1. DONALD TRUMP
Never seen so many fanatical followers. Also, the first non-politician to rise to the High Office. (NOTE: I HATE the guy. But I can’t deny his talent!)
2. RONALD REAGAN
A movie actor that played it to the hilt. Even his enemies could not say a bad word about him.
3**. JOHN F KENNEDY**
The first “TV” candidate. Forever influenced how Prez candidates were packaged.
4. BILL CLINTON
Slick Willie even talked his way out of an impeachment.
5. BARACK OBAMA
Behind Trump and Reagan, the greatest Presidential orator of the last 70+ years.
6. DWIGHT EISENHOWER
Basically because of his leadership in World War 2. But no denying his charisma because of that. The ultimate “safe” candidate.
7. HARRY S TRUMAN
Got re-elected. But a newspaper thought dullard James Dewey beat him how can I put him higher on this list?
8. JIMMY CARTER
His fresh new face in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam was at first refreshing, but quickly blemished in the face of inflation and the hostage crisis.
9. GEORGE HW BUSH
Only get elected because he was Reagan’s Veep and even after a successful war, got usurped after only one year after that. Was exposed as old-timey, out of touch in 1992.
10. GEORGE W BUSH
Other than after 9/11 nothing seemed inspiring about this guy. Full of vocal boners, and a personality like a doormat, the fact that he got re-elected is a Christmas Miracle.
11. LYNDON JOHNSON
The ugly, bald headed, Southern drawling dull guy who took over the country after the movie-star JFK took lead to the skull. Only reason he was re-reelected was Barry Goldwater was considered a kook. Declined to run in 1968 in the wake of Vietnam. A colossal bore.
12. GERALD FORD
A good man, and a highly underrated President. But name me one inspiring moment from his Presidency. At least W has a few!
Your number one contradicts the purpose of the thread. Trump isn’t a politician. He’s not an orator, either. He’s a politically-inept bully who stumbled his way into office.
How many things are wrong with this?
-
Obviously, LBJ wasn’t re-elected as President in 1964.
-
Maybe you weren’t around in 1964. Another Republican might’ve only lost by 8-10 points instead of >20.
And more general criticisms:
- “politcaly talented” involves more than winning elections. Jimmy Carter’s Presidency is a testimony to that. What landmark legislation did he get through Congress? I can’t remember any, and I was paying attention at the time.
That’s one reason I’d put LBJ at or near the top of the list. In 1964, with the same Congress that Kennedy had had to work with, LBJ got Civil Rights legislation through Congress where Kennedy hadn’t been able to. And then he took full advantage of the Goldwater rout to get the Great Society programs through Congress.
- Where’s Nixon? Whatever one may think of him, he certainly was politically talented.
Presuming political talent = ability to win elections, I think we’ve had a handful of A+ political talents since WWII: Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. These are candidates who simply aren’t going to lose an election, barring very unusual circumstances – they’re that good.
Hmmm…most politically talented - setting aside politics
- LBJ - The most politically astute in affairs of office
- Nixon - Similar to LBJ in office
- Truman - unpopular incumbent who beat Dewey
- Obama, Clinton, JFK - experts at the art of the political campaign
- HW Bush - Politically skilled - the best choice for the Reagan reconstruction
- Ike - an astute, moderate politician (but I voted for Stevenson)
- Reagan, W Bush - inept objects who fronted for the establishment
- Carter - an honest man and an inept politician
- Ford - largely apolitical
10, In a normal distribution there will be rare cases that fall outside the 3 sigma points. They are statistical outliers that are best removed from consideration because they pollute the data. Such a one is Trump.
The term politically talented is so subjective, but I think the most useful definition would be to convince others to make policies favored by that person.
LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton lead this group by miles and miles.
Obama, Bush I and II, Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ike and Carter are in the middle somewhere. I’d probably put Ike, Nixon, and Bush I more towards the top of the heap, and Obama and Carter further down.
Trump is obviously dead last. He has literally no skills to convince people who don’t already agree with him.
Note that I’m not picking this definition just to criticize Trump. I think the currency of the realm in politics is finding ways to get things done when faced with people who disagree. Some politicians have it, and some don’t.
The OP seems to be confusing Presidents who are inspiring with Presidents who are effective. And I feel being effective is a far better indicator of political talent than being inspiring.
Lyndon Johnson was a very effective President. Regardless of how you feel about his policies over civil rights, social programs, and Vietnam, you have to concede he got the laws and programs he wanted enacted. Kennedy may have been far more inspiring but Johnson got a lot more done.
If all you’re looking for in a President is somebody who inspires you, then you might as well say Jed Bartlet is the most politically talented President we’ve had since WWII.
Kennedy probably didnt actually get the votes he needed to win the election. Voter fraud made him President.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395
Cook County went Democratic? Shock! :rolleyes:
…and/or political talent with charisma. And/or being good at politics with looking like a politician—the kind of person you’d cast as President if you were making a movie.
LBJ was way, way better at politics (using the political process to get things accomplished) than Donald Trump.
Come back after you have actually read some history.
What?
Wasn’t Reagan criticized by his foes as hard as any other president?
There was voter fraud on the Republican side as well. Nixon received more fraudulent votes than Kennedy did. That’s why Nixon didn’t challenge Kennedy’s election in the courts. He knew that Kennedy could launch his own countersuit and when the fraudulent votes on both sides were thrown out, Kennedy would still have more votes than Nixon.
There is not the slightest doubt that LBJ was the most skilled politician of his (and many other) generation. Much as hate his guts, the most skilled politician today is Moscow Mitch. I am afraid that Carter and Obama, presidents I admire greatly, were not good politicians. Sara Palin (by putting McCain’s judgement into question) and Romney’s 47% crack helped elect and reelect Obama.
I guess I don’t know what your definition of talent is.
If your definition of talent is able to lead a cult like movement, then yeah I’d agree Trump is the most talented. But he is grossly incompetent at actually being a politician. He doesn’t know how to keep his underlings happy, how to broker deals, he throws people under the bus, etc. For the most part his 2 big accomplishments as president are stacking the appellate court with conservative judges (McConnell is the one who actually deserves credit for this) and passing supply side tax cuts. Both were actually done by congress, Trump just signed the bills after congress did the work.
Also a lot of Trump’s loyalty is more about his voters than about him. His voters are enraged that the country is changing demographically and Trump is their great white hope to keep America a white christian patriarchy. Some other politician could’ve filled that void had they wanted to.
But I agree, Trump is very talented at inspiring loyalty among his supporters. Far more than any other politician I’ve seen in my lifetime (Bernie is maybe a distant second).
Trump to his credit also won an election that most people deemed unwinnable, including top strategists. So he deserves credit for that.
So in a lot of ways, Trump.
I’d put Bernie as second (I know this is about presidents and not candidates, but still) and Obama as 3rd. Reagan maybe 4th because I don’t ‘think’ he had much of a movement behind him. Reagans legacy (from what I know of it) was put in place after he was president, not during his presidency.
But as far as actual talent as a politician, I think LBJ deserves top rank for that. Its a sad testament to how our political system works. JFK was good looking and played the part of a politician, but LBJ was an actual competent politician. Our system rewards the first part, not the second. Personally I’d much rather have someone competent then someone charming as president, as long as they agreed with my agenda.
So when it comes to being a ‘politician’, I’d say Trump is the most talented. When it comes to the nitty gritty of politics (passing laws, deal making, keeping people happy or afraid, etc) I’d say LBJ. Cheney probably deserves honorable mention at this too despite him being VP.
The OP’s window excludes guys like WH Taft, an indifferent president but admirable justice, not to mention FDR. Political “talent” ==> notching accomplishments before and during their presidency - and not only achieving easy wins. LBJ obviously tops the effectiveness scale. IMHO he didn’t seek re-election because he was just worn out.
My Assessment from Truman to Trump
-
President Truman: History has been kinder to him than his contemporaries. While he pulled off a shock victory as the incumbent president in 1948, the fact remains he was not popular during his tenure. He was not considered sophisticated or worthy of the presidency. His popularity as a president improved once the full extent of his leadership in the immediate aftermath of WW2 became known. Everything fell on his lap after the death of Roosevelt and a less capable successor may have mapped the reconstruction period a lot differently and a lot worse. Truman’s leadership was decisive and with a vision for the long term.
-
President Eisenhower: With him I believe his popularity as a president has gone down somewhat as time has passed on because the historical record distinguishes Eisenhower as a WW2 hero and Eisenhower as a post-WW2 president. He is still very highly thought of among Americans as a president by republicans and democrats but he’s probably a tier below in the history books rankings than what the people of the time thought which was giving him two stonking victories and super high approval ratings. I think in part because he was politically steady and not partisan for that era — Truman wanted him to be his Democratic Party successor. But not particularly visionary. America in the 1950s wasn’t as cushy as nostalgia suggests but Eisenhower was the right leader for that decade. A respected elder statesman who commanded respect around the world and a stoic personality that was reassuring as Cold War tensions and the Atomic Age heated up.
-
President Kennedy: The opposite of his predecessor. Young, photogenic, telegenic, exuberant and a man who challenged the country and its people to aim higher, do better and enter a new era. The 1960s was the decade when black and white TV was on the way out, young people started to express themselves outwardly, the culture became less stiff, and the Kennedy’s image of Camelot was a selling point. Definitely one of the great orators although the man goes down as part-myth because of the assassination. He wasn’t that successful in getting legislation passed and records show because he wasn’t particularly cut-throat about it as his successor turned out to be.
-
President Johnson: A real nasty piece of work. Mean, vindictive, a bully. But the most politically shrewd president of this timeline. Johnson signed into law the most consequential landmark legislation: the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid. His methods in some ways were awful, but successful and America became better for it. That said Johnson is barely talked of as a great Democratic president, never mind a great president overall. Because of Vietnam. He escalated that war — I believe because foreign policy was never his wheelhouse and he listened to the Generals too much as he focused on “The Great Society” at home. Vietnam is a big blemish on his record. He lost control over the war, lost control of the country as protests, riots and political assassinations were carried out, which led him to not seeking him another term in 1968. He was a power hungry man all his life but once he reached the top he saw the view wasn’t all that good. While he won in 1964 by an epic landslide, he was never loved in life, and certainly not in death as the details, stories, rumours and innuendos started being revealed. He’s a complicated character who even Robert Caro probably doesn’t fully understand.
-
President Nixon - Intelligent, calculating, paranoid. He sunk himself. Nixon did achieve historically significant things to start with. He established the Environmental Protection Agency, he signed into law the Clean Air Act in 1970, he opened the doors to communist China and established a foreign policy with the Soviet Union his successors benefited from. He ironically reformed some government agencies to become more transparent - notably the Budget Management office. He supported a national health insurance, spoke of it, and formulated a plan for healthcare reform (which never really got anywhere due to Watergate) but was picked up and built on by future lawmakers and presidents. He also to his credit signed into law all the Civil Rights legislation passed in Congress which included increasing spending and expanding social programs. But he had a devious side to him. Effectively sabotaging Johnson’s negotiations to end the war in 1968, promising the other side a better deal if (once) elected. Since his opponent was Vice President Hubert Humphrey it tied the Vice President in a bind with the President when actually Humphrey often broke with Johnson on the war. Then when he became president Nixon planned to gradually bring home troops in a strategic manner so those still on the ground trained the South Vietnamese to fight the North. Therefore Nixon at the end could proclaim he brought the troops home and the North were defeated by the South, so the Americans efforts were not in vain. That did not go to plan. It was a folly plan in the first place. So Nixon carried on the escalation by invading and bombing neighbouring Cambodia which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, and Laos, then Hanoi for his exit plan to now end at the negotiation table in North Vietnamese surrender. History now knows that war ended with the Fall of Saigon, North Vietnamese victory and Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos becoming communist. Nixon’s downfall with Watergate is well known and how much guilt he personally held in the eyes of the law was never found out — but Watergate as a nefarious political operation started off as a rookie error that escalated dramatically.
-
President Ford: A decent man and someone who did the job he needed to do well. Ford climbed up the ranks of the Republican House leadership and aspired to become House Speaker yet he ended up being Vice President, then eight months later, President. He was essentially a caretaker. No great expectations since no one voted for him. Someone to clean up the mess he inherited as much as time allowed. And there was a lot of mess. Pardoning Nixon is the worst thing his presidency is remembered for and some might say the only thing his presidency is remembered for. But his reasoning was the economy was in terrible state, an oil crisis was erupting, Vietnam needed a conclusion still, he needed the legalities of Nixon off his desk and if he didn’t, Watergate could rumble on for years. I don’t recall Jimmy Carter making a fuss about the pardon in 1976 to doubt Ford’s motivation (allegations of a deal between Nixon and Ford) and Ford actually testified about it in Congress to his credit. He vetoed most bills that came on his desk. He wanted to curb spending to handle inflation. He couldn’t. But neither could his successor.
-
President Carter: I like him a lot as a person. He demonstrates morality and practices what he preaches. He does preach a lot however and in his presidency that earnest Sunday School image started to wear thin. Politically he was the right man for that post-Nixon, post-Watergate, post-Vietnam election in 1976. As a governor from the deep south he was progressive on race and socially liberal, although he also espoused governmental fiscal restraint as a plus point. Therefore he was able to reach to different voters. Yet he almost blew that election. Two percentage points and a few thousand votes in a couple of states would have allowed the republicans to hold power after Watergate. In office Carter was not promising a grand package like the New Deal or the Great Society. He supported universal healthcare as an individual item during the election and tried to get a healthcare plan passed which essentially was Obamacare, just thirty years earlier. He created the Department of Energy and Department of Education — two “big government” agencies conservatives have wanted to abolish for forty years. He formalised diplomatic relations with China (inviting Nixon back to the White House to recognise his role), signed an arms control treaty with Brezhnev, mediated successfully the Camp David Accords peace treaty with Israel and Egypt which still, on principle, stands today. These were all things he accomplished because he took them on as moral issues as well as the politically right things do to. The aspects which were the politically right thing to do but required backslapping, appeasing and being able to play the Washington game he saw as beneath him. And it annoyed Congress, including his own party. Compare him to Johnson who could butter you up one week then stomp on your toes the next to get his policies passed, Carter didn’t want to do that. Instead he took it straight to the public with Oval Office addresses and Fireside chats. He didn’t build the relationships in Washington to sustain support, was seen as weak during the hostage crisis (eventually got them out without firing a shot just as he was to leave office), got a primary challenge from his left by Ted Kennedy and lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980
-
President Reagan: If you’re a conservative he’s a saint. If you’re a liberal he’s the devil. Reagan was the Republicans answer to Kennedy as a public orator. He was also the Republican answer to Franklin Roosevelt as governing steadfast to ideology — Roosevelt to “big government” liberalism and Reagan to “small government” conservatism. Both men embraced their own popularity and teased their opponents. Reagan used his acting heritage as a brilliant political tool, had an outward personality, and in contrast of being the oldest president ever he filled the judiciary with young conservative judges thinking ahead long term. This is similar to what is happening now. Reagan’s accomplishments are well known, his failures gradually becoming more acknowledged. If the current occupant of the White House gets a second term he’ll probably overtake Reagan as the republican deity.
-
President Bush Sr: While I find Reagan overrated I think Bush Sr was underrated. Sort of like Truman in the sense that he had to deal with foreign policy more than a domestic agenda because with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, he was tasked immediately of charting a new course. He also expanded trade with China and newly developing global markets. Bush Sr did it well in my opinion. He had foreign policy knowledge as UN Ambassador, CIA Director and Vice President and therefore he was a steady hand at the wheel. He also solved a potential crisis in Kuwait quickly and effectively. His popularity was sky-high at one point but while he was notching up foreign policy goals, he took his eye off the domestic situation. Economic downturn led to a recession, increasing job losses and unemployment which led to him breaking a promise to his supporters — no new taxes. It was bad timing for him with re-election and something he carried on from the coattails of Reagan. You take the good with the bad. The good was being Reagan’s VP got him elected. The bad was the economic policies of the 1980s while he was VP came back to bite him in 1992.
-
President Clinton: A political genius. This man would have been a great used car salesman. He was a wonk who stayed on top of the issues, knew the details, understood the nuances and how to sell it in a manner that appeared cool. He turned a crisis into a political victory for him starting with his problems related to his past in the 1992 election, then the 1994 Mid-Term wipe-out for his party which seriously made him appear wounded and “irrelevant” as some described ahead of 1996, then impeachment. These were sill personal scars that still show today as the Democratic Party re-evaluate the Clinton presidency and scandal. He remained pretty damn popular after leaving office but now his brand of centrism which brought the Democrats back to the White House after twelve years (plus between 1969-1993 only a single four year term belonged to the democrats) is being knocked back as deviating to the right wing. In the #MeToo era it’s hard to escape the fact he abused his power as the president morally if not constitutionally, and frankly a father and husband, by having a sexual relation with a staffer and woman twenty five years his junior. I don’t think we’ll see much of Bill this year on the campaign trail.
-
President Bush Jr: The worst president of my lifetime, so far. Led a disaster in the Middle East under false pretences that is still ongoing, the region destabilised and caused more terrorism not less. Civilians, women, children, babies killed. American troops killed. All in the name of patriotic jingoism which saw his campaign disgracefully smear his opponent in 2004. He increased the surveillance state under the guise of patriotism that just led to greater distrust in government. Oversaw the worst recession since the great depression, incompetence in dealing with Hurricane Katrina, was the worst speaker of all these men and only saving grace in that regard is he has now been overtaken as the biggest oratory buffoon. Where I’ll give him some due is he didn’t embrace Islamophobia after 9/11 even going as far to saying Al-Qaeda and who the US are up against do not represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims or the religion itself. In more practical work he did important work towards ending HIV and particularly by helping African nations, and he distanced himself from Cheney about halfway into his second term. Too late but it gives credence to the idea that Cheney was the one really driving policy and Bush was a puppet.
-
President Obama: A fantastic orator, political operator and decent man. But he might be the most disappointing president in relative to the expectations of his election to the eventual outcomes by the end. It’s not necessarily his fault because expectations were so high. The first black president, winning on a message of hope and change, young, intelligent, not too entrenched in Washington but not a political newbie either. He inherited an economy in deep trouble and by the time he left office turned it around giving his successor a healthy balance sheet to take over. His stimulus package revitalised industries such as automobile companies, getting unemployment beneath the historical average in this timeline, he enforced stronger regulations on the financial sector so not to allow the bubble to burst again. He established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of that regulatory change to protect citizens. He achieved the landmark goal that others tried and failed which expanded healthcare access to millions of people. It was never the end goal but a starting point. The United States found and terminated Bin Laden on his watch. Same-sex marriage became enshrined by the Supreme Court with his support crucial. The problem was that Obama did not do much. It’s that much of what he did has been rolled back, or at best undercut, by his successor. Some presidents are elected to steady the ship. Others are to transform. Obama was supposed to go down as transformative and symbolically he is, but legislatively another democrat has to pick up the pieces. His eight years feels disappointing because of that.
-
President Trump: A bullshitting, lying, cheating conman and that just sums up his business career. His presidency is a crossover between his business persona of appearing tough and grandstanding and the WWE where childish nicknames, tit for tat and playing up to the crowd matters most. With him at the helm it’s a race to the bottom in terms of intellectual vigour and I just hope this year ends with him packing his bags without any madness leading to devastation. He’s threatened it enough times already. The day Trump plays golf and no one gives a shit will be a great day because it means we have a new president!
It depends on what you mean by “politically talented.” I think a case could be made for any of them to be #1 except for Bush II, Carter, and Ford depending on our terms.
Boycott,
I agree with your analysis for the most part, but I feel you were too light on Reagan and heavy on JFK. JFK was the most popular president in my lifetime (I was born in the Hoover administration).
JFK was challenged by racial tensions in the south and by Russia internationally. He skillfully handled the Cuban crisis. JFK also initiated the highly successful Apollo program. And, I agree, there was a mythical dimension to his administration. That was helped by Vaughn Meader.
Reagan looked presidential. but his administration was famously corrupt and out of control. His policies produced a roller coaster economy. Large scandals were commonplace - Hud, Savings and loan, Iran Contra and the marine barracks disaster. When he wagged the dog in Grenada he was almost repulsed by the local constabulary.
Judging by the responses above, Nixon. LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower will be the beneficiaries of time.
Yeah, that’s far from conclusive, and there’s no evidence. It all sounds good until you realize that JFKs machine had no idea those were the two critical areas. And of course the GOP had their own crap they were pulling too.
Even your own cite sez “Over a half century after the fact, it’s impossible to judge what really happened. Multiple judges and one independent prosecutor, all of whom weighed in over the ensuing months in response to Republican complaints, determined that the vote tally was fair.”
So, saying *Voter fraud made him President * is bogus.
Not to mention JFK did win the popular vote.