Me too. FDR was an imperial president.

 

 

You know what they say about opinions.

I don't think FDR was an Imperial President. He just thought he was king. McKinley would be my first pick for an imperial president. An argument could be made that Bush is one, but I consider him more of a war president. I don't feel that Bush is trying to extend our borders or spread our influence.

Don't know if most of those would be considered valid resources as I'm not sure if opinion pieces and blogs are now considered good sources; although from the sounds of it his professor would accept them as proper. Sad in my opinion.

 

I would assume this is a survey level class and I would also assume this is not a research assignment, but one intended to provoke thought and make connections to current events.

Me too. FDR was an imperial president.

 

You know what they say about opinions.

 

I don't think FDR was an Imperial President. He just thought he was king. McKinley would be my first pick for an imperial president. An argument could be made that Bush is one, but I consider him more of a war president. I don't feel that Bush is trying to extend our borders or spread our influence.

 

 

I can see why some would consider FDR an Imperial President however I don't, in my learned opinion, consider him thus.

 

Imperialism as per dictionary.com :

 

1.	the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

2.	advocacy of imperial interests.

3.	an imperial system of government.

4.	imperial government.

5.	British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Now I assume that within the context of this course that the bolded is the definition in question. According to that specific definition I do not find FDR an Imperial president. Nor do I find, for that matter, any president of the 20th Century to be Imperialistic outside of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.

 

FDR loved power, there is little to no doubt about that and he did what he could to add more powers to the presidency during WWII. I could see him as power hungry, even mildly meglomaniacal, however Imperialistic does not suit in that he made no attempt to grab colonies or expand American borders. Did he expand American Influence overseas? Yes, but that was largely due to a world crises he could not effectively ignore and let pass. Besides, SOMETHING had to stimulate the economy in the United States. Obsessed with expanding his own power? I think his insistence on not following the precedent set down by Washington and his attempts to unduely influence the Supreme Court would classify with that, not with Imperialism.

 

The three presidents that fall into that category in my mind would be Polk, McKinley, Roosevelt and to a certain extent Lincoln. On the last one definition 5 is what brings me to that.

 

Thus is PepRock's view on this.

Definitely Polk.

I can see why some would consider FDR an Imperial President however I don't, in my learned opinion, consider him thus.

 

Imperialism as per dictionary.com :

 

1.	the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

2.	advocacy of imperial interests.

3.	an imperial system of government.

4.	imperial government.

5.	British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Now I assume that within the context of this course that the bolded is the definition in question. According to that specific definition I do not find FDR an Imperial president. Nor do I find, for that matter, any president of the 20th Century to be Imperialistic outside of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.

 

FDR loved power, there is little to no doubt about that and he did what he could to add more powers to the presidency during WWII. I could see him as power hungry, even mildly meglomaniacal, however Imperialistic does not suit in that he made no attempt to grab colonies or expand American borders. Did he expand American Influence overseas? Yes, but that was largely due to a world crises he could not effectively ignore and let pass. Besides, SOMETHING had to stimulate the economy in the United States. Obsessed with expanding his own power? I think his insistence on not following the precedent set down by Washington and his attempts to unduely influence the Supreme Court would classify with that, not with Imperialism.

 

The three presidents that fall into that category in my mind would be Polk, McKinley, Roosevelt and to a certain extent Lincoln. On the last one definition 5 is what brings me to that.

 

Thus is PepRock's view on this.

I agree. My first two candidates for imperial presidents were Polk and McKinley. However, some definitions of the phrase fit FDR perfectly. The term imperial presidency was popularized by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., as explained below:

 

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits.[1]

This Wikipedia article marks the FDR presidency as the beginning of the era of the imperial presidency and the author wrote his book immediately following Watergate and the Nixon presidency.

 

I think that many people who accuse Bush of being an "imperial president" are trying to apply the Schlesinger definition to Bush. Others cling to the misguided notion that we invaded Iraq to steal its oil and that Bush wants to conquer Iran for the same reason and associate "imperial" with "empire." I don't think Bush fits either mold, at least not any more than other post-FDR presidents.

Thanks for everything so far. I didn't get a chance to start the paper cause I was having to work on another assignment for most of the day.

 

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the professor did say that Wikipedia and other encyclopedia type sources would not be allowed.

 

 

 

 

I would assume this is a survey level class and I would also assume this is not a research assignment, but one intended to provoke thought and make connections to current events.

 

 

From what I have been able to gain from his class in the first week, I would have to say that you're very correct on this issue.

Thanks for everything so far. I didn't get a chance to start the paper cause I was having to work on another assignment for most of the day.

 

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the professor did say that Wikipedia and other encyclopedia type sources would not be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I have been able to gain from his class in the first week, I would have to say that you're very correct on this issue.

I would check out the Schlesinger book. You might also want to research the increasing use of "signing statements" by recent presidents, including Bush. If your professor holds a typical political bias and you want to make a good grade, here is an article by an unsavory character from Nixon's administration, John Dean, in which he criticizes Bush's use of signing statements:

 

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration

 

Me, I would take the contrary view and fight for my B or C. :lol:

Definitely Polk.

 

I would consider him the first imperial president and the first one to act openly on the idea of Manifest Destiny.

I would check out the Schlesinger book. You might also want to research the increasing use of "signing statements" by recent presidents, including Bush. If your professor holds a typical political bias and you want to make a good grade, here is an article by an unsavory character from Nixon's administration, John Dean, in which he criticizes Bush's use of signing statements:

 

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration

 

Me, I would take the contrary view and fight for my B or C. :lol:

 

 

 

I know he was part of the inner ring and counsel to Nixon but he did spill the beans and help Congress unravel the Watergate mess.

I agree. My first two candidates for imperial presidents were Polk and McKinley. However, some definitions of the phrase fit FDR perfectly. The term imperial presidency was popularized by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., as explained below:

 

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits.[

1]

This Wikipedia article marks the FDR presidency as the beginning of the era of the imperial presidency and the author wrote his book immediately following Watergate and the Nixon presidency.

 

I think that many people who accuse Bush of being an "imperial president" are trying to apply the Schlesinger definition to Bush. Others cling to the misguided notion that we invaded Iraq to steal its oil and that Bush wants to conquer Iran for the same reason and associate "imperial" with "empire." I don't think Bush fits either mold, at least not any more than other post-FDR presidents.

 

 

By the bolded, which I find to be an interesting concept in and of itself, I could see a number of 20th century presidents and one or two prior to it that would definitely be Imperial Presidents.

 

 

Which definition of Imperial is your professor talking about? It is an important distinction.

I may be wrong . . . but . . .

 

I believe that "IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY" refers to a president who increases HIS power or authority. Not one with U.S. imperial tendencies.

 

It is more of a Machiavellian term than foreign affairs.

 

In political science, I believe Nixon was considered an imperial president, b/c of the power he assumed during the war.

 

That is also why W is considered on because of all of the signing orders etc.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I remember from the government major I got at Centre in '89;)

I may be wrong . . . but . . .

 

I believe that "IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY" refers to a president who increases HIS power or authority. Not one with U.S. imperial tendencies.

 

It is more of a Machiavellian term than foreign affairs.

 

In political science, I believe Nixon was considered an imperial president, b/c of the power he assumed during the war.

 

That is also why W is considered on because of all of the signing orders etc.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I remember from the government major I got at Centre in '89;)

 

 

Well as a historian I tend to look at what I have at hand, until the actual definition of Imperialism is changed I take it for what it was, national expansion at the expense of others.

 

Although I do agree that the term makes sense for increasing the power of the office. If that is the case then the model of Imperial Presidency is really Lincoln. And there have been many in the 20th Century.

Well as a historian I tend to look at what I have at hand, until the actual definition of Imperialism is changed I take it for what it was, national expansion at the expense of others.

 

Although I do agree that the term makes sense for increasing the power of the office. If that is the case then the model of Imperial Presidency is really Lincoln. And there have been many in the 20th Century.

 

You mean, just because he suspended the writ of habeas corpus?

Thanks for everything so far. I didn't get a chance to start the paper cause I was having to work on another assignment for most of the day.

 

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the professor did say that Wikipedia and other encyclopedia type sources would not be allowed.

You may not be able to use Wikipedia as a source, but you can use Wikipedia's sources listed at the bottom of each entry.

 

I'd also doublecheck to see how the professor defines "imperial president". As you can see from this thread, we have differing definitions.