Let's Rank the US Presidents

[Renato_Marmaduque]

@Renato Marmaduque

I’ll do more research, but I’m quite sure there were parliamentary and municipial elections under the Shah. If not, I don’t see why the Shah took the trouble to give suffrage to women.

Never mind. See post #37.

[Renato_Marmaduque]

@pravnik

No William Henry Harrison? His entire presidency was spotless!

Based on what he hoped to archive, I’d rank William Henry Harrison above Hayes, below Kennedy. He wanted to end the spoils system and ordered that officeholders be removed only for negligence.

[Renato_Marmaduque]

Here is my updated ranking, based on your suggestions

GREAT

1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) Republican
2. George Washington (1789-1797) none
3. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) Republican
4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) Democrat
5. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) Republican

NEAR GREAT
6. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) Republican
7. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) Democrat
8. James Monroe (1817-1825) Democratic-Republican
9. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) Democratic-Republican
10. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897) Democrat
11. Dwight David Eisenhower (1953-1961) Republican
12. Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969) Democrat
13. Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Republican <-- I really don’t think Ford is a near great, but I had to move Bush down. And I should bring Nixon up, too, but I can’t bring myself to. So the near great category had 8 instead of 9 presidents.

ABOVE AVERAGE
14. Richard Milhous Nixon (1969-1974) Republican
15. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850) Whig
16. James Garfield (1881) Republican
17. Chester Arthur (1881-1885) Republican
18. George Bush (1989-1993) Republican
19. William Howard Taft (1909-1913) Republican

AVERAGE
20. John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1960-1963) Democrat
21. Rutherford Hayes (1877-1881) Republican
22. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) Democratic-Republican
23. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) Democrat

BELOW AVERAGE
24. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) Democrat
25. John Adams (1797-1801) Federalist
26. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) Republican
27. William McKinley (1897-1901) Republican
28. James Knox Polk (1845-1849) Democrat
29. James Madison (1809-1817) Democratic-Republican
30. Ulysses Grant (1869-1877) Republican
31. John Tyler (1841-1895) Whig/independent
32. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) Republican

WORST
33. Warren Harding (1921-1923) Republican
34. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) Whig
35. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) Democrat
36. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) Democrat
37. James “Jimmy” Carter (1977-1981) Democrat
38. James Buchanan (1857-1861) Democrat
39. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) Democrat

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Renato Marmaduque

Well, then for a long time the US had “no legitimate claim” over the Louisiana territory.

That may be true, but since no one challenged us for it, it was kind of a moot point. Over time it became legitmate as these regions became more and more populated.

Great Presidents must be in power during important and critical periods of a country’s history and handled them with aplomb. The three most cirtical periods were under George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR. Those three standout. It doesn’t mean there weren’t other Great Presidents, just that they didn’t live in times that merited great things.

[What_Exit]

I know this is almost blasphemy but I would Say

1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) Republican
2. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) Republican
3. George Washington (1789-1797) none

Teddy propelled us into the world, he established the National parks, he made us a military country but won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending a war by Diplomecy.

He Busted trust like no one before or since. He was everything I want in a President.

I only put Lincoln ahead because, well we all know what he did.

Jim

[zamboniracer]

Renato, it looks to me like you are trying to rank the presidents under a bell-curve like standard. If not, forgive me. If so, I suggest that a bell shape framework isn’t necessarily the best suited for this small a sample size. While a bell curve may well map the presidential abililities of a very large population (or a large enough statistical sample size) when you’ve only got a sample size of 40 or so it is reasonable to assume that the rare person who becomes president must have something on the ball that the rest of us don’t have. As a result, truly great presidents are rare, but what you would consider average and less than average are much more common then the great and near great are.

[RickJay]

@Renato Marmaduque

Mexico had no “legitimate claim”? I was under the impression that those territories were part of Mexico. What do you mean no “legitimate claim”?

Irrespective of who has what claim, to count this against Polk in a list of great Presidents **of the United States ** is plainly insane.

The conquest of California, Texas, Arizona etc. increased the potential strength of the United States by leaps and bounds. Imagine for a moment how much weaker, poorer and less influential the USA would be if it didn’t include any of those states. Even if you think Polk was morally wrong to do it, from the perspective of its imapct on the United States of America, it was a wonderful move.

