What about the good Presidents?

We’ve been enjoying the “worst president ever” discussions, here and elsewhere. Anyone want to talk about the good ones?

Here’s a list I hope will start discussion. Without trying to rank them, I broke them into 8 groups – and discovered that by my count only 10 to 12 out of the 42 (counting Grover Cleveland only once) have done the job at all well. Each group is in chronological order, not ranked.

Great: Washington, Lincoln, FD Roosevelt. They speak for themselves. I guess I’d rank Lincoln first, but these three are clearly the best of the lot.

Very Good: T Roosevelt (conservationist and regulator), Truman (his postwar administration set the foundation for 20 years of prosperity, but also for the Cold War. Integrated the military. Some condemn him for dropping the atomic bombs.)

Overall Good: Jefferson, Monroe, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LB Johnson. Putting these in order should be good for an argument. Many will disagree with me about rating LBJ positively; I think the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts and the Great Society
were the most important legislation since the New Deal.

Talented But Infuriating: Wilson, Clinton. Like LBJ, they combined big positives and big negatives. Unlike LBJ, they couldn’t get their best ideas through Congress.

Very Soggy Middle: Madison, JQ Adams, Van Buren, Hayes, Arthur, B Harrison, Taft, Carter. It’s hard to think of anything they did, good or bad (and I have read plenty of history!). Madison survived the War of 1812, I guess not getting captured by the British was an accomplishment. Carter was the most ineffective president in recent memory and if he wasn’t so nice I’d probably rate him “bad” (like JQ Adams he has been a great ex-President).

Overall Bad: J Adams, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, A Johnson, Cleveland, McKinley, Ford, GHW Bush. Several of these were mentioned in some people’s 5 worst, but I think they aren’t quite as awful as those below. Ford would be up a notch if he hadn’t pardoned Nixon. I’m conflicted about Polk – most liberals dislike him for starting a war to steal the best parts of Mexico; but as a Californian I don’t think I should complain.

Unquestionably Awful: Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush.

Unrateable: WH Harrison, Taylor, Garfield

Comments?

9 Comments

BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm

i don’t think Reagan belongs in the awful category.

Madman in the Marketplace on December 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm
of course he does.
- Arms for hostages, the October Surprise & Iran/Contra.
- Arms and logistical support for death squads in Latin America.
- Neglect and dismissal of the threat of AIDS.
- Demonization of the poor as “welfare queens” to score political points on the backs of those least able to help themselves.
- Worsening the recession that happened under his watch.
- Elevation of dangerous and principle-less men to positions of great power, many of whom continue to drag this country down into perdition.
- Stoking the racial hatreds of the American south for political gain.
- Arming Saddam.
- Promoting tax policies to steal from the poor to enrich the wealthy.
- An enormous expansion of the federal debt.
- Increased & exploited the pernicious influence of the religious right in politics.
He was a failure in every way that matters EXCEPT making people believe that things were better than they were. He was a dangerous man and an enabler of criminals.
- BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm
  
  Arms for hostages was not really that big of a deal. It was criminal, but does not alone warrant putting Reagan in the company of Buchanan, Nixon, or Dubya.
  
  Death squads in Latin America? Name me a President that hasn’t done that? Clinton?
  
  Neglect of AIDS? A major mark against him, but comparable to the Civil War, Cambodia, or Iraq?
  
  Accusations that he hurt the poor? He was a Republican, what did you expect?
  
  Stoking racial hatreds? Sure. But hardly on a level with countless other politicians, like Woodrow Wilson.
  
  Arming Saddam? Big deal. Carter armed the mujahideen.
  
  Religious right? Whatever.
  
  All you have to do is look at how immensely popular Reagan is and was and you know right away he doesn’t belong on a list of the most reviled and awful Presidents.
  - Madman in the Marketplace on December 6, 2006 at 2:10 pm
    
    Arms for hostages and Iran-Contra were direct violations of laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents. They were criminal acts, and should have been treated as the constitutional crisis that they were. They are directly tied to and provided the blueprint for the criminal acts being pursued by the current pResident.
    
