It seems like it takes general influentialness into account. If you were going just by that, Jackson is probably top 5, so falling to 18 is actually a pretty steep price for his awfulness.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Historians Rank Obama 12th Best President
- Thread starter Rainy
- Start date
- Status
It seems like it takes general influentialness into account. If you were going just by that, Jackson is probably top 5, so falling to 18 is actually a pretty steep price for his awfulness.
The Albatross
Member
I fucking hate stupid posts like this. "X Person was a piece of shit." Please come up with a list of world leaders from 1918 who would qualify as not pieces of shit? You can't isolate a man from history and judge him exclusively under a modern lense. If we judged historical figures on the basis of our modern prejudices, then Donald Trump may very well be considered less of a piece of shit than Abraham Lincoln, and that's ridiculous.
Wilson was a great mediator, had strong domestic policy, and provided a framework of peace for Western democracies. The concept of the United Nations was derived from his philosophy of statecraft, and while Republicans have maligned the UN for 30 years, its has secured a lasting peace for some 70 years, something that no other international framework has ever provided before or after it. If there is one president who can be credited with making the modern world, behind FDR, it's Woodrow Wilson.
VendettaRed07
Member
He is rated by historians for being the first real "working man" president with a populist agenda for working class whites
Before that the presidency was more so about elitist, intellectuals enacting their own agenda
Not that I agree with it but it's why he is pretty consistently ranked in the top half
SolarPowered
Member
Dubya wasn't half the president his dad was.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
This list is as bad as that chicken nugget list from a few weeks ago. Ugh.
The Albatross
Member
George W. Bush is 33 out of 43, the bottom 50 percentile.
FYI, when people say "W" they usually mean George W. Bush (43) not George HW Bush (41), his father.
I think once a person gets far enough back in history, people stop judging them by moral values because "it was different back then". So yeah Jackson killed a ton of Indians, but he brought democracy to the poor white man!
It's the same reason we talk about Roman emperors in glowing terms, or the recent love fest that Genghis Khan gets. They may have been violent tyrants, but they built roads and patronized the arts, etc. Such figures become great men of history judged on their notoriety.
If it wasn't for Vietnam, Johnson would probably be 4th.
The list gets pretty debatable after you get past 4th. Lot of the presidents after that have some real issues or didn't do much. I mean, Jefferson's 2nd term was a fucking disaster and what notable accomplishment did Eisenhower achieve during his presidency?
It will be interesting to see if Trump is able eclipse pathetic coward and appeaser Buchanan and racist shit-turd Reconstruction killing Johnson as the worst president
Extra Sauce
Member
I'm an idiot. Thought I was looking at George W Bush at the 20th position.
A lot of these are Presidents during times of crisis or pressure. Wars (World, Civil or Cold) definitely have an impact on how a President is viewed.
No issues with Lincoln being #1 though, I don't think very many would argue otherwise. A strong case could be made for Washington as well because he stepped down and started the tradition of peaceful transition of power that carries on today.
No issues with Lincoln being #1 though, I don't think very many would argue otherwise. A strong case could be made for Washington as well because he stepped down and started the tradition of peaceful transition of power that carries on today.
Miguel_Zorro
Neo Member
I notice lots of complaining about the presidents in the middle and even number 8-10, but not much complaining about the ones above that.
The issue here is that after the first 6 or 7, most presidents were pretty bad, so it doesn't take much to crack the top 20.
The issue here is that after the first 6 or 7, most presidents were pretty bad, so it doesn't take much to crack the top 20.
adamsappel
Member
JFK, Reagan, Wilson don't deserve to be so high, Clinton should be moved up into Top Ten.
The Albatross
Member
While I'd contest Kennedy being in the top 10, the only worthwhile change I'd make is...
1. Lincoln
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50. George Washington
51. FDR
... etc.
Washington, FDR, and all others, were great presidents. Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest people in human history.
1. Lincoln
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50. George Washington
51. FDR
... etc.
Washington, FDR, and all others, were great presidents. Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest people in human history.
Host Samurai
Member
lol at Dubbya being mid range and WTF at Regan?
Frozenprince
Banned
The vast majority or presidents are awful.
Eisenhower was cool with Zhukov so that automatically gives him some bro points.
The Albatross
Member
.. W. is not midrange, he's 33/43, which I believe (if my math serves me correctly...) puts him in the bottom 25th percentile (e.g., "75% worst president"). Again, George H. W. Bush refers to Bush 41, George W. Bush's father, who probably deserves to be considered somewhere in the 20s to 25s.
Perhaps you need a little more No Child Left Behind, eh?
Scrooge McDuck
Member
He's number 33.
Frozenprince
Banned
Alexander burned down cities and built new ones in their place that he named after himself, for example.
Greatest Ever
Member
How amazing is it that history remembers four Presidents as worse than a guy who was in office for twenty three days?
So dreamy though ~~~
LBJ's policies have shaped America for fifty years. Civil rights act, voting rights act, fair housing act, Medicare and Medicaid. No president in the history of the country (outside of Lincoln) has done more for civil rights than he did. If he hadn't escalated Vietnam (a war that he didn't start, mind you!) he would be a unanimous top five president.
