All those interested in modern American history...

[_random_]

Who were the best and worst post FDR presidents?

Best: Kennedy. He handled the Cuban missile crisis with unprecedented grace, made the U.S. the world's absolute leader technologically, and created economic prosperity at home and abroad. Sure, he was the first president to involve us in Vietnam, but I don't think it was his intention to ever actually deploy American troops there.
Worst: Bush Sr. Let's see, he started a war over oil, created an enormous national debt, and caused the words "No new taxes my foot!" to go through the minds of all Americans.

Granted, given my sig, it's not all that surprising I should single out these two, so I would love to see what our more conservative posters would say.

 

[Plotinus]

How did Kennedy make the US the world's absolute leader technologically? Does it still hold that position? (I'm assuming not, but I'm not sure.)

 

[shortguy]

Some interesting selections, though I think you should flesh them out a bit more.

Best: Kennedy. He handled the Cuban missile crisis with unprecedented grace

True enough.

made the U.S. the world's absolute leader technologically

What do you mean? In what way is Kennedy particularly responsible for this?

and created economic prosperity at home and abroad.

You're going to have to elaborate on this too. Where abroad did Kennedy create prosperity?

Sure, he was the first president to involve us in Vietnam, but I don't think it was his intention to ever actually deploy American troops there.

You might be surprised. Kennedy was not the most timid Cold Warrior ever to sit in the Oval Office.

Worst: Bush Sr.

A pretty surprising pick, IMO. Few people really love Bush Sr., but most people don't dislike him much either.

Let's see, he started a war over oil

I think that's at least a bit unfair, what with the whole "invasion of Kuwait" thing. Bush formed a proper coalition for the war (France was there! ), chose a limited objective, and stopped when that objective was complete. I dare say even most liberals in the US think he got this one right.

created an enormous national debt

Mostly Reagan's fault, I'd say. For what it's worth, he started the post-Cold War military cutbacks that Clinton continued throughout the 90s. Speaking of the Cold War, Bush deserves some credit, I think, for leading the American response to the fall of the Soviet Union, a catastrophic political change that could have gone much, much worse.

and caused the words "No new taxes my foot!" to go through the minds of all Americans.

I don't see what the big deal is here.

 

[_random_]

For Kennedy, I'm mostly referring to the space race. He set the clear goal of getting us on the moon before 1970, and got the Apollo Program off the ground, not to mention the first orbital solar observatory, and the first reusable spacecraft. The global economy was doing pretty well. Regarding the Nam, I suppose we'll never really know what he would have done, because of that... unfortunate day.
Bush didn't really handle the fallout from the Reagan administration particularly well, and his campaign was based on not raising taxes. It would be like if we elected Obama and he kept the surge going. I suppose if raising taxes had actually helped anything, we would have forgiven him, but it didn't, so we didn't. I'm sure there were plenty of equally helpless peoples being attacked by equally evil men, and he just happened to choose the one supplying us with oil. Plus, we kept our troops over there even after Operation Dessert Storm, which was the last straw on the backs of certain hi-jackers...


But enough of the ramblings of a random 13-year old, what do you people think?

 

[Cutlass]

After FDR, Truman was probably the best with Eisenhower, Kennedy a Johnson scrambled up for the next 3 places. Then Ford and Carter, followed by GHW Bush. Then Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush as the worst in that order.

 

[Yui108]

Kennedy would have easily been one of the worst if he hadn't been assassinated. Moral scandal, limited understanding of the economy, BAY OF PIGS...

Bush JR. in my mind is the best. Our nation needed a strong leader, and he has prevented all post 9/11 acts of terrorism.

 

[Plotinus]

No he hasn't; there just haven't been any on American soil. So how does that make him better than any others? Quite apart from everything else, of course.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

To be fair, the Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower's brainchild. It's also worth noting that Fidel Castro did not declare himself a socialist before the invasion, and that only after it did he turn to the Soviet Union for aid, having already been ignored by Ike during a previous visit to Washington.

So if one really wanted to, one could trace much of the events of the Kennedy Administration to being caused by Eisenhower.

I list Ike as among the worst post FDR presidents, more or less tied with Reagan. Both are quite similar, though clearly not identical. Both of their administrations' foreign policies are largely based around intervening in the internal affairs of other nations, often as part of a strange paranoia about communists, socialists, and anyone to the left of Milton Friedman. In this regard, it is fair to also throw Nixon into the mix, for his opposition to Salvador Allende and Indira Gandhi, though the latter he did not help depose. Guatemala, Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran: in all of these nations, leftist governments came to power, and were either actively engaged by the US military and most often deposed, neglected and forced to turn to the Soviet Union for aid, losing us another friend, and, in the cases of Iran, Vietnam, and Cuba, neglected the nationalist overtones of the revolutions, instead blindly screaming "REDS!" and charging into battle. In this way, Truman can also be thrown into the mix, for his careful negligence of Ho Chi Minh in 1945 that sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War.

Because the postwar policy of the United States has been one of intervention, hardly any postwar presidents are worthy of being noted as "great." Perhaps Kennedy does then deserve to be regarded as one of the best, as the few interventions during his short tenure were largely precipiated by his predecessor. In a similar way, perhaps Ford and Carter are also worthy of greater respect, not because of things they did, but beacuse of things they did not do. Don't misunderstand me, I am not totally against foreign intervention, but I am against ignorant invervention. Just as Clinton went to war in 1999 to protect Kosovar terrorists, and Bush in 2003 sent us into a land of which whose internal politics we were largely ignorant, so did the other men mentioned above, into politics which were neither our business nor which were properly understood. It is perhaps fair then to rank George H. W. Bush above the rest, then, for his foreign engagement, the Second Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), was far different: it was not merely an American expedition, but an international one, with specific objectives and, when completed, our boys came home. The Kuwaiti expedition represented what America did once upon a time: liberator of the oppressed, but respecter of self-determination. No government was installed in Kuwait as we left, it was merely freed from Iraqi control. In context with the above, I rank George H. W. Bush as the best post-FDR president. To define the worst seems almost futile, though it is most certainly either Eisenhower or Reagan.

 

[shortguy]

I like your analysis, Cheezy, though I am inclined to forgive Eisenhower somewhat for his overaction; after all, during his presidency the Cold War was still in its formative stages, and no one really knew quite what to expect. Interventionism such as his was much less forgivable in the 80s, when the US and the USSR had coexisted as superpowers for decades and a somewhat stable equilibrium was present.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Certainly. And there is much praise I have for Ike, too. The Interstate Highway System, public education reform, and his both combatance and foresight about the Military-Industrial Complex are all worthy of great praise (though I-495 is still my nemesis ). However, his government also presided over that ardent anti-communist McCarthy's political rampage, and arguably, set the precident of supporting rightist dictators over populist - be them leftist or otherwise - movements by his actions in Guatemala and Iran. It was under his adminstration that we saw our first clear deviance from the policy of self-determination that had punctuated American international thought since Wilson's presidency; though Truman arguably started us down that path, it was Eisenhower who most helped solidify it.

 

[Cutlass]

snippage...

Mostly Reagan's fault, I'd say. For what it's worth, he started the post-Cold War military cutbacks that Clinton continued throughout the 90s. Speaking of the Cold War, Bush deserves some credit, I think, for leading the American response to the fall of the Soviet Union, a catastrophic political change that could have gone much, much worse.

It could have gone a lot better also. He refused a "Marshal Plan" for the nations of the former USSR and because of that the we have less influence and more enmity there than we might have had otherwise. There's no guarantee that it would have worked, but he simply didn't try. So Russia is today, if no longer a mortal enemy, still a thorn in the side. Where communist aparachniks hold all the power.

 

[WICKLC1]

Best: Reagan for winning the cold war, Iranian hostages, bringing the military back from the state it was in during and after Vietnam.

Worst: Carter or Bush jr.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Best Clinton: High economic growth, no incredibly bad wars. Although he did send hill on us.

Worst Reagan: I really blame him for pretty much any of the problems in the Bush administrations. The one trillion dollar budget is kind of a prequell to the current administration and it's bloated spending. He didn't really win the cold war, was just in office when the Soviet Union collapsed.

I'm not to fond of J.F.K he in my opinion has been glorified more because of R.F.K who would of been brilliant.

 

[Tee Kay]

Best: Truman. He was for a large part responsible for propelling the United States to the the position of the world's foremost superpower, via his actions in WWII (atomic bombing) and post-war period (Marshall Plan, NATO, Truman Doctrine, Korean War, etc.). Honourable mentions: Kennedy, Clinton, Johnson, in that order.

Worst: probably Bush Jr, although he isn't a particularly "bad" leader. The United States have the good fortune of being ruled by capable people pretty much throughout its modern history.

 

[WICKLC1]

Now that I think of it, I don't think that the US has had any really bad or really good presidents. No matter who is in office, most people's lives stay basically the same and the world still has not had a nuclear war with people dying by the millions. On the whole, the leaders of the past 50 years have been fairly mediocre, but not terrible.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Best: Reagan for winning the cold war, Iranian hostages, bringing the military back from the state it was in during and after Vietnam.

Worst: Carter or Bush jr.

For what it's worth, none of those are Reagan's doing.

The Soviet Union was already staged for economic collapse since the mid 1970s, when, among other things, they began importing grain from the United States in massive amounts. Reagan didn't "win" the Cold War, he didn't beat the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union beat itself.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis was not "solved" by him, either. Carter signed the Algiers Accords in January 1981, which arranged for the hostages to be freed, along with several other agreements, including the unfreezing of Iranian assets. That the hostages were freed a few hours after Reagan was inagurated is why he gets the credit, which is incredibly ignorant, but that's the way things work.

The arms buildup was begun by Carter, not by Reagan, though he accelerated it. Yes, it brought the US military "back to pre-Vietnam asskickery," but it put a huge hole in our budget, and increased the debt in ways that would make even Dubya blush.

