Just curious what directions historians seem to be headed re judging Presidential legacies of various ex-Presidents over the past 50 years. Any surprises?
1953-1961
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mamie Doud Eisenhower
1961-1963
John F. Kennedy
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
If you define legacy as influence on the future of the nation and politics then I will vote:
Smallest Legacy - Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He was a decent President but it seems that he little legacy. He could have been replaced with someone else with little impact on the future of the country.
Greatest Legacy - Ronald Reagan
Once very popular. Now a polarizing figure. He pushed the country and presidential politics into a long-lasting conservative trend. The nation would be very different today without his legacy.
Not to mention that if you believe he played a significant role in the end of the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc., that’s quite a legacy.
He normalized relations with China, which is more than Clinton or Bush I could claim. He ended, for better or for worse, the Vietnam War, the last long-lasting American military conflict before the present one, with huge ramifications on military and foreign policy.
And he was kicked out of office, forever making the relationship between the president and the people an adversarial one.
He normalized relations with China, which is more than Clinton or Bush I could claim. He ended, for better or for worse, the Vietnam War, the last long-lasting American military conflict before the present one, with huge ramifications on military and foreign policy.
And he was kicked out of office, forever making the relationship between the president and the people an adversarial one.
Shagnasty, I disagree about Eisenhower’s legacy - the US Interstate system was his baby. Modern American commerce just wouldn’t be possible without it. It’s a subtle legacy, but it’s a very far-reaching one, too.
I’m inclined to think that Jimmy Carter’s legacy is going to have little to do with his time as President, and far more to do with his actions since leaving office. I don’t think he’d have been as effective without the time in the Presidency, however, so I can’t divorce it from his time as President.
Menocchio has a point about Nixon. I’m not sure it’s enough to make it either the best or worst, but he’s certainly got to be the winner for the most mixed legacy.
I’d like to say that Kennedy has the least of a legacy - but so many things that LBJ put forth were done in his name that it’s impossible to tell the difference between the two, I think.
Honestly, I think that Bush the first has the least legacy, but that’s just me. It’s hard to tell this soon after a Presidency what will turn out to be most important about it, though.
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Tough call. Didn’t cause any major problems. But some argue that he missed opportunities to solve some existing problems.
John F. Kennedy - Dropping. A charismatic person but an examination of his actual record shows minimal accomplishmnet.
Lyndon B. Johnson - Vietnam was a huge minus. Lack of personal ethics helped create a legacy of distrust in politicians. But did make major progress in civil rights.
Richard M. Nixon - His crimes overshadowed his accomplishments. He really was a crook.
Gerald R. Ford - A caretaker president. Did little and handled several problems poorly. But somewhat mitigated for having to serve under very difficult circumstances.
Jimmy Carter - Had high ideals but was generally ineffective in executing them.
Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton - Too soon to call. We’re still waiting to see what the long-term outcomes of decisions made by their administrations will be.
It’s kind of unfair to blame Bush and Clinton for not normalizing relations with China. As you point out Nixon had already done that. Even if you’re talking about accomplishments of a similar size, you can only realistically hold a President accountable for opportunities, won or lost, that existed during his administration.
I meant the latter, and you’re right. But those presidents that had the fortune to live in uninteresting times will get the shaft in the history books next to Taft and Fillmore.
1- Lyndon Johnson- strong plus Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 resulted in the Democrats permanently ceding the electoral votes of the south, had he not pressed forward with this, the nation would be very different indeed.
2- John Kennedy- strong plus Tempted to give him the #1 spot, he earns the #2 spot for one very good reason: the Cuban Missile Crisis. His military advisors wanted to launch a full scale nuclear attack on the USSR. Had he listened to them, very few of us might be alive today. Imagine the catastrophe had George W. Bush been in office in 1962.
3- Dwight Eisenhower- moderate plus. The Interstate program probably has changed the US much more than the space program.
4- Jimmy Carter- small plus. A man truly decades before his time. The first to make human rights the cornerstone of foreign policy. His negotiation of the transfer of the Panama Canal to Panama was the right thing to do.
5- Bill Clinton- small plus. Eight years of peace and prosperity and budget surpluses overshadowed by personal indiscretions.
6- Gerald Ford- neutral. Did the one thing he had to do- assume power smoothly. Pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do- we had to get that behind us. Also gets credit from me for not throwing good money after bad in Vietnam.
7- George HW Bush- small minus. Did a masterful job in his Iraq War. Failed to reign in the deficits caused by the voodoo economics of his predecessor.
8- Ronald Reagan- large minus. Instituted the principle of “there is a free lunch and we’re going to eat it.” Squandered billions of the national treasury and pursued failed Star Wars technology.
9- George W Bush- infinite minus. Will go down as the biggest failure in history thanks to the Iraq disaster, the shameless war profiteering of vice president’s company, his embracing of the Christian fundamentalist agenda, and his budgetary disaster in turning record surpluses into record deficits.
I just want to point out that Eisenhower’s legacy is far greater than his contributions to the country made as president.
His role in WWII was incredibly significant, and went a long way toward holding the alliance together. Most presidents haven’t left a mark on the world this significant.
Son of a gun- I forgot Nixon. I’d put him at 7 1/2 on my list, between Bush 41 and Reagan. Beginning relations with the world’s largest nation was long overdue, and he did begin the process of withdrawal from Vietnam. But resigning in disgrace overshadowed all he did right.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that, out of that list, George H. W. Bush will have had the least historical significance.
Not only did he only serve 4 years, but he served it in the shadow of Reagan. And while there was a war, in the grand scheme of things Desert Storm will be viewed historically as a very minute conflict considering that 10 years later the real for the Middle East is taking place. Desert Storm also had a very low casualty rate and it didn’t signicantly alter the way Americans carried on their lives at home.
I’m not bagging on the guy, as I do believe that his raising taxes despite his pledge not to ushered in the '90s economic boom in some ways, and I even think that for a Republican he was a pretty decent president. I just think he’ll be overshadowed historically being between Reagan, Clinton, and Dubya-all three of whom are/were extremely polarizing figures.
You can make a good case for Ford and Eisenhower as well though.
I’m shocked…shocked I say! You probably would be equally shocked that my own rating for those presidents is nearly inverse to yours…with the exception that I’d rate GW pretty poorly too (though not ‘infinite minus’).
Legacy wise I’d rate them:
Ronald Reagan: Huge legacy IMO…like him or hate him I think he had the largest impact on the US than anyone else on the list.
Dwight Eisenhower: More than just his presidency, though I think he had more of an impact than is generally acknowledged
Gerald Ford: Difficult times and situation, I think he’s one of the biggest under rated presidents on this list.
George HW Bush: Another president that I think is under rated, did a very good job during the first gulf war, but I think missed his potential.
Bill Clinton: Master politician but his presidency was mared by scandal. I think Clinton is slightly over rated, though I voted for him for re-election so I guess I was under his spell as well.
John Kennedy: I think JFK was over rated as a president, but he certainly had a legacy in peoples minds and hearts if nothing else.
Richard Nixion: As others have said his was a mixed presidency…good and bad together. Its a shame…he COULD a been a contendah…
Jimmy Carter: Only good thing I can say about the peanut man is…he’s not in last place on this list. Basically worthless as a president IMHO for a variety of reasons…the main one is that he wanted to be the great outsider in Washington and so ended up accomplishing nada. The hostage rescue was just about the most fucked up thing I can imagine a president doing. Including Clintons stupid blowjob, Reagans Iran-Contra and even GW’s idiotic war in Iraq. Stupid POLITICALLY I mean, in case rjung is hanging out waiting to leap on me putting those things in moral equivenency.
And the winner and still champion as THE most worthless is…
Lyndon Johnson: Vietnam. Nuff said afaiac though there is lots more where that came from. His only legacy IMO is that war…and its all negative. His sticking his fingers in the military pie I believe cost the US thousands of lives. Even more than GW, Johnson was a son of a bitch of the first order IMHO and I really can’t say enough bad shit against the man.
Yep, I’m shocked XT. I’m most puzzled by people’s rating of Ike. Great general, no doubt. But what of his presidency, other than the Interstate program, was of lasting impact? I think you’re a bit harsh on old Lyndon. If not for Vietnam, we’d be building statues to the man. The Great Society was a great vision- if it wasn’t for the war he would have taken giant strides toward achieving it.
As I said, Ike was more than just a president…and we are talking legacies here. As for Johnson I’m not a big fan of The Great Society approach anyway (you knew that), but Vietnam alone is enough to damn the man in my own eyes…and again, we are talking legacies here. His legacy will aways be the Vietnam war and his royal fucking up of said war, screwing up its execution and dragging it out. Perhaps if Kennedy had lived HE would get more of the blame…but he didn’t and we’ll never really know what he would have done when things started turning sour towards the end of his presidency.
Could he have? I’m not so sure. I don’t think this is necessarily a Nixion negative myself…he inherited that war after all and I think he did make an effort to end it (on terms favorable to the US…he WAS the president after all).
I’d give Reagan the nod for best, although by the time he took office, his liberalism had become watered down considerably. I’d give Johnson the worst, for his twin-debacle: profound domestic civil unrest and the Vietnam war.
You probably would be equally shocked that my own rating for those presidents is nearly inverse to yours…with the exception that I’d rate GW pretty poorly too (though not ‘infinite minus’).