All those interested in modern American history...

[JohnRM]

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.

Best: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Worst: George W. Bush

 

[WICKLC1]

And once again, that was all done and gone before Reagan was elected. There was no big increase in Soviet military spending in response to Reagan's, because their economy was already stagnant.

Reagan's boost of military spending over Carter's plan was utterly and completely worthless. It was pure flushing money down the toilette.

It was not done before Reagan was elected. They did respond to Reagan's spending.

I am getting my information from A Brief History of the Cold War by British intelligence officer Colonel John Hughes Wilson.

 

[El Justo]

Read "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed" by Reagan's inside man and budget director Davis Stockman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman that'll give you a clue of just how basically incompetent the Reagan Administration actually was.

Beyond that, I'm just sick of Reagan being the Second Coming. He's given credit for a lot, but if you look into what actually happened at the time, in very few instances can you see a positive result from an action that he took or backed. Sure, he was well liked and popular, but grossly incompetent.

fair enough but you left out the fact that stockman was indicted for fraud so i think we can only take what he said w/ the proverbial grain of salt. it smells like a mcclellan special to me.

understood on you being "sick of" the acollades Reagan gets. however, what you state - ie "grossly incompetent" - flies in the face of conventional historical opinion. by this i mean that Reagan is routinely rated in the top tier of 20th century US presidents in all kind sof public polls of voters, historians, etc. granted, post-humous sentiment for Dutch has risen. but that's not the point. the point is that Reagan's philosophy is now the back bone of modern conservatism and all republican canidates are gauged against him. that has to be worth something. right? even if you don't aqgree with it all? i mean, i'm man enough to admit that clinton was a decent president even though i diagreed w/ alot of his philosphies. iow, the bias needs to be left at the door if we are to accurately gauge the US presidnets

 

[Plotinus]

What's "bias", though? If you genuinely believe (say) that right-wing policies are damaging and the wrong way to go, then you'll think that a more right-wing president was (other things being equal) worse than a less right-wing president. You might call that "bias". But being unbiased just means you don't let prejudices inform your opinion. If you have come to your political view through examining the evidence and through great familiarity with recent political history, it can't really count as "prejudice". Being unbiased doesn't mean being politically neutral, it means holding whatever view you have for sound reasons rather than for unsound ones such as prejudice, loyalty, personal gain, and so on. Someone who thinks President X is good because he lowered taxes and they personally found their tax bill going down is biased; someone who thinks that President X is good because he lowered taxes and there is good reason to believe that, as a result, the economy improved, is not biased.

 

[El Justo]

evaluating and assessing an admin's efficacy ought to be viewed through a non-political spectrum; ie one shouldn't mix their own political beliefs into the evaluation when gauging the effectiveness of a particular president. so no, i disagree with you Plotinus. a fair assessment - no matter what political affiliation you may have - needs this imo. if not, then those on the right will always (almost) rate presidents on the right of the spectrum w/ good marks while those on the left w/ relatively poor ones...and what kind of fairness is that? i mean, it's not like we here have to tow a party line. right? bias is non-academic. it's partisan and not conducive to an honest evaluation.

 

[Plotinus]

But then, how can you decide what criteria to use when ranking presidents? Surely the criteria you use will be influenced by your own political views, because those political views will determine which outcomes you think are good and bad. For example, if you think that Reagan should be praised for his military spending, that presupposes that you think the military is something on which lots of money should be spent; or if you think that Reagan's "toughness and resiliency" was praiseworthy then that must be because you think those are desirable qualities. But these presuppositions are hardly shared by everyone. Once you start down the road of saying that a fair assessment must be one that is not informed by the assessor's own opinions, where do you stop? Can you have any criteria for ranking politicians at all?

 

[El Justo]

easy. how effective was the admin? what was the economy like during the term/s? unemployment? the admin's response/s to key issues. interest rates? oil prices? military spending and how well it may have translated into sound policy...i could go on and on. the point is to gaugue and evaluate it upon the facts...not opinion and most importantly, not biased party line opinion. sure one must use their political foundation to make the assessment/s. however, few here at least subscribe to the notion of ruling on these types of things based on the facts and the net impact of an admin's policies etc.

and i do not infuse my political beliefs into this type of equation. i may insert some snarky comments but it doesn't affect where i'd rank a certain president. take clinton for example - i disagreed w/ a host of his ideologies...and his extra curricular activities. but does this make him a poor president in my eyes? no, he was one of the better presidents of the post war years imo - domestically at least. so no, i don't agree w/ what you posted.

and i'll take it another step further and ask where should the line be drawn in conncetion w/ one's own political beliefs and making fair assessments? according to you, one can't make decisions such as these without them. fair enough (although i disagree). but what happens when someone can't seperate themselves from the party line? this is what is unfair imo. i mean, let's be real here and look at the facts and the net impact rather than the partisan and unqualified remarks.

 

[citedon]

Randomnerd,

This has been a great thread. I have enjoyed reading all of the comments. Thanks for thinking of it.

The following thought has occured to me. It adds nothing to the subject at hand and serves no usefull purpose, but I would be interested to see what comments, if any it illicits.

What would happen if we combined many of the positive characteristics of some of our recent presidents and leave out the negative traits? For example, let's build a president with the intelligence, administrative abilities, and political savy of Clinton, the integrety of Carter and Ford, the tenacity of Nixon, the wit and communicative skills and ability to focus on the issue at hand of JFK and Regan, the courage of Truman, the affability of Ike and Bush the elder, and the toughness of LBJ.

Sounds like Lincoln to me. Maybe that's why to guy was so great. Of course you only get one of these every hundred years or so.

 

[Traitorfish]

But Lincoln wasn't exactly the way you were taught about him when you were like 7! He must be the worst president ever!

(Joking, obviously. )

 

[El Justo]

that's a good idea citedon

Clinton was imo the best speaking president of the modern age. he just had a certain gravitas when he entered the room, very persuasive and could charm the pants off of even the surliest of folks. i really enjoy listening to his speeches...he just has a kewl air about him. NAFTA imo was big. a great achievement for his admin imho. the surpluses he ran were also fantastic. he made the oval office more dynamic, too.

Bush Sr's handling of the first iraq war was stupendous. Schwarzkopf's dash across the desert is legendary in modern armoured warfare and HW should get some points imo for it as well as astute leadership, deft diplomacy, and a finite plan going in and going out. the first African American on the Supreme Court ocurred on HW's watch.

Reagan's resoluteness is an often cited quality. he did not pull any punches in terms of combating communism. he is also one of the funnier presidents of the modern age, too. he could ad-lib w/ the best of 'em. he also appointed the first woman the the Supreme Court.

one of Carter's big pluses imo when he was elected was the fact that he was a DC outsider. as governor in GA, he was outside the fray of the political arena on Capitol Hill. this was appealing for many at the time due to the decade's miseries and credibility gap.

 

[citedon]

But Lincoln wasn't exactly the way you were taught about him when you were like 7! He must be the worst president ever!

(Joking, obviously. )

You're right, he wasn't perfect, but if you read Sandburg's biography and Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" in addition to some of Lincoln's letters and some of his contemporaries' journals you can't help but be impressed. I just recently finished "Team of Rivals" and loved it. I won't be able to stop thinking about the guy for a long time.

 

[citedon]

that's a good idea citedon


Reagan's resoluteness is an often cited quality. he did not pull any punches in terms of combating communism. he is also one of the funnier presidents of the modern age, too. he could ad-lib w/ the best of 'em.

One of my favorite Reagan lines: He was speaking to a group of young adults and one of them said that he was out of touch with their generation because his generation didn't grow up with atomic energy, computers, mass communication, etc. Reagan said, "Well, you're right. My generation didn't grow up with all of those things. My generation invented them."

 

[El Justo]

nice one citedon

here's one of my favorites --

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that I have just signed legislation to outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." (August 11, 1984, in a jest while testing the microphone for his weekly radio address)

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Now you must balance that by reading The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo

 

[citedon]

Now you must balance that by reading The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo

There is no question that Lincoln was instrumental in directing this country toward big government and our current nanny state. A lot of good and bad things have happened as a result. IMO our government would have evolved in this direction even if Lincoln had not been president. Even Jefferson could not resist trampling all over the constitution though he was very much in favor of limited government. If he hadn't, there would have been no Lousiana Purchase.

I am very sorry for leading us off the topic of this thread with my Lincoln comment. I promise that I will say no more on the subject nor will I offer any thoughts about anything other than post FDR presidents.

 

[Cutlass]

A president should be judged on what he tried to do and the long term effects of his policies. What happened to happen on his watch only counts to the extent that he worked to make it happen or took advantage of an opportunity. Or, didn't work to make it happen, but it happened as a consequence of his policies.

 

[Wilphe]

To be fair, the Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower's brainchild.

But it's half-hearted moronic execution was JFKs

 

[Wilphe]

Best:

Reagan. For resolving that Communisim was an evil that be destroyed rather than endured and while his efforts might not have been solely responsible for the Collapse of the USSR they certainly accelerated the process and freed millsions of people a decade or more earlier than they might have been.



Worst:
JFK. Is most famous for what he said rather than what he did. Made an idiot of himself at his first meeting with Kruschev which inspired the Kruschev to try what he did in Cuba. Had the great fortune to be shot and left Johnson to clean up the message

The continued hagiography of this sordid dynasty is quite perplexing.


Wrong place wrong time:
Nixon - A great statesman in the mould of Machiavelli or Richelieu, but not a great president.

Could have been great but came up short:
JWB - Most people have already made their minds up him about one way or the other. The Judgment of History (TM) will take a little longer; but this is a president who had the opportunity to be great and didn't make it.