The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
sakskidz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Andrew Jackson

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 34642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Debate

I, the Master Historian of DDO, am arguing that President Ronald Wilson Reagan was a better president than Andrew Jackson. My opponent must argue that President Jackson was a better president than President Reagan was.

Rules

Round 1 for introduction.
No trolling and no semantics.
sakskidz

Con

He's "complex."

Positives:
-He attacked corruption in the federal government, which he distrusted.
But he also helped prevent an early Civil War. In the 1830s South Carolina nullified a federal law and threatened to secede from the Union because of high tariffs. Though he wanted to send a large force into the state, Jackson prepared a modest force just in case while Congress worked out a compromise tariff.
-Jackson was a strong supporter of the Union, influence that would be important to its cause in the Civil War 30 years later.
-He amplified the power of the presidency (which at the time was the weakest of the 3 branches), using the veto power a total of 12 times. His six predecessors altogether had used it 10 times.

Negatives:
-However, he introduced the National Spoils System, which threw out incumbent officeholders and replaced them with political supporters. As a result, people who cared little for the country and more about the rewards were in power.
-He also destroyed the Second Bank of the United States. Like other westerners, he hated big banks. The National Bank was a great asset to the nation's economy and a Panic followed his two-term presidency.
-He may have abused his power as President.
-He was largely responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the "Trail of Tears." This was actually supposed to be a noble move because he had adopted a Native American boy and did not want to simply wipe out the Native peoples.

Depends on what you think:
-His election represented the emergence of the common man in politics (universal white male suffrage in many states) and the westward movement of the political center of the nation (he was a rich gentleman from Tennessee). You could take this either way: the people were getting involved, or stupid people starting voting.
-He basically founded the Democratic Party. (And the Whig Party, which grew out of opposition to his policies. The party was simply unified by the fact that "we all hate Jackson" but later reorganized into the Republican Party.)
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Just a reminder, round 1 was for an introduction, not for the debate. All you had to do was say that you accepted the challenge.

My Case

President: Ronald Wilson Reagan
Party:Republican
In Office: 1981 to 1989

I. Economic Policy

The first place we should look at in the presidency of Ronald Reagan would be his economic policy. President Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, the idea that the economic growth could be stimulated through lower taxes, less government regulations, less government intervention, and less government spending.

From January 1981 to January 1989, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% and then went down to 5.4%. What this means is that the unemployment rate under President Reagan's first four years and two months in office went down by 5.4%. This is quite impressive for a recovery. [1]

However that is not just it, federal revenue had been declining at 2.8% per year and after President Reagan's tax cuts it grew at 2.7% per year. In addition, real GDP growth was averaging at 0.9% before the tax cuts and 4.8% after. [2]

Finally, Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie write that:

"During this period, promising technology companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft launched initial public offerings of stock, while others such as Cisco Systems and Compaq (later acquired by Hewlett-Packard) received expansion capital and later went public." [2]

This is because of a capital gains tax cut signed by President Reagan. It allowed the creation of companies like Apples. Think about it, you might have an apple in your house. How would it feel if Ronald Reagan had never become president. His policies that brought the creation of Apple and other companies would have never happened and thus these companies would have trouble growing.

Reagan's succesful policies were eventually nicknamed Reaganomics. When the Heritage Foundation looks are Reagan's record, it finds that:

"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending." [3]

Mr. Sperry notes that Preisdent Reagan's economic boom lasted for 92 months without a recession. This period was from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime. The growth from the President Reagan's boom lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War 2. [3]

II. Cold War

Now let's move on to one of the president's greatest achievements: defeating the USSR, the greatest threat to our country ever. There were three factors that brought down the Evil Empire:

1. Military Strategy - When President Reagan entered office, military morale was low and so was the pay. President Carter had cut a lot of programs in the military. Under the Reagan Administration, military spending skyrocketed in the crusade against communism. This included the famous SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) programs and several over and covert missions to aid anti-communists guerrilla forces in Central America, South America, Africa, and Afghanistan.

2. Economic Strategy - Yes, Reaganomics helped win the Cold War. The recovering economy helped President Reagan's military buildup. The free market capitalist United States was too much for the USSR which had an its inefficient command-directed communist economic system.

