Alt text:
It wasn't originally constitutionally required, but presidents who served two terms have traditionally followed George Washington's example and gotten false teeth.
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
769 points (98.5% liked)
xkcd
8766 readers
135 users here now
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, "best" by what standard? He's a continuation of the Reagan tradition.
FDR got where he was thanks to a large popular movement that his administration ultimately undermined and dismantled. The guy that delivered Harry Truman, J. Edgar Hoover, and Allen Dulles onto the American system was a compromise at best.
Fixating on Presidents as modern day messiah figures has been uniformly bad for American politics and social progress. And its illustrated by this latent desire for a Lich-King President, a shambling corpse propped up by hagiography and revisionist history, who we're taught to venerate as the fountain of progress rather than merely the man at the helm during a hurricane who didn't sink the ship.
These guys aren't prime movers, they're consequences of much larger and more sweeping social movements. I would love to be in a country that elects a guy like FDR, but I do not believe that magically making FDR president again would result in anything remotely like the policies we got under his original administration.
I agree with that. I was being somewhat flippant talking about a "Lich King president" (I was going for Warhammer 40k if that helps set the picture better)
Without movements we don't get shit. The rich have access by default. Everyone else has to make their access, typically with movements.
Younger, more energenic, possibly idealistic presidents might lead to a change of status quo.
So that's pretty much why not.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Man, if only.