Dr.Traveler
Mathematician
- Aug 31, 2009
- 3,948
- 652
- 190
Tongue in cheek answer: Wilson won his war handily, Madison ended up nearly losing his and the nation.
More Serious Answer:
First up, Madison vs. Wilson: To make the argument you've had to grab a particular snapshot of each man. Madison had an evolving view of the role of the Federal Government over his life span, and indeed over the course of his Presidency. He originally opposed the formation of a centralized bank, but was forced to change his mind when the War of 1812 required funding.
Wilson himself didn't see the principles of the Constitution as something to be shrugged off, but at the same time he was trying to fight and win a global war. While I consider Wilson one of the worst Presidents (up there with Buchanan) thanks to his handling of the Great Influenza Pandemic and his heavy handed almost tolalitarian waging of WWI, I can excuse some of his actions, and even views, in light of what he faced. Barely. With gritted teeth.
That's why some level of Progressivism is inevitable. Government that can not adapt to a changing world will be tossed aside and replaced with one that can meet the populace's needs by the populace. That's a lesson repeatedly learned in history. The Constitution does provide flexiblity to adapt and there absolutely will be times when a developing situation requires intervention by the Federal Government.
I would prefer to see progress done by Constitutional Ammendment after public debate of the pros and cons, rather than how it has been done here in the US in the past.
In summary: Given the choice between a President that would stand by and do nothing (Like say Buchanan) versus one willing to take action to preserve the nation (Like FDR), I'll choose action every time.
More Serious Answer:
First up, Madison vs. Wilson: To make the argument you've had to grab a particular snapshot of each man. Madison had an evolving view of the role of the Federal Government over his life span, and indeed over the course of his Presidency. He originally opposed the formation of a centralized bank, but was forced to change his mind when the War of 1812 required funding.
Wilson himself didn't see the principles of the Constitution as something to be shrugged off, but at the same time he was trying to fight and win a global war. While I consider Wilson one of the worst Presidents (up there with Buchanan) thanks to his handling of the Great Influenza Pandemic and his heavy handed almost tolalitarian waging of WWI, I can excuse some of his actions, and even views, in light of what he faced. Barely. With gritted teeth.
That's why some level of Progressivism is inevitable. Government that can not adapt to a changing world will be tossed aside and replaced with one that can meet the populace's needs by the populace. That's a lesson repeatedly learned in history. The Constitution does provide flexiblity to adapt and there absolutely will be times when a developing situation requires intervention by the Federal Government.
I would prefer to see progress done by Constitutional Ammendment after public debate of the pros and cons, rather than how it has been done here in the US in the past.
In summary: Given the choice between a President that would stand by and do nothing (Like say Buchanan) versus one willing to take action to preserve the nation (Like FDR), I'll choose action every time.