Johnson was a smart enough politician to use the Kennedy legacy when he had it. But he didn’t need it. Johnson had been an effective politician in the Senate before he was Vice President and before any Kennedy legacy existed.
How should we describe — in the context of this thread — LBJ’s take on Vietnam? Is it that he figured he could sell the American people on what he had in mind, but failed because the electorate simply didn’t want what he thought they’d go for? Or is it that he figured he couldn’t sell ‘em on it, but kept at it anyway? If, hypothetically, he’d been a more ‘politically talented’ president, would that mean successfully selling it ‘as is’ or changing course to market something more, uh, saleable?
I agree with much of what you said but I think Eisenhower is too high and LBJ and Trump are too low.
Eisenhower didn’t do anything great, but wasn’t bad either. He presided over the 50s which were mostly a cooling off period after WWII. The economy was great and the civil rights strife hadn’t started yet. Not much really happened in comparison with other eras.
You criticism of LBJ seems to be his poll numbers. That was almost entirely due to Vietnam. Nobody really could have seen the outrage over that coming. Yeah let’s send in some advisors, now a few more advisors, a few troops, a few more troops, and pretty soon we were in a situation where we had to decide if we were going to engage in total war (bad) or withdraw (bad) and Johnson’s just got stuck there. A poor decision, I agree, but not one that speaks to his political ability. The ability, which as noted otherwise, was incredible in his passage of many of the most monumental pieces of legislation in history.
Trump is unique and it also calls into question what we mean by “politically talented.” Yes his polls are in the low 40s, but those people will wade through hell to vote for him and support him. All it takes is 270, and if you have 270 is it bad politics to say to hell with everyone else and double down on what you are doing?
What’s the alternative? Trump is never going to get 400EVs or have 65% approval rating no matter what he does. He could find Jesus tomorrow, apologize for being so insulting and change his way, and he still probably wouldn’t pick up very much support at all. And doing so would cause his core support to abandon him.
If you are incredibly unpopular yet do the only thing that you can to win, you one once, and have a decent shot of doing it again, it’s hard for me to say that is bad political strategy.
Carter has to be at the bottom of any of these lists. He inspired nobody, accomplished very little, and projected weakness at all times. Bush II is right above him.
Johnson was in the same trap that every President from Truman to Ford was in. The only realistic way we could get out of Vietnam was admitting we were losing the war. And no President wanted to do that; they would have paid a serious political price for losing a war. So they just kept prolonging the war, promising we would win it eventually, and passing the war on to the next President.
Eisenhower’s a tough President to judge. First off, there’s his image; Eisenhower the politician behind closed doors was a very different that his public persona. A lot of people mistakenly saw him as bumbling. But in reality, he was very aware of what was going on and in control of events. He just thought it would be useful for people to underestimate him. It may have looked like the country was just drifting along during his administration but Eisenhower was steering events. And generally, his decisions were right.
But now for Eisenhower’s flaws. First, he wanted to think of himself as being above politics. This meant he often despised some of the people he worked with because he felt they were engaged in what he saw as petty political fighting. But by placing himself above politics in his mind, he often justified engaging in very dirty politics. He would just tell himself that the dirty politics he did didn’t represent his real self; it was just something he had to do because of all the dirty politicians around him. He never saw that all of those politicians he looked down on were probably thinking the same thing.
The second flaw was that Eisenhower essentially build up a government that only he could run. He held enormous prestige from his wartime service and he knew how the military worked; and the military knew and respected him. He warned about the danger of a military-industrial complex as he was leaving office. But he had supported the growth of it during the eight years of his presidency. Eisenhower knew that he could safely do this; he could have the benefits of a strong military, defense industry, and intelligence community while having the personal authority to restrain them when they reached too far. But subsequent Presidents, Democrat or Republican, wouldn’t have Eisenhower’s reputation backing them up. The tail would start wagging the dog. Eisenhower should have foreseen this problem and worked on building a more controllable national security apparatus.
The third flaw is one where I disagree specifically with something UltraVires wrote. Civil rights was not an issue on the horizon during Eisenhower’s term of office. His years in office were right in the heart of the civil rights movement. And to be blunt, Eisenhower bungled it. He wasn’t an outright racist. But his sympathies were on the wrong side. His attitude seemed to be that black people should stay content with second class citizenship and they shouldn’t provoke white people by asking for equal rights. Eisenhower could also get annoyed with the racists and intervene against them - but he was only angry about them going too far in their actions not because he felt they were fundamentally wrong in their beliefs.
Going that route, toss in Washington, Jackson, and WH Harrison. Those are the six whose prior government job title was General. But Tramp never held ANY government position, civilian or military - he’s the only one.
I’m standing by my ratings in #27 but, although he might not have been a “talented politician,” I want to defend Eisenhower.
Truman had Korea; Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs and worse; Johnson had Vietnam; Reagan had Iran-Contra … but there were few big crises under Ike. Key to a good Presidency isn’t to be clever: It’s to not make mistakes.
And Ike did have successes; I’ll mention just two: In 1956 he opposed U.K. and stopped a major war over the Suez Canal. In 1957 he nationalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce a desegregation order.
FDR, Truman, Ike. Three very great Presidents in a row. Throw in JFK and LBJ if you will and make it five very outstanding Presidents in a row. Sadly, we haven’t seen their like since.
