The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Revan529]

Well, as I have stated before, I won't pursue intervening in businesses, at least nowhere near the degree the Federals would; I'm mainly pushing for more representation and equality in the state representation, then having the businesses gradually integrate. My opponent, however, wished to rush in and create more problems, the only solutions for which, in his mind, would be more spending. As well, Southerners have always hated government intrusion, and under my administration, I will return to a laissez faire, free trade system.

((Which actually is what I said, so it's not flip flopping. I'm opposing Jim Crow, but after pushing for their repeal, would support gradualism, rather than government interventionism))

 

[theAhawk]

((Wasn't the point BBB was making was that you'd have to promise to leave them alone; otherwise it's not giving Southerners much security?))

 

[Revan529]

((But I would appear to be the lesser of two evils... which at least would give more support until the South actually develops and organised party. Other than that, yeah, they're screwed with one liberal on one side, and another on the other.))

 

[Kaisersohaib]

((there appears to be a problem between Southerners and Democrats))

 

[theAhawk]

((There are no Democrats; their party died over a decade ago...))

 

[Kaisersohaib]

whoops i meant republicans

 

[Marshall Daub]

I am truly torn because there are parts of each platform I support, and parts that I do not. In particular, I dislike the thought of a League of Nations, inasmuch as it will impact American sovereignty in foreign affairs, and I do not see it truly being able to carry out its mission to help prevent wars.

Mark my words, League of Nation or no, Europe is going to be a blood-soaked battlefield for the next decade. Declarations of independence are only the start. Now these new countries will start fighting each other over old feuds or land claims, and taking every opportunity to make their foreign masters miserable. And the thought of a plebiscite in Russia, or even enforcing any kind of democratization there, is ridiculous when the country is in the throes of a three-way civil war. The winner shall be the one that can visit the most brutality on the others, and then they will work to unite the nation through more brutality.

America MUST take the lead role in enforcing peace and democratization. We cannot, must not, rely on other European powers to do it.

Walter Mandrake
Major General, US Army and Independent Candidate for Senator of Indiana

 

[Mikeboy]

((Well strictly speaking the Democrats still exist, they're just heavily tied to the Federals. I'd assume it'd be something like the National Liberals and the Conservatives in the UK.))

 

[Revan529]

My thoughts exactly, General Mandrake. On Russia, we must do something, if we want to have even a shred of hope for peace (but I agree that that is merely nothing more than a pipe dream... though I believe my policies would minimize the severity of any further war).

on America getting involved in policing, however, is where we disagree. My first concern is that, should we fail, we would appear weaker. Second, it would likely become a major drain on our economy. Third, we would have no choice but to enter those wars in the future. Fourth, and possibly the most important, is that we would be abandoning the system our Founder's designed, which worked remarkably well for several decades.

However, do not look solely on foreign policy. My economic policy is much like the one your father and my grandfather had, save for a bit more support for spending reductions (since we have such a larger system of welfare programmes than we did in the 1870's). Secretary McCahill is also much less experienced in financial matters than myself, considering I've been a businessman for decades, I've served as Vice President, and, most significantly, I've been Secretary of the Treasury. My knowledge of the market is great, and I can, if elected, quickly build upon the successes of our forefathers.

 

[Kaisersohaib]

"I Completely agree with Mister Jarvis, the war is going to push harde than we thought, the economical policies should be changed or reformed for the wealth of the USA is completely endangered we must lead the peace offers, believe i knoweuropeans".
-Professor Maurice Horshington,
"Also my vote goes to Jarvis"

 

[yourworstnightm]

You all talk as if the US could keep out of this new string of wars. That's not true, if we don't go to the war, the war will come to us.

 

[BigBadBob]

Voting on behalf of the anti-League, anti-anti-Jim Crow lobbies: Jarvis.

 

[theAhawk]

Mr Mandrake, you said it yourself, "America MUST take the lead role in enforcing peace and democratization. We cannot, must not, rely on other European powers to do it." That is precisely the reason we need to back the League of Nations. It will allow us to pursue our foreign policy for more effectively by working on a global scale. I do not understand why you doubt it will work; by working globally we can help to prevent wars before they happen, through negotiation and economic sanctions, and if that fails we can stand up against imperialism and aggression with international allies. Moreover, if Mr Jarvis is elected, we would be totally isolated from Europe and the rest of the world, allowing it to descend into chaos and drag us down with it.
In Russia, I agree that there is very little we can do to promote democracy in such chaos, yet we can support the new republics that surround it and the idea of backing a side when we cannot know the outcome is ludicrous unless there is a substantial offer on the table. Right now, however much I hope for liberty there, we must be pragmatic and stay out of the conflict.

 

[Revan529]

When have I said I would isolate us? I have said I would non get ourselves in wars, but interacting with Europe is not only perfectly acceptable, it is vital to promote both peace and economic growth. Peaceful trade, open discourse, and impartiality will do more to promote peace than any new programme. Remember that our involvement in Europe caused this war (formation of Germany, isolation of France, supplying Germany and Austria, forming the Commonwealth and alienating those nations, and our militaristic actions in Latin America), and that we should not be so foolish as to think that we can try the same thing and get a different result.

I agree we must be pragmatic on Russia, and I would not back any faction unless it made concrete promises to reform. Indeed, if no side makes any efforts to liberalize, then we will do nothing about them. As for the new nations arising, my peace proposal has already made attempts to ensure that not only are they recognized by all nations, and that they form non aggression pacts, but that the League of European States would be created to ensure that those agreements are enforced. If you are so sceptical of the League of European States, why is your League of Nations so much better?

 

[theAhawk]

You have said that you wash your hands of Europe and would let it collapse before the new order has even begun. The reasons for the war were because national agendas trumped the global one of peace and stability; the fact is that my of our political predecessors failed to realise that America's true national interest is to create a climate which is precipitous to free trade and prosperity, only achievable by working globally for the global interests of peace and stability. These aims are only achievable if nations are willing to cooperate and a forum in which negotiations can happen and the rule of law can be enforced is vital to this process. The League is the only way I can see at this point in time of providing that forum and that law.

A League of European states is not a bad one, were it coming from London, Paris, Berlin, Prague, Madrid or Vienna, but when it is the aspiration of a man in Washington DC there is something wrong. Ideally, European states should cooperate, yet from outside the organisation it is impossible for its conceiver to be promote it and ensure it does its work. The League of Nations is better because it is supported by us not hoisted upon unwilling Europeans. If we are unwilling to cooperate globally, why should the countries of Europe? We should lead by example; do as I say, not as I do, never got anyone anywhere.

 

[Revan529]

Are the Europeans willing, then? Do the Germans or the Russians want this League? Do the British or the French? I haven't heard anything about this, from either side; the former, will accept anything short of their destruction; the latter, want the complete of Germany and Russia. We will be forcing the same, and no one can deny it. If we are pushing for this League, we will have to make concessions to the British and French, concessions that would lead to a worse situation for the Allies, and would do little more than create an atmosphere for retribution and revanchism.

A European League will have a more vested interest in maintaining peace in Europe than a global League, which would be prone to the whims of other national purposes, not a global goal. Even you have argued that the League will promote Americanism, not a globalist ideal (I personally reject both notions, Americanizing the world through political and military means, rather than through more soft power, economic and cultural might; globalism, because nations will lose their intrinsic freedom, and become bound by, and to, the imperial powers who will simply pursue their interests). Those imperial powers could easily form agreements to undermine the League, and promote their own imperial ambitions through those political avenues (Britain and France likely working or such goals).

 

[theAhawk]

You have missed my point; there is no way we can convince the Europeans to accept globalisation if we are not willing to. Period.

Furthermore, I have already had positive responses from both the British and French governments regarding a global league, the former even offering the location free of charge on which to site the League as a gesture of support. I have no knowledge of how they would react to an organisation of limited scope.

How does a global League demand more concessions than a local one? Indeed, I would argue it does the opposite, indicating we will not just abandon them at our whim if aggression flares up again.

If you believe European governments are truely drawn to attacking each other continually, why would a European League have a vested interest in maintaining the peace?

Finally, I disagree that the League could be used to further imperial ambitions; as I have to repeat time and time again, it is set up to prevent aggression and imperialism, whether it be through the legal bodies like the International Court of Justice or the composition of congress which allows for both fair representation and action at the same time. I quote you; "Not a bad proposal at all."

 

[BigBadBob]

((It would probably be advisable to ask me before you make statements about other countries' governments)).

Mr. McCahill, I was under the impression that our talks with the British have been slightly hampered by their demands for Germany to become subject to "restructuring" before acceptance into the League.

As for the French, you and I are both fully aware that they oppose admitting Germany into the League at all, and continue to demand that reparations to France be extracted from their defeated neighbor. The millions of French military and civilian dead, and thousands of acres of destroyed land will not so easily be forgotten.

- John F. Harrison, Secretary of the Treasury

 

[theAhawk]

((Sorry, but the rest of the points still stand; also, I did say it ages ago and nobody picked me up on it so I kind of assumed the statement was OK, but...))

The point was that they are not opposed to the principle of global cooperation; in fact, their primary problems with the proposals are the leniency with which both parties would treat the defeated powers and their acceptance into the League without proving their worth, not the body itself.

((Isn't Germany restructuring on it's own?))

 

[BigBadBob]

((Isn't Germany restructuring on it's own?))

Well, the Brits and the French sure as hell don't trust the Germans to do it right on their own.