Your challenge is to rank and rate the Presidents from the best to worst. Please include at least up to Bush.Sr. As Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama’s presidencies are too recent and also not those of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James Garfields as their terms were too short I won’t be judging them although you may if you wish. So now:
The Presidents in the Greatest to the Least Greatest Order:
Abraham Lincoln (Republican, 1861-1865)
Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat, 1933-1945)
George Washington (None, 1789-1797)
Harry Truman (Democrat, 1945-1953)
Theodore Roosevelt (Republican, 1901-1909)
James K. Polk (Democrat, 1845-1849)
Thomas Jefferson (Democrat-Republican, 1801-1809)
William McKinley (Republican, 1897-1901)
Dwight Eisenhower (Republican, 1953-1961)
Ronald Reagan (Republican, 1981-1989)
Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat, 1963-1969)
Richard Nixon (Republican, 1969-1974)
John F. Kennedy (Democrat, 1961-1963)
James Monroe (Democrat-Republican, 1817-1825)
George H.W. Bush (Republican, 1989-1993)
John Quincy Adams (Democratic-Republican. 1825-1829)
A agree with your top 5 in general, but I probably lean towards FDR as #1. As for your bottom 5, Madison kind of jumps out as not belonging there. I’m guessing you don’t like how he handled the War of 1812. As for the other 27 in the middle, toss 'em in the air and see how they shake out.
Oh, wait. Nixon belongs at the very bottom, and certainly nowhere near #12. His abuse of the power of his office is unforgivable.
I’m not usually too knowledgeable on this subject, but I’ll give two cents > >clink<clink<. I would either put Washington or Lincoln as #1. Kennedy probably should be higher. I didn’t think Polk or McKinley would be that high. Nixon is lower, and probably HW Bush (or too soon to tell, but my econ professors remember him fondly). I would move Taft higher and Hoover lower, like bottom 5, the same with Grant. I thought Ford was forgettable, so top of the bottom 10. And, Harding dead last.
As with the other posters (so far), it’s too much work for me to rank them all. I’d move Truman, Roosevelt (Franklin) and Polk down somewhat, Certainly Johnson (Lyndon B) and Nixon (!!) down a LOT, move James Madison up from where you have him near the bottom (), move up Teddy and Andrew Jackson a touch, move up (slightly) James Buchanan and put Milliard Filmore at the very bottom instead. I’d also put George Washington at the very top for a variety of reasons (it IS a ranking system after all), but Lincoln would have to be my number two guy.
This reminds me of the Presidents on History Channel…good show if you haven’t seen it. Gives you a lot of new perspective on some of the more obscure Presidents.
Too much work to rank them all, but I would rank Washington #1 and Lincoln #2, probaby FDR #3. I would also move move Richard Nixon way down and Jimmy Carter up a just a touch.
Yeah, the War of 1812 was almost an act of national suicide and we only got lucky that time. As for Richard Nixon, yes Watergate was bad however he was also a good policywise passing various legislation to help the poor, taking the nation off the gold standard, opening up China, attempting very similar strategies in Iraq to Vietnam and unfortunately many other presidents were certainly corrupt as him except it wasn’t revealed for a long time.
Kennedy I’ve given somewhat of a low rating due to the Bay of Pigs (he should either have supported it fully or refused to back it at all). For George HW Bush I’ve given him a good rating for Gulf War I’s astonishing success and presiding over the breakup of the Soviet Union. Hoover didn’t cause the Great Depression although he didn’t do much to help-it was more of a force of history which he couldn’t prevent. Grant I’ve given a nice ranking since he supported rights for blacks quite strongly. Ford may have not done much but he wasn’t bad so he gets a mediocere rating. And I don’t think Harding was the worst president since while he was corrupt he didn’t cause a disaster for the country while Buchanan certainly did.
Truman: He was in a sense a competent workhorse president. Certainly he caused no great disasters for the US (except possibly losing China to the Communists) and helped build a bulwark against communism in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Roosevelt (Franklin Delano): At least some of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies greatly improved the nation. And while I don’t think fascists could have taken over the US due to a worse New Deal it probably spared us much social violence. His Land Lease policy probably gave the Allies some easier time in World War 2.
Polk: Polk actually managed to do all the things he had promised. He doubled our nation’s size making us a two-ocean power and at the same time avoiding war with Britain over Oregon.
Johnson (Lyndon Baines): He tried to save South Vietnam, strongly pushed for civil rights, and the Great Society. While some of it was unfortunate misplaced idealism or ineffective other programs of the Great Society worked greatly and have improved the US.
Roosevelt (Theodore): No doubt about it Theodore Roosevelt was a great President, I just thought others were greater then him.
Jackson: Jackson I believe was not a great president due to Cherokee removal and while at the same time getting rid of elitism and nepotism in the government system gave jobs to his supporters.
Filmore: Filmore was bad but Buchanan was the President who presided over the dissolution of the Union and not doing anything.
I’ll probably see the Presidents series when I have time.
How about your ranking of James Madison at 34th? Heck, you have both Adam’s ranked higher. I’m just curious…I don’t really want to debate your choices, as that opens up a huge can of worms IMHO, and it boils down to political philosophy and what one thinks makes a good/great or bad/horrible president.
As I’ve said above it was the War of 1812. The United States was almost commiting national suicide in this and we managed to survive due to sheer luck.
What, did Washington actually accomplish as President, other than setting a template? I was always under the impression that he was revered for the stuff he did before taking the Presidency.
I can’t much agree with FDR, except for that tiny little thing called WW2. Suffice it to say the New Deal was dubious and mostly wasted in my eyes, but he did win the war and wage it quite competently. Still, I think he’s not even in the top 5 (although that’s a measure of other great men).
I also look very closely at what Presidents actually did what (as most people, historians included, have a bad habit of labelling everything which happened good or ill as the result of the President’s actions).
John Adams, though: Most unsung American Hero. Architect of the Constitution and actually an honest and upright man (which was almost unheard of even in the simpler and less media-saturated Colonial period). As president, he presided over a mostly quiet period by not sparking pointless stupid wars and steadily dealing down with America’s potential enemy’s diplomatically. This included giving revolutionary France’s pocket-stuffing foreign minister the finger but not war, and generally steadying America’s position in the world. Basically, he avoided an early version of the War of 1812 that Madison blundered into.
Grant comes in close, and may have been the most idealistic President. He continued Lincoln’s policies (after the interegnum of ) and ultimately brought all of the South back into the national fold, broke down early attempts at black codes, worked to make AmeriIndians part of the nation American, actually prevented corruption and market cornering by the corrupt (but was blamed for it anyhow). He later toured the world, ably represented America to many nations which had hardly met us, and helped form a peace treaty between China and Japan.
Lincoln
Washington
John Adams
Jefferson
Grant
FDR
Reagan
Eisenhower
However, I just realized the very concept of ranking is stupid, so I won’t continue. I would tend to generalize Presidents into several categories of “great”, “good”, and “bad” and leave it lie.
I would not characterize most mof the very popular unpopular Presidents, like Nixon, Clinton, or Bush, as “great” or “bad”. Regardless of their natural abilities, they usually did something very well but faced great difficulties with less power than the upfront serious “crisis” Presidents.
Washington had carte blanche even more than Bush II at his height. He kept together a nation that could break apart from a myriad of factors. He established national relations, kept neutrality, and had the vision for westward expansion and growing the resources of the American people. He also surrounded himself with other forward thinkers and established the judiciary and pursued the Bill of Rights. It is much too easy for all of us to be drunk on this power, no matter now benign our goals or intentions.
I still think Grant was a lousy president. He seemed more concerned with getting drunk than actual administration. Plus, the people he chose to administer didn’t exactly have the countries interests at heart.
Likewise, Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was ridiculous, something that I even figured out in the 8th grade. I’m not a big fan of Farm subsidies either, particularly in this modern age, and I credit Hoover for starting this. I’ll put Harding second to last and put Buchanan at the bottom. Ford gets top of the bottom to middle because I don’t think he did anything. Then again, I didn’t think Franklin Pierce did anything either, so what do I know…
Ok, fair enough, though I don’t think you could reasonably lay all of that at Madison’s feet…nor do I think the US as a whole had much of a choice. Probably not the Brits either, considering events and their general air of superiority and antipathy toward the US. I think the War of 1812 was a fuck up all around, and no one man (or President) was responsible…for that matter, you can lay some of the blame on Jefferson, as he pretty much set the stage.
Anyway, thanks for illumining on why you ranked Madison so low. As with most of your choices I disagree, but it’s good to see why you ranked em as you did.
While you can make a case for Pierce, Fillmore, and Buchanan being at the bottom, another view would be that they simply felt that the legislative branch should take the lead in government, so they simply didn’t do very much. They weren’t bad, just had an idea for a different role that a President should serve.
And then, having met all his goals, he stepped down after a single term, because what was there left for him to accomplish? You don’t see that kind of humility much, among politicians.
“In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term”
– from “James K. Polk”, by They Might Be Giants
), move up Teddy and Andrew Jackson a touch, move up (slightly) James Buchanan and put Milliard Filmore at the very bottom instead. I’d also put George Washington at the very top for a variety of reasons (it IS a ranking system after all), but Lincoln would have to be my number two guy.