3. Political Strategy - Politics played a role to in defeating the reds. With a strong ally in British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Reagan launched a global political form of blitzkrieg on the USSR and other communist political leaders. The reds had seriously underestimated the American president and saw him as a "warmonger".

Together, these strategies defeated the USSR and by January 1989 when President Reagan left office the USSR was in great trouble. In 1991, the USSR would collapse. Soviet Head of State Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (re-structuring) and glasnost (openness) proved too little, too late. Gorbachev told the History Channel in 2002, "I don't know what would have happened had [Reagan] not been there." [4,5]

President: Andrew Jackson
Party: Democratic
In Office: 1829 to 1837

I. Economic Policy

We can look at mainly two areas in Andrew Jackson's economic policy. The first is tariffs. It is well known that Jackson enforced the Tariff of Abominations even when it meant disaster for the south. He threatened sending troops down there while Congress played its hand trying to find the best rate a tariff should be at. It is simple to known what the tariff rate should have been: 0%.

Tariffs are not benefical to the nation's economy or the world. It does not promote trade at all, but instead restricts it. The video I posted shows this. Jackson was in fact hurting the nation more than helping it.

The second area is the bank war that resulted in the Panic of 1837. In July 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States (BUS). As the BUS wound up its operations in the next four years, state-chartered banks in the West and South relaxed their lending standards, maintaining unsafe reserve ratios. Government funds were withdrawed from the banks making the economic policy very unsafe. Loans had to be scaled back with less backing in the east which led to less economic expansion. Unemployment rose to 25%. [6]

II. Indian Removal Act and Defying the Supreme Court

With the Indian removal comes one of the worst quotes of all time:

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court ruled the removal of Indians as unconstitutional, but the tyrant Jackson didn't care at all. Perhaps one of the saddest moments in American history, thousands of Indians left their homes and were forced to move west.

Conclusion

Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, is nothing compared to the hero Ronald Reagan. Reagan is a better president by a landslide. They both have huge political effects. Ronald Reagan, a strong Republican president, is seen as one of the best leaders in history. Andrew Jackson, pratically a dictator, will forever be the face of the Democratic Party showing Franklin Roosevelt's and Barack Obama's true colors toward racism on Native Americans. My opponent has helped me by stating Jackson's weaknesses. He never attacked Reagan.

Sources

1. http://portalseven.com...
2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.
3. Sperry, Peter B. "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.
4. Gaffney, Dennis and Peter Gaffney. The Seven Day-Scholar: The Presidents. 2012.
5. Morelock, Jerry D. "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." Armchair General IX.5 (2012): 18-19.
6. Knodell, Jane (September 2006). "Rethinking the Jacksonian Economy: The Impact of the 1832 Bank Veto on Commercial Banking". The Journal of Economic History




sakskidz

Con

sakskidz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Let me try to make you guys feel better with some humor.
sakskidz

Con

if round 1 was just saying that i accept then i'll state my case again
He's "complex."

Positives:
-He attacked corruption in the federal government, which he distrusted.
But he also helped prevent an early Civil War. In the 1830s South Carolina nullified a federal law and threatened to secede from the Union because of high tariffs. Though he wanted to send a large force into the state, Jackson prepared a modest force just in case while Congress worked out a compromise tariff.
-Jackson was a strong supporter of the Union, influence that would be important to its cause in the Civil War 30 years later.
-He amplified the power of the presidency (which at the time was the weakest of the 3 branches), using the veto power a total of 12 times. His six predecessors altogether had used it 10 times.

Negatives:
-However, he introduced the National Spoils System, which threw out incumbent officeholders and replaced them with political supporters. As a result, people who cared little for the country and more about the rewards were in power.
-He also destroyed the Second Bank of the United States. Like other westerners, he hated big banks. The National Bank was a great asset to the nation's economy and a Panic followed his two-term presidency.
-He may have abused his power as President.
-He was largely responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the "Trail of Tears." This was actually supposed to be a noble move because he had adopted a Native American boy and did not want to simply wipe out the Native peoples.