    So most of our Presidents have been criminal interventionalists. That excuses Reagan? As you should know by now, I’m no fan of the Clinton, either.
    
    He did more than hurt the poor … he lied about their effect on gov’t and the economy and used them as scapegoats.
    
    Well, he was a racist with a smile, so I guess that makes it okay.
    
    Carter was wrong too. Again with the “two wrongs make a right” argument. Funny how it’s us loudmouthed atheist purists who seem to be the only ones who remember how important the rule of law is.
    
    Theofacism is okay with you. Good to know.
    
    You hug the rightwing lies and agitprop to your chest like Linus with his blanket. So important to cling to the myths you’ve been spoonfed and eagerly swallowed your entire life … so uncomfortable to face that men held up as heroes were criminals, monsters and warmongers. Perhaps even harder to face that they reflect what we are as a people.
    
    Reagan was indeed terrible, a failure, one of the worst Presidents this country has had in a long list of mediocrities and crooks. Just b/c he was popular doesn’t make him good. Hitler was popular. Pol Pot was popular. Idi Amin was popular. Joseph Savimbi was popular. Richard Nixon was popular with many right until the end. People often love those who exploit them, especially in a country so awash in dishonest PR and carefully aimed propaganda.
wilfred on December 6, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Really Booman? How much of the 80’s did you spend in AIDS wards burying your partner and best friends while Reagan fiddled and Nancy shopped for Adolpho’s?

And all the while pouring tons of funds into Legionaires disease which had a low death count of old white men and virtually ignoring a worldwide pandemic that is still killing millions with no end in sight.

esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 1:27 pm

BooMan, where do you put Reagan? Just bad not awful? He may not deserve the blame for AIDS, but I can’t think of anything he did that deserves much credit. Certainly he didn’t singlehandedly win the Cold War like Repubs would say. And Americans will be paying off his deficits long after you and I are dead.

BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 1:37 pm

I don’t know. I give him a C-. But then I’d give almost all our President low grades.

How about this (obviously on a curve):

FDR: A
Truman: C-
Eisenhower: B+
Kennedy: C Incomplete
LBJ: C
Nixon: F
Ford: C+ Incomplete
Carter: C
Reagan: C-
Poppy Bush: C+
Clinton: B
Dubya: F
- esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm
  
  I think we agree on giving most of them low grades.
  
  I see the one we really disagree about is Harry Truman. For you, is it the a-bombs, or do you think the cold war could have been avoided, or other negatives that I’m forgetting?
  - esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 3:41 pm
    
    and as to why I like Truman, Meteor Blades (as always) says it better than I could.
    
    His containment of communism policy, along with the Marshall Plan, while flawed, was a happy medium between those who believed Stalin was a great man and those who wanted to “roll back” the USSR with nukes. The Berlin Airlift was a brilliant success. Truman proposed universal health care coverage at a time when the GOP was doing all it could to roll back the labor and social safety net gains of the New Deal.
    
    (if you hadn’t noticed, they’re discussing this in orange right now).

BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm

i don’t think Reagan belongs in the awful category.
- Madman in the Marketplace on December 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm
  of course he does.
  
  Arms for hostages, the October Surprise & Iran/Contra.
  
  Arms and logistical support for death squads in Latin America.
  
  Neglect and dismissal of the threat of AIDS.
  
  Demonization of the poor as “welfare queens” to score political points on the backs of those least able to help themselves.
  
  Worsening the recession that happened under his watch.
  
  Elevation of dangerous and principle-less men to positions of great power, many of whom continue to drag this country down into perdition.
  
  Stoking the racial hatreds of the American south for political gain.
  
  Arming Saddam.
  
  Promoting tax policies to steal from the poor to enrich the wealthy.
  
  An enormous expansion of the federal debt.
  
  Increased & exploited the pernicious influence of the religious right in politics.
  
  He was a failure in every way that matters EXCEPT making people believe that things were better than they were. He was a dangerous man and an enabler of criminals.
  - BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm
    
    Arms for hostages was not really that big of a deal. It was criminal, but does not alone warrant putting Reagan in the company of Buchanan, Nixon, or Dubya.
    
    Death squads in Latin America? Name me a President that hasn’t done that? Clinton?
    
