Is Harry S. Truman the worst president ever?
Think about it. The Truman doctrine of 1948 says that we, as Americans, will do everything in our power to stop the spread of communism. Therefore we had the Korean and the Vietnam wars, which led us to the thinking that is was ok to start an Iraq war. I'm pretty sure we never won any of those wars. In fact, last I checked, the last war we won was WW2. The war that Truman rode FDR's coat tails on. Hmmmm?
Who was the better President: FDR or Hoover?
His rationale for FDR problems is "big government" with establishing new government programs, especially with that of Social Security, and Medicare. Which although they were a great idea at the time, have both ballooned into fairly large problems. When it comes to big government, and the government controlling or having a say in peoples life that is when you start getting into socialism. But honestly it wasn't as bad as it sounds, and at the time that was the only suggestion or chance of pulling themselves out. When it comes to race FDR New Deal Programs did include minorities at the time. So they were able to benefit. He also insured minorities were able to get wart time jobs.The only argument when it comes to racism and FDR, is that he never passed a anti-lynching bill, because he needed support from the South.
How was FDR elected four times when the limit was two terms?
There was no 'only two terms' rule/law. It was only an unspoken convention.FDR wasnt the first one to contest for a third term. His distant cousin Teddy Roosevelt did that too, for instance (though he lost to Woodrow Wilson)When FDR decided to run for third term, he wasnt sure himself if that would go down well with public. But he had already built a reputation for 'i do as i deem right' approach ever since his New Deal programs were scrutinized, sometimes scrapped, by the Supreme Court. So frankly, the man wasnt too touchy about issues like reputation. At the time FDR got into his third term, 1941, it was clear that US would inevitably have to play a wider role in WW2. FDR thought, and I agree there, that in face of an isolationist congress, a shrewd politician like him would be reqd to supply the Brits with arms and keep them fighting (lest America be forced to jump in formally for theor defense, which happened not before Pearl Harbour) FDR was also one of few mainstream politicians who had the experience of fighting a world war. He was in charge if Navy under Wilson administration. Arguably, he was tge most experienced man to lead the nation in event of a seemingly inevitable World War.I think he ran for a fourth term (unprecedented) because he wanted to finish the task he started. And yes, perhaps, he wanted the credit for winning the war (Unfortunately the man couldnt live to see the victory moment.)
Did anyone seriously campaign against FDR the fourth time around?
Yes. Not only that, but Roosevelt won by only 3.6 million votes this was the smallest margin since 1916. And there were plenty of issues. Believe it or not, Americans were more concerned at that point about the post war era and their prosperity. How much money would be spent on foreign aid. The Republican Candidate Thomas E. Dewey and his allies did not make an issue about FDRs health fearful it would backfire. They countered the don't change horses in mid-stream argument with the fact that the war was moving toward its end. They hypocritically accused FDR of not preparing the country for the war. They even accused him of knowing about Pearl Harbor in advance and hiding it so that we would be forced to enter the war. Roosevelt dumped Henry Wallace as his VP. To dampen complaints of socialist communist influences; Wallace was a chief architect of the New Deal.
Could FDR win election today?
Yes, he could.He was very adept at using the mass media of his day (radio) to communicate effectively and directly with the pubic, bypassing the “mainstream media” (print) of his day.His policies would be mainstream today. He may have been considered radical in his day, by some. but his policy positions have become mainstream center-left. Or even just plain “center,” since Ronald Reagan unapologetically admitted that he was once an FDR Democrat. And, in fact, the Democrats may have come back around to being more like FDR than they were in the Nixon/Reagan/Clinton era, as the Democrats are now more likely to advocate for international interventionism, and the Republicans of Donald Trump are now more isolationist, which is a complete reversal on how the two parties were after Vietnam but is exactly how the parties were in FDR’s day.The wheelchair thing likely would be a non-issue, even though FDR felt the need to keep it secret in his day. Texas, our nation’s second largest state, elected wheelchair-bound Greg Abbott as its governor in 2014 and he is cruising to re-election. So I don’t think that would be a hindrance.I think politics in the mass media era has been fairly consistent. You can argue the exact starting point, but by the 1932 election, when FDR defeated President Hoover, we clearly were in the mass media era. Since then, the two parties keep shifting voter blocs in an out of their vast coalitions, and, occasionally, they actually swap policy positions. However, with one obvious exception,* I think the type of person who was successful candidate for major office at any point within the mass media era would have been successful at any point throughout the mass media era.* The one exception is, of course, Barack Obama, who could not have been elected president prior to the 21st Century. However, Edward Brooke was elected senator in Massachusetts (as a Republican) in 1966 and served until 1979. So, while Barack Obama could have been elected senator from Illinois during the previous century, which is still a major office, I don’t think he would have made it as far as president back then.