Depends on what you think:
-His election represented the emergence of the common man in politics (universal white male suffrage in many states) and the westward movement of the political center of the nation (he was a rich gentleman from Tennessee). You could take this either way: the people were getting involved, or stupid people starting voting.
-He basically founded the Democratic Party. (And the Whig Party, which grew out of opposition to his policies. The party was simply unified by the fact that "we all hate Jackson" but later reorganized into the Republican Party.)

and of course i accept it if i'm typing for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

My Refutations

Andrew Jackson

My opponent basically stated the pros and the cons of Andrew Jackson's presidency. In fact, he stated more negatives than he did positives, proving how bad Jackson's presidency was. My opponent's positives were:


"-He attacked corruption in the federal government, which he distrusted.
But he also helped prevent an early Civil War. In the 1830s South Carolina nullified a federal law and threatened to secede from the Union because of high tariffs. Though he wanted to send a large force into the state, Jackson prepared a modest force just in case while Congress worked out a compromise tariff."

However, I already stated how bad this was. Jackson, who appealed to the common man in his elections, betrayed them with tariffs altogether. Not to mention, tariffs are bad for the economy anyway. Jackson was destroying economic growth.

"-Jackson was a strong supporter of the Union, influence that would be important to its cause in the Civil War 30 years later."

How is influencing the start of the Civil War a good thing?

"-He amplified the power of the presidency (which at the time was the weakest of the 3 branches), using the veto power a total of 12 times. His six predecessors altogether had used it 10 times."

While the veto is a powerful tool, he may have destroyed some important legislation further hampering economic growth.

Conclusion

My opponent acknowledged the negatives of Andrew Jackson's presidency. He never refuted my arguments on Ronald Reagan.

sakskidz

Con

this is all opinion u have no facts
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

My opponent seemed to also ignore my source I placed in the second round.
sakskidz

Con

sakskidz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
@Roy Actually yes. Think of it as a battle royal where all the presidents are in a ring. There fighting each other to be the last and thus be #1. The historian is he referee. There fighting skill is based in several aspects of their presidency. Benjamin Harrison and Martin Van Buren might have to take on each other to see who is higher on the ranking and who is lower.
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
The traditional rankings by historians say more about the historians than the presidents.

Will there be a Martin Van Buren vs. Benjamin Harrison smackdown?
Posted by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
Reagan vs a genocidal maniac? Cool.
Posted by Ealfriend 1 year ago
Ealfriend
Reagon is much better
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
So hitch, Jackson has always been traditionally ranked higher than Reagan. The advantage is to Con.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
@hitch Clinton is not considered a major Democratic president. These guys are:

FDR
Andrew Jackson
Woodrow Wilson
Lyndon B Johnson

Each one of these men is a major Democratic president because of there actions. FDR is perceived by Democrats as saving the country from the Depression and WW2. Jackson is the first Democrat who many people say stood strong during hard times and won battles against opponents. Woodrow Wilson gets praise for WW1, creation of the progressive tax, and finally the Federal Reserve. Last, LBJ has his great society.

Ronald Reagan is largely considered an underdog and not one of the more major or greatest president, so my mission is to take on individuals who would be considered ahead of Reagan by the liberal media and Democrats in order to prove this is not true.

Clinton is not one of the major Democrats, I rarely see him in a top 10.
Posted by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
TheHitchslap
....oh boy .... and the GOP wonders why libs find them silly.

No one with half a brain is gonna take this debate. I agree with a previous poster, how about Reagan and Clinton? I'd be happy to come at you with that for Clinton (as I'm a southern democrat and all .. )
Posted by JohnSmith1 1 year ago
JohnSmith1
How about Reagan vs Clinton? Much better debate
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
@legit I disagree. It's a common fallacy many people seem to make, but overall, presidencies aren't all that different. There are economic arguments, foreign npolicy arguments, etc. it's simply who did better.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Interesting debate, but it'll be a hard one to argue from both sides.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 1 year ago
utahjoker
1HistorygeniussakskidzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
1HistorygeniussakskidzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Triple FF on con's part, plus the only arguments he ever posted were unsourced speculation.