    Neglect of AIDS? A major mark against him, but comparable to the Civil War, Cambodia, or Iraq?
    
    Accusations that he hurt the poor? He was a Republican, what did you expect?
    
    Stoking racial hatreds? Sure. But hardly on a level with countless other politicians, like Woodrow Wilson.
    
    Arming Saddam? Big deal. Carter armed the mujahideen.
    
    Religious right? Whatever.
    
    All you have to do is look at how immensely popular Reagan is and was and you know right away he doesn’t belong on a list of the most reviled and awful Presidents.
    - Madman in the Marketplace on December 6, 2006 at 2:10 pm
      
      Arms for hostages and Iran-Contra were direct violations of laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents. They were criminal acts, and should have been treated as the constitutional crisis that they were. They are directly tied to and provided the blueprint for the criminal acts being pursued by the current pResident.
      
      So most of our Presidents have been criminal interventionalists. That excuses Reagan? As you should know by now, I’m no fan of the Clinton, either.
      
      He did more than hurt the poor … he lied about their effect on gov’t and the economy and used them as scapegoats.
      
      Well, he was a racist with a smile, so I guess that makes it okay.
      
      Carter was wrong too. Again with the “two wrongs make a right” argument. Funny how it’s us loudmouthed atheist purists who seem to be the only ones who remember how important the rule of law is.
      
      Theofacism is okay with you. Good to know.
      
      You hug the rightwing lies and agitprop to your chest like Linus with his blanket. So important to cling to the myths you’ve been spoonfed and eagerly swallowed your entire life … so uncomfortable to face that men held up as heroes were criminals, monsters and warmongers. Perhaps even harder to face that they reflect what we are as a people.
      
      Reagan was indeed terrible, a failure, one of the worst Presidents this country has had in a long list of mediocrities and crooks. Just b/c he was popular doesn’t make him good. Hitler was popular. Pol Pot was popular. Idi Amin was popular. Joseph Savimbi was popular. Richard Nixon was popular with many right until the end. People often love those who exploit them, especially in a country so awash in dishonest PR and carefully aimed propaganda.
- wilfred on December 6, 2006 at 12:57 pm
  
  Really Booman? How much of the 80’s did you spend in AIDS wards burying your partner and best friends while Reagan fiddled and Nancy shopped for Adolpho’s?
  
  And all the while pouring tons of funds into Legionaires disease which had a low death count of old white men and virtually ignoring a worldwide pandemic that is still killing millions with no end in sight.
esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 1:27 pm

BooMan, where do you put Reagan? Just bad not awful? He may not deserve the blame for AIDS, but I can’t think of anything he did that deserves much credit. Certainly he didn’t singlehandedly win the Cold War like Repubs would say. And Americans will be paying off his deficits long after you and I are dead.
- BooMan on December 6, 2006 at 1:37 pm
  
  I don’t know. I give him a C-. But then I’d give almost all our President low grades.
  
  How about this (obviously on a curve):
  
  FDR: A
  Truman: C-
  Eisenhower: B+
  Kennedy: C Incomplete
  LBJ: C
  Nixon: F
  Ford: C+ Incomplete
  Carter: C
  Reagan: C-
  Poppy Bush: C+
  Clinton: B
  Dubya: F
  - esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm
    
    I think we agree on giving most of them low grades.
    
    I see the one we really disagree about is Harry Truman. For you, is it the a-bombs, or do you think the cold war could have been avoided, or other negatives that I’m forgetting?
    - esquimaux on December 6, 2006 at 3:41 pm
      
      and as to why I like Truman, Meteor Blades (as always) says it better than I could.
      
      His containment of communism policy, along with the Marshall Plan, while flawed, was a happy medium between those who believed Stalin was a great man and those who wanted to “roll back” the USSR with nukes. The Berlin Airlift was a brilliant success. Truman proposed universal health care coverage at a time when the GOP was doing all it could to roll back the labor and social safety net gains of the New Deal.
      
      (if you hadn’t noticed, they’re discussing this in orange right now).

What about the good Presidents?

About The Author

esquimaux

9 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments