Rank and Rate the Presidents

[Einzige]

At any rate, here is my listing:

Exemplary:

Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln

Great:

James Monroe
John Quincey Adams
Zachary Taylor
Chester Alan Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Good:

George Washington
Martin van Buren
Ulysses S. Grant
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Warren G. Harding
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Mediocre:

John Adams
James Polk
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Gerald Ford
George H.W. Bush

Poor:

John Tyler
Millard Filmore
Andrew Johnson
Rutherford B. Hayes
Lyndon B. Johnson
Ronald Reagan

Unmitigated Disasters:

Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon
George W. Bush

I have excluded William Henry Harrison and James Abram Garfield on the basis of their extremely short terms, and Barack Obama on the basis of his newness.

[Formless]

Reagan is merely "poor" and not "worst thing to happen to the country in decades?" I mean, we're still suffering from the effects of economic policies he started. Bush junior is only seen as worse because he was terrible at hiding his stupidity.

[Einzige]

Reagan is merely "poor" and not "worst thing to happen to the country in decades?" I mean, we're still suffering from the effects of economic policies he started. Bush junior is only seen as worse because he was terrible at hiding his stupidity.

I'm approaching the topic at hand from a position quite distinct from the rest of the forum, and possibly to my detriment: as a libertarian socialist, or, at any rate, one who does not acknowledge what he regards as an artificial dichotomy between freedom and progress. Reagan was poor insofar as he bloated the military budget and pissed away a great deal of global good-will towards America in favor of supporting South American fascists, and actively courted the reactionary Religious Right, but was intelligent enough at least to resist conservative calls to fire Paul Volcker.

[Formless]

Now you're getting into very specific details I don't happen to keep up with, but keep in mind that I tend to see the neo-conservative movement as more or less one entity with one (loose, but easily recognizable) plan, and that they really got a leg up with Reagan. To me, that makes him at least partially responsible for all the fuckups of all the presidents (especially the republican ones) who followed him. Including the Bush dynasty.

[Einzige]

Now you're getting into very specific details I don't happen to keep up with, but keep in mind that I tend to see the neo-conservative movement as more or less one entity with one (loose, but easily recognizable) plan, and that they really got a leg up with Reagan. To me, that makes him at least partially responsible for all the fuckups of all the presidents (especially the republican ones) who followed him. Including the Bush dynasty.

I don't disagree with you, but bear in mind that, during the (late) 1970s and (early) 1980s, what can now be broadly termed "neo-conservatism" was actually fairly non-partisan. Probably one of its chiefmost early proponents, "Scoop" Jackson, was a Democratic frontrunner for the nomination in 1976. And as far as religious involvement in politics go, we often forget that the first candidate to seriously mobilize the Baptists and other such dregs was Jimmy Carter (who, incidentally, I'd have voted for in 1976 given sufficient hindsight). Reagan was bad, no doubt, but it could hardly have been seen at the time how many of his policies would have played out. I think a great many well-meaning small-government types are still waiting, and still clinging, earnestly and stupidly, to the Reagan model.

[General Mung Beans]

Why is George Washington so great, beyond founding father worship? All he did was lead an army of ignorant peasants to fight an uprising against a legitimate power on behalf of greedy merchants who wanted to skip out on what was ultimately fair taxes and lies about lack of representation, thus going on to establish a racist, sexist, classist joke of a democracy. As President, he barely actually did anything. Imagine how much better off the world would be if he caught a musket ball at Boston.

It may have meant that the British would have a political compromise with the American colonies and the world today would be united under a glorious British Empire but it may also mean that ideals of democracy and human equality (which most of the Founding Fathers truly believed in, even the slave-holding ones wanted slavery gradually abolished) would have remained under the carpet. Plus Washington as President remained firm in numerous incidents that may have caused America to collapse in it's infancy and listened to Hamilton's economic policy.

[General Mung Beans]

32. James Carter (Democrat, 1977-1981) A very weak President who failed to restore American confidence, revive the economy, nor deal strongly with the Soviets and Iranians in foreign policy.

What does that mean exactly? Is the President in charge of confidence building?

He leadership style was weak and inept when a stronger leader could have been firmer and not embarass America that much in things like the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

[General Mung Beans]

Martin van Buren
Warren G. Harding
Jimmy Carter

[

Not questioning your list but why do you find Van Buren, Harding, and Carter to be "good"? They are I think not as bad as some historians see but still they did not have many accomplishments in office (with the exception of Carter's peace pact between Egypt and Israel).

[Rogue 9]

Why is George Washington so great, beyond founding father worship? All he did was lead an army of ignorant peasants to fight an uprising against a legitimate power on behalf of greedy merchants who wanted to skip out on what was ultimately fair taxes and lies about lack of representation, thus going on to establish a racist, sexist, classist joke of a democracy. As President, he barely actually did anything. Imagine how much better off the world would be if he caught a musket ball at Boston.

No, seriously. Do you practice at being so fucktarded, or does it come naturally? Washington shaped the Presidency in almost every way, and the federal government in large part on top of that. He established the federal judiciary and Attorney General, put down the Whiskey Rebellion (asserting federal authority later used to suppress the Southern secession), and signed into law many acts of Congress central to the establishment of the government under the Constitution, including the Coinage Act of 1792 (establishing the U.S. currency and the Mint), the Bank Act of 1791 (establishing the first national bank), the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which, while draconian and racist by modern standards, was the most liberal in the world at that time), and the Slave Trade Act of 1794, prohibiting the overseas slave trade. Leaving aside official acts, he pointedly refused further expansion of the powers of the Presidency and limited himself to two terms, establishing a firm precedent that was followed until Franklin Roosevelt. This is hardly "barely anything."

Even leaving his defining role as president aside, the man was a firm proponent of the federal Union (making it supremely ironic that his memory was held up as inspiration by the Confederate traitors), presided over the Constitutional Convention (and was widely credited with its success), and, lest we forget, outright turned down the kingship of the American states. If there was no other statement of his quality of character, that marks it as the very highest. The government he largely shaped was the most liberal in the world at that time, and would be for generations to come, the fact that it was not so by modern standards notwithstanding.

And aside from your opinion of Washington himself, are you high? "Peasants?" Do you even know what the word means? Lies about lack of representation? Who the fuck was Virginia's voting delegate to Parliament, then?

No, had he caught a musket ball at Boston, the United States would have become a much different nation, likely a monarchy of some variety. Washington was an able general, but independence could have been won without him, and without his influence I have little doubt we'd have been stuck with a much more autocratic and regressive form of government. But then, we've got no reason to expect you to let facts get in the way of your ranting, as you've shown time and again, so do carry on.

[Samuel]

Carter was in favor of easing the US off of oil. Of course he was against atomics and mobilized the religious elements in the country so his record is mixed.

It may have meant that the British would have a political compromise with the American colonies and the world today would be united under a glorious British Empire but it may also mean that ideals of democracy and human equality (which most of the Founding Fathers truly believed in, even the slave-holding ones wanted slavery gradually abolished) would have remained under the carpet.

The British Empire abolished slavery before the United States did and England also gradually became a democracy. I think they went through the changes during the 1830s, about the same time the US also removed alot of the barriers to voting based on property.

[Einzige]

Martin van Buren
Warren G. Harding
Jimmy Carter

[

Not questioning your list but why do you find Van Buren, Harding, and Carter to be "good"? They are I think not as bad as some historians see but still they did not have many accomplishments in office (with the exception of Carter's peace pact between Egypt and Israel).

Van Buren was an active partisan against slavery in later life; I rate him as highly as I do mostly for post-Presidential activities. Harding ushered in an era of militant anti-militarism after the quasi-dictatorial Wilson years, and Carter initiated deregulation in economics, not Reagan, who merely reaped the benefits of Carter's constant promotion of Paul Volcker and slackening of controls over the Fed following the stringently interventionist Nixon years.

Also because, despite his blind obedience to Baptism, Carter took all that nonsense about "stewardship of the Earth" seriously, which Reagan - a bad President but a magnificent liar - never did.

In other words: my ratings are entirely consistent with someone who'd have been a Republican in the 1920s and 1930s, and who strongly identified with the isolationist and socially permissive Old Right, but who has grown to hate Statist conservatism and now identifies more with George McGovern than George Will.

[General Mung Beans]

Carter was in favor of easing the US off of oil. Of course he was against atomics and mobilized the religious elements in the country so his record is mixed.

While he was religiously speaking an Evangelical he didn't really fight for any social conservative cause as President: didn't push to have abortion banned or prayers reinstated in schools or anything like that.

The British Empire abolished slavery before the United States did and England also gradually became a democracy. I think they went through the changes during the 1830s, about the same time the US also removed alot of the barriers to voting based on property.

