3 ms·
It’s easy to turn honours down when you are among the wealthiest people in a country and therefore retain a great deal of power and influence even without forma
by OfSanguineFire 3y ago
It’s easy to turn honours down when you are among the wealthiest people in a country and therefore retain a great deal of power and influence even without formal trappings.
- WalterBright 3y agoEasy? Who else has done it? FDR was very wealthy, but he clung on until he died. People like power, wealthy or not. It's the ultimate seduction.
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoLoads of revolutions have ended with one or more of the warlords involved relinquishing any formal role in the subsequent elected government, in exchange for simply keeping their massive wealth and networks of influence. After all, formal roles bring duties and obligations, so why bother if you don’t have to? The idea of Washington as some kind of saintly Cincinnatus is itself a literal textbook example of early American mythology.
- WalterBright 3y agoI only listed facts, not mythology. > in exchange for Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything. > any formal rule Washington wasn't offered a "role". He was offered absolute power.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago> Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything. How do you know that? Wielding absolute power makes enemies and Washington could have eventually lost everything, just like any number of historical tyrants that his circle, so keen about Greek and Roman history, were aware of. Turning down absolute power while keeping one’s immense wealth and influence can be an attractive choice, and this is the same calculus that has guided other warlords involved in revolutions up to the present day.
- WalterBright 3y agoHe also gave up the Presidency after 2 terms, though he was a shoo-in to be re-elected.
- andrepd 3y agoYour portrayal of FDR is extremely unfair, and shows your biases clearly as day. The man was re-elected for his 3rd and 4th terms in 1940 and 1944, think of any extenuating circumstance that might have caused that?
- WalterBright 3y agoExtremely unfair? After he did that, a Constitutional Amendment was passed to stop that from happening again. Presidents have an enormous advantage in reelection, and the country was concerned that we were at risk of a "president for life". He was quite ill during his final term, which put him at a severe disadvantage in negotiating with Stalin. This was hidden from the public.
- Apocryphon 3y agoIf he shouldn’t have done that why didn’t the American people sent him packing out of office? Why the arbitrary term limit of eight years?
- kelnos 3y agoBecause the American people don't really choose who's on the final ballot. For all we know FDR in 1944 was considered "just ok", but was better than his opponent.
- Apocryphon 3y agoThen that was the fault of a lack of a challenger within the Democratic nomination. And if they really wanted to, more delegates should have voted for Harry Byrd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_National_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_National_Conve... Given that Americans tend to reelect presidents during wartime, that makes the claim that FDR was somehow unpopularly "just ok" to be even more dubious.