[treis]

@Renato Marmaduque

I’ll do more research, but I’m quite sure there were parliamentary and municipial elections under the Shah. If not, I don’t see why the Shah took the trouble to give suffrage to women.

The difference between Saddam and the Shah is that the Shah killed around 16,000 according to Rummel (probably less, Rummel freqeuntly inflated figures), and Saddam killed around 300,000 (according to US govn’t, human rights groups say “some quarter of a million Iraqis”). The Shah didn’t attack four of Iran’s neighboring countries and didn’t try to build a nuclear bomb. He didn’t gas his own people either.

What exactly did you want Carter to do? The Shah was a corrupt dictator that was wildly unpopular in Iran. There were over a million people on the streets of Tehran demanding that he abdicate. Even if the US had sent its entire army to Iran I don’t think they could have put down the revolt.

[Renato_Marmaduque]

@zamboniracer

Renato, it looks to me like you are trying to rank the presidents under a bell-curve like standard. If not, forgive me. If so, I suggest that a bell shape framework isn’t necessarily the best suited for this small a sample size. While a bell curve may well map the presidential abililities of a very large population (or a large enough statistical sample size) when you’ve only got a sample size of 40 or so it is reasonable to assume that the rare person who becomes president must have something on the ball that the rest of us don’t have. As a result, truly great presidents are rare, but what you would consider average and less than average are much more common then the great and near great are.

I just used the same labels the Wall Street Journal did.

[Who_me_1]

@Renato Marmaduque

Well, then, we’ll never agree. I do think invasions are needed to spread democracy and freedom.

I’m very glad that you don’t make policy then. I just wish GWB didn’t seem to agree with your viewpoint.

[Grey_Mauser]

@Renato Marmaduque

So you wouldn’t care if Grenada were today a communist dictatorship instead of a democracy?

That’s pure speculation. There is no way of knowing what would have happened in Grenada if there had been no intervention.

Further, there is a question of whether a country should be allowed to decide for itself what its government should be. We certainly would not consider letting another country change our government, no matter who we had in power. Is this some kind of manifest destiny for democracy? Or, closer still, a democratic jihad? And if it is, why do we pick and choose which dictatorships to overthrow, which ones to ignore, and which to prop up?

[bup]

laughs at Wall Street Journal’s Rankings

OK, you used the same categories, but you don’t have to have the same number of people in each category as the WSJ.

[Renato_Marmaduque]

@Grey Mauser

That’s pure speculation. There is no way of knowing what would have happened in Grenada if there had been no intervention.

Course there isn’t. But most probably, Grenada would’ve become a Cuba-style dictatorship. There’s no evidence the revolutionaries wanted democracy. They wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

[Renato_Marmaduque]

@bup

laughs at Wall Street Journal’s Rankings

OK, you used the same categories, but you don’t have to have the same number of people in each category as the WSJ.

Yeah. I’m changing stuff around. I can’t bear having Ford as a near-great.

[BrainGlutton]

@Renato Marmaduque

Yeah. I’m changing stuff around. I can’t bear having Ford as a near-great.

Ford was House Minority Leader before Nixon tapped him for veep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#House_of_Representatives:_Minority_Leader He cannot have been a stupid man, not if he got that far. I have always wondered why he was such a stupid president. (I mean, come on! WIN buttons?!)

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Ford was House Minority Leader before Nixon tapped him for veep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#House_of_Representatives:_Minority_Leader He cannot have been a stupid man, not if he got that far. I have always wondered why he was such a stupid president. (I mean, come on! WIN buttons?!)

He wasn’t a stupid president. He just wasn’t a very effectual one.

[Grey_Mauser]

@Renato Marmaduque

Course there isn’t. But most probably, Grenada would’ve become a Cuba-style dictatorship. There’s no evidence the revolutionaries wanted democracy. They wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

I was not questioning the motives of the revolutionaries, but your assumption that the result of that revolution would still exist today. For all anyone knows it might have been toppled by the Grenadians themselves in a week. Or maybe they would have wanted it that way - who knows? This idea of forceably installing democracy smacks of “white man’s burden” mentality.