True but saying so would be labeled socialist (not incorrectly) or even Marxist and so anathematized.
We may not have reached the “freedom is slavery,” and “ignorance is strength” level of 1984 semantic perversion in this country but by christ we are getting close.
This needs to be said over and over and over.
The key words here are “freshman Dem”. MAGA Mike would accommodate this request from a Republican.
This time he and the MAGAts in the House would just destroy it without even a concept of a plan. Those tax cuts for the already fortunate need some spending offsets.
Somewhere around the collapse of reconstruction and the Hayes-Tilden compromise that threw the 1876 election to the GOP?
Good question.
In reflecting on your question, ther than Lincoln, when have they ever gotten it right? Eisenhower had some good points, TR possibly. Neither were disastrous, but hardly champions of social welfare.
Grant was quite good in many ways and took Reconstruction and federal enforcement/protection of black civil rights in the South quite seriously, and he had very forward-thinking views on church-state separation and the need for free, universal public education. On the other hand, there were some minor corruption scandals, his economic management was very mixed, and his thinking on the economy was very primitive (but quite mainstream by the standards of his time). He got swindled out of much of his and his family’s fortune by Ferdinand Ward, and Mark Twain helped him write his memoirs (and rescue his finances) while he was dying of throat cancer from his smoking habit. I highly recommend Ron Chernow’s biography of Grant, which is a dense read but extensively sourced, and also gives a more circumspect and nuanced view on Grant’s reputation for drunkenness, which was exaggerated by historical revisionists pushing Lost Cause mythology. And yeah, Ike and TR were pretty decent presidents in the estimation of most historians. But like you, I’m very hard pressed to think of any other “good” Republican presidents after Grant than those two. McKinley, perhaps? Reagan is consistently overrated, but we are STILL living in the America Reagan built, and I suppose Bush senior’s reputation has risen over time even though he was a one-termer.
I’ve read Grant’s autobiography, and quite agree.
In this telling, he struck me as being an exceptionally lucid, capable, frank, and well-grounded man. The image that emerges is someone who was far from the corrupt drunk that he has been portrayed in some circles. Considering he ran a continent-wide war more capably than any other leader on either side, history lends good support to the quality of his judgment and leadership. Lincoln, for one, certainly trusted his judgment, as did his very capable subordinates, Sherman and Sheridan.
Nah, it’s just that the reputation of every single Repub who followed is so septic that it make Bush senior looks good in comparison! 