2. profemeritus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:12 AM PT
Here is a list of all them with my rankings from best (#1) to worst (#17):
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Harry Thuman
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. Richard Nixon
7. John Kennedy
8, Bill Clinton
9. William Taft
10. Jimmy Carter
11. Dwight Eisenhower
12. Herbert Hoover
13. Calvin Coolidge
14. George Bush
15. Warren Harding
16. Gerald Ford
17. Ronald Reagan
3. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:22 AM PT
I find Irv's list to be quite objective, if not precisely the ordering I would apply. (Hope my posting that doesn't put off the left wing extremists in this forum too much:))
Plus, we now know that Profemeritus 'hates' Republicans.
4. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:24 AM PT
My previous comment about Profemeritus's post wasn't really justified, on a second scanning. Sorry about that.
5. profemeritus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:38 AM PT
thomasd
If you read post #1 carefully, you will find that it is not Irv's classification. And thanks for rereading my post.
6. jkuzmak - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:44 AM PT
Is anyone ready for the Karpian analysis of Wilson to be found in The Politics of War by Walter Karp?
7. Ronski - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:46 AM PT
Frankly, none has been very good. But I would give Coolidge the highest ranking, and both Roosevelts, Wilson, Johnson and Hoover a share of the worst, owing to their advancement of government intrusion into the economy.
8. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:57 AM PT
Best to worst:
1. FDR
2. Truman
3. Wilson
4. TRoosevelt
5. LBJ
6. JFK
7. Clinton
8. Eisenhower
9. Taft
10. Carter
11. Ford
12. Bush
13. Hoover
14. Coolidge
15. Harding
16. Nixon
17. Reagan
9. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:03 AM PT
thomasd:
As ProfE has pointed out, the first list was envision's, and not mine. Although I agree with many of his rankings, there are some I would disagree with. But I'm not here to put forward my opinions. I am, however, finding these rankings fascinating.
I eagerly await the debate about *why* the rankings are thus. Why, for instance, has Ronald Reagan appeared at the top of one list and the bottom of two others? And why did ProfE give Nixon such a high rating? (I know the answer to that one, but I'd like to see it discussed here).
10. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:17 AM PT
Re. 5,9:
Ooops. Guess I cut to the chase without reading the preamble.
11. 109109 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:28 AM PT
My top 5
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. Ronald Reagan
5. Richard Nixon
The rest were (and are) all serviceable.
12. teller - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:47 AM PT
The three most important presidents are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Each of these men preserved and strengthened the Union. Most obviously, Lincoln preserved the Union through the physical deployment of men and materiel. Washington preserved the Union in two important ways: First, he was America's first president, thereby providing actual evidence, through a combination of inestimable character and conviction, that a *constitutionally* selected leader could 1) perform his job, and 2) avoid Britain's monarchical use of power. Roosevelt preserved the Union through example--that is, FDR's charisma, not the relative faliure of his policies, the New Deal included, explains why Americans felt comfortable at such a precarious time. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, displayed many of Roosevelt's traits, while he initiated and presided over a resurgence in American pride and prosperity.
13. DanDillon - Dec. 3, 1998 - 11:50 AM PT
Message #12
Hmmm. I had no idea these United States were merely a century old.
14. glendajean - Dec. 3, 1998 - 12:42 PM PT
109109 is close -- I'd put Truman in substitution of Reagan. I voted against Nixon and pretty much despised him when he was president. On reflection, he actually demonstrated a social agenda that did not take the same tack as Reagan. His crimes were great and he suffered for them. China was important. Lessening tensions with the Soviet Union was incredibly important. Johnson, like Nixon, had a bigger than life character, and his actions as president were incredibly important and sadly destructive. He made civil rights legislation pass in a Congress where a large bloc of his own party members, Southern Democrats, fought tooth and nail against him. He had the assassination going for him in these efforts, but he also maximized the results in ways that Kennedy could have achieved. He courted Republicans as well as Democrats (a lost skill). His political sense of the lay of the land failed him in fighting the cold war, particularly as it played out in Southeast Asia. In domestic politics, his rhetoric placed him squarely as a New Dealer, and to go back and read or hear his speeches, one hears a language that, since Reagan, has completely left American politics. Language about the poor and working classes, language about race, language about hate and nationalism.
The two Roosevelts increased the country's sense of itself. They were leaders, and they spoke to the best in the American experience. Both Roosevelts offered the country progressive politics against populist ones. FDR saved us at a critical time, the Depression, and amazingly, helped position the country for WWII in ways that previous American politicians weren't capble of doing. That is, as an international power.
I dislike Reagan the most. If Moynihan's read on him is correct, he almost bankrupted the government to end the growth of programs he did not support. He promised the public a balanced budget, tax cuts and increased defense spending at the same time. He opened the gov
15. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
teller blithered in Message #12:
"First, he was America's first president, thereby providing actual evidence, through a combination of inestimable character and conviction, that a *constitutionally* selected leader could 1) perform his job, and 2) avoid Britain's monarchical use of power."
Except that by the middle of the 18th century, parliamentary government was in full swing in Britain, and the king of England had probably had less power than George Washington.
16. glendajean - Dec. 3, 1998 - 1:24 PM PT
1) My post above should have read "...he also maximized the results in ways that Kennedy could not have achieved."
2) About Reagan: he half opened up the government to every right wing group with a name and a cause, but he fully unleashed them upon his party.
17. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 1:34 PM PT
Worst to Best:
1. FDR
2. Truman
3. Wilson
4. TRoosevelt
5. LBJ
6. JFK
7. Clinton
8. Eisenhower
9. Taft
10. Carter
11. Ford
12. Bush
13. Hoover
14. Coolidge
15. Harding
16. Nixon
17. Reagan
That was easy enough.
18. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 1:44 PM PT
Best to Worst
GOOD
1. FDR
2. Truman
3. Nixon
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Eisenhower
MEDIOCRE
6. LBJ
7. Carter
8. Bush
9. Reagan
10. McKinley
11. Coolidge
BAD
12. Wilson
13. Taft
14. Clinton
15. Ford
16. JFK
17. Hoover
18. Harding
19. jkuzmak - Dec. 3, 1998 - 2:29 PM PT
Carter, with the balls that he found that he didn't have when he came up against a unified Republicrat Party. Sans balls he drops to near the bottom of the list. Nice guys finish last.............Regan, at the bottom for being a mindless puppet for the military industrial complex. Eisenhower near the top for warning us about the military industrial complex. Wilson near the bottom for taking us into WWI for nothing more than personal ambition and his place in history.....have to go eat supper.
20. Ronski - Dec. 3, 1998 - 2:39 PM PT
BobaFett,
I'm curious to know why you ranked Nixon that highly, if you've a mind to comment. Thanks.
21. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 2:47 PM PT
Ronski:
Actually, I just took Jade's list and changed it "From Best to Worst" to "From Worst to Best." I figured, automatically saying the opposite of Jade would be 90% correct and would require zero brainpower.
But the low ranking of FDR and high ranking of Nixon are unintended consequences. Oh well. The rest of the list looks okay.
22. Ronski - Dec. 3, 1998 - 2:48 PM PT
BobaFett,
Not a bad formula, though.
23. profemeritus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 5:06 PM PT
Irv
There are many reasons why I rank Nixon relatively high. First, and probably most important, his international standing was consistently good. In many ways foreigners have a more mature and objective perspective of US presidents while they are in office than we do. He made no big international blunders like many presidents have. On the more positive side he opened up China after a long night of darkness. He also got us out of the bind of operating on a partial gold standard, allowing the international value of our currency to be more subject to market forces. And the Vietnam morass ended on Nixon's watch. Second, his domestic policies, both social and economic, were fairly moderate and intelligent compared to those of some of his successors.
24. cllrdr - Dec. 3, 1998 - 5:09 PM PT
FDR
25. lemwalker - Dec. 3, 1998 - 5:18 PM PT
Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both came in the side door and did well. Teddy put the government to work protecting people, whether they wanted the help or not, and the environment. Mr. Truman was trapped by two wars. It is nice to ponder what he would have done in peace. I cannot imagine a current politician ever doing what was right for the nation without putting his/her aspirations first. Maybe that is also the historical standard and a couple of them just got lucky.
26. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
Greatest co-presidents of the 20th Century:
Eleanor Roosevelt
27. jexster - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:14 PM PT
1. FDR
2. TR
3. HST
4. JFK
5. Nixon
6. Ike
7. Wilson
8. LBJ
9. WJC
10. Carter
11. Reagan
12. Hoover
14. Bush
15. McKinley
16. Harding
17. Ford
18. Coolidge
28. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:16 PM PT
I *can't believe* that anyone would rank Coolidge below Harding, even jexster.
29. jexster - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:20 PM PT
Coolidge didn't want the job and acted like it. Nuff said. Harding's Naval Limitation Treaties were ill-advised but at least he did something.
30. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:24 PM PT
But Harding's administration was rocked by corruption, particularly with the Teapot Dome scandal.
31. MrSocko - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:28 PM PT
1. FDR
2. Nixon
3. Eisenhower
4. Truman
5. Clinton
6. Teddy Roosevelt
7. Reagan
8. McKinley
9. Coolidge
10. Wilson
11. Taft
12. LBJ
13. Hoover
14. Carter
15. Harding
16. Bush
17. JFK
18. Ford
32. MrSocko - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:29 PM PT
I probably should have put Kennedy last, except that he was better looking than Ford.
33. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:31 PM PT
Re Message #18
When I called a president "good", I simply meant that the good things he did far outweighted the bad things he did. "Mediocre" means either that the president did nothing, or that the good and the bad in his accomplishments cancelled each other out.
I see no reason whatever that Coolidge should be held in such low regard just for doing nothing.
34. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:31 PM PT
jexster:
Is your #13 Taft? (I'm keeping a running tally here).
35. jkuzmak - Dec. 3, 1998 - 6:36 PM PT
These lengthy rankings of Presidents really don't make much sense do they? I mean how can one possibly rank all those presidents in order like that: better, better, better,better, better,better, better, best. Gentlemen, you have your heads up your bums.
36. Greystoke - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:00 PM PT
The top ten
1. Carter
2. Ted Roosevelt
3. Truman
4. Wilson
5. Eisenhower
6. Bush
7. Clinton
8. Nixon
9. FDR
10. Reagan
My criteria is:
1. Did he try to do what was right for the country regardless of whether it was popular or not? That is why Carter is #1. He made mistakes, but he always did what he thought was right.
2. Did his accomplishments lead the country in the right direction? That is why TR is #2: trust busting, carrying a big stick, and setting aside National Parks put this nation on the right track at the time.
3. Did he perform well during difficult times? That is why Truman is #3 and Wilson is #4.
4. Was he a great leader? Could he rally the nation around his policies. That is why Reagan, FDR, and Clinton (yes, Clinton) even make the list. I think FDR's creation of the welfare state and expansion of the power of the federal government were the biggest mistakes by a president in this century. But he led us out of the Depression and to victory in WWII, so I can't leave him off the list. Reagan was intellectually deficient and led us to the highest budget deficits in history. But hey, look at all the sheep who voted for him. OK he may have had a small hand in the fall of Communism, too.
Eisenhower and Bush make my list because they were both war heroes and men of exemplary morals and character.
Why did Nixon make the list? His foreign policy accomplishments alone put him in the top ten. And I like his progressive environmental policies, too. No need to mention Watergate, price controls, and foul language.
37. Greystoke - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:05 PM PT
Gee, Jkuzmak, read the title. If you don't want to rank the presidents, then maybe you should visit a different thread.
38. envision - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:10 PM PT
jk: As much sense as anything else here in the fray.
People loves lists and I'm enjoying seeing how people rate (1) Nixon; (2)TRoosevelt; (3) Reagan and, of course, the current playboy in the White House.
I'm surprised how well Richard Nixon is doing--and how poorly Calvin Coolidge is rated.
I've visited Coolidge's little farmhouse in Plymouth, Vermont, where he was born and where his father, a local justice, administrated the Presidential oath of office by the light of a kerosene lamp.
It's a real American story.
39. jexster - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:20 PM PT
TD,
Like I said, Harding did something which is better than nothing which is why Ford and Coolidge bring up the rear IMO.
40. envision - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:20 PM PT
Jex: For the record, Coolidge became president in 1923 after Harding died. He was then elected in his own right in 1924 and declined renomination in 1927.
41. jexster - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:21 PM PT
Kudos to Envision for the thread.
42. jexster - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:28 PM PT
Cal was no dummy, just not a politician by his own admission, in his autobiography, the political mind "is a strange mixture of vanity and timidity....The political mind is the product of men twice spoiled. They have been spoiled with praise and they have been spoiled with abuse. With them, nothing is natural, everything artificial."
Obviously a loser President.
43. ptboya - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:47 PM PT
No contest… FDR.
By accomplishing the enormous task of altering the ship of state to centralize power (unfortunately somewhat over-centralizing) he was able to simultaneously extricate the country from the two most severe crises of the century. This took great skill, both as a PR, bully pulpit pres., and as an arm twister in smoke-filled rooms. The brain trust he put together was equally effective. He was, in short, a leader. Though no genius, his intellect has been underestimated, imo. What a mean bastard though. Well good guys… blah, blah.
44. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 3, 1998 - 7:56 PM PT
Based on all votes so far collected (only those choosing 5 or more), the Top Ten:
FDR
T. Roosevelt
Truman
Nixon
Eisenhower
Wilson
LBJ
Reagan
Carter
Clinton
I am not counting votes for McKinley, since he has been left off so many ballots, and he was only Prez briefly in this century.
Last place, currently, is Harding.
Greystoke:
Thanks for giving reasons along with your votes. I'd like to see more fraygrants doing so... it's fascinating.
45. phillipdavid - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:00 PM PT
Greystoke,
Using your criteria in #36, why didn't you include Johnson?
"1. Did he try to do what was right for the country regardless of whether it was popular or not?"
Yes, his social programs did an incredible amount of good for great numbers of people; he did what he thought was right to help people out.
"2. Did his accomplishments lead the country in the right direction?"
Yes.
"3. Did he perform well during difficult times?"
Well, yes, although his war policies can be questioned -- but you excuse FDR and Nixon for their transgressions, so Johnson should also be included using the same standard of judment.
"4. Was he a great leader? Could he rally the nation around his policies?"
The Great Society and the Civil Rights Act. I would say Johnson qualifies under this criterion.
46. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:12 PM PT
I have to disagree with pd's point 3 above. LBJ deliberately enmeshed the US in Vietnam, knowing that the US was unlikely to come out victorious (given the level of commitment). One really can't degrade FDR's or Nixon's war policies to the level of malfeasance that LBJ practiced.
47. JJBiener - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:13 PM PT
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Richard Nixon
3. Dwight Eisenhower
4. George Bush
5. Harry Truman
6. Theodore Roosevelt
7. Lyndon Johnson
8. John Kennedy
9. Franklin Roosevelt
10. Woodrow Wilson
11. Gerald Ford
12. William Taft
13. Calvin Coolidge
14. Warren Harding
15. Herbert Hoover
16. Jimmy Carter (Good ex-President)
17. Bill Clinton
48. ptboya - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:19 PM PT
Is that ascending or descending order Biener? or ass-ending?
49. JJBiener - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:25 PM PT
PTB - Best to worst. Ass-ending, definitely.
50. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:25 PM PT
I don't know that Bill Clinton, with all his faults, belongs at the shit end of the list. That's where I'd place Jimmy Carter, the promulgator of the 'national malaise', particularly economically, MEOW and the hero of the epic aquatic battle with a lepus.
51. JJBiener - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:29 PM PT
Tommy - Carter intended well even if his efforts turned out very poorly. Clinton is entirely self-serving.
52. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:34 PM PT
Re. 51 -
JJ -
Very true. And yet, and yet. I do weight the performance of the US economy to some extent when evaluating a president and his policies. On that basis, I might even rank Clinton above Hoobert Heever, but that'd be about as high as the slime would rise.
53. phillipdavid - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:42 PM PT
With the criteria of effectively and actively using presidential power, and in translating his goals into reality, I would rank FDR and LBJ first and second.
FDR gets his due, so I'll speak a bit about LBJ.
Johnson had a remarkable ability to manage Congress -- a quality so obvious when it is missing, and one so absolutely necessary to effectively make things happen. Johnson easily passed Kennedy's New Fronteir proposals, but his ability to pass what became known as The Great Society was really an extraordinary achievement. His skillful lobbying and arm twisting of Congress can be matched by few, if any, presidents.
His goal of expanding the responsibilities of the governemnt for the general social welfare was an incredibly difficult feat to realize, and he pulled it off. Undoubtedly, LBJ was one of the most successful reform presidents of the century. He was able to translate his goal into reality, in stark contrast to the more urbane and media friendly JFK, whose most ambitious proposals remained unfulfilled until LBJ made them happen. And in stark contrast to Clinton, who has nothing more than lip service to give to his goals.
The social and economic context of LBJ's reforms/achievements is important to consider too. The early 60s was a time of prosperity, but a large number of Americans were not sharing in this prosperity, and a large soul like LBJ was needed in the presidency to address their plight. Who else could have done it? Even someone like Truman probably could not have pulled off what Johnson did.
Some of the notable achievements that make him deserving of high honor and consideration as truly one of the great presidents:
1964-- Civil Rights Act, 24th Amendemnt, Tax Reduction Act, Urban Mass Transit Act, Economic Opportunity Act, Wilderness Preservation Act
1965 -- Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Omnibus Housing Act, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, National End
54. phillipdavid - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:42 PM PT
National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, Water Quality Act, Immigration law reform (often overlooked, but very important), Air Quality Act, Higher Education Act
1966 -- Medicaid, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, highway Safety Act, Minimum wage increase, Dept of Transportation, Model Cities,
1967 -- Food Stamps, Corporation for Public Broadcasting
What other president has had such a large impact on the real everyday lives of so many Americans, in a positive way? (Besides FDR). Who else could have made all this happen? Who else transformed life and society so much?
Using the criteria I listed above, LBJ gets my vote for the second greatest president of this century.
55. phillipdavid - Dec. 3, 1998 - 8:48 PM PT
thomasd,
46,
I agree. LBJ was inept, insensitive and just plain ignorant and misguided wrt foreign affairs. He made bad decisions. But using the criteria Greystoke listed in #36, and PE's criterion of judging whether the good outweighed the bad, I say LBJ qualifies.
No doubt in my mind. A great president was LBJ.
56. JJBiener - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:21 PM PT
PD - You make some very good points in your posts about LBJ. I too admire his ability to get things done. I don't always agree with the methods he used, but I can overlook that. The things that dropped him him on my list were his disastrous handling of Viet Nam and his terrible implementation of the good ideas contained in the Great Society.
57. smarternyou - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:30 PM PT
1. Franklin Roosevelt -- Started government social safety net. Prepared for and won WWII.
2. Teddy Roosevelt -- Usherred in the century with Progressive era reforms. Trust-busting. Won Nobel Prize for diplomacy.
3. Lyndon Johnson -- Prevented nuclear war after Castro killed JFK. Civil Rights Legislation. Attempt at Great Society. Could not withdraw from Vietnam after letting Castro off the hook for killing JFK.
4. Harry Truman -- Had the courage to drop the bomb and end the war. Desegregated the army. Presided at beginning of era of post-war prosperity.
5. Dwight Eisenhower -- Led us in era of prosperity. Got us out of Korea. But go-slow on civil rights and other social legislation.
6. Ronald Reagan -- military buildup won the Cold War. But ran up huge deficits while professing to support balanced budget.
7. Woodrow Wilson -- Led us to being world power in winning WWI. Failed to get Congress to support League of Nations and thereby lost the peace. But he ventured even if he failed.
8-12. In no particular order, Ford, Carter, Taft, Coolidge, Bush. Not too good. Not too bad. The mushy middle.
13. Warren Harding -- short and scandal-plagued adminstration.
14. Richard Nixon -- Got himself impeached, violated governing norms.
15. Herbert Hoover -- Rigidity and unwillingness to start new social programs were contributing reasons to severity of Great Depression.
16. John Kennedy -- Broke agreement with Khrushcev to leave Castro in power and got himself assassinated. If Johnson had misstepped and accused Castro, who did it, it could easily have led to nuclear war.
Bill Clinton -- incomplete.
58. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:40 PM PT
OK, so now I have:
dead last: Carter
next to dead last: Hoover
Third from last: Clinton
More updates to come...
59. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:49 PM PT
Biener: You place Bush above Truman????? Truman is the President most responsible for the resolution of the Cold War. There is no doubt about it. Yet you place Bush above Truman?
60. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:50 PM PT
Re. 59 -
Right.
And Leonardo di Vinci was the one most responsible for the invention of the helicopter.
61. thomasd - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:50 PM PT
da
62. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:53 PM PT
thomasD
Well, under Truman, there was NATO, the Marshall Plan (the reconstruction of Western Europe) and the reconstruction of Japan. I'd say these things did FAR MORE to end the Cold War -- by making the end inevitable -- than anything else done by any other President. In fact, all further actions could only build on the foundations Truman created.
63. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:56 PM PT
Personally, I have so far found my own list the most interesting....
Everybody else's contained few surprises, once you knew their ideology and their level of knowledge of history, economics and politics. (which in the fray is not high).
64. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 9:56 PM PT
And Nato.
65. smarternyou - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:03 PM PT
PseudoErasmus
I think we all find our own lists most interesting, given the blind ideology and low level of understanding of history, economics and politics that we ascribe to everyone else.
66. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:06 PM PT
1. FDR
2. Truman
3. Nixon
4. LBJ
5. Eisenhower
6. Teddy Roosevelt
7. Clinton
8. Reagan
9. Carter
10. Bush
11. Coolidge
12. McKinley
13. Wilson
14. Ford
15. Taft
16. JFK
17. Hoover
18. Harding
I put FDR first for the impact he had; I think FDR, Truman, and Nixon were all exceptional presidents. 4-6 on my list could be arguably in any order. What I found interesting is that the last four presidents we've had came in 7-10 on my list. I studied the others and couldn't find any I'd put above them. Hmm.
Wilson I blame for being ineffectual. Carter moved back and forth on my list throughout the day. Every so often I'll think of something he did that annoys me and down he goes. In the end I think I gave him brownie points for being a great ex pres. Ford got bumped up slightly because he had a tough job following the debacle of Nixon's resignation.
The rest of my reasons have already been stated by someone somewhere in the thread.
67. ptboya - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:08 PM PT
"Personally, I have so far found my own list the most interesting...."
I'm soooo surprised.
68. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:09 PM PT
Message #65
I don't see how. Liberals had Democratic presidents prominent, conservatives had Republican presidents, especially Reagan, prominent. What's so surprising about that.
69. MrSocko - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:09 PM PT
Message #63:
Given that I neither live in America nor am an American, I fail to see how I can be accused of "ideology" or tribal loyalties. My list is completely untainted. I think it's silly the way you burble on about being the only guy in town able to take a disinterested view on anything.
By the way, "ideology" -- Marx's word, actually -- is a pretty outmoded concept in political discussions. To the best of my knowledge, it largely figures these days in earnest teen-aged campus discussion groups over soda and sandwiches. You're middle-aged now. Buck up.
70. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:14 PM PT
First of all, presidents must not be credited with recessions or booms. No President is reponsible for the Great Depression, not even Calvin Coolidge, and neither Clinton nor Reagan is really responsible for the boom on his watch. (Although I suppose Hoover's insistence of balancing the budget helped worsened the Great Recession, but still his actions pale in comparison with the effects of Federal Resereve bungles.) It's for this reasoning that I've never quite understood why Carter is blamed at all for the economic woes during his administration, particularly inflation, which a President can hardly cause.
71. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:15 PM PT
Message #69
I said nothing about disinterestedness. And there is nothing wrong with the word "ideology".
72. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:15 PM PT
Pseudo:
Presidents are always blamed/credited for the economy, like witch doctors are blamed/credited for drought or rain.
73. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:17 PM PT
Message #70 doesn't mean that a President's actions can't have long-term impact on the economy, because they can.
74. ptboya - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:17 PM PT
Can we vote for each term.
If so, FDR gets my top 3 slots. 3 of his 4 terms were impressive.
TR gets 4
Truman 5
LBJ 6
DDE 7 and 8
Bush gets 9
Reagan gets 10
75. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:18 PM PT
Carter wasn't to blame for causing the economic woes on his watch, but he gave little impression of doing much of anything to address them. He didn't even take a principled hands-off-the-market do nothing approach, just seemed lazy and disinterested.
76. smarternyou - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:19 PM PT
PseudoErasmus Message #68
I said we find our own lists most *interesting*, and of course superior to all other lists. See Message #69 for confirmation.
77. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:20 PM PT
TR
FDR
Truman
LBJ
Wilson
Nixon
Bush
Reagan
Eisenhower
Carter
McKinley
Coolidge
Hoover
JFK
Taft
Harding
Ford.
78. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:20 PM PT
I think Nixon revisionism is in full swing, judging by his high place on even liberal Fraysters' lists.
Nixon did some good things, but I find it ludicrous not to penalize him heavily for putting the country through Watergate. He is also one of the chief culprits of our current Social Security problem. He demagogued the issue before the 72 elections (I believe) and granted cost-of-living-plusses even greater than the Liberals were asking for.
This single act has greatly exacerbated our looming Social Security crisis.
Nevermind fucking up the war/peace with Vietnam. I understand how difficult the situation was; I honestly do. But it seems to me you either shit or get off the pot; you commit to war or your commit to peace. You don't fuck around in Paris for six fucking years.
79. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:21 PM PT
Message #75
"Carter wasn't to blame for causing the economic woes on his watch, but he gave little impression of doing much of anything to address them."
That's because the executive branch of government really can't do much about inflation!
"He didn't even take a principled hands-off-the-market do nothing approach...."
Well, there was airline deregulation. Not that it could exert much effect on the macroeconomy.
80. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:22 PM PT
Hmmmm.... Cal and CoralReef both rate Mr. Nixon quite highly.
No wonder they're enamored with the our current Resident.
81. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:24 PM PT
Oh jesus, I forgot Clinton!
82. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:24 PM PT
Message #78
Well, given that I don't much agree there is a social security crisis (see fringe politics thread for the reasons), I can't take that particular approach to Nixon.
"But it seems to me you either shit or get off the pot; you commit to war or your commit to peace. You don't fuck around in Paris for six fucking years."
I thought he fucked around in Paris for less than 4 years.
Anyway, I don't see how you can engage in a massive war for 5 years and disengage suddenly, without losing credibility. Of course, the United States did lose credibility, but only because Nixon was stupid enough to get embroiled in Watergate and lose the ability to control events.
83. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:27 PM PT
Pseudo:
I was going to write "fuck around in Paris for four years," but since he promised he had a plan to end the war at the time of his election, I used "Paris" metaphorically for the pre-Paris fucking around as well.
84. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:28 PM PT
You know, I voted for Clinton in 1992 and even 1996. But I can't for the life of me understand why many Clinton supporters in the Fray rate him among the BEST presidents. I think Elliot even opined that he was the best president since FDR. This is mind-boggling. What has he done?
85. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:30 PM PT
Boba:
I don't think highly of Nixon, but he wasn't just a caretaker president like many recent ones, he actually did some things that were important, so that bumps him up a bit. Perhaps too highly.
86. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:31 PM PT
JFK is another mystery, another president who did nothing (primarily because he was killed, so that's not his fault, but life's tough). But in his few years, he funded and launched the space programme. Is that a big deal? How about his silly behaviour during Bay of Pigs?
87. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:31 PM PT
Mind you, I'm not sure there was really a much better way to get out of Vietnam....
... I'm not one of those idiots who calls him a "murderer" for all the lives lost during Vietnamization &c, but it became clear in 69-70 that we were getting out of the war; why delay the actual evacuation so long? Declare victory, blame Johnson, get the fuck out of Dodge.
I really don't believe that we achieved the "Peace with Honor" Nixon sought; therefore, his interminable wind-down of US presence didn't serve much purpose that I can see.
Our Vietnamese allies/comrades were just as fucked in 74 as they would have been in 70.
88. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:32 PM PT
Message #70--I never blamed Carter for the recession; I was cranky at him for Iran (an emotional reaction that probably has a lot to do with where I grew up) and the Moscow Olympics. (yes. That's a joke)
I'm not sure how my list is ideological; in fact, I copied yours because it was the closest to mine and saved me typing it in myself. My list was built by judging impact, effectiveness, and decision making--tie breakers were given to the intangibles.
I'm quite sure my list reflects my lack of historical and political knowledge. But as you know, I have no ideology.
I note that Niner's top five had two Dems, Nixon, Reagan, and TR; Glendajean, a Dem, concurred with Niner's list--with Nixon on it. (although he dropped Reagan). So there are two more that aren't all that predictable.
89. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:32 PM PT
Clinton gave us Parental Leave.
Yipeee!
90. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:33 PM PT
Could someone tell me what Reagan did? Besides the conservative allegations of his economic achievements, that is. And other than accumulating the national debt.
91. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:33 PM PT
Reagan showed that well and truly *anyone* can become president.
92. BobaFett - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:36 PM PT
I'll step up to the plate:
Though I was only a little kid during Carter, I did blame him for the recesion.
When I was older, I blamed George Bush for the recession. Even though I knew it was irrational and, quite frankly, favored a do-nothing, let-the-business-cycle-turn-itself-about policy.
Rationally I know that Presidents are like the extra-point kickers on a football team; it's nice to have a good one, and sometimes they provide the margin of victory, but it's not like they'll make or break a season on their own.
But be that as it may, *irrationally* I do blame Presidents for bad times, and irrationally I give Clinton some amount of credit for the recent prosperity.
Although I can't imagine what the hell he's done to cause it.
Oh yeah.
He gave us Parental Leave.
Yippeeee!
93. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:38 PM PT
PE:
I agree with you on JFK. He was mediocre at best. I've never understood the cult of personality around him, or the "Camelot" horseshit, but it may speak to a quality of charisma essential to leadership. Of course, I think that's the same quality that has people mooning over Reagan as well. I would rate him and Bush at or near the very bottom.
94. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:38 PM PT
Actually, since I copied Pseudo's list, I noticed that the major difference between his and mine was Clinton placement. My internal debate was the ranking of Clinton and Reagan. In the end, I gave it to Clinton because of Reagan's contribution to the deficit.
I place Reagan high because from what I've read, he really did have quite a bit to do with the ending of the Cold War. I used to think that was just talk. And whether or not it was by his actions or rhetoric, I think it still counts for something.
95. CoralReef - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:38 PM PT
He reappointed Greenspan.
96. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:39 PM PT
BobaFett (Message #87)
"I really don't believe that we achieved the 'Peace with Honor' Nixon sought...; therefore, his interminable wind-down of US presence didn't serve much purpose that I can see."
Well, I don't think there was such a peace, either, but one can't tell whether that's because the Paris Accords were intrinsically flawed, or because Nixon lost power. Perhaps the interminable wind-down of U.S. presence would appear to us more purposeful had Nixon stayed in power.
My point is only that, IMO, Nixon's motive for Vietnamisation and slow withdrawl was perfectly good and rational between 1969 and 1972. Watergate unfortunately gets in the way of our assessment of his Vietnam policy because by mid-1973 he had lost his ability to conduct foreign policy as he wanted.
97. cartman69 - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:39 PM PT
Boba:
Another great thing about Clinton: He Feels Your Pain (while he checks out the wool in the front row).
98. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:40 PM PT
Cart,
Bush was another one that surprised me by his placement. But I couldn't see who to bump over him. The close calls were McKinley and Coolidge; I'm still not sure if I called it right.
99. CalGal - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:41 PM PT
Boba,
I hate Social Security with a passion; it makes me cranky. But it was very clever of Nixon to do what he did; I admire that. And yes, this probably has something to do with why I say yo! to Clinton.
100. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:44 PM PT
Message #94
What did Reagan really do to end the Cold War, other than be there when it happened?