I was wondering how many presidents fit the profile of people who seemed great in their time, but really weren’t.
Calvin Coolidge is one who comes to mind. People thought his administration was smooth and efficient (according to my hs history book). He promised a return to normalcy after World War I. And his administration was certainly less corrupt than his predecessor, Warren G. Harding.
People had a high opinion of him while he was in office. But history doesn’t recognize him as great, though. In fact I recently read (I forget exactly where–sorry:)) he may have even been indirectly responsible for the Great Depression.
Ronald Reagan also comes to mind. And, heck, you think my arguments are one-sided, so I will even throw out Bill Clinton for good measure. People thought he was great too (I clearly remember). But what "great" things did he really accomplish?
(As to what presidents by contrast were great, again, my high school history book listed Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts. But hey, prove me wrong about that too.)
John Kennedy wasn’t in office long enough to be great. He certainly had potential, but he’s admired for the Camelot mystique more than his actual presidency.
I don’t think you hear many people calling Wilson great nowadays. His two biggest stated goals were to keep America neutral in WWI and to found a strong League of Nations - and he failed in both of those. And those failures were due to his own actions. There’s also been the growing unwillingness to overlook Wilson’s racism (he was racist by the standards of his own time let alone our time).
**Wilson **was not great. But Little Nemo summarizes it perfectly.
I never saw **Coolidge **listed as great, just good occasionally and mostly poor.
**Reagan **did a lot good and lot bad. But he effectively won the Cold War and brought the country out of the deep malaise of the 60s & 70s. There was run-away inflation, gas shortages, embarrassing military blunder and loss, wild-cat strikes crippling commerce, etc. He changed the dynamic. He also opened the door to the worst aspects of the Republican party, employed clueless dangerous assholes like James Watt and many others, has Iran-Contra to his disgrace and supply side economics which was not good for the long term health of the US economy. A mix bag indeed.
I’ve seen too much love for **Truman **in the last 25 years. He went from a poor President to a great President in my lifetime (51 years). The truth is somewhere in the middle but on the good side at least.
**Jackson **is another that has often been called Great and has the $20 bill to boot, but there is more than enough negative about this ass to downgrade him to good at best if not bad.
I think **Ike **has been getting more recognition lately as very good at least. Not sure what the dividing line is, but he is top 10 at least.
To be fair, Eisenhower and Reagan I believe were also of diminished capacities for the last year or 2 of their terms. FDR seemed to be sharp up until the end, but he knew he was dying during the election for the 4th term.
Another vote for Reagan. Totally blew away the budget balancing moves of Carter and sunk the country into massive debt. Didn’t finally have a balanced budget until Clinton.
Also started the practice of robbing the SS trust fund. A chicken that is now coming home to roost.
I’d rate Clinton as solidly better than average, but not great. Here’s a few accomplishments:
CHIP. Providing health care for several million poor children is a big deal. (And it’s a sin that the GOP Congress hasn’t reauthorized it yet.)
Not screwing up the Internet boom of the 1990s.
Balancing the budget for the first time in eons. (A combination of #2 and his 1993 tax hike on rich people.)
Successfully intervening in the Balkans.
Changing our main defense concern from nation-states to terrorism. (An approach that Dubya threw out because it was Clinton’s idea. For seven months and three weeks, anyway.)
I’ve seen rankings of Presidents that historians voted on, and they tend to rank JFK in the top quartile. And I don’t get it. Historians should be smart enough to get past the mystique. What did he do that was so great, besides not blowing up the world in the Cuban missile crisis?
Which Presidents were great? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts. I’m willing to hear arguments for others, but I’d be hard pressed to make them myself.
He could have been great, IMO, He had his brain and 2nd brain kinda occupied. It’s too bad. Why do powerful men commit these destructive behaviors? It scars their family, the objects of their abuse, not to mention their legacy! It must be in their DNA or something.
Well, not blowing up the world does rate fairly highly with me for one. That said, hsi legend is greater than his actual accomplishments.
Based on the OP terms, I’d mention Ulysses Grant, who was wildly popular in his time and could probably have won a third term if he had wanted to try, but in retrospect had one of the most corrupt administrations (although he was never involved, it appears, as he died poor) in American History.
I’m as happy to bad-mouth JFK as the next guy, but you ignore his accomplishments. The Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, War on Poverty, etc. may have been enacted under LBJ but it was JFK that provided the impetus. (It may not be clear how much of that was due to his charisma and inspiration while alive and how much was a reaction to — or apology for — his assassination.) Other JFK inspirations include the Peace Corps.
… And, most specially, his successful decision to send a man to the Moon within a decade and bring him safely back to Earth. I wrote about this before (although you’ll need to click to see the best parts in the quote box).
Also under-appreciated, apparently, is Harry Truman’s Marshall Plan — a combination of charity and self-interest that led to fast recovery from W.W. II and helped prevent W.W. III. Truman passed this program despite strong opposition.
I see Kennedy and Reagan as very similar Presidents. They both had a lot of charisma but were short on substance. Which means a lot of people rate them really highly but then get kind of vague if you press them for details.
The problem with history is that it overvalues wars and activism. Coolidge accomplished everything he set out to do as president. He left the nation much better off than when he became president and some of that was because of him.
Eisenhower is underrated because he served during one of the most volatile times in the nation’s history and yet the times he presided over are seen as boring and uneventful. JFK had the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile crisis and the Vietnam War in 2/12 years and Eisenhower had much less in 8 years.