 

[WICKLC1]

For what it's worth, none of those are Reagan's doing.

The Soviet Union was already staged for economic collapse since the mid 1970s, when, among other things, they began importing grain from the United States in massive amounts. Reagan didn't "win" the Cold War, he didn't beat the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union beat itself.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis was not "solved" by him, either. Carter signed the Algiers Accords in January 1981, which arranged for the hostages to be freed, along with several other agreements, including the unfreezing of Iranian assets. That the hostages were freed a few hours after Reagan was inagurated is why he gets the credit, which is incredibly ignorant, but that's the way things work.

The arms buildup was begun by Carter, not by Reagan, though he accelerated it. Yes, it brought the US military "back to pre-Vietnam asskickery," but it put a huge hole in our budget, and increased the debt in ways that would make even Dubya blush.

You're right about the hostage thing even if it did take him 444 days.

Reagan's strategy for ending the cold war was to esculate the cold war to a point at which the Soviets could not keep up. This is in contrast to the detente strategy of coexistence of the Carter administration. He was responsible for the military buildup. Carter actually cancelled the B1 program. The only increase was the rapid deployment force.

The Reagan strategy worked because he knew that the USSR would crack before the US did.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Reagan's strategy for ending the cold war was to esculate the cold war to a point at which the Soviets could not keep up. This is in contrast to the detente strategy of coexistence of the Carter administration. He was responsible for the military buildup. Carter actually cancelled the B1 program. The only increase was the rapid deployment force.

The Reagan strategy worked because he knew that the USSR would crack before the US did.

The Carter Administration was sort of the bridge between Nixon's and Ford's detente and Reagan's more or less brinkmanship. While he wasn't exactly escalating the Cold War, he was certainly manouvering to counteract it. The Rapid Deployment Force you just mentioned is one example of that. The RDF was designed with the Middle East specifically in mind, especially after the Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Carter Doctrine specifically stated that all outside incurrences in the Middle East would be met with force.

As for "outspending the USSR," yes, we did outspend them, but we didn't have to. Reagan had this strange anticommunist paranoia, best characterized by his "evil empire" speech, but dictating his policies throughout his administration. We didn't need to engage in that huge arms race with the USSR, they were already ruined before Reagan took office, and they were going down no matter what sort of reforms took place, or as long as there was still an arms race going on. Even during the detente years, it was still an arms race, it was just a nonconfrontational one, as opposed to the in-your-face attitude of the 50s and 60s, and again in the 80s.

 

[citedon]

Every modern president since FDR has had to deal with some very difficult problems. Each has been brilliant at times and only mediocre at others. We must keep in mind that the president is just one person with limited powers. He is not a king. Each one has a unique set of strengths and weaknesses which he brings to the job. I believe many of us give too much credit and also too much blame to the president for the things that happen during his administration. (Maybe now it should be his/her?) For example, the economic situation in which we find ourselves is the net result of billions of people all over the world making individual decisions yet we like to rate the president by how well he "runs" the economy.

IMHO, it is simply a matter of degrees which separates the modern presidents' perfomances. Therefore, I have no pick for the best. However, as far as the worst is concerned, only one had to leave office in disgrace, Nixon. And even he managed some very impressive accomplishments before the Watergate scandle.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Best: LBJ. I'm going to choose to remember his skillful handling of Congress, his Great Society, his stewardship of the Dem. Party as it transitioned into the party of Civil Rights, and conveniently forget his deplorable escalation of the Vietnam conflict.

Worst: GWB...self explanatory.

Honestly, I think Kennedy is horribly over-rated. A close examination of the Cuban Missile Crisis reveals alot of mutual paranoia, blunders, bluster, misteps, hesitation, and wishful thinking that somehow worked out in the end. And while he didn't come up with Bay of Pigs, he did sign off on it and launched it. And while he talked a good game on Civil Rights, up til that point he'd done very little on the matter. His legacy has been overinflated by his untimely death.

Nixon was an intelligent, skilled, and capable politician whose own paranoia and lack of ethics got the best of him. The negative outweighs the positive.

And Reagan, I'm gonna credit him for at the very least accelerating the end of the Cold War. The early 1st term fiscal measures during his tenure were a bit draconian, but necessary. His Reaganomics are...open to various interpretations to say the least. But he was certainly a charismatic and effective leader, if you describe effective as the ability to gain support for and achieve your agenda. I wish more leaders would have a 'Mr. Gorbechav, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!' moment.

Clinton presided over relative peace and unprecedented prosperity. But the focus on his own personal failings squandered any opportunity of actually accomplishing something memorable and lasting. I blame him for that as much as I blame the Republicans.


There really aren't alot of good candidates for the 'best' label. Some accomplished great (enough) things, but have hefty black marks on their record. Some don't have too many negatives, but their positives aren't that notable either.

If i was forced to put them in order, I'd probably go LBJ, Reagan, Clinton.