^
Which parts? That he was an out of his depth idiot who should not have been permitted to run an ice cream stand never mind a country? That thank God he had good advisors who could do the real work? That thanks to his economic policies the US is heavy in debt and could very well have lost its superpower status a lot earlier than needed?
Well - I do think Reagan was a hugely consequential president - and I do think the country is better for having him in office. This is especially so since his opponents were not up to the job in any way. (With Carter we know this for a reasonable fact, for Mondale it is a reasonable guess.)
However, a consequential president leaves some bad decisions as well as good ones. The failure to correct the general fiscal drift was a huge mistake - though one shared with Congress, which left to its own devices in either party will naturally spend money.
Reagan also made a few poor choices in foreign policy. This has to be balanced against notable successes and is generally forgivable - but this detracts from overall greatness. While I would count Reagan as the finest president of my lifetime this is mainly a product of being born in 1970.
Folks are gonna think I’m nuts, but I’m putting down Nixon.
What he did in opening up China and Russia makes up for that whole tape thing.
Plus he ended research into biological weapons.
Teddy Roosevelt (Theodore), supposedly he’d take you down to the basement and show you his Judo moves. Not only do I respect a person that can actually throw me around (not many can, but I bet Teddy could), but Judo is one of my favorite martial arts, that and my own martial style: I kick your a**!!! 
The national debt during Carter’s term of office fell from 35.8% to 32.5% of the GDP (with the Democrats also controlling both sides of Congress). In Reagan’s first term the debt rose from 32.5% to 43.8% and in his second it rose from 43.8% to 53.1% (with the Republicans controlling the Senate for six of those eight years).
So I think saying Reagan failed to correct the general fiscal drift is understating the case.
I reluctantly chose “other” as a stand-in for Bill Clinton. I’m not a Democrat by any means, and I always voted against him. But he didn’t do what every president shouldn’t do: absolutely nothing for eight years. Ok, I forgive him for sticking his fingers into the mortgage system and causing our financial collapse, but other than that, doing absolutely nothing is the best thing anyone could ever do.
I’m assuming you’re including yourself in that majority.
Ike Eisenhower.
Between being a reasonable entry for “greatest American general”, immediately recognizing that the Cold War must absolutely not be fought with bullets and bombs and making sure it wasn’t, and beginning the Civil Rights Movement in American government, he ended up with a record of “not one man nor one yard of ground lost” in office, and a very clean personal record.
Lyndon Johnson would have been aside from Vietnam, and he was man enough to own up about his failure in judgment. Had Richard Nixon told the truth a few more times he’d be up there, too. Every president between Ford and Obama appeared to have his whole course set by external events; we got six clear months with Obama setting the agenda.
I like your ratings. While not really a Nixon fan, I agree he is under-appreciated and that he outclassed several of the other recent Presidents.
But you should also mention Harry S Truman, a truly under-appreciated President. (Although he does appear very high in rankings by professional historians.)
BTW, amid all the corruption, arrogance, womanizing and misguided diplomacy, one charge against JFK is often overlooked. Again, this charge has never been debunked:
As a courtesy, military secrets involving Soviet Union and Cuba were revealed to JFK during the 1960 campaign. JFK used this information to make unfounded charges against the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration; the charges misrepresenting Ike policy 180 degrees but unrefutable by Ike-Nixon without revealing secrets.
Like Michael Jackson, JFK was quite the media darling. It’s discouraging to see this board so hypnotized.
Wouldn’t the smart move, therefore, be to dissolve the office of the president altogether?
Except that I doubt that the President would sign such legislation. You know, if it were a legislative issue rather than a change to the Constitution.
I went with Truman. That guy made some very tough decisions and I don’t recall any stuff ups.
Any guy who can be considered so highly after another "great’ in FDR and not be dismissed in comparison is okay.
Has it ever been supported?
I agree Truman is in the top 5.
There were a few.
People who dismiss Grant and Harding for corruption in their administrations have to contend with a similar problem with Truman. Truman also suffered from the old “executive aggrandizement” malady so common to our presidents - this probably culminated with the steel mill nationalization in 1952 that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Anyway, he makes my list, and I would have mentioned him except that the OP asked for the last great president. Since I consider Eisenhower great, he gets the nod.
Thanks- I wasn’t aware of that. Are his actions (Truman) considered on a scale in the USA such as Harding or Grant? I have heard of their corruption (whatever you wish to call it) but nothing about Truman.
yeah, where do you stop? in one sense, they were all great. Even though they may have been corrupt and venal, they made it to the top of the dung pile for a brief period.
I’ve no idea if you’re serious. If you are, Google for info, start a thread here or in GD, I’ll participate if it looks worthwhile
I’m not going to play off-topic twitter-tweet in this thread.
It’s hardly off-topic, bearing as it would on the popular reckoning of Presidential greatness. (An in-depth debate of course would be its own thread.) In any case, you introduced the subject here.
I did Google, briefly, and I find very little. It’s not mentioned at all, even as unproven allegation, in the Wiki article on the campaign. So it’s hardly well-known. Given that, and the significance you attach, maybe you should start a thread.
Wait a minute… are you just talking about the “missile gap” thing? If so, you’ve grossly mischaracterized it (Kennedy made that claim in spite of the information he had, not by benefit of it).