I’m kind of mixed on Bush I and his handling of Gulf War I. The actual war was well-handled but let’s not forget that his mixed messages to Hussein led the latter to believe that the US would not oppose an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, nor that the Iraqi opposition were falsely led to believe that the US would support them in an insurrection which led to said opposition getting smooshed. Not the worst president but hardly a winner. And to be fair, the S&L scandal was only marginally his fault (although his son had very dirty hands in that).
I’ll reserve final judgment on Obama although I think history will be kind if the next four years are anything like the last four. So counting from WWII onward:
Best I toss at Reagan and Clinton. Both did good stuff, but not too much. Good years to be in business.
Worst would be LBJ and Bush Junior. LBJ I hang Vietnam on, and his Great Society was an atrocious expansion of the Federal government. The man was corrupt and expanded our efforts into a horrible war. Bush Junior could have been a reform Republican, but instead wasted international support and control of both houses to get nothing done except adding a second war and poorly timed tax cuts.
While I won’t comment on your overall assessments and rankings, the quoted statement is simply wrong - you’ve let your partisanship interfere with your objectivity. JFK was no slouch. Anecdotes concerning the speed and power of his mind abound (no, no cites). More substantially, he graduated cum laude from Harvard and made the Dean’s List there. To say his wasn’t a serious intellect is plain wrong.
Yeah, I would agree with putting the “modern” period as post-WWII. I’m no big fan of George W or Nixon, but the three interwar presidents were bad in a whole other league. They were sort of the last vestige of the 19th century presidents for whom the presidency was just another patronage position to be used to the benefit of their cronies.
I’m sorry, but while I agree with you on Eisenhower, I disagree with you on Silent Cal (not a bad president, but certainly not great, and frankly, HE’s the reason for the Great Depression, or, at least, the policies of the government under his administration). And frankly, you are letting your (presumed by me) partisan viewpoint thoroughly color your view of Johnson and Kennedy. If you cannot remove the colored lenses and treat something that happened 50 years ago with reasonable non-partisan appraisal, you shouldn’t be attempting to answer the post.
Well, “While England Slept” and “Profiles In Courage” were both written for him by Ted Sorenson. Plus, getting good grades at Harvard? He was probably helped by all of those journalists that worked for his dad. Plus, “donating” a few million $$ to Harvard works wonders-Ted Kennedy (expelled for cheating) was re-instated (after old Joe made a $5 million “gift” to dear old Huvud).
With regard to LBJ-please show me where i have been partisan. Everything I wrote is true. LBJ squandered the wealth of this nation of a pointless war, that killed hundreds of thousands. To ignore such crimes is indeed partisan.
Your dismissal of the “Great Society” as having “no good results” is highly partisan. I think most people would agree that Medicare has had a lot of very good results. Head Start has been of inestimable value in fighting the effects of poverty on education. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities have hardly had “no good results”. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was a Great Society project. There are many, many other aspects that almost everyone would agree have had a positive influence upon American culture.
And, of course, while the various programs collectively entitled “welfare” are often derided by conservatives as stealing from the rich to give to the poor without expecting them to do anything for it, I shudder to think what our cities would be like if, with a population of 300 millions, we didn’t have some sort of support structure for the destitute in our society. Certainly, there are numerous people who would disagree that this has had “no good result.” Indeed, it appears more people agree with the idea that it is useful than agree with you, given the results of the last presidential election.
Best: Truman, Clinton, Reagan (1st term only). Honorable mention (might have been great but didn’t have a full term) - JFK.
Also good- Ike, Bush I.
Worst: GWB (corrupt, ran up huge debts, put us into a private war), Carter (could not handle a crisis), Nixon (altho he had some great moments, esp with China, his corruption hurt the presidency).
Reagans 2nd term (he was senile and others ran the nation), Ford.
I will note that for a long time JFK would have topped the list of “Greatest”. But recently the GoP in order to set Reagan up for deification, has been impunging JFK’s memory very hard.
I am unsure of where to put LBJ. Maybe he is solidly in the middle.
Best
Dwight Eisenhower. Built the interstate highway system, made the military quit dragging its feet on desegregation, used the National Guard to enforce integration of Arksansas schools, prevented the Korean War from expanding into WWIII. His warnings of the “military-industrial complex” have proven quite accurate as well. On the downside, his activities in the Middle East and adding religious sentiments to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Worst
Tie between George W. Bush and Barack Obama*. In the case of Bush, the response to 9/11, Patriot Act, War on Terror, torture, Department of Homeland Security, Hurricane Katrina, massive government spending, opposition to biology issues, TARP, Iraq War, etc. Obama for continuing many of GWB’s policies and expanding on them. Allowing assassination of US citizens by discretion of the POTUS, increased drone strikes and domestic surveillance, expanded intervention in the Middle East, botched stimulus spending, Iraq and Afghan Wars. Depends on whether you see it as worse to commit a wrong act to begin with, or to have the power to reverse it and do nothing.
*Unless he has a massive change of heart during his remaining term. Unlikely, but I suppose it’s possible.
FDR, without whom modern America would be unimaginably different
Eisenhower, for not rocking the boat when it didn’t need to be rocked
TR, progressive trust-buster
controversial picks:
homer vote for Clinton, whose legacy isn’t sorted out enough yet
Obama, solely because as late as May 2008 I thought I would be dead before we had a black President
Lyndon Johnson, who really fucked the dog wrt Vietnam, and would otherwise be top-3
Worst since 1901
Nixon, for the most crooked Presidency yet
Harding, second only to Nixon
controversial picks:
3, 4. GW Bush and Reagan, for a multitude of minor (compared to Watergate) scandals, and for aggravating the erosion of trust in government, and for consummating the marriage of the Republican Party and the fundamentalist Right
Ford and Carter, for ineffectual leadership
It was hard not to run the pre-FDR presidents through the “Worst” ringer. I tried my best to judge them according to the expectations of their times. Obama judged solely on his policies drops off the list but only because it’s too soon to know any of his legacy.
I can totally get on board with Clinton and FDR getting best votes… but Johnson? Come on that guy was the perfect combination of arrogant and flat out unintelligent.
I mean seriously… as Presidents go, he might have been the most intellectually challenged. He and Bush 2 in a debate would be like watching kids at a preschool. The sheer entertainment value could only be improved if Gerald Ford moderated
In case you’re interested in how other, possibly better informed people have answered this question, I draw your attention to this Wikipedia page on Historical Rankings of US Presidents.
The highlight of the article is a neat table which presents the rankings from eighteen different surveys of ‘presidential scholars’, ‘historians’, and so forth. It’s nicely organized and, if nothing else, makes for an interesting read.
I won’t spoil the suspense by revealing too much except to say that I am not alone in thinking that the denizens of this Board, or at least those who’ve posted in this thread, have sadly under-appreciated the truly estimable Teddy Roosevelt
He could have just as easily not signed it. Some credit has to be assigned to those who actually take the action, in addition to those who lay the foundation.
