C-SPAN’s Presidential rankings
posted at 8:52 am on February 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
C-SPAN celebrates Presidents Day by asking a large panel of historians to rate the former American Presidents on a series of leadership qualities, including public persuasion, crisis leadership, “moral authority”, and performance in context of the times. The man at the top of the leader board comes as no surprise, but some of the rest might surprise a few people:
- Abraham Lincoln
- George Washington
- FDR
- Teddy Roosevelt
- Harry Truman
- JFK
- Thomas Jefferson
- Dwight Eisenhower
- Woodrow Wilson
- Ronald Reagan
George Washington recovered from #3 in the 2000 survey, which gives readers an idea how useless this ranking can be. Washington’s presidency, and his voluntary retirement after two terms, saved America from the establishment of a new royalty. FDR, the man who briefly replaced him, was the only American President to refuse to follow Washington’s precedent, and Congress eventually had to place explicit term limits on the office after FDR’s president-for-life ambitions.
Kennedy doesn’t belong on the top ten, either. Kennedy was definitely an inspirational figure in American politics, but his presidency was a mess. He fumbled the Cold War badly enough to prompt the USSR to build the Berlin Wall, and nearly started a nuclear war over Cuba with his fecklessness. He jumped into the Vietnam War when France withdrew, and meddled significantly with Vietnam’s government to exacerbate the crisis. His successor LBJ comes in at #11 despite making the situation even worse. Reagan ended the Cold War in victory and restored American economic health, and yet trails JFK by four positions.
I find it terribly ironic that Harry Truman gets ranked as #5 now. I don’t have a big issue with that ranking, but when he left office, he was less popular than George W Bush, who comes in at #36 in this survey. But was Truman more important than Thomas Jefferson, who doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase and set the stage for Manifest Destiny? I know JFK wasn’t a better President than Jefferson, which alone makes this survey deeply suspect.
Andrew Malcolm wonders whether the less-famous Presidents have a competitive advantage:
It may not be a coincidence that the top five presidents of all time, as ranked by the cable channel’s panel of 65 historians, all come from the era before video clips and television.
Would Abe still be No. 1 if we’d seen a million replays of that vintage Civil War footage of him hitting his burly head on the log cabin door?
Or would a bald George Washington be No. 2 if his powdered wig had gotten blown out of the presidential carriage in a Washington wind, revealing the shiny presidential pate?
Or FDR, TR and Harry Truman at Nos. 3, 4 and 5 if we’d heard audio tapes of their candid opinions of Henry Wallace, William Howard Taft and Strom Thurmond, respectively?
I’d argue the opposite, actually. I think this list is top-heavy with media favorites rather than a serious look at the accomplishments of each President. Besides the obligatory mentions of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson, the rest of the top 11 come from the 20th century. It’s a familiarity and popularity contest, not a real analysis of accomplishment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Yikes, I just saw the whole list, and Carter is ranked above Coolidge.
It’s really impossible to rank the best presidents without a series of complex criteria. They need a BCS type system, that is 5 times as complex.
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
After that it’s too hard to tell.
In my book, the other 7, in no particular order would be, Reagan, Monroe, Jefferson, Coolidge, FDR, Truman…
It’s too hard to pick the last one, actually. I’m not a presidential historian. Without WWII, FDR would be nowhere, but his leadership in defeating the Axis even trumps the New Deal nonsense. Truman had to make the toughest call in history. Bush 43 had a huge impact on the world and did some good things domestically, but still spent like a Democrat. Then there is amnesty…
If not for Watergate, Nixon would be up there somewhere.
reaganaut on February 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Oh and Spirit, you forgot another fact:
Lincoln murdered 39 Indians (American) so he could win re-election, how is that for a bribe to Minnesota’s electorates?
Tim Burton on February 16, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Racist is a 20th century word. The fact that Lincoln believed Negroes to be inferior and the fact that he personally opposed slavery don’t cancel out each other.
Texas Gal on February 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Count this as the litmus test of the raters’ politics. I guess historians tend to be liberals.
Hmm. I could mention FDR, who did more deficit spending than all of the above combined in terms of present day dollars, but, ernesto, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to go there. Or, if you did, you’d mention Lincoln, who basically printed money to win his war.
The last word of the last sentence above is the key. (except in the cases of FDR and Obama, who each insisted on opening the Treasury to the voters, and caused/will cause economic difficulties which will take generations to undo). FDR is lucky WWII came around, or we’d still be in a depression today; I’m wondering about the size of war it will take to undo what is about to happen on Obama’s watch.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Carter above Coolidge-
I stopped reading right there
jjshaka on February 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Yes and Yes. Really historians are the only “experts” on the issue, the only people that are allowed to set the dialogue, any other thinking is merely fringe behavior.
Looking at just how contemporary history is mangled despite numerous outlets and expansion of media sources through the internet, does anyone really believe the nonsense they are fed in their history books? Back then the dialogue was set by Newspaper conglomerates or three TV channels. The true “End of History” occurs whenever one sets out to understand history.
LevStrauss on February 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM
People who think FDR was the first The One should read Amity Shlaes’ book, The Forgotten Man.
I hope some right wingers are brave enough to challenge in court Obama’s power grabs; many did in the 30s and probably saved the republic.
PattyJ on February 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM
No kidding. Who were these “historians” who rated the hapless JFK so highly? Salinger, White, and Caroline Kennedy?
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM
How in God’s name can JFK seriously be on the top 10 of any list. He was only President for less than 3 years. Even if they were the most brillient three years, which they were not, they cannot top a President who served eight years with great accomplishment (i.e. Reagan or Andrew Jackson). You could also make a good case that Polk was much better than JFK in his four years in office. Finally, how is JFK better than Calvin Cooliage who served 6 years during great properity? And no, you cannot blame Cooliage for the Great Depression or the Stock Market Crash. That blames lies on Wall Street and the two wonder boys: Hoover and FDR…This is a joke…
RedSoxNation on February 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I’d rate Carter as second from the bottom, just ahead of James Buchanan. His presidency was a toxic waste dump. The man had the Midas touch in reverse. Everything he touched turned to dog crap. Any historian who rates him outside the bottom five is no historian at all. LBJ at #11 is a joke. Poor wartime leader whose socio-economic policies are still an anchor around the country’s neck. I’d rate him in the bottom ten not just outside the top ten.