Eisenhower ended the Korean War. Had Nixon done the same in Viet Nam he would be celebrated with the greats.
The biggest issue with the way the OP is framed is that running for president and being president are two totally different things, and being skilled at one doesn’t necessarily make one skilled at the other. That being said, here are my two lists with some commentary.
Skill at running for president.
-
Reagan. Won with the support of many Democrats in landslide victories. Unlike Ike, the political atmosphere was more partisan when he was running but he overcame that by wife margins.
-
Obama. In 2008 the War On Terror was still big on people’s minds. For a black man with the middle name of Hussein to win shows significant skill.
-
Clinton. Very charismatic and understood the public mood well.
-
Trump. Managed to best a large field of career politicians and win a general election where he was the underdog.
-
Kennedy. Overcame anti-Catholic bias. A less charismatic candidate would have lost to Nixon.
-
Bush Jr. Both elections were close, but I think his people skills were what made the difference in both razor thin elections.
-
Johnson. Better at the backroom deals than the direct interactions with the public.
-
Eisenhower. Times were less partisan but he won comfortably both times.
-
Nixon. Lacked charisma.
-
Bush Sr. Unable to overcome his missteps in office to win a second term due to average charisma.
-
Truman. Declined to run in 1952 due to his unpopularity.
-
Carter. Likely won only because of his image as a humble outside of Washington guy without any hint of scandal, which he made work because it was true in his case. By 1980 when Watergate was fading from memory he couldn’t hack it against a much more skilled Reagan.
-
Ford. Not much need be said.
Here’s the other list. Note how different it is, especially with the #1 guy now being last place.
-
LBJ. The Great Society and Civil Rights were huge accompaniments.
-
Eisenhower. Interstate highway system. Integration of public schools. Appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice (despite his thinking later that was a mistake). General economic prosperity.
-
Nixon. I give him credit for things like opening up China to the west (“only Nixon could go to China), ending the draft, ending Vietnam, and starting the EPA. Despite personally being a racist civil rights made some progress during his term as well.
-
Clinton. Balanced budgets towards the end of his time, but focus on healthcare in his early years led to the 1994 Republican wave that hamstrung him the rest of the way.
-
Bush Sr. End of the Cold War. Handled the first Iraq war quite well.
-
Kennedy. Kept the Cold War from turning into a hot war.
-
Obama. See Clinton as above, but substitute 2010 for 1994 and take away the balanced budgets. Pluses would be the progress in civil rights for LGBT people.
-
Ford. Pardoned Nixon.
-
Carter. In over his head with stagflation and the Iranian revolution.
-
Bush Jr. Bungled the War On Terror.
-
Truman. His handling of the Korean War and beginning of the Cold War.
-
Trump. Singlehandedly has destroyed the US position as leader of the free world. Running the presidency for his personal benefit.
-
Reagan. Due to his Alzheimer’s it’s likely that successes during his term were due to his cabinet and staff rather than him personally making policy decisions.
My mistake on one thing on the above list. I should have given credit for the end of Vietnam to Ford rather than Nixon. None the less I think Nixon did accomplish several things which those of us on the left would point to as great accomplishments had they been done by a Democrat.
I should think that no one would want credit for any part of our involvement in the Vietnam War, be it beginning, middle, or end.
Tidbit on Ronald Reagan:
Just found out that while watching the movie 1983 “War Games” Reagan grew so concerned about the movies concept of a hacker breaking into the defense departments computers the next day he asked his defense secretary to look into it. He did and quickly reported back that it was indeed a problem (partially because the US had been hacking other countries computers) and Reagan soon signed legislation protecting the nations computer systems.
I’m just going to copy this and sign my name to it, since I agree with both the rankings and the concise rationales.
That said, I’d probably put Reagan just above rather than equal with W on the basis of Reagan’s greater charisma and communication skills, but I agree that both Reagan and W coasted on their folksy charm while corrupt individuals in their administrations actually ran things (and screwed them up royally).
If you combine the two aspects of campaigning and governing, then Reagan was the most talented. He understood the office of the presidency and how to leverage its power better than any politician since FDR. The 1986 tax reform was a towering achievement in a second term that only someone as talented as Reagan could have achieved.
However, prior to Trump Reagan held the record for most members of his administration indicted. That’s not a sign of great governing.
No, all three of them had held elected offices before becoming President. Washington had been elected for several terms in the Virginia legislature. Jackson and Harrison had both been Senators.
LBJ “lost” approval ratings due to Vietnam, not the rest of his policies (I will note that his pushing Civil Rights/Voting Rights Acts probably cost him Southern support)
why is everyone ignoring Bush 2 mishandling Hurricane Katrina?
You think Trump is a great orator? Better than Obama? Ridiculous. Obama and Kennedy are clearly 1 & 2, in some order, probably Eisenhower third because seems like everybody likes Ike.
Interesting how people define politically talented in totally different ways. Some seem to define it as getting things done in spite of how much of the country feels about you. LBJ was great at that, super effective, but I wouldn’t call it politically effective. I assumed it was about winning people over to your side who are not predisposed to support you and ending up with the majority of people feeling like you accomplished good things with your time in office.
Carter would rank very low on that scale. Despite being a good man who did good things while in office, the general public sentiment was that he made the economy continue to worsen, so politically I consider him low on the list.
Trump is a complete fool who lies constantly and most of the country hates his guts. Bottom of the list.