<small>This sounds more like a GD topic than MPSIMS, so here goes:</small>
Besides the Rushmore Four, what US Presidents do you consider to be the best, and why?
My nomination: Harry S Truman, who thought “separate yet equal” was not equal and began integration of the US Military.
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
In my opinion, George Washington was our greatest president, and the greatest president of this century was Herbert Hoover. (As a corollary response, Franklin Roosevelt was the worst president in history.)
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Oh, merciful heaven. I know why you think Roosevelt was the worst, Lib, but he can’t possibly hold a candle to L. Johnson or R. Nixon, who perpetrated the most idiotic and fruitless war in our nation’s memory. And as for Hoover, well . . .
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Phil:
Well, no question that LBJ and RMN were negatives on the scale. Both suck for Vietnam as you mention, plus Johnson’s Not So Great Society and Nixon’s War on Americans I Mean Drugs. I mean it’s enough to make you puke.
But Roosevelt was the nation’s first emperor, and made it possible for the rest of the presidents to stomp around like elephants and make royal messes.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
OK, I know Clinton’s done more than his share of really stupid things, but he’s also the first president to acknowledge and at least TRY to support gays and atheists.
I don’t know how you answer this, since–depending upon your point of view–the same president can be viewed as great or bad for exactly the same reasons.
So I won’t address the OP based on their job performance or accomplishments, but on their personal life.
The shrewdest, craftiest president IMHO, was LBJ.
He first came (basically from a middle-class background, although his father had served in the TX legislature) to Washington with practically no money, and left as one of the wealthiest presidents!
(I think only Hoover and Kennedy were worth more at their deaths.)
I’d have to agree with Lib that FDR was one of our nation’s greatest Presidents.
(Don’t take it personally, Lib; I react the same way to ideologues of all stripes.)
My favorite song line with respect to public affairs runs, “When wilt thou save the people, O God of mercy, when? The people, Lord, the people, not thrones and crowns, but men.” (It’s from Godspell.)
Roosevelt didn’t stop to say, ‘it’s more important to perserve the sanctity of some principle than to alleviate the misery of millions of people jobless, destitute, wandering homeless and without hope.’ He figured that people came ahead of principles. God bless him for that.
He did the same thing in a totally different arena, in his destroyers-for-bases swap with Great Britain, when they were in WWII and we were still on the sidelines. Britain needed the destroyers, and FDR couldn’t sell them to Britain without Congress’ approval, which it wasn’t giving. So Roosevelt skirted the law (and still may have technically violated it) by accepting some (not particularly useful) military bases from Britain in trade for the destroyers. Britain didn’t fall, and was still there for us to use as a base when we needed it later. Good going, FDR.
Back to AWB’s question: Who do you think was the greatest president excluding the Rushmore Four (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt)?
Hmm. I tend to agree with AWB that Truman was probably the best president after these four.
1.) Fought fervently for civil rights.
2.) Fought fervently against communism.
3.) Instigated the Marshall Plan.
4.) Dealt- IMO very well- with some of the biggest crises and decisions of any president since Lincoln (dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, responding to the Berlin blockade, responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea and MacArthur’s demand to make a nuclear response against China, the creation of Israel, dealing with the massive inflation, unemployment, and labor unrest as a result of the war).
5.) And still stayed an honest, unpretenious man.
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
Persona:
Like I care.
You think it surprises me that a man who would swing at me after I leave a room would not hesitate to misrepresent my views?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Hey, I’m not the one who took a parting swing, then ran for the door. 
Hmmmm quite apart from the fact that Teddy Roosevelt isn’t one of the four best presidents…
Truman has much in his favor, as pointed out above, and especially in light of the fact that he wasn’t even expected to run the country when picked as the stooge to ride along with FDR for four years.
As for others, well, frankly there are a few “competent-plus” presidents (James Monroe, author of the Doctrine that helped us keep European Powers from meddling too much in the Western Hemisphere; Teddy Roosevelt, father of the expanded National Park system; Grover Cleveland, etc.). But most of the rest fall into one of three categories: The Bland, The Truly Bad, or the Idealists.
Now the Bland are legion. By my count, and many will dispute this, the following presidents fall into this segment: Adams, Madison, Adams, Van Buren, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Hayes, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford. Probably, history will judge Reagan and Bush into that category, along with the incumbent. Bland presidents are men who did little in office, either because no bold crises presented themselves, or because they simply allowed the issues to resolve themselves without showing much leadership or initiative. Buchanan can be taken as a prime example: his attempt to ‘Save the Union’ (his campaign rally cry) was very like the attempts of Chamberlain to keep the peace in Europe in the late 1930’s, when what was needed was the more direct approach of a leader and visionary (e.g.: Lincoln). Mind you, a Bland can be an okay thing, but a Bland can also cost us a lot.
Truly Bad presidents can be that way for a variety of reasons. Nixon was Truly Bad, NOT because of Vietnam, or Wage and Price controls, but because of Watergate and his response to it, which tore a huge hole in the nation’s confidence in the Presidency and federal government in general. U. S. Grant was a Truly Bad president because he was a drunken sot who let himself be lead around by the nose by his patrons. Truly Bad presidents, you will notice, come with truly bad advisors, a fact one should pay attention to at election times.
This leaves Idealists. Now the trouble with Idealists is that they are either Very Bad or Very Good, depending on your viewpoint. This makes it tough to judge them as to how good they were as a president. Andrew Jackson was an Idealist. He strongly believed in a new type of ‘democracy’ (see the heated debate over THAT word in another thread), one involving the common man, empowered to become whatever he could be. Jackson’s views on money were very strong and whether he was right or wrong depends on your views of federal government and its involvement in private economics. Woodrow Wilson was an Idealist, who either saved us from protracted involvement in WWI or kept us from putting a proper end to it much earlier, depending on your view.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt has had more impact on our country than any president since Abraham Lincoln. Whether he is a ‘great’ president depends on your view, because he was an Idealist. If you believe that the first and foremost purpose of a central government is to respond to social and economic ills (as well as military needs), then Roosevelt was the greatest president, for his legacy is Big Government, and the security of knowing that we will never just let an economy slide into ruin without trying to do something about it again. If you believe that the Feds should stick to Defense and roads, and as little else as possible, letting states solve their individual difficulties in a local and specific way, Roosevelt was an awful president, singlehandedly managing to saddle the union with the most expensive (and as yet, unpaid for) social and economic programs ever created in this country. One can, I suppose, make a cogent argument that his approach to WWII makes him a great leader, (and PLEASE, lend-lease did NOT save Britain, the RAF did), but great presidents are not the ones who won wars, but who did MORE than that.
All of which goes to show that in this, as in any other ranking, there is no way to objectify the issue.
DSY - you’re right, Lend-Lease didn’t save Britain. Still, every little bit helped, in that dark hour, and Roosevelt stretched the law to do what he could to aid Britain before it was popular.
Unlike Wilson, Roosevelt was, for an idealist, a very pragmatic man. He had high goals, but didn’t mind breaking a few eggs on the way to an omelet.
The rest is more to the discussion as a whole:
One thing that’s worth pointing out is that, despite the ‘evils of big government’ that FDR initiated (ditto major federal debt), the country doesn’t seem to have been paticularly impaired by all that. After WWII, our economy grew very fast for a quarter-century, and has really done quite well over the entire postwar period, except for the bumpy road during the 1973-83 period (and I’d claim that most of that bumpiness was due to problems with interrupted energy supply, and steep increases in energy prices, twice during the 1970s).
One may find big government distasteful, but to diss FDR’s presidency, I’d expect a brief case made demonstrating the harm done by some of his big-government programs. Then we can put that against his efforts at ending the Depression (admittedly only halfway successful before WWII) and his preparation for and conduct of the war, and argue where it balances out to.
Eve said, regarding Clinton:
Just a question, without getting into the best/worst issue: What did Clinton do to try to support atheists? And as for gays, well, “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t exactly “support,” nor was his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
DSY - how do you get either Reagan or LBJ into the ‘bland’ category? Like 'em or loathe 'em, they hardly sat around and played tiddlywinks…
David B.–
As for gays, Clinton was the first president (I think) to meet openly with gay groups and at least try–as misguided and faulty as it was–to do something for them. Of course, then he went and signed the damned “defense of marriage” bill . . .