Yes that's true but that was only because Britain than had outside of a few Caribbean colonies no area with significant slaveholding. And the British I believe retained minimal property requirements well through the Nineteenth Century.

[Einzige]

Carter was in favor of easing the US off of oil. Of course he was against atomics and mobilized the religious elements in the country so his record is mixed.

While he was religiously speaking an Evangelical he didn't really fight for any social conservative cause as President: didn't push to have abortion banned or prayers reinstated in schools or anything like that.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the Religious Right - which you apparently sympathize with - can, in one breath, pay lip-service to American notions of individualism, and then, without exhale, lambaste even those friendly to them for not kowtowing to their ideology exactly as they wish.

[spaceviking]

Carter was in favor of easing the US off of oil. Of course he was against atomics and mobilized the religious elements in the country so his record is mixed.

While he was religiously speaking an Evangelical he didn't really fight for any social conservative cause as President: didn't push to have abortion banned or prayers reinstated in schools or anything like that.

The British Empire abolished slavery before the United States did and England also gradually became a democracy. I think they went through the changes during the 1830s, about the same time the US also removed alot of the barriers to voting based on property.

Yes that's true but that was only because Britain than had outside of a few Caribbean colonies no area with significant slaveholding. And the British I believe retained minimal property requirements well through the Nineteenth Century.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong) Ending slavery was a significant economic loss for the British; they had the most to gain from continuing the slave trade of almost any nation.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Maybe yes and maybe no, but it's hard to imagine why they were offering monetary incentives to the Portuguese and Dutch and whoever else to give up slavery if they didn't want them to continue having the advantage of slave labor.

[DudeGuyMan]

"Imagine how much better off the world would be if he caught a musket ball at Boston"-Why? What makes the world a better place as a result of this? That the colonists lose the Revolution and hate the British for generations to come? That Horatio Gates or Benedict Arnold wins the Revolution and the former thirteen colonies become an unstable region, a Balkanized seaboard?

Between this and what I recall of the Lord of the Rings racism thread, Sketchbook strikes me as one of those people who takes a sort of childish glee in regarding history without any context, so that he can loudly scream about how evil and immoral everything was.

Rather than taking a person (or a piece of literature) and debating how they stack up relative to their own historical era while acknowledging the shortcomings of that era, he seems to regard all of human history as nothing but a procession of EVIL EVIL MEN WHO SHOULD HAVE DIED RAWR right up until the widespread prevalence of the ethics he himself currently holds.

Ethics which, at least in the broad sense, I have no problem with in and of themselves. Sexism is bad? Wow, no kidding. But I guarantee he has no real idea what was supposed to have happened if Washington caught a musket ball. A late 20th century secular liberal would have popped out of a time machine and mind-controlled everyone into creating a perfectly just society, maybe.

[Temujin]

Sadly that seems to be the flip side of the nostalgic, romanticized idolatry that leads to crap like Founding Fathers worship. I've seen some people decry everything about the Founding Fathers simply because they have a perception of them being rich, white slaveholders; and hence any good they did is readily discounted. Of course how the fuck do they think we got to where we are today, by magically springing into existence?

[Einzige]

The Founding Fathers are interesting precisely because we are now so far removed from the political context in which they existed that any effort to quantify them by our standards is fraught with difficulty.

Take, for instance, the long-standing rivalry between partisans of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Modern conservatives will take the "side" of Jefferson, arguing that he was an adherent to their vision of America and that Hamilton was the 18th-century equivalent of a Big Gub'mint Liberal. Such is, of course, patently untrue: Hamilton at the time was seen as a moderate champion of mercantilism, and too friendly towards aristocratic interests; Jefferson, on the other hand, saw himself as a defender of the yeomanry against the aristocrats, against mercantilism, and, hence, against a sort of creeping monarchism. It would thus be rather appropriate to consider Jefferson a man of the Left, even if he had little in common with modern welfare-statists.

[General Mung Beans]

The Founding Fathers are interesting precisely because we are now so far removed from the political context in which they existed that any effort to quantify them by our standards is fraught with difficulty.

Take, for instance, the long-standing rivalry between partisans of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Modern conservatives will take the "side" of Jefferson, arguing that he was an adherent to their vision of America and that Hamilton was the 18th-century equivalent of a Big Gub'mint Liberal. Such is, of course, patently untrue: Hamilton at the time was seen as a moderate champion of mercantilism, and too friendly towards aristocratic interests; Jefferson, on the other hand, saw himself as a defender of the yeomanry against the aristocrats, against mercantilism, and, hence, against a sort of creeping monarchism. It would thus be rather appropriate to consider Jefferson a man of the Left, even if he had little in common with modern welfare-statists.

Actually Pat Buchanan has explicitly said he considers Hamilton to be one of his heroes. And most mainstream conservatives I think also like Alexander Hamilton.

[Temujin]

Take, for instance, the long-standing rivalry between partisans of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Modern conservatives will take the "side" of Jefferson, arguing that he was an adherent to their vision of America and that Hamilton was the 18th-century equivalent of a Big Gub'mint Liberal.

Yeah, I've often heard them selectively quote Jefferson (i.e., the "Blood of Patriots" line), while ironically claiming that under Hamilton we'd be living in a dictatorship; and this comes from those who are rather reasonably well educated/read. Their level of cognitive dissidence is simply astounding.

[Einzige]

The Founding Fathers are interesting precisely because we are now so far removed from the political context in which they existed that any effort to quantify them by our standards is fraught with difficulty.

Take, for instance, the long-standing rivalry between partisans of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Modern conservatives will take the "side" of Jefferson, arguing that he was an adherent to their vision of America and that Hamilton was the 18th-century equivalent of a Big Gub'mint Liberal. Such is, of course, patently untrue: Hamilton at the time was seen as a moderate champion of mercantilism, and too friendly towards aristocratic interests; Jefferson, on the other hand, saw himself as a defender of the yeomanry against the aristocrats, against mercantilism, and, hence, against a sort of creeping monarchism. It would thus be rather appropriate to consider Jefferson a man of the Left, even if he had little in common with modern welfare-statists.

Actually Pat Buchanan has explicitly said he considers Hamilton to be one of his heroes. And most mainstream conservatives I think also like Alexander Hamilton.

Not if they're consistent about being anti-State (which, of course, they're not; the conservative who says he dislikes government is an inveterate liar).

EDIT: Of course, I forgot that we're talking about Pat Buchanan here - the same self-proclaimed "conservative" who sees nothing wrong at all with protectionism, and thinks the government perfectly within its limitations in jailing homosexuals.

[montypython]

It may have meant that the British would have a political compromise with the American colonies and the world today would be united under a glorious British Empire but it may also mean that ideals of democracy and human equality (which most of the Founding Fathers truly believed in, even the slave-holding ones wanted slavery gradually abolished) would have remained under the carpet.

The British Empire abolished slavery before the United States did and England also gradually became a democracy. I think they went through the changes during the 1830s, about the same time the US also removed alot of the barriers to voting based on property.

Yeah, seeing how the general trends were going in the Anglosphere during the 19th century, I can see something along the lines of the Two Georges being a normative outcome in most cases, which would be great for the British Empire/Anglosphere, but not for the Francophonie/Russian Empire/others.

[Iosef Cross]

Reagan is merely "poor" and not "worst thing to happen to the country in decades?" I mean, we're still suffering from the effects of economic policies he started. Bush junior is only seen as worse because he was terrible at hiding his stupidity.

Reagan managed to turn around the tendency of increase in government spending. In 1980, the US State spend 39% of GDP while by 2000, expenditures were 32% (I am not sure of these numbers, but I cannot find the source right now). This decrease of government relative spending helped to generate the impressive economic growth between 1980 and 2000, with recovered partially the US's economic dominance. In other words, Reagan administration had the long run economic consequence of slowing down the process of decline of the US's economic might.

Bush junior is very different. During his administration, the US government size increased enormously, expenditures spiraled out of control and economic stagnation followed.

Reagan was the best US president in the last 80 years, Bush was one of the worsts. The only thing in common is that Reagan made tax cuts without cutting spending in the short term, but in the long term (ca 20 years) the tax cuts caused a force decrease in spending. Bush in the other hand, cut taxes and increased spending in the long term.

[Einzige]

Yeah, no



Debt decreased between 1980 and 2000, but it wasn't Reagan who did the decreasing.

[darthdavid]

Reagan was the best US president in the last 80 years

Are you seriously this retarded or are you just trolling? This is the president who ballooned the national debt, promoted trickle down economics, widely promoted neoconservatism, aided and abetted terrorists across the globe as long as they opposed communism and based important policy decisions on fucking astrology of all things. The only way that asshole can be said to be 'the best president in the last 80 years' is if it's opposite day you stupid motherfucker. I did a fucking jig the day he died and if I ever get the chance I'll take a shit on his grave. Best president my ass.