Support NeoGAF

[Unknown Soldier]

I figured Obama was Top 20 but he's a lot closer to Top 10 than I would have placed him. He was above average but not amazing or anything and nothing really changed or improved during his Presidency. At least nothing got dramatically worse so there's that I suppose.

 

[Derwind]

Regardless of this list, I can't ever see the irrational hate of Obama ever going away.

 

[Josh5890]

Regardless of this list, I can't ever see the irrational hate of Obama ever going away.

Every President will have hate/criticism against them. Nothing new.

 

[Frozenprince]

Honestly I'm baffled by Polk, but ESPECIALLY McKinley being so high.

McKinley was a woeful president.

 

[Sunster]

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

Understandable

How in the hell is he only 7th in moral authority ?

Obama is probably the best human being to ever be president since Roosevelt. I fail to see any better man than him except maybe John Adams and Lincoln.

Obama should be TOP 3 easily in that category.

fuckery in the middle east probably.

 

[pa22word]

Way to early to really judge Obama, but Top 15 is hard to argue with, really. I think grant needs to be a lot higher than he his, and so does Polk, but once you get to 15 it's mostly all down to placement which mostly falls down to opinion.

As for why Reagan is so high: most need to realize that just like IRL, historians fall into different political alignments just like people do, as they are indeed also human beings.

Woodrow Wilson was a total piece of shit.

Why is he ranked so highly?

Because being a good person and being an effective president aren't really mutually exclusive.

 

[Piecake]

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.

I'd argue that FDR's structural reforms of the economy (FDIC, SEC, FHA, and the GI Bill)that made it far more transparent, predictable, safe, and approachable for average Americans contributed far far far more to the post-war boom than anything that Eisenhower did or didn't do (which really wasn't much in terms of economic legislation)

Moreover, Truman was the president who had to deal with the inflation caused by the WWII bubble economy. Eisenhower inherited an economy on easy street.

As for his foreign affairs accomplishments, warning about the rise of the military industrial complex is not really an accomplishment when he didn't do anything about it. And his decision to depose the Iranian leader in 1953 had especially bad far reaching consequences. He was also the president who proposed that stupid domino theory about communism and got us involved in Vietnam.

I'd still argue that he was successful in terms of foreign affairs, but his record certainly isn't a shining example of excellence, which it should be for him to rank this high considering that he didn't do much in the domestic arena.

 

[Frozenprince]

I'd argue that FDR's structural reforms of the economy (FDIC, SEC, FHA, and the GI Bill)that made it far more transparent, predictable, safe, and approachable for average Americans contributed far far far more to the post-war boom than anything that Eisenhower did or didn't do (which really wasn't much in terms of economic legislation)

Moreover, Truman was the president who had to deal with the inflation caused by the WWII bubble economy. Eisenhower inherited an economy on easy street.

As for his foreign affairs accomplishments, warning about the rise of the military industrial complex is not really an accomplishment when he didn't do anything about it. And his decision to depose the Iranian leader in 1953 had especially bad far reaching consequences. He was also the president who proposed that stupid domino theory about communism and got us involved in Vietnam.

I'd still argue that he was successful in terms of foreign affairs, but his record certainly isn't a shining example of excellence, which it should be for him to rank this high considering that he didn't do much in the domestic arena.

I mean he's better than most of "the pack" (almost all of the 19th and early 20th century) so him being fairly high is understandable, I think.

 

[pa22word]

Honestly I'm baffled by Polk, but ESPECIALLY McKinley being so high.

McKinley was a woeful president.

Polk was probably top 3/4 effective presidents we ever had, and accomplished essentially every single policy goal of his administration in a single term. When you consider how extraordinarily powerful congress was back then compared to modern times, what he accomplished is pretty extraordinary. Some might argue that the annexations led to the Civil War, but I think that's both a little post hoc ergo propter hoc and kind of beside the point.

 

[RustyNails]

Yo fuck reagan. Why is that clueless motherfucker even there.

 

[Piecake]

Honestly I'm baffled by Polk, but ESPECIALLY McKinley being so high.

McKinley was a woeful president.

Polk is the most successful President in US History. He wanted to accomplish 4 things while he was president and accomplished those 4 things

Reestablish the Independent Treasury System.
Reduce tariffs.
Acquire some or all of Oregon Country.
Acquire California and New Mexico from Mexico.

 

[Piecake]

I mean he's better than most of "the pack" (almost all of the 19th and early 20th century) so him being fairly high is understandable, I think.

Oh, I think he was a good and successful president. I just wouldn't put him 5th. I'd put him in the 10-15 range.

 

[Loxley]

Regardless of this list, I can't ever see the irrational hate of Obama ever going away.

Wait for the baby boomer republicans to die off, and it'll probably normalize a bit.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

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.

By "strong domestic policy," you mean he was a Klansman?

 

[Hyperactivity]

Reagan and JFK are both laughably high.

Real talk: Had the USSR not died when it did or had JFK not been assassinated, neither would be ranked that high.

JFK also left behind a VP that got ALOT done with a Congress that got ALOT done.

 

[Plywood]

Most of the social programs we have today were started by Lyndon Johnson. He was also a master of working congress, and one of the only Democrats in 50 years to not sacrifice congress for his social program. He passed an aggressively liberal social agenda without losing congress, something no Democrat has done since World War II. Further, he inherited (though made worse) Kennedy's Vietnam mess.

And while I'm a liberal, Reagan deserves credit. Most liberals are unwilling to recognize the state of the US in 1979 versus the state of the US in 1988, and most of that has to do with Ronald Reagan. I feel like the liberal antagonism against Reagan, today, is similar to the Republican antagoism against Obama. Liberals will hold onto a few inconsequential issues and completely miss the bigger picture, for the sole sake of lambasting their opponent.

On Lyndon Johnson's resume:

The Civil Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Food Stamp Act
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Medicare
Medicaid

At which point Lyndon should be higher than Reagan and I still feel like Reagan should be lower.

 

[thecouncil]

Under Ronald "we did not sell arms for hostages" Reagan, Lyndon "look at my dick" Johnson, and Woodrow fucking Wilson?

Seriously?

For next time:

Lyndon "look at my" Johnson

 

[Torokil]

Obama was really mediocre but he's sandwiched in between Dubya's Wacky Middle East Adventures and the Trump Tower of Terror so he'll be remembered fondly.

 

[Jorok Goldblade]

I was trying to figure out who was omitted since the list is of 43 presidents and Obama was #44, then I remembered it was because Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms and thus got counted twice among the 44.

 

[Back-In-Black]

What kind of crackpot list is this? First, people need to read up on LBJ past the Vietnam war, which was Kennedy's war in the first place. LBJ is remembered for the Greater Society and Civil Rights. He got passed the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Increased Welfare, and on and on. Second, both Reagan and JFK should be MUCH lower. JFK's greatest accomplishment is getting shot in the head and Reagan was a scumbag whose economic policies harmed this country for years and whose foreign policy was an equal disaster which could likely be blamed for the current shit show of the Middle East. Oh and Eisenhower above both? The FUCK did he do besides golf?

This is a trash list.

Obama was really mediocre but he's sandwiched in between Dubya's Wacky Middle East Adventures and the Trump Tower of Terror so he'll be remembered fondly.

People keep saying he's mediocre, likely because he didn't pass enough major bills to his name like "Obamacare." But, you realize an effective Presidency is more than that? Why do you think George Washington and Lincoln are ranked so high? Washington set the precedent for the entire Presidency and Lincoln saved the Republic. Obama kept the country from economic collapse, pulled us out of two foreign wars, killed Osama Bin Landen, all the while passing through the largest overhaul of America's healthcare system since LBJ's Greater Society.

 

[norinrad]

I figured Obama was Top 20 but he's a lot closer to Top 10 than I would have placed him. He was above average but not amazing or anything and nothing really changed or improved during his Presidency. At least nothing got dramatically worse so there's that I suppose.

There's a list of his accomplishments somewhere, though we should all ignore that because it didn't make an immediate impact. Laws and policies often takes years to work as intended you know?

 

[Wag]

Bush is right in front of Trump's idol, Andrew Jackson.

 

[Derwind]

Every President will have hate/criticism against them. Nothing new.

True and criticism is fine but I get the feeling that some of the hate thrown his way reaches deeper than his presidency (a la 'birtherism').

 

[t26]

Most of the social programs we have today were started by Lyndon Johnson. He was also a master of working congress, and one of the only Democrats in 50 years to not sacrifice congress for his social program. He passed an aggressively liberal social agenda without losing congress, something no Democrat has done since World War II. Further, he inherited (though made worse) Kennedy's Vietnam mess.

And while I'm a liberal, Reagan deserves credit. Most liberals are unwilling to recognize the state of the US in 1979 versus the state of the US in 1988, and most of that has to do with Ronald Reagan. I feel like the liberal antagonism against Reagan, today, is similar to the Republican antagoism against Obama. Liberals will hold onto a few inconsequential issues and completely miss the bigger picture, for the sole sake of lambasting their opponent.

Deinstitutionalisation alone affect people with mental illness and homeless today and will likely for a very long time. This alone has a very long term consequence for the country than any war.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Ah yes when I think of equal justice for all and moral authority I think of Franklin "Japanese interment camp" Roosevelt.

Lincoln and Washington on the other hand are deserving of their spots.

....

....

I really hope you're joking

Honestly I'm baffled by Polk, but ESPECIALLY McKinley being so high.

McKinley was a woeful president.

Polk was a crazy influential president. He orchestrated the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American war, the agreement with the British over the Oregon territory. He was made to be a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party, but managed to tread the line and accomplish a bunch of his goals. He promised to run just one term and so did this all in 4 years. He was the strongest president between Jackson and Lincoln, and one of the few strong ones in a period leading up to the Civil War where most presidents sat idly by and let things get worse

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There's a list of his accomplishments somewhere, though we should all ignore that because it didn't make an immediate impact. Laws and policies often takes years to work as intended you know?

Yeah, he had great accomplishments like Libya and Syria.

He also had this ACA thing which is going to be dismantled by the current administration.

All of his signature policy was failures.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Yeah, he had great accomplishments like Libya and Syria.

He also had this ACA thing which is going to be dismantled by the current administration.

All of his signature policy was failures.

I want you to take a second and actually go through every thing Obama did during his 8 years, without the edgy snark

Then go and look at the presidents beneath him

Under Ronald "we did not sell arms for hostages" Reagan, Lyndon "look at my dick" Johnson, and Woodrow fucking Wilson?

Seriously?

Hey, he did that to intimidate a fellow congressman and actually get shit through congress

We could use some of that today XD

 

[zashga]

Chin up, Buchanan. In four years, you won't be last place anymore. Possibly sooner, depending how batshit things get.

 

[Ecotic]

Kennedy had a small presence in Vietnam to appease the war hawks of his time because he had made too many concessions elsewhere, and he had no intention of escalating that war. Once he was politically safe after his re-election he was going to withdraw completely. Kennedy had something Johnson never did, which was a deep-set skepticism of the intelligence community and the military. Whatever faith in them he had was gone after the Bay of Pigs.

Escalating the war/allowing mission creep was completely on Johnson. Johnson was totally uninterested in foreign affairs and was easily led into following the advice of the military and intelligence officials which was his fatal Shakespearean flaw.

 

[pa22word]

Polk was a crazy influential president. He orchestrated the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American war, the agreement with the British over the Oregon territory. He was made to be a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party, but managed to tread the line and accomplish a bunch of his goals. He promised to run just one term and so did this all in 4 years. He was the strongest president between Jackson and Lincoln, and one of the few strong ones in a period leading up to the Civil War where most presidents sat idly by and let things get worse

Chin up, Buchanan. In four years, you won't be last place anymore. Possibly sooner, depending how batshit things get.

Also something worth noting about both Polk and the OP list is one of the weak spots in Polk's administration was his secretary of state, who sold out his president routinely for the sake of political expediency for a future run of his own. Who was this man? Why, none other than Good old number 43/43 on our list, James Buchanan!

Trash president, trash SOS, trash politician. It's going to be interesting once trump leaves office to see the fight between historians over who was worse between Buchanan and Trump. I look forward with great pleasure to the Toilet Bowl discussion roundtables over the subject.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I love that this thread has people checking mofos trying to do drivebys with "he was a piece of shit".

Keep it up.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Probably about right for Barry

Wait for the baby boomer republicans to die off, and it'll probably normalize a bit.

Lol nah, just look at this thread

 

[Log4Girlz]

I wonder where Trump will rank...

Where do you rank a man who makes America great again?

 

[Ac30]

We'll see about that ACA repeal. Republicans still don't have anything to replace it with. His foreign policy legacy is marred by his middle east screw ups and his use of drones but the Iran deal, the Climate Accords and starting the normalization of relations with Cuba are all good things, as was his pivot to Asia - something Trump seems to be turning his back on. He was pro-gay/trans rights, supported quite a few environmental incentives (too bad the Clean Power Plan is getting killed), created DACA and many, many other small programs that never get a mention. I wish he had 8 years of a democratic congress to push more progressive measures through. Yeah Trump is probably going to repeal a ton of his policies but you can hardly blame Obama for that. I'd put him top 10 but I'm not in academia so

I do wish every single day that Lieberman didn't kill single payer. Fuck. Maybe then we wouldn't get constant bitching about how Obamacare is the worst thing ever.

Also I had no idea just how much Lyndon Johnson got passed, guy was a hell of a politician...

 

[Torokil]

What kind of crackpot list is this? First, people need to read up on LBJ past the Vietnam war, which was Kennedy's war in the first place. LBJ is remembered for the Greater Society and Civil Rights. He got passed the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Increased Welfare, and on and on. Second, both Reagan and JFK should be MUCH lower. JFK's greatest accomplishment is getting shot in the head and Reagan was a scumbag whose economic policies harmed this country for years and whose foreign policy was an equal disaster which could likely be blamed for the current shit show of the Middle East. Oh and Eisenhower above both? The FUCK did he do besides golf?





People keep saying he's mediocre, likely because he didn't pass enough major bills to his name like "Obamacare." But, you realize an effective Presidency is more than that? Why do you think George Washington and Lincoln are ranked so high? Washington set the precedent for the entire Presidency and Lincoln saved the Republic. Obama kept the country from economic collapse, pulled us out of two foreign wars, killed Osama Bin Landen, all the while passing through the largest overhaul of America's healthcare system since LBJ's Greater Society.

Ike:

-Interstate Highway System
-NASA
-Did a lot of good for racial equality and social justice (not compared to JFK and LBJ though)

Obama ain't got shit on that with his Heritage Foundation healthcare, drones, and greatly expanding the surveillance state.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Waaaay too early for this.

We'll see how cementing GWB's expansion of executive power goes over the next 4 years, for starters.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I want you to take a second and actually go through every thing Obama did during his 8 years, without the edgy snark

Then go and look at the presidents beneath him

Attempting to do List Warz on Presidents is about as effective as doing it on consoles. I'm just saying.

 

[Forerunner]

 

[HariKari]

Reagan should be lower. His economic policy is a disaster in hindsight and opened pandora's capitalistic box. We're not even close to being done paying for his mistakes. They may actually undo the pillars that America has stood on for so long.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Ranks, Obama!

 

[pa22word]

Kennedy had a small presence in Vietnam to appease the war hawks of his time because he had made too many concessions elsewhere, and he had no intention of escalating that war. Once he was politically safe after his re-election he was going to withdraw completely. Kennedy had something Johnson never did, which was a deep-set skepticism of the intelligence community and the military. Whatever faith in them he had was gone after the Bay of Pigs.

Escalating the war/allowing mission creep was completely on Johnson. Johnson was totally uninterested in foreign affairs and was easily led into following the advice of the military and intelligence officials which was his fatal Shakespearean flaw.

This isn't really true. The deep seated skepticism of the generals was very much at home in the Johnson whitehouse, and arguably was the crux of why the war got so bad in the first place. McNamara thought the generals were dumb old windbags and refused to listen to them when they told him that the war was going to take like 500k-1m men to win, and to not bother unless they could secure that. He thought he could apply the same "limited war" theory used during the Cuban Missile Crisis to the same effect against the Vietnam war, and routinely shut out any and all criticism from anyone else to the contrary, including the extremely skeptical generals. Johnson's own way of doing things, built around striving to achieve consensus (McNamara was famous for rejecting or ignoring proposals from the Joint Chiefs until he got something from them that wanted to hear) , served only to exacerbate the problem as it routinely shut out information to the man himself on the lower levels that might have changed his opinion. Not to mention the white house KNEW the Gulf of Tonken incident was bullshit, and forced a general to go before congress and essentially lie about it.

The majority of the blame for the mission creep lies solely with the white house and high level pentagon staff.

 

[gutter_trash]

LBJ doesn't get the credit that he deserves for improving the social safety net since FDR.

Carter didn't, Clinton didn't and Obama did a "comprimise" with health insurance companies that may fall apart under Trump

 

[Tigress]

How is Andrew Jackson in the top half?!!!!!and bush Jr. is too high too. Andrew Jackson shouldn't even be near the top half.

 

[pa22word]

LBJ doesn't get the credit that he deserves for improving the social safety net since FDR.

Na, it's just that you can't discuss LBJ the liberal hero president without also having to own the thousand ton woolly mammoth in the room known as Vietnam.

As someone with close relatives who served in Vietnam, including an Uncle who died due to agent orange exposure years after the fact, him sitting at number 10 on the list is kind of infuriating to me, even if I do understand that he does have a compelling argument to be there.

 

[formasymphonic]

Most of the social programs we have today were started by Lyndon Johnson. He was also a master of working congress, and one of the only Democrats in 50 years to not sacrifice congress for his social program. He passed an aggressively liberal social agenda without losing congress, something no Democrat has done since World War II. Further, he inherited (though made worse) Kennedy's Vietnam mess.

And while I'm a liberal, Reagan deserves credit. Most liberals are unwilling to recognize the state of the US in 1979 versus the state of the US in 1988, and most of that has to do with Ronald Reagan. I feel like the liberal antagonism against Reagan, today, is similar to the Republican antagoism against Obama. Liberals will hold onto a few inconsequential issues and completely miss the bigger picture, for the sole sake of lambasting their opponent.

I'm sorry, I just don't know if I can call the effect that Reagan's policies had on minority communities "inconsequential". And while I know Vietnam will always be associated with him, to see LBJ below Reagan is enough to devalue the list for me entirely.

 

[Megalosaro]

Any list that puts Washington in the top 5 is lulzy

 

[The Chosen One]

Also JFK's high ranking is really weird

For all of you saying JFK is too high, go read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JFK saved us from got dam nuclear war. Even if his other accomplishments were meager, that alone allows him to be in the top ten for essentially saving the human civilian. Seriously read a book on the Cuban Missile Crisis and you'll have a far greater appreciation for what the man did.

Weaker minded person like George W. Bush would have sent us into a nuclear winter.

 

[EatinOlives]

Why is Polk so high?? He was a massive racist and a giant piece of shit.

 

[pa22word]

I'm sorry, I just don't know I feel I can call the effect that Reagan's policies had on minority communities "inconsequential". And to see LDJ below him is enough to devalue the list for me entirely.

Until everyone who lived through Vietnam dies off LBJ is going to be "underranked" vs others of his time due to some putting him at Bush 43 levels while others top 5 him.

 

[AoM]

Why is Polk so high?? He was a massive racist and a giant piece of shit.

Check earlier on the page.