As for atheists, Clinton made a speech in which he acknowledged the country’s religions, adding “and, of course, our atheist friends.” I nearly dropped dead–I don’t think any other president has ever said anything positive about atheists in public.
It’s not much, I agree–but a tiny little baby step forward.
Well, maybe it is a tiny baby step, but it looks more to me like he’s focussing on words over deeds. But I guess his acknowledgement of atheists is better than Bush saying they can’t be real Americans.
Since no one has raised the issue yet, I’ll ask- why exempt all of the Gang of 4?
TR was indeed influential, and changed America’s role in the world, but his nephew-in-law FDR certainly had a much greater impact on America. IMHO Harry Truman would also surpass TR, for the many reasons already outlined. As for Jefferson, I don’t want to downplay his contributions to American, and World, history- but they were achieved before he became president. What did he do as president which would qualify him beyond question as one of the four best?
nebuli: As for reasons regarding Jefferson as one of the best Presidents- the Louisiana Purchase, attempts to create a ‘modern’ (by the standards of those days) navy, and attempts (even if failed) to try and assert American independence and non-interference in the Napoleonic Wars (which led to the ‘damn Embargo’ and the War of 1812, admittedly).
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
“One may find big government distasteful, but to diss FDR’s presidency, I’d expect a brief
case made demonstrating the harm done by some of his big-government programs.”
Oh, admittedly most of FDR’s alphabet-soup programs were harmless or even greatly beneficial. But how about the National Industrial Recovery Act, and its implementing agency, the National Recovery Agency? The only reason this turkey (pun intended; NRA’s symbol was that Art-Deco eagle with a gear in one claw that you see on vintage “We Do Our Part” posters) didn’t do more damage is because the Supreme Court (voting 9-0) found the NIRA unconstitutional, leading to the infamous court-packing controversy of 1937.
For those who don’t recall, one of the popularly-supposed causes of the Depression was “wasteful competition,” which was a palatable shorthand to some for any sort of economic competition. NIRA was expressly created to eliminate any “unfair competition” by having industries operate under codes created by a committee consisting of representatives of the NRA and the large companies, small companies, and labor of that industry. Prices, marketing rules, and various other regulations of production and sales were set by these committees and were enforceable in court. Though the term “unfair competition” was bandied about, we’re not talking about antitrust here. In fact, most of the regulations adopted under NIRA would have been clear violations of the Antitrust Act had they not been sanctioned by law.
To quote Justice Cardozo, concurring in the decision that voided the NIRA (Schechter Poultry v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495): “The code [the Live Poultry Code] does not confine itself to the suppression of methods of competition that would be classified as unfair according to accepted business standards or accepted norms of ethics. It sets up a comprehensive body of rules to promote the welfare of the industry, if not the welfare of the nation, without reference to standards, ethical or commercial, that could be known or predicted in advance of its adoption. One of the new rules, the source of ten counts in the indictment, is aimed at an established practice, not unethical or oppressive, the practice of selective buying [the buyer picking chickens to form a lot as opposed to having to accept or reject a lot en masse]. Many others could be instanced as open to the same objection if the sections of the code were to be examined one by one.”
Though FDR was clearly not a fascist, and created this monstrosity with the best of intentions, the strong resemblance of the NIRA to the “corporatist” doctrine of the Italian Fascists was disturbing to many people at the time. Therefore, though it may seem to us today that that the “fascist” allegation slung at FDR by some opponents was merely the ranting of extremists who saw beneficial programs like Social Security and the WPA as communistic, there was some basis for the allegation as it relates to the NIRA.
John- my suspicion is that me tend to inflate the significance of these accomplishments because it was the Great Thomas Jefferson who did them. I further suspect that if they had been done by someone else we would not be proclaiming that person as one of the four best presidents.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I think Jefferson was a bad president- I don’t believe that.
As for the Lousiana Purchase in particular, if we credit Jefferson for adding ca. 800,000 sq. mi. to the US, then how should we rate Polk for adding ca. 1,200,000 sq. mi.?