Percy_Peabody on February 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Lincoln got top billing just to pump up the Obama-is-the-new-Lincoln media BS. I’d argue for:
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Truman
Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
Jackson-FDR-Johnson created the Socialist-Democrat party we have today and FDR-Kennedy helped create the acceptance of media fed personality-cult Presidencies.
saltyrover on February 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Shouldn’t the list read…
Zero: Barry Obama
1: Abraham Lincoln
2: George Washington
……..
Limerick on February 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Washington should be #1 on any and all lists… FDR should be dead last. Period. Oddly (or maybe not so) when I came up with my own list, I had
Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Jefferson/Monroe, TR.
The worst (in order from the worst):
FDR, LBJ, Carter, Buchanan, Wilson. Quite a departure from C-SPAN.
I also notice their love for Ike which I find puzzling. Truman had an extremely low opinion of the man. Personally, I think he is mediocre at best. He was part of the Republican party since FDR that wasn’t committed to rolling back the New Deal (and taxes). He paved the way for the GOP of the 60s and 70s that the Conservatives had to fight for control of the soul of the party.
mankai on February 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Champion of civil rights??? You are talking about Lyndon “uppity negroes” Johnson, right?
I suppose you mean, “champion” like Billy Jeff was a “champion” of welfare reform, right? Both of them only signed legislation they opposed only due to the public popularity of the issue and their inability to stop it’s passage. Not because they “championed” the cause.
Wingo on February 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM
The funny thing about historians trying to tie Coolidge to the depression is that there is still debate on its main causes yet Cal apparently was suppose to be Nostradamus, a year after he left office.
Wilsons ranking is purely idealogical-
my history professors were in love with this egotistical nutjob because he was a college president and was generally liberal
jjshaka on February 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Er, effectively, he was president for life. Died in office.
juanito on February 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM
The “Greatest US Presidents”, This Would Mean Those With Divine Inspiration To Establish A Path Of Liberty For Mankind. Obviously, The Founding Agents Such As Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison Are Unsurpassed In A Constitution Honoring Mind (Let The Debate On a List Continue From This Point). Lincoln Declared The Constrainment Of The States To The Union As Having Precendent Over The Constitution Giving The States The Right To Secede. The Union Is Voluntary, Lincoln Destroyed That Freedom (The Federal Government Shall Be An Agent Of The States) Not The States An Agent Of The Government. Ronald Reagan Was A Great President Who Stated “Government Is Not The Solution, It Is The Problem”, Liberals And Democrats Dont Understand This Freedom. A History Lesson: When The Ancient Israelites Asked GOD For A King, GOD Told Them “It Is Not Good For You, You Will Worship And Look To Your King For Liberty, Instead Of Me, Your Creator, The Source Of All Being, Who Am Holy And Good”. The Interpretation Is Mine, I Believe I Get The Gist Of The Declaration. Concerning Racism, Any Bondage (Based On Race) Which Limits Liberty To A Creature, Cannot Be Justified Before The Creator Of All Races. By The Way, Give Me Rose At Third, Morgan At Second, Bench Catching, Perez At First, Concepcion At Short, And Geronimo In Center (With A Single To Center, We Would Love To See The Runners From Second Try To Score On Geronimos Arm And Bench Blocking The Plate) They Eventually Just Quit Trying…AWESOME, And I Will Go Up Against Any Team, Any Time, Anywhere (I Like My Chances)
GD on February 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Name those 65 “historians” before serving us their progressive regurgitation soup, C-SPAN.
Teddy Roosevelt, the American Imperialist, promoted the slavery of the Philippines.
Discredit any poll that fails to place credit where credit is due as Washington was Father of our Country, and Washington united Americans North and South and “West” to the Glorious Cause that evolved into our liberty and Constitutional Government requiring balance of powers.
As wonderful as Lincoln was and meant to be, he failed to negotiate peace to prevent the Civil War. Lincoln endorsed tariffs and taxation newly legislated by Northern industrial interest robber barons that drove the fiscal wedge that economically excommunicated the South from the Union. In prelude to battle, Lincoln meant to keep the peace as much as he meant to free the slaves. Lincoln meant to maintain the Union, right or wrong, and willingly sacrificed the South to the North.
I do not blame Lincoln; I sympathize with his predicament. But never place Lincoln above Washington. Lincoln could not have been Washington, the one man who congealed the unique BALANCE of Classical Liberal and Conservative American genius of brilliant individuals: e pluribus unum. And had the genius Washington been in Lincoln’s place, the Civil War would not have played out as it did. Washington’s diplomacy as chief negotiator far exceeded Lincoln’s skills. And the only “saving grace” from the horrible toll of that war would have occurred anyway, as Washington would have negotiated a freedom for slaves. Washington’s leadership skills were unparalleled and remain so today. He granted freedom to all of his own upon his death. Had he been POTUS during the late 19th-Century, he would have fought robber barons from abusing the nation’s population and government as they dissolved the Union to become America’s new slave owners.
Washington would have made a better Lincoln than Lincoln as Washington. But that discounts the factor of assassination. Had Washington been assassinated after winning our Independence, he would not have been alive to complete his calling to become Father of our Country through leading coalitions to align various factions towards the Glorious Cause that we identify now as our Constitutional Government, our uniquely American liberty and freedom today.
Wilson and FDR “respected” the Constitution as an old rag to be dismissed and discarded. Their adoration of totalitarians leaves them in that bin of bastards.
Washington would have trounced FDR in every way, on foreign diplomacy and on domestic policy.
Right or wrong, Harry Trumann dropped the double bomb, not the single, on Japan. That’s one pragmatic way to end a war and discard undesirable nuclear waste. The buck may have stopped at Harry’s desk, but not nuclear waste.
JFK wasn’t worthy of licking Washington’s boots.
There is no chronological realignment, for better or worse.
MEANING inextricably remains within CONTEXTUAL CONTENT.
Still, Washington uniquely stands first and foremost.
imho
maverick muse on February 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM
No, South Carolina “destroyed” the Constitution. Lincoln would have been powerless to do anything affecting slavery (which the Taney court had ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford extended over the whole United States, including the Free States), had not SC acted after Lincoln’s election by shelling and taking over a Federal installation.
Remember, the South owned the Presidency, the Judiciary, and a majority in Congress at the point of Lincoln’s election. After Lincoln’s inauguration, two of three branches of the Government were still owned by the slavers.
This act of South Carolina counted as an act of Rebellion and Insurrection in Lincoln’s view, and in the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. That Taney (chief justice of the Supreme Court) chose to challenge Lincoln via his office as Circuit Judge [via Ex Parte Merriman, in which a military officer was arrested for sabotage], rather than convening the entire Court to deal with Lincoln, is a sign of how weak your reasoning is here.
It enabled the eventual issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation (which Lincoln carefully crafted to not cover those non-insurgent areas where the pro-slavery United States Constitution still held sway) to allow the Republican anti-slavery beast to take one more chomp out of its slaving opponent. He was certainly Constitutionally enabled to do this (to take property of those occupying an area of rebellion and do with it as the Federal Government needed).
Lincoln’s party, after his assassination, completed implementation of the planks of the Republican Party platform (to which Lincoln hewed closely in his acts) by creating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which removed the taint of slavery from the document, and assured that, for all of us, the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply equally to State acts as well as Federal acts.
I would say that the Constitution emerged stronger than before.
Obviously, you and I are worlds apart on the honors to be accorded Lincoln, and the blame to be assigned for the inception of the Civil War and the resulting demise of slavery. I don’t think we can agree, and this post is not to you so much as to others who might be even the least bit influenced by your lax scholarship.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM
after FDR’s president-for-life ambitions…
Magnificent!
maverick muse on February 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM
A couple amusing internal contradictions:
In economic management, Reagan scores a paltry 17th for setting the stage for a boom that only ended last year, but Bill Clinton scores a third place for completing the Reagan revolution by adopting the Gingrich balanced budget and Reagan’s unfulfilled free trade goals.
Of those ranked above Reagan in economic management, Jefferson started the Depression of 1807, FDR continued the Great Depression, Wilson and Eisenhower spent their second terms in a severe recession,
Bart DePalma on February 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM
One thing about FDR and WWII is his role is a bit misunderstood.
Yes, he did look to start getting America involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor, and not just lend lease. He was running an “illegal war” to use the left’s nomenclature in the Atlantic in 1940, but he was publicly claiming the opposite – saying on the campaign trail I will “not send American boys into any foreign wars.”
His opponent in 1940 (Willkie) was arguably more interventionist then FDR was as least in public.
So crediting FDR for winning WWII is problematic in that he doesn’t appear to actually have been comparatively interventionist (a la Churchill in Britain) and the early conduct of the war by American forces was, to put it mildly, disappointing.
Again, ask yourself if the following happened under Bush 43′s watch:
–
This President spends most of the nation’s wealth on boondoggles that accomplish almost nothing.
This President starts an “illegal war” with one of the world’s great powers while claiming publicly he does not seek war with them.
Under this President, America gets decisively defeated by a different world power (and a previous ally no less!) due to multiple strategic failures by both the Navy and the political leadership of the US.
This President responds by rounding up citizens of a particular ethnic group and sending them to camps for the course of the war.
–
Now, to an extent many of these points are unfair to FDR. It would have taken a great administration to have been prepared for WWII – but that is exactly what most historians argue FDR was.
One can also argue, despite the myriad failures preparing for the war that heck, we won it after all – but I don’t see too many historians extending a similar line of credit to more recent Presidents.
18-1 on February 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Best lists are silly, because presidents don’t face the same tests, thus the comparisons are apples and oranges. If Lincoln had governed during quiet, prosperous times, he might simply be remembered as just another competent, but now obscure, president, like Grover Cleveland.
irishspy on February 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Left wing nonsense. FDR was a good war President, after ten years of sheer stupidity. JFK did exactly nothing as a President. His only legacy is the permanent loss of Democracy in Cuba and the Vietnam war. Truman’s singular accomplishment was the integration of the military, and for this he deserves praise. But he was a disastrous war President, making the Korean was into a stalemate when he could have boxed China. Reagan was brilliant. Wilson a total fool.
pat on February 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I’ve always been amused that leftists love Wilson and FDR. The former was a virulent racist and the latter had no problem sending an ethnic group to concentration camps. So much for leftist opposition to racism.
Of course you can argue both were examples of what American fascism looks like which may explain the appeal.
18-1 on February 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I would switch TR with FDR. I know he’s considered one of the greats, but a push for bigger government should not equal a bigger legacy.
pastorjim67 on February 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
One other note, it does seem that the last 50 years or so have seen a real shortage of Presidential talent:
Great:
Reagan
Average:
Bush 43
Bush 41
Eisenhower
Poor:
Clinton
Terrible:
Ford
Nixon
LBJ
JFK
Arguably worst President in our History:
Carter
18-1 on February 16, 2009 at 12:10 PM
It’s a good thing I had swallowed my coffee before reading that. :)
irishspy on February 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Alternate history buff, I see. Washington was also a southern planter, and owned slaves — the alter ego to Lincoln, who had achieved everything he was by the sweat of his own brow rather than the exertions of others. What we do know about Washington as President of a country at war is that he was a kind of anti-Bush — he attempted to negotiate with the Barbary Pirates, and it didn’t work. For those of us who rankle at the thought that Americans spent 444 days in captivity at the hands of the Iranians, we are as disheartened at the thought that some Americans, captured during Washington’s Presidency, spent over 10 years in the hands of the Bey of Algiers
By your own reasoning, Washington would have prevented the Iraq War and Afghanistan by artful diplomacy. Washington’s artful diplomacy toward the Barbary States (a delegation of the three most accomplished diplomats from America — John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson) was answered by this statement by the Tripolitian Ambassador to Paris to the Americans:
Washington took no action after his State Department received this rebuke. It took Thomas Jefferson to initiate the first of the military actions against the Barbary Pirates.
I hold Washington in great esteem — he was enlightened in his day, directing that, upon the death of his wife Martha, his slaves should be freed, as General was careful to stay clear of every political maneuvering other than those needed to feed his troops, and as President set a standard of citizen behavior that every President until FDR was content to emulate.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I should think that Andrew Jackson should have been in the top ten for his leadership qualities, his “Jacksonian” democracy and best of all was his killing of the United States national bank predecessor to the Federal Reserve.
Jackson knew that paper money was an attack on the common man, kept him from improving himself and would keep the wealth in the hands of the few.
He sure wasn’t perfect but he was the only President to retire the national debt and that my friends should say much
larvcom on February 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Where did you find this at?
Notorious GOP on February 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
His policies with the 2nd national bank largely led to the Panic of 1837.
Notorious GOP on February 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I am not an Andrew Jackson fan but old hickory is conspicuously absent from the top. Who fought the foreign bankers? Indian Fighter and War of 1812 Hero, remember the British came back for another run at us;) Lincoln fought to keep the Union intact but Jackson was on the ground fighting for it before he became President. There are many who still follow Jacksonian Model so he doesn’t belong up top?
Dr Evil on February 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
That panic was planned by those that wished to keep that gorilla on the back of Americans. As with every economic recession, just look for the banks for the real reason money suddenly is in short supply. First they flood the market with worthless paper notes and then they pull the money out of the economy triggering recession or even depression.
larvcom on February 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
If anyone doubts that Lincoln destroyed the Constitution and believes that the “Civil War” (War of Northern Agression is a better term) was fought for freeing slaves, I recommend reading the latest Federalist Digest.
Tim Burton on February 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy
Dr Evil on February 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Washington is no. 1 hands down. Lincoln’s character is extremely admirable, but he deserves lower marks because his cabinet was poorly chosen, and he allowed Johnson to be on his re-election ticket – the man was a poor judge of talent. The rank for Wilson, FDR and Truman are a total “go-figure” unless you consider that university campuses create the “objective” historians being polled. Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan changed the world with their leadership, and deserve high marks. Reagan gets extra marks for his remarkable and innovative economic recovery. Ed’s comments on JFK and LBJ are spot on. Bush 41 should be in the top 10 for stopping Saddam, and Carter makes the bottom 5 for screwing up the economy, Iran, the Iran rescue, for soliciting help from the USSR to win over Reagan and for thwarting US policy as an ex-president. Nixon changed the world as President but was held to account for his obstruction of justice, why can’t historians hold JFK/RFK to account for their obstructions of justice and LBJ for his graft and corruption?
Mark30339 on February 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
A reminder I was born in the 1980s so I don’t have first hand remembrance of Reagan. Do I think he was a good president? Yes. He ended the Cold War. However, part of the reason Afghanistan is such mess right now is because when we engaged in covert operations there in the 1980s we left as soon as the Russians did. Big mistake.
Second, I think much of the superficiality we see in politics today started with Reagan. He was the master of the photo-op and big events. Really, Obama just took Reagan’s template of grandiose campaigning. And for a conservative I think Reagan really sent a bad precedent when he asked the public, “Are you better off today than four years ago?” That’s suggesting that the government can improve one’s life. Why would a conservative have that mindset? Why do you think people right now are calling for government action? They believe in government intervention.
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
This is mine:
1. Washington
2. Teddy Bear Roosevelt
3. Reagan ( Didn’t Obama say he liked him when he was on the campaign trail)
4. Lincoln (Does Obama know that he is the Father of the Opposition Party?)
5. Jefferson (For drafting the very thing that Obama thinks is racist & small minded – BTW, does Obama know that this man is the Father of his Party affiliation? )
6. Madison (For the Constitution & Bill of Rights Obama wants to trample all over.)
7. Taylor (Since he advocated CA statehood that would ensure that no original CA citizen has the taint of slavery on his hands. Too bad he died too soon.)
8. Eisenhower (WW11 achievements, desegregated the military, and advocated for peace through adequete military strength.)
Worst Presidents:
1. Carter
2. A. Johnson (ironically, the 1st example of why reaching across the aisle is a very bad idea and is a concept that sticks with us, to our detriment every single time, like a bad penny.)
3. Wilson ( With delusions of grandeur with his 14 points and trying to fly the League Of Nations that sets the stage for the evil UN. Plus I cannot forget his advocation of the Treaty of Versailles that opened up the greed of the Allies, caused the fall of the Weimar Republic, and allowed Hitler to take power and kicking WW1 down the lane into the tragedy of WW11.)
9. L.B. Johnson (just a weak Pres.all around)
Worst all-so rans:
I look at JFK like I do Clinton, not absolutely horrible as they could have been but not wholly focused on the office they ascended to that so many balls were dropped and avoidable things happened. Truman is in this category because he did some things I acknowledge were good, yet he was still a Democratic Tool.
Sultry Beauty on February 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Bankers
“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out,
and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.”
Andrew Jackson
Source: upon evicting a delegation of international bankers
from the Oval Office
Andrew.Jackson.Quote.
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/andy.html
Dr Evil on February 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Clinton jumped from 21 to 15.
Remind me again – what did he accomplish? His administration was rife with corruption and he was impeached for lying under oath.
Name a single, significant contribution he made that the Republican congress didn’t force him into (i.e. NAFTA, Welfare Reform).
Kenrod on February 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Then there is Wilson, who was absolutely the biggest snob in the White house. He knew better than anyone else. His only regret, the Federal Reserve Act. It should have been leaving Princeton. The Fed was suppose to prevent depressions but instead it purposely created it, making those that secretly hold the stock even richer. As for his push for our entry into WW1, he just used it to push his personal agenda of the new world order aka League of Nations. Wilson’s fourteen points failed to resolve the unfair treaty of Versailles that forced the Germans into a major depression after the war ended.
larvcom on February 16, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Obviously in hindsight abandoning our allies in Afghanistan was a bad idea, though I don’t see how you can attribute too much blame to the President at the time – Clinton – for it. Overall his fecklessness did enable Al Qaeda, but I think in being fair his refusal to take Osama bin Laden from the Sudan is a *much* bigger blight on his record.
People seem to not remember that right before 9/11 Al Qaeda killed our old ally – Ahmed Shah Masood. Ironically they pretended to be members of the press.
18-1 on February 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM
AntonDomi:
Give him another month. I’m sure he’ll break the Top Ten.
blr2449 on February 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Actually, you are too kind to the man. He enabled Al Qaeda, did nothing of note with Russia while we had some chance to integrate them into the west, allowed China unprecedented access to our technology, and at best turned a blind eye on the financial corruption that led to the Enron and Worldcom era collapses.
18-1 on February 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
What?
No Chester Arthur in the top 10?
A travesty!
Nigel on February 16, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Of course. I already said he thought the issue of Union > Slavery. Yet he still hated slavery.
It’s not as complicated as people today try to make it out to be. Most people thought slavery would die of it’s own accord due to economic and technological progress. It’s very easy to understand Lincoln continuing the compromise that the fathers themselves set out so as not to destroy the Union.
That doesn’t take away from his greatness.
Spirit of 1776 on February 16, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Terryann, since you weren’t here on earth for except perhaps the very end, you may not grasp the magnitude of what ending the Cold War actually meant. Many of us thought it would never end, or if it did humanity would end with it.
As for the “are you better off today” question, Reagan was asking if we were better off after 4 years of Carter-style intervention by government in the economy. He wasn’t asking if government hadn’t done enough, he was asking if it had done too much.
DarkCurrent on February 16, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Lost Causes don’t really interest me. Why SC tried to leave the Union does, and the (eventual) very happy result thereafter does too.
Lincoln was faced with War, and acted as he should have. The United States was quite right in not wanting to share this continent with the Central Slavers of America.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM
What about John Adams? Assuming the accuracy of the (relatively)recent novel, this was a great man, and a great president. Without his brilliance, strength of character, vision, and backbone, we would still be subjects to the crown.
I’m not an historian, just an avid reader. Washington seems to get a lot of credit for his military acumen, which occurred PRIOR to his presidency- deservedly so. Adams should be credited with his pre-presidency contributions as well.
lionheart on February 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Let me give you the REAL presidential rankings:
George W. (no, not Bush)
Abe Lincoln (saved the union, simple as that)
Andrew Jackson (yeah, thats right. First commoner to be a president, made the executive equal to the congress, saved the union, Happened to be Abe Lincoln’s fave. He would be a republican if the stud was alive today. He wouldve hung Barney Frank from a tree. Has the dubious distinction of being the only thing that Ann Coulter doesnt understand very well…along with evolution.
Ronald Reagan (you know why)
Cal Coolidge (unlike Hoover and FDR, knew how the economy worked)
The Wall on February 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Here are 5 Presidents that don’t seem to get much love:
1)Calvin Coolidge: he presided over the Roaring 20′s, an age of unparalleled economic growth, individual prosperity, and the advance of technology.
NB: Hoover, not Coolidge, was the POTUS when the stock market crash in 1929 occurred
2)Andrew Jackson: the only President in US history to have paid off the national debt and the first President that represented the common man and kept the union together despite a ‘succession crisis’ between 1828-1832 over a tariff disagreement although his reputation took a hit because of his ‘Indian removal programs’
3)William McKinley:won the Spanish-American War, supervised the acquisition of the Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and set up a protectorate in Cuba; also supervised over a very prosperous economic era and a revival in agriculture
4)James Polk: brought Caifornia and virutally most of the West under US control as a result of the Mexican-American War and negotiated the Oregon Treaty in 1846 establishing the boundary between BC and Washington State
5)James Monroe:established the Monroe Doctrine that Europe no longer could interfere in the Western Hemisphere
technopeasant on February 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM
This is unadulterated BS.
The only thing that can be laid at the North’s door with respect to real aggression is John Brown. Of course, Lincoln disavowed Brown and Brown’s actions, so it’s completely unjust to lay Brown on Lincoln’s mantle.
Moreover, the South actually committed unConstitutional abominations such as the gag order (that thankfully Congressman Adams was finally able to destroy) that prevented people from petitioning their government for redress because they wouldn’t allow slavery to be discussed.
I agree with your perspective. Adams was a lion among men before his presidency; however, I would go further and say he was a great president also. He walked a knife’s edge as President.
Spirit of 1776 on February 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM
See heres, this is what over fitty years o’ guv’mint ejumicashun has done brung us to.
FDR at #3? Puhleeeeeeaze.
-Dave
Dave R. on February 16, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Agreed. John Adams should be in the top 10.
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM
It’s not as complicated as people today try to make it out to be. Most people thought slavery would die of it’s [sic] own accord due to economic and technological progress. It’s very easy to understand Lincoln continuing the compromise that the fathers themselves set out so as not to destroy the Union.
That doesn’t take away from his greatness.
Spirit of 1776 on February 16, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It’s every bit as complicated. Sadly, it was technological progress (Eli Witney’s cotton gin) which enabled slavery to prosper and increase in the South, as the gin cheapened greatly the cost of producing cotton, to the point that the South quickly superceded Egypt as a primary source of cotton for England. The cotton still had to be sowed, grown, bolls protected against worms, and harvested, and all of these activities were human-intensive, since no corresponding technical advance had taken place to alleviate the human labor necessary to perform these tasks. The rise of the cotton plantation (large scale cotton industry) expanded the role of slavery in the South, and it was the cotton gin which gave the South the initial commercial advantage.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Lincoln’s greatness is not that he accomplished so much in his Presidency, but that as a human being, he is among the few who had the combination of qualities before he ever came into the Presidency.