Obama at 12 is about right. I would probably drop him a bit, I but feel he's easily top 15 or so. JFK is, as always, too high I feel.
The Albatross
Member
Exactly. Che Guervara thought that homosexuals should be sent to labor camps for being gay, and yet, plenty of young progressives march around with his face on their shirts.
Completely agree with all points.
discospider
Member
Grant is too low. His administration may have been corrupt, but he himself was a great, moral man. He sent in the army in the South to defend blacks and crush the KKK.
Honestly, I think they were too unfair to Harrison. A month before kicking the bucket is a lot less harm than what many other Presidents did.
JFK doesn't get enough credit, honestly. Johnson's Great Society was his New Frontier, and say it or not, the Democratic landslide happened because he was assassinated.
There's a reason KIA soldiers get promoted two ranks.
LBJ is, along with FDR and i guess Obama, the only reason the USA has working social programs.
LBJ managed to put in practice what JFK wanted to do, New Frontier became Great Society, and that's how the USA got:
- Medicare
- The end of segregation
- Public funding to schools
- Food stamps
- And since Trump is gonna cut 'em, let's remember the National Endowment of the Arts and the Public Broadcasting Company, shall we.
Vietnam is the great mark against him, but eh. He deserves his spot. If it wasn't for Vietnam, we'd be talking "Great Four" instead of "Great Three".
Johnson was also the reason Kennedy hadn't cut the space program.
There's a reason KIA soldiers get promoted two ranks.
LBJ is, along with FDR and i guess Obama, the only reason the USA has working social programs.
LBJ managed to put in practice what JFK wanted to do, New Frontier became Great Society, and that's how the USA got:
- Medicare
- The end of segregation
- Public funding to schools
- Food stamps
- And since Trump is gonna cut 'em, let's remember the National Endowment of the Arts and the Public Broadcasting Company, shall we.
Vietnam is the great mark against him, but eh. He deserves his spot. If it wasn't for Vietnam, we'd be talking "Great Four" instead of "Great Three".
Johnson was also the reason Kennedy hadn't cut the space program.
While I agree with the substance of your argument, Wilson was racist even for the period. Iirc he resegregated the bureaucracy and loved birth of a nation.
VendettaRed07
Member
Basically.
Johnson getting ranked below JFK is utter horsecrap. Democrats made a mistake not nominating him in the first place in 1960.
Reagan in the top 10?
To see a parasite so high...
If you look at the categories that C-Span asked historians to rate the presidents then the list starts to make more sense.
For example, there are 10 categories and 2 of them are persuasiveness and vision, both categories which Reagan should definitely rank highly in. Its not asking those historians to actually critique and analyze that vision; just if he put forward a strong vision and agenda for America
StrategyFan
Member
obama wasn't very effective
seems like an okay dude though. wonder what he could do with an actual congress
also letting russia/fbi successfully tamper with elections is a stain against him, even though it might have seemed to make mathematical sense without hindsight
seems like an okay dude though. wonder what he could do with an actual congress
also letting russia/fbi successfully tamper with elections is a stain against him, even though it might have seemed to make mathematical sense without hindsight
Avoided war with the USSR, outplayed the Soviets and his own generals with diplomacy, accurately predicted and warned against the rising military-industrial complex. He didn't do anything big and dramatic, but he was prudent and helped guarantee that the post-war economic prosperity for the US lasted another 20 years.
Vestal
Junior Member
One of the reasons why JFK ranks so high. In any other list JFK wouldn't be so high, and LBJ would surely be above him.
Frozenprince
Banned
To be fair those 23 days were actually impactful, it led to the beginning of the end of the Whig party.
Harrison was unfortunately buries by infighting that followed his successor in Tyler, which lead to a whole lot of nothing productive being accomplished.
He did bring about the end of the USSR, not saying it was solely him as conservatives would have you believe, but I think the handling of their inevitable collapse and transition, as well as the tearing down of the Berlin wall went down fairly smoothly and he does deserve credit for a situation that could have been an utter disaster had he not put so much pressure on the USSR and consequently assist in dialing down of the cold war.
He was dedicated to ruining black people.
discospider
Member
On the contrary, one can trace so many of our problems today back to him.
- A new conservatism that saw government as the enemy, glorified capitalism, and demonized the poor. From this primordial soup sprang the Limbaughs and Trumps.
- Bringing religion and religious hucksters like Falwell into the political sphere
- Hostility to social progress
- Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor
- The War on Drugs
- Deregulation
- Disregard for the environment
He also nominated the first female supreme court justice and signed the civil rights act which compensated those affected by the Japanese interment camps during World War 2. It was also no coincidence that the American hostages in Iran were flown back to America the same day he was sworn into office.
Yes he has a bad record with many things but he did have some good accomplishments as well.
Frozenprince
Banned
Jackson was instrumental in forming the federal government in how it now currently operates (or should operate). He was a very influential president who challenged special interests and curtailed lot of the people that had their hands in the wrong jars.
He was also woefully nepotistic and his anti native campaigns were just barely a step above genocide.
Whether his achievements should he tainted by his morality is a hot debate among historians, I am of the opinion that they should, but some disagree
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked