That's it right there, I'm right. You say I'm right but then try to back pedal. No I'm either wrong and prove your case , not opinion. I'm not right with "buts".

So we leave it there. "Yes, you’re right"

Case closed.