Who is the Greatest American in History?

[Rabid]

And the GREATEST AMERICAN IS !

From the Discovery Channel's 100 Greatest Americans.

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
4. George Washington
5. Benjamin Franklin

Disclaimer

Votes for the candidates included a large number of AOL users.

 

[False Prophet]

WTF??

Where's George W. Bush?

 

[fourier jr]

is this part of that "greatest _____" thing that countries are doing now? no list of greatest americans can be taken seriously if the list of candidates to vote on doesn't include linus pauling, richard feynman, or john wheeler. i mean come on.

ben franklin should be the greatest american for this line alone: "beer is proof that god loves us & wants us to be happy"

it's just like the greatest Canadian list didn't include people like hans selye (father of stress) or john fields. although it says a lot about Canadian values that tommy douglas (first elected communist leader in the western hemisphere) is grestest Canadian i think selye & fields should be up there, & others too.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh, i thought they had actually voted on the #1!

George W. Bush was #6, he didnt amek the top 5

@fourier jr

Yah no real list can exist for greatest anything unlses we're talken about statistics. I mean michael moore was on the nomination list so obviously we're not being completely serious.

 

[Rabid]

. I mean michael moore was on the nomination list so obviously we're not being completely serious.

I agree.
So was Rush Limbaugh.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Disclaimer

Votes for the candidates included a large number of AOL users.

Lol... good point.

 

[Astronuc]

From the Discovery Channel's 100 Greatest Americans.

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
4. George Washington
5. Benjamin Franklin

Disclaimer

Votes for the candidates included a large number of AOL users.

Reagan and GW Bush should not have even been candidates for this list. Clinton shouldn't be on it either.

None of the US political leaders in the last 5 or 6 decades are anywhere near the quality of Lincoln, Jefferson or Washington.

I have to wonder about the level of ingnorance of the population which voted in this poll. It is clear that the majority know little about the last 230 years of American history. It is a sad indictment on education in the US.

 

[FredGarvin]

Reagan and GW Bush should not have even been candidates for this list. Clinton shouldn't be on it either.

None of the US political leaders in the last 5 or 6 decades are anywhere near the quality of Lincoln, Jefferson or Washington.

I have to wonder about the level of ingnorance of the population which voted in this poll. It is clear that the majority know little about the last 230 of American history. It is a sad indictment on education in the US.

I agree. These top "whatever" lists are idiotic. If you watch even the most mundane of these kinds of shows, the "knowledgable" voters always choose more recent candidates over historical simply because that is all they know.

I think Regan should be in there, just not number 1. The fact that Thomas Jefferson is not in the top 5 is beyond belief to me.

 

[Tarheel]

If Reagan were still alive he wouldn't have broken the top 25.

The greatest American ever is CLEARLY Al Sharpton!

 

[Astronuc]

I think Regan should be in there, just not number 1. The fact that Thomas Jefferson is not in the top 5 is beyond belief to me.

I have a problem with Reagan over Iran-Contra, and the support of right-wing dictatorships in Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and so on). Reagan and later George Bush, the elder, blew it with Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. The US could have supported Gorbachev somehow to prevent the disintegration and chaos that has happened since then. And Reagan helped set the stage for what is going on in Washington now.

As for other Americans, how about -

Eli Whitney, Samuel F. B. Morse, Cyrus Hall McCormick, Elias Howe, Alexander Graham Bell, Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Wilbur and Orville Wright,
James Madison, John Jay, Frederick Douglas, Theodore Roosevelt,
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Samuel L. Clemens (Mark Twain),
Henry W. Longfellow, Walt Whitman, Henry David Thoreau,
Horace Mann, Mark Hopkins, Charles W. Eliot, Frances E. Willard, Booker T. Washington,
John James Audubon, Crawford W. Long, Luther Burbank, Walter Reed, Jane Addams,
Paul Revere, Clara Barton, . . .

 

[JamesU]

I can't believe anyone actually paid attention to the greatest american crap. as soon as I read the list of nominees I knew it was just a bunch if stupid people who didn't know what great means

 

[Evo]

I can't believe anyone actually paid attention to the greatest american crap. as soon as I read the list of nominees I knew it was just a bunch if stupid people who didn't know what great means

It's a stupid advertising gimmick that will be soon forgotten and is completely meaningless.

 

[wasteofo2]

As for other Americans, how about -

Eli Whitney... Alexander Graham Bell

Two things:

1) What did Eli Whitney do that made him so great? Is there something besides the cotton gin that I missed? And hell, the cotton gin was a catalyst for a huge increase in slavery, so it must be something else, right?

2) Bell was a Canadian.

 

[Pengwuino]

Disclaimer

Votes for the candidates included a large number of AOL users.

Which means a large number of monkeys hit a bunch of buttons...

 

[Pengwuino]

I think Regan should be in there, just not number 1. The fact that Thomas Jefferson is not in the top 5 is beyond belief to me.

Reagan was a great president and thankfully took down the SU... but i mean come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Thomas Jefferson? Its Thomas Jefferson, how can you even ... well.. i don't know... some people drink acid so i guess some people could think thomas jefferson wasnt that great...

(This'll probably spark a reagan sucks vs. reagan rules debate)

 

[hypatia]

Alexander Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland...
He moved to Canada, even died there, but was never a citizen of Canada
He also was a Professor at Boston USA, in 1882, where he became a naturalized citizen of the USA.

 

[FredGarvin]

Reagan was a great president and thankfully took down the SU... but i mean come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Thomas Jefferson? Its Thomas Jefferson, how can you even ... well.. i don't know... some people drink acid so i guess some people could think thomas jefferson wasnt that great...

I'd reply to that, but I have no idea what you just said.

 

[marlon]

this is going to be interesting to follow, being European and all


marlon

 

[Daminc]

Homer Simpson?
Ronald MacDonald?

They seem quite popular

 

[Gokul43201]

Two things:

1) What did Eli Whitney do that made him so great? Is there something besides the cotton gin that I missed? And hell, the cotton gin was a catalyst for a huge increase in slavery, so it must be something else, right?

Yes, it probably is. Ever heard of a little idea known as the assembly line' ? Whitney single-handedly revolutionized the manufacturing process.

2) Bell was a Canadian.

Bell was born in Scotland (his family was from the UK), then moved to Canada, after which he moved to Boston, where he did most of his important work. After a few years of living in Boston he became an American Citizen.

Edit : Oops ! Just saw hypatia's post.

 

[ray b]

ronnie raygun was brainDEAD
and had NOTHING to do with the fall of the evil empire
that was an inside job that had very little outside help
no plans or program of the NEO-CON icon caused result
he simply happened to be in office when it happened

was the true winner even on the list
do you know who he was
F Farnsworth inventor of the TV
that man did far more to change the world
and in typical BIZ fashion got screwed out of his just rewards
by RCA and the courts

 

[FredGarvin]

ronnie raygun was brainDEAD
and had NOTHING to do with the fall of the evil empire
that was an inside job that had very little outside help
no plans or program of the NEO-CON icon caused result
he simply happened to be in office when it happened

That will be debated for a long time.

 

[Smurf]

pffft.. "Debate" is far too sophisticated a word for what happens when someone says that dope's name.

 

[FredGarvin]

Bill Clinton debated over the meaning of the word "is." I think Regan should get just a tad bit of respect.

 

[russ_watters]

That will be debated for a long time.

Which part? The part about his mental state will certainly be debated for a long time (I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt as well) but the part about him helping to destroy the USSR is pretty much historical fact (ie, what ray_b said is pretty straightforwardly factually wrong).

The only real room for argument is the question of when. But whether Reagan caused or just accelerated (by 1, 2, 3... decades?) the collapse of the USSR is not a hair I care to split.

1) What did Eli Whitney do that made him so great? Is there something besides the cotton gin that I missed?

While it may not seem like much, the cotton gin was pretty much the first machine. After he made it, people started looking for ways to automate/mechanize everything and that was the catalyst for the industrial revolution.

 

[Informal Logic]

...the part about him helping to destroy the USSR is pretty much historical fact

The only real room for argument is the question of when. But whether Reagan caused or just accelerated (by 1, 2, 3... decades?) the collapse of the USSR is not a hair I care to split.

As usual what you claim as fact is just your own personal opinion. The USSR was collapsing before Reagan was president. Did he talk hard rhetoric, etc.? Yes, but it was really timing. Who cares what hair you want to split--it does not make it fact just because you say so.

 

[russ_watters]

As usual what you claim as fact is just your own personal opinion. The USSR was collapsing before Reagan was president. Did he talk hard rhetoric, etc.? Yes, but it was really timing. Who cares what hair you want to split--it does not make it fact just because you say so.

Kettle:kettle Informal_Logic - you just claimed the USSR was collapsing before Reagan was President. But what does that even mean? Heck, with similar logic, you could claim it was all part of a long, slow decline starting they day after the revolution ended (which, frankly, I believe). So really, you didn't address the key issue there at all: if not for Reagan, how long would it have taken for the USSR to finally collapse?

So you didn't really say anything to contradict what I said (other than - again, pot:kettle - just making an essentially meaningless counter-claim). No, I didn't provide substantiation, but my claim is the only possible conclusion of a set of pretty basic, self evident, common knowledge facts. There is little to no debate among historians and economists about it. A quick Google will verify the facts of the USSR's economic situation. Here's the first reasonable link I found: http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm

By whatever means he arrived at his views regarding the Soviet Union, he drew from them policy directions that were devastatingly effective in undermining the rotten Soviet edifice. Because of the high oil prices of the 1970s the Soviet leadership avoided serious economic reforms, such as those that saved Deng Xiaoping’s China. Instead, it relied on oil revenues as a means of keeping its decrepit economy going. By the early 1980s the Soviet Union was becoming a hollow shell, with an unreformed and increasingly backward industrial base producing outmoded pre-computer armaments. Thus it was highly vulnerable to the pressures that the Reagan administration was planning...

A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.

See all the economic numbers? Those are facts, Informal_Logic.

Perhaps the opinion of a top Russian diplomat at the time is relevant:

But years later, in 1991, Vladimir Lukhin -- once a top diplomat for the USSR, then the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma -- told me how Reagan's SDI speech was received on the other side. In '83, upon hearing of Reagan's SDI speech, then-leader Yuri Andropov ordered two different studies -- one from the Red Army, one from the Soviet academy of sciences -- to analyze the new American initiative. Two years later, in 1985, the reports came back to the Kremlin, both bearing the same basic message: "We don't know if the USA can succeed with this missile-defense plan, but we know that the USSR cannot." This forced the Politburo into an agonizing reassessment: something, Lukhin recalled, had to change. And that change, the Russian gerontocrats hoped, would come in the form of a young new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who took power in 1985. Gorbachev had no intention of unhitching the communist system in Russia, but in the course of trying to compete with the Americans, that's exactly what happened; "Gorby" was an accidental liberator. As Lukhin told me, "Reagan accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union by five to ten years" -- which was fine with Lukhin. And if that single step shaved so many years off the lifetime of the evil empire, that's pretty good in my book.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002166.html

Personally, I consider 5-10 years an unreasonably short estimate on how long the USSR would have lasted without Reagan, but that is an opinion. It is, however, based on, again, historical facts. Specifically, North Korea shows us just how well such a communist dictator can retain power even in the face of truly catastrophic conditions in the country.

Summary of relevant facts:
-The USSR collapsed while Reagan was President.
-The USSR established economic policies in response to Reagan's policies.
-----These policies worstened the economic situation in the USSR.

The only possible conclusion from these facts is that Reagan helped accelerate the collapse of the USSR.

Inherrently unprovable and essentially meaningless assertion you are making:
-The USSR would have collapsed (when?) without him.

While it is probably true that the USSR would have collapsed without Reagan (ehh, heck: its definitely true - I mean, the Sun is eventually going to burn out...), since that's not what happened, your assertion is inherrently unprovable. Your assertion also doesn't address the question of when, which makes it a pretty empty assertion.

edit: http://brian.carnell.com/5656 are some interesting quotes from liberal pundits in the early 80s that highlight the flip-flop liberals have done on Reagan's policies: in the 80s, many liberals said the USSR was strong and Reagan's policies couldn't hurt it. Today they say the USSR was on the verge of collapse already.

 

[Pengwuino]

why are we only told of Whitney's cotton gin in elementary school then...

ah thank you guys for confirming the fact that i am able to see into the future with this little debate here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was a huge Reagan fan, but as for being the greatest American, not a chance. I would mark him as one of the most significant U.S. Presidents though. And I believe that he loved this country as much as anyone.

I think Washington may have performed the single most important act in the history of the U.S. After defeating the Brits, he could have been King, which certainly would have changed everything, but he willingly surrendered his sword so that tyranny would end. This moment in time, this selfless, inspired act would define the future of the country, and the world. One of my favorite quotes is, "grown men wept at the sight of it".

 

[FredGarvin]

Which part? The part about his mental state will certainly be debated for a long time (I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt as well) but the part about him helping to destroy the USSR is pretty much historical fact (ie, what ray_b said is pretty straightforwardly factually wrong).

The only real room for argument is the question of when. But whether Reagan caused or just accelerated (by 1, 2, 3... decades?) the collapse of the USSR is not a hair I care to split. While it may not seem like much, the cotton gin was pretty much the first machine. After he made it, people started looking for ways to automate/mechanize everything and that was the catalyst for the industrial revolution.

You pretty much hit it on the head. The debate will be whether Regan was just in the right place at the right time or was it really due to his policies. I am a believer that he had quite a lot to do with the downfall.

There was a show on the History Channel last night on Regan and Gorbachev. They spent quite a bit of time on discussing just how freaked out the Russians were over SDI even though, at the time, it was simply an idea on paper.

 

[russ_watters]

I was a huge Reagan fan, but as for being the greatest American, not a chance. I would mark him as one of the most significant U.S. Presidents though. And I believe that he loved this country as much as anyone.

Yeah, this little side-issue aside, I don't know that I'd put Reagan in the top 5 greatest Presidents, much less greatest Americans (though the two often coincide). I do have a lot of respect for what he did though.

IMO, the greatest Presidents were Washington and Lincoln. Yeah, I know its cliche' but they really did do extrordinary things.

As for greatest American, its a pretty broad question - in what way?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Washington and Lincoln. Yeah, I know its cliche' but they really did do extrordinary things.

Things become a cliche' for a reason. Personally, I think Reagan "winning" this is a very sad comment on the schools.

 

[Astronuc]

You pretty much hit it on the head. The debate will be whether Regan was just in the right place at the right time or was it really due to his policies. I am a believer that he had quite a lot to do with the downfall.

There was a show on the History Channel last night on Regan and Gorbachev. They spent quite a bit of time on discussing just how freaked out the Russians were over SDI even though, at the time, it was simply an idea on paper.

Reagan just happened to be president at the time that USSR was collapsing internally. It had little to do with US policy. The war in Afghanistan affected USSR just like Vietnam affected US. Corruption was a big problem. Then Andropov died, Chernenko assumed office, then he died. Then Gorbachev took office, and assumed the reforms of Andropov.

But Reagan and Thatcher, rather help the situation contributed to the further demise of USSR, with the help of the rest of Europe, and now we have the mess with Russia that we have. Most of eastern Europe is still dealing with dysfunctional governments and societies, and many people are worse off than during communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov

During his rule, Andropov made attempts to improve the economy and reduce corruption. He was also remembered for his anti-alcohol campaign and struggle for enhancement of work discipline. Both campaigns were carried out by a typically Soviet administrative approach and harshness vaguely reminiscent of Stalin's rule.

In foreign policy he achieved little — the war continued in Afghanistan. Andropov's rule was also marked by the deterioration of relations with the United States. While he launched a series of proposals that included a reduction of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe and a summit with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, these proposals fell on the deaf ears of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Cold War tensions were exacerbated by the downing by Soviet fighters of a civilian jet liner that strayed over the USSR on September 1, 1983 and the United States deploying Pershing missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet SS-20. Soviet-U.S. arms control talks on intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe were suspended by the Soviet Union in November 1983.

One of his most famous acts during his short time as leader of the Soviet Union was responding to a letter from an American child named Samantha Smith and inviting her to the Soviet Union, which resulted in Smith becoming a well-known peace activist.


Andropov's legacy
Andropov died of kidney failure on February 9, 1984, after several months of failing health, and was succeeded by Konstantin Chernenko.

Andropov's legacy remains the subject of much debate within Russia and elsewhere, both amongst scholars and in the popular media. He remains the constant focus of television documentaries and popular non-fiction, particularly around important anniversaries.

Despite his hard-line stance in Hungary and the numerous banishments and intrigues for which he was responsible during his long tenure as head of the KGB, he has become widely regarded by many commentators as a humane reformer; they cite evidence that he promoted Mikhail Gorbachev through the ranks of the party and was regarded by many as comparatively tolerant as a KGB chief. He was certainly generally regarded as inclined to more gradual reform than was Gorbachev; the bulk of the speculation centres around whether Andropov would have reformed the USSR in a manner which did not result in its eventual destruction.

The short time he spent as leader, much of it in a state of extreme frailty, leaves debaters few concrete indications as to the nature of any hypothetical extended rule. As with the shortened rule of Lenin, speculators are left much room to advocate favourite theories and to develop the minor cult of personality which has formed around him.

 

[Astronuc]

Personally, I think Reagan "winning" this is a very sad comment on the schools.

What do mean Ivan? The kids absorb propaganda very well. Why should they be able to think for themselves, when they can grow up to be just like GW Bush.

 

[Janus]

I can't see how there can be any doubt that Ben Franklin should have been named number 1.

Consider:
Best selling author (Poor Richard's Almanac)
Founded first public library
Inventor
Scientist
Statesman
And the only person to sign all five documents instrumental to the establishment of the US:
Declaration of Independence
Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France
Treaty of Alliance with France
Treaty of Peace with Great Britain
Constitution of the United States