You could never bet that Lincoln would’ve been President. But whatever set the world in motion also set the chain of events that resulted in Abraham Lincoln becoming President when the U.S. needed a human being like him to lead it.
honest16 on February 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM
We are shooting at two different targets. You are commenting on the reality of the situation, I’m commenting on the expectation the fathers had (and Lincoln prescribed to their view). That makes his political actions (such as his committal to not interfere with the South’s reserved right) not very complicated. His speech at CI shows the great depth of his Constitutional thinking (as do the LD debates), but that didn’t make his views complicated or convoluted.
Spirit of 1776 on February 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM
TIm Burton, you lost. Get over it.
B26354 on February 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Carter is in the top 42 which clearly shows the survey to be useless.
deepdiver on February 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I scanned through the comments so this may have already been posted. Its an interesting over-arching trend that great presidents tend to come about every 40 years. consider this list:
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Abe Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
In my list Jefferson, Monroe, Truman also belong.
The next great American president should take office in 2016 or 2020. I’m comforted to know that Obama ain’t the one.
Ace ODale on February 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM
In my opinion GW. I wrote this a few years ago:
http://papachongo.blogspot.com/2005/02/greatest-leader.html
The Greatest Leader
Why is the USA in place that it is right now?
Why has the USA surpassed England when it had started as another colony?
Why have so few former colonies succeeded in accomplishing the same?
This presidents day come and went with few people even considering why it exists. The Birthday of Washington is celebrated because in a few words; He was and will always be the Greatest President in the USA and maybe the world. He liberated a colony from imperial power. Well many others have done it, in the traditional sense and in more creative ways such as “El Libertador Simon Bolivar” or even Gandhi. He presided over the creation of the Constitution. A great document but others such as Bolivar have placed their ideas in paper and when read decades later you can still find truth and application. I would say in theory Bolivar’s vision was second to none, he was a true visionary. What sets Washington apart from all prior and likely future leaders? Well it is his stature and his lack of ambition.
He was able to implement the American Constitution. He not only help mold the constitution with his presence but with the respect that he had earned from all people from the elites to the masses. He did it without even writing much if anything at all. He had more power than any other president in the USA will ever had or will have. The unreal and almost unthinkable thing is that he gave it up. That should be his most lasting characteristic. He placed the Constitution and the future of his country ahead of his ambitions. He could have stayed in power, people begged him. He could have stay in power and people would have accepted with joy. But no he stepped down and set up with that the legal and peaceful transition of power. I have never found a good explanation for his actions and the only one that makes sense is that he was the ultimate patriot.
Now if you look trough most other former colonies of Europe this has never happened and almost all have been controlled at some point or another by thugs. Look at my homeland, Venezuela. We have been lead by one form of dictatorship to another for most of our independent life. By the way we are no exception we are the rule. When we had a democracy; we had populist leaders concerned with their own power before the well being of the country. Now we have a self promoter, power grabbing and selfish thug. It is not new to our country and you can find his sort over most of the world. But from now on when you see a leader doing something ask yourself would G. Washington do what he/she is doing. If they are not, your country is going in the wrong direction.
Many countries and former colonies have natural resources. Many countries have had great people and human resources. Many countries have had good leaders but few or none have had great leaders that navigated the peace as well as the war.
If your constitution changes every other decade or year, your country is going in the wrong direction. If your constitution does not protect the separation of powers, your country is in trouble. If your constitution does not protect and hold individual freedoms above the powers of the state, you are in trouble. If your leaders feel that they are indispensable for your future, your country is in trouble. In short if your leaders are not trying at least in spirit to emulate George Washington and his example, you deserve new leaders. The answers to all the questions above boil down to the leadership of Washington. Happy Presidents day and happy birthday G.W.
barqui on February 16, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The good news is w is not the worst ever.
getalife on February 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM
JFK at number 6 and ahead of Thomas Jefferson. These people are idiots. He should have been near the bottom ahead of Carter and that’s about it.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I would even put Carter ahead of LBJ.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM
If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco.
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history, because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star.
- Robert Caro (Johnson’s biographer)
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM
These “historians” are demented loons.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Just be glad that these “historians” didn’t become doctors. They would probably prescribe Krispy Kreme doughnuts to treat diabetics.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I can’t help but wonder how many of these “historians” have gotten $$$ from some Kennedy foundation.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 3:49 PM
The scoundrel they put at No. 3 was our worst president ever in my book. He’s the closest thing (well, at least to date) America’s ever had to a socialist dictator.
Sign of the Dollar on February 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Carter as 25 is a joke and it’s due to his being highly ranked in “Moral Authority” and “Pursued Equal Justice For All”.
Huh?
jjok on February 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Considering that Larry Sabato is one of the “Experts” asked have to wonder how fair this was.
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Like everything else from academia, take it with a grain of salt. It’s all about their current politics.
Carter is ranked above Dubya. The lunatic, who should be ranked 50,000, is ranked at 25.
JFK was a total failure.
FDR tried to ruin the country and was saved by a world war. He should be in the bottom third.
Gerald Ford is ranked 22. huh?
The hilarity continues.
notagool on February 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM
No Calvin Coolidge.
Kept taxes low, paid off all the war bond debt from WWI, and left the people alone so the 20s could roar.
Underrated president.
Wilson shouldn’t be there either. He wanted to sell out American sovereignty to the League of Nations, and he betrayed Germany at the Treaty of Versailles, allowing France and England to run roughshod over them. Whether or not a less punitive stance towards Germany would have averted WWII, we will never know, but it certainly didn’t help.
Carter is even ranked? He should be refused admission to the list. Why, oh why, can’t the academics just admit that his presidency was an absolute disaster?
Here’s hoping that a few generations from now, Bush’s standing improves like Truman’s did.
Hawkins1701 on February 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Oh, and 100% agreed on the disliking of FDR. I’m glad that the years of public school brainwashing that taught me to worship him have finally been reversed.
Hawkins1701 on February 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I really have a problem with Andrew Johnson being ranked so low. I assume this is because he was impeached, but the primary thrust of the impeachment charges was that he violated the Tenure of Office Act, which was held to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Myers v. US.
The other possible reason is that he ended up breaking from the Radical Republicans who wanted to impose harsher sanctions on the South. Although it was pretty clear that he probably agreed with them personally, it seems to me that he was carrying out Lincoln’s plans.
The only real fault he has as a politician was that he viciously attacked his enemies in public – that makes him a lousy politician, perhaps, but not necessarily a bad president. I’m not saying he was great or even good, but he doesn’t deserve to be ranked as low as he is.
Proud Rino on February 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Ed, I’m not on that list of historians, but my suspicion is that if Jefferson had only been a one term president, he’d be ranked fourth or fifth. His second term was mediocre at best, and if you want to get argumentative about it (and I do), the Louisiana Purchase compromised every principle he had as a Founder and was done for the exigency of the nation. No one is disputing that it was the right decision, but it does call into question his unswerving, unjustified, and incorrect opposition to Alexander Hamilton.
Proud Rino on February 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Happy to see the Coolidge love-
he comes across in the book “1920″ as a sincere, decent and tough man- he would be a Godsend right about now.
The list brings back long ago memories of my history classes at Santa Clara and fighting with their sacred liberal cows (Wilson, FDR,LBJ, JFK) and how they hated Truman, the big meanie.
And of course how Reagan was going to kill us all-LOL.’
Good times.
jjshaka on February 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Can rank the Presidents yourself on my poll
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Classic liberal list.
Enough said!
rightwingmom on February 16, 2009 at 5:00 PM
My list from one to ten…
1. George Washington: he set so many precedents and steered this country on the path to freedom in a very real sense.
2. Abraham Lincoln: while he made his share of mistakes, it was his courage in staying the course that got us through the Civil War. Also, even though he did set aside habeas corpus and declared martial law in Maryland, he didn’t postpone or set aside the 1864 election–not every country has an election in the midst of a civil war.
3. Thomas Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase and his efforts to explore the west with such expeditions as Lewis and Clark
4. Ronald Reagan: ending the Cold War and recovering from the Carter Years
5. Theodore Roosevelt: Rebuilding the US Navy into a modern navy, the Panama Canal, intelligent governmental regulation–he didn’t go overboard like some presidents who will remain nameless
6. Harry Truman: He had to make a tough call with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and he made it. Also, kudos for setting in place the containment system and Truman Doctrine that eventually won the Cold War
7. James K. Polk: What? I hear people saying. Well, he established the US Treasury, lowered tariffs, settled the Oregon question, and gained California and the southwestern United States–and all in one term!
8. Dwight Eisenhower: An often underrated president–he was responsible for beginning space exploration (granted he got blindsided by Sputnik, but he did set things in motion aftewards), building the interstate highway system, and he accomplished far more for civil rights than Kennedy or FDR ever thought of doing.
9. FDR: While he did prolong the Depression, his war-time record was a good one, although he was a bit too trusting of Pappa Joe Stalin. Yalta took place when he was not bringing his “A” game.
10. William McKinley: Another name that doesn’t get his just props. He made the United States into a world power with the Spanish-American War as well as implemented a vast array of domestic legislation.
Honorable mentions: Richard Nixon would have made the top ten except for Watergate. Chester A. Arthur is another often unheralded figure, but he was responsible for carrying out the reform of the civil service system and stood up to the Conkling machine of which he was once a part. Andrew Jackson is a controversial figure and I debated putting him up in McKinley’s place–the Nullification Crisis, the Bank War, the Trail of Tears all happened on his watch. Love him or hate him, the one thing you have to say about Jackson is the he was decisive and very much his own man.
Matt Helm on February 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM
The high regard for Reagan has always been puzzling. He dragged a significant portion of the country into a jingoistic moral sewer, ran up record deficits (at the time), and sold weapons to our enemies in order to fund an illegal mercenary war against an impoverished Nicaragua, getting thousands killed in the process. No wonder they had to form a Project to improve his image; unfortunately it’s been fairly successful.
Constantine on February 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Good to see Wilson get deservedly low marks for the “justice for all” catergory. An invederate Southern racist, whose domestic policy came straight from the Jim Crow south. And yet he gets a pass from mostly liberal historians (Hmmmmm wonder why that could be huh?) the mostly liberal book “Lies my teacher told me” goes into great depth about domestic policy under Wilson, and racial stuggle historians have called this period “the nadir” of race relations post-Reconstruction and pre Civil Rights Movement.
Also, check out Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” where he points out the patriotic mania that accompanied US entry into World War I. Badge wielding government thugs intimidating and arresting people for being unpatriotic (Hmmm where have we heard this before. Hmmmm, wonder why this gets swept under the rug by historians…..hmm if this were Bush or any other Republican…..) Goldberg actually has a cite that there were more of these types of prosecutions during the US war period than Mussolini’s black shirts did during the entire decade of the 20′s.
Teacher in Tejas on February 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Can see the results of my poll here
The lower the average score the higher the ranking
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
JFK? Not to be insenstive, but I think he gets huge sympathy vote for having been assasinated on film. Hell, we note his death day more than his birthday. (when was he born?) I submit he wasn’t President long enough to be rated accurately. Let’s see..he got us into VietNam. Are libs hailing him for that? Bay of Pigs? The true definition of fiasco. (And we thought Carter’s handling of the Hostage Crisis was bumbling). He stood by and watch Khrushchev build the Berlin Wall. (“Ich bien ein Berliner!!!”). He was the first to build ICBM’s that ultimately led to the arms race.
He was dragged kicking and screaming to support Civil Rights issues, once he concluded that if he didn’t support it he likely would not be re-elected. And let’s not forget the authorization of wiretapping Martin Luther King.
Not to mention his indiscriminate sleeping around that puts Clinton to shame.
And how is Kennedy’s “”pay any price … to assure the survival … of liberty.” any different that Bush’s rhetoric on the terrorism war?
So this is a Top Ten President.
Fed45 on February 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Let’s take a look at the Reagan administration accomplishments, shall we?
1) Instituted the longest sustained economic recovery in this country’s history. I remember Carter and double digit unemployment and inflation–no thanks–although with Bambi, we’re going to see it again. To a large extent, you can thank Tip O’Neill and the Democrats for the deficits as they would not support the spending cuts Reagan wanted–he had to work with the Congress he had and he didn’t have a Republican controlled Congress to work with.
2) Let’s see…Reagan did put a temporary halt to Sandinista aggrandizement in Central America–although Iran-Contra was not the best way of going about it (by the way, your Sandinista friends were carrying out a war of extermination against the Miskito Indians at the time) , he did combat Cuban adventurism in Angola, and he carried out the handover of sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. It was also, more than anything else, the result of Iranian worries about Reagan’s response that brought about the release of the American hostages from Iran–it sure as heck wasn’t Carter’s inept diplomacy or the disaster of the rescue attempt he ordered. Oh, yes, there was also that matter about winning the Cold War.
3) He was also the last president we’ve had who could truly be described as a leader–the last several have been either managers (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) or demagogues (Bambi)
I’ll take one of Reagan over a thousand Bambis or Clintons any day.
Matt Helm on February 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Number One’s revenge – ignore at your peril.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
PCS, my foot.
Until they have a playoff system, this is just a sham, IMHO.
notropis on February 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Adams loses major points for advocating the Sediton Act (which he ultimately did not sign)
Fed45 on February 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Some averages out of my poll
Bush, George Walker 9.83 ave out of 44
Obama, Barack Hussein 40.75 ave out of 44
Carter, James Earl Jr. 43.00 ave out of 44
Reagan, Ronald Wilson 4.10 ave out of 44
Johnson, Lyndon Baines 36.50 ave out of 44
Lincoln, Abraham 2.70 ave out of 44
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Watched the History Channel show on Jackson last night. A historian mentioned that of all the political eras in U.S. history, only one is actually named for a President and that is the Jacksonian era. While his tenure is inevitably tarnished by his flouting a Supreme Court ruling and forcibly removing the Cherokee from the Eastern lands, Jackson indelibly stamped the nation in a way that only Washington and Lincoln did.
rockmom on February 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM
PCS — what a sham.
Until they adopt a real playoff system, these rankings are totally worthless.
notropis on February 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
This is all a bunch of B.S. What did Bill Clinton ever do? Jimmy Carter in the middle of the pack? JFK in the top 10? LBJ near the top 10? Pleeeeeeeeease…..
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM
An economic recovery was inevitable when world oil prices returned to normal. I’ve heard that line about Congress so many times, but you can’t lay it all at the feet of the Democratic congress. Reagan cut taxes primarily on corporations and the wealthy just as payroll taxes increased on the working class. There’s a reason the 80′s became the “me” decade and the era of the hostile corporate takeover.
Reagan’s adventures in Nicaragua were justified with so much red-scare propaganda few people knew that the independent Sandinistas actually turned to the Soviet Union for help. Previously all they had done was institute land reform that ended the rape of the country by an oligarchy that kept the average worker impoverished while sending the produce of that farm-rich nation overseas at bargain rates. In fact, many Reagan-era military action was predicated on beating back the Red Menace when in fact he was simply looking for a foothold in Central America. Bush’s (PNAC) adventure into Iraq seems based on the same flawed strategy.
Utter nonsense. Carter was involved in the negotiations right up until they were successfully concluded. Many made a big point about Reagan bringing the hostages home, but this is simply false, as is the assumption that the attempted rescue that failed was Carter’s fault… was he personally flying the choppers?
The myth persists. The people of the former Soviet Union didn’t say no to their corrupt system of government because of Reagan.
Leader? Really? More like Salesman.
His America Uber Alles philosophy became the “Me” decade, inspiring more political satire in music, movies and literature than any former President. His program of corporate deregulation and tax breaks led to the other thing the 80′s were known for: hostile corporate takeovers that put tens of thousands out of work.
There continues to be conservative animosity toward Clinton, the one who pulled us out of Reagan’s financial mess, something Bush 1 couldn’t do. It’s the reason he won with the philosophy “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”
Constantine on February 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Good greif it was teh GOP congress that pushed slick Willy to balance the budget just as it was the Democratic Congress who refused to work with Reagan to balance the budget and just kept spending.
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Constantine, you’re red streak’s showing. The Sandinistas were
the Soviets’ and Fidel’s proxies–Danny Ortega was their new and improved Che. Oh, and you still haven’t addressed the issue of the Sandinista attempted genocide of the Miskito Indians. Yes, the junta controlling Nicauragua was corrupt, but if you honestly believed that Ortega and his people were anything more than what they advertised themselves as being, namely communists in the Fidel mode, then you’re hopelessly naive.
Yes, Reagan was a leader–far more than Bambi or Clinton ever thought of being. Oh, and the Me Decade–really era–started with the seventies–I know, I was there. You mention “tens of thousands” out of work–interestingly enough, the unemployment figures go down during the Reagan era–although he did put several union employees out on their butts with his handling of the PATCO strike–which PATCO had coming. Personally, I like laissez-faire far more than “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
No, Bush 1 failed because he broke his “No New Taxes” pledge–what you on the left fail to understand is that tax increases hurt, don’t help the economy. Clinton won for much the same reasons Bambi did–the country had twelve years of Republican party control of the White House and wanted a switch–a switch not always for the better. Also, the only reason why we did pull out of the economic recession of the early nineties wasn’t due to Clinton’s policies–it was because Republicans in Congress forced him to govern more from the center otherwise we would have had Hillary Care and a host of other government programs–which we’re going to get thrust down our throat now, unfortunately.
As regards the Cold War–to a large extent, it was Reagan’s diplomacy that forced Gorbachev to liberalize the Soviet Union leading to its collapse. His buildup and aggressive posture with Haig as Secretary of State forced the Russians into an arms posture they could not economically maintain. A militarily and diplomatically US also did not give the Soviets the luxury of being able to carry out large scale crackdowns on dissent. Add to that, the internal weaknesses of socialism and communism–weaknesses your ilk intends to impose on us here–the writing was on the wall for the Soviet Union. During Reagan’s second term, he switched to the carrot, with the more soft sell diplomat George Shultz as Secretary of State.
Matt Helm on February 16, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »