-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Historians Rank Obama 12th Best President
- Thread starter Rainy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Frozenprince
Banned
Maybe holding using 9/11 to start his own Vietnam against him? All I got. Cause he handled his largest crisis fairly well IMO.Crisis Leadership:
George W. Bush 25th.
Right...
I can't imagine they are holding the 07 crash against him as a crisis. He was barely in office to fix it.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Awesome.
outranked by a hypocritical slave owner. And it's honestly hard to argue against it.
Agreed on the reading it would help immensely to understand their train of thought in regards to policy
Yeah it's weird to say, but I agree that it's hard to argue against ranking Jefferson higher in fighting for equal rights than Reagan.
If each is being graded as a product of their time, you can almost excuse Jefferson (not forgive, mind you). Reagan has no "product of the distant past" to shelter him. His track record against minorities and the oppressed practically defines the term "institutional racism."
For all the good he did in the Cold War and in driving economic growth, his work against minorities weighs on his legacy and, in my opinion, should place him a few spots lower on that list.
Maybe holding using 9/11 to start his own Vietnam against him? All I got. Cause he handled his largest crisis fairly well IMO.
I can't imagine they are holding the 07 crash against him as a crisis. He was barely in office to fix it.
That's my guess too.
His decision to go into Iraq based on a false "crisis" of WMDs left the US in a bad foreign policy position and destabilized much of the Middle East so badly that we're still seeing the effects.
neurosisxeno
Member
Maybe holding using 9/11 to start his own Vietnam against him? All I got. Cause he handled his largest crisis fairly well IMO.
I can't imagine they are holding the 07 crash against him as a crisis. He was barely in office to fix it.
He got a pass on 9/11 mostly, but his reaction to it wasn't exactly great. Using it as a justification for invading Iraq while also cozying up to Saudi Arabia who was pretty involved with the planning and execution of the attacks isn't good. Then there was Hurricane Katrina... that didn't go well.
He supported women's suffrage at the state level. He didn't lead the charge at the federal level, but that's not the same thing as opposing it.His hand was forced on the 19th. He never saw "their" side.
So you think only white guys benefited from pioneering anti-trust law to rein in corporations? Or historic reforms to the tax system that set the stage for all subsequent big government expansion? Or the first big push to regulate child labour (which the Supreme Court subsequently vetoed, but that's not Wilson's fault)? Wilson set the stage for the New Deal; if you like FDR's domestic agenda, you really can't disparage Wilson's.I dunno. I put more weight towards equality for all humans over matters of policy that only benefited white guys.
I can argue he is better than every president listed below him. He still ain't shitBill Clinton shouldn't be so high, no, I'm not sorry.
Frozenprince
Banned
Yeah it's weird to say, but I agree that it's hard to argue against ranking Jefferson higher in fighting for equal rights than Reagan.
If each is being graded as a product of their time, you can almost excuse Jefferson (not forgive, mind you). Reagan has no "product of the distant past" to shelter him. His track record against minorities and the oppressed practically defines the term "institutional racism."
For all the good he did in the Cold War and in driving economic growth, his work against minorities weighs on his legacy and, in my opinion, should place him a few spots lower on that list.
Agreed really on all points.
Reagan doesn't have the excuse of time and being relatively equivalent to his contemporaries. For his day, he was still virulently conservative and his domestic blunders as well as his awful decisions in South America would knock him down several rungs to me, that's before even getting to his disastrous police and justice reforms. We'll be feeling the feedback of his administration for a long time in terms of how it's poisoned the well for race relations in this country.
I do tend to give Volker and to a lesser extent, Greenspan most of the credit for the boom that followed most of his administration however, without Greenspan I can't imagine black monday not starting a cascade effect.
It's more pertinant IMO to judge presidents as they were among their contemporaries and while using current morals to see their attitudes, rightfully, as horrible, it's important that we not mire ourselves too much in that so as to be blinded for what they could reasonably accomplish and even understand given their education likely was that their world views might have even been "progressive".
I do think that, even as party to his time, someone like Woodrow Wilson was still virulently intolerant even compared to his contemporaries. Which does quite a bit of damage (as well as his ineptitude in handling the war I.E. his disastrous foreign policy) to his otherwise relatively decent (compared to the drek that preceded him absent Roosevelt) record.
I can argue he is better than every president listed below him. He still ain't shit
Clinton is in no small part equally responsible for the current racial climate in America as Reagan, and his inaction at trying to curtail rampant speculation and just ride the wave is something we are still recovering from. Though you can't fault him too much, not many presidents would have the clout or the desire to go "We are TOO successful right now we need to measure back before this goes south".
But yeah, Clinton was a pretty bad president that rode an economic boom that wasn't even his responsibility to widespread acclamation.
neurosisxeno
Member
James Polk should be top 5 imo. I wouldn't put Reagan in the top 15. Harry Truman was kind of a piece of shit and probably shouldn't be allowed in the top 10.
Frozenprince
Banned
I think an interesting list would be ranking the presidents who functionally accomplished very little or who's legacy is that of stagnancy. The early and late 19th century ones. Guys like Cleveland, Taft, Taylor et al who just kinda let the boat sail on with very little overall contribution so as to be no more than really a footnote in history.
So you think only white guys benefited from pioneering anti-trust law to rein in corporations? Or historic reforms to the tax system that set the stage for all subsequent big government expansion? Or the first big push to regulate child labour (which the Supreme Court subsequently vetoed, but that's not Wilson's fault)? Wilson set the stage for the New Deal; if you like FDR's domestic agenda, you really can't disparage Wilson's.
Sure, sure. I still don't have to like him though, solely because he only buckled to support women's rights under pressure.
Maybe holding using 9/11 to start his own Vietnam against him? All I got. Cause he handled his largest crisis fairly well IMO.
I can't imagine they are holding the 07 crash against him as a crisis. He was barely in office to fix it.
For 9/11, he did handle it pretty well for something that hasn't been scene on American soil since the Civil War. Iraq is on his ass though and that drops him down massively. One of the reasons why I would definitely drop Kennedy/Johnson down massive too for Vietnam. Kennedy committed to full scale deployment, Johnson committed to combat troops. Another knock against Reagen too for his massive fuck ups in SA.
One thing that gets me though is the reverse of the party from Bush's tenure. They looked to be improving Mexican and South American relationships by the end of his tenure and courting the Hispanic vote. Then the Tea party came along and basically fucked everything up for everyone.
Harry Truman was one of the worst fucking human being. Asshole dropped 2 nuclear bomb for sake of it. He should be last in the list. So fuck this list.
He chose the best option among multiple. The Japanese weren't going to surrender, they didn't believe in it. Would you have rather we invaded the mainland and cost millions of people their lives? (Not just American lives, many Japanese would have died as well)
Dropping a nuclear bomb shouldn't be taken lightly and I don't think he did. He weighed how many lives it would have cost plus the ongoing cost of the war to invade Japan and chose another option. His choice still resulted in a lot of people dying, but it was orders of magnitude less than if we had invaded.
War is messy and there is rarely ever an "I'll go with Option C" choice where nobody dies.
neurosisxeno
Member
For 9/11, he did handle it pretty well for something that hasn't been scene on American soil since the Civil War.
Pearl Harbor? Hell, the WTC was bombed under Clinton too. The scale of 9/11 was unprecedented, but there were definitely attacks on American soil between the Civil War and 9/11.
Just noticed LBJ is 1st in Relations with Congress. Wasn't he notorious for bullying the shit out of Congress to get what he wanted?
He chose the best option among multiple. The Japanese weren't going to surrender, they didn't believe in it. Would you have rather we invaded the mainland and cost millions of people their lives? (Not just American lives, many Japanese would have died as well)
Dropping a nuclear bomb shouldn't be taken lightly and I don't think he did. He weighed how many lives it would have cost plus the ongoing cost of the war to invade Japan and chose another option. His choice still resulted in a lot of people dying, but it was orders of magnitude less than if we had invaded.
War is messy and there is rarely ever an "I'll go with Option C" choice where nobody dies.
Uhhhh no. Dude was on a Destroyer off the coast of Japan jumping around like an excited child when the bombs went off. The military brass on board were shocked at how excited he seemed to be about such a devastating attack. Also, Japan didn't care that we nuked 2 cities. We had already leveled 4-5 major cities through fire bombing campaigns. They were only afraid of Russia moving their way through Manchuria.
theignoramus
Member
I can see an argument for the first atomic bombing, and to be perfectly frank, that was the universe paying Japan back for its foul behavior in Nanking and other places across Asia.
But the second nuclear bombing was a demonstration of great cruelty and inhumanity in my mind and the moral defenses for it are extremely weak.
But the second nuclear bombing was a demonstration of great cruelty and inhumanity in my mind and the moral defenses for it are extremely weak.
neurosisxeno
Member
I can see an argument for the first atomic bombing, and to be perfectly frank, that was the uinverse paying Japan back for its foul behavior in Nanking and other places across Asia.
But the second nuclear bombing was a demonstration of great cruelty and inhumanity in my mind and the moral defenses for it are extremely weak.
I think a single use was justified, to help establish the nuclear deterrent and ensure relative peace for a few decades. The western world seems to now believe that the nuclear bombs ensured Japanese surrender, when in fact they did very little to move the needle. Russia knocking on Japan's door was what pushed them over the edge.
Frozenprince
Banned
Not the thread to argue it but the coup attempt the night before the surrender suggests the split in Japan's military (who really ruled the country) was real along lines of surrender terms.
So the second bomb has always been marginally justified to me.
So the second bomb has always been marginally justified to me.
I can see an argument for the first atomic bombing, and to be perfectly frank, that was the universe paying Japan back for its foul behavior in Nanking and other places across Asia.
But the second nuclear bombing was a demonstration of great cruelty and inhumanity in my mind and the moral defenses for it are extremely weak.
But they didn't surrender after the first. What should we have done, then? Invade Japan? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think a single use was justified, to help establish the nuclear deterrent and ensure relative peace for a few decades. The western world seems to now believe that the nuclear bombs ensured Japanese surrender, when in fact they did very little to move the needle. Russia knocking on Japan's door was what pushed them over the edge.
This is simply not true. The Nuclear Bombs made Japan surrender.
I mean, why would Russia joining the war make that much of a difference to Japan? If an invasion happened, they were going to be conquered whether it was the US alone or the US and USSR together.
Infernostew
Member
Let's not have this turn into an atomic bomb thread where all the people who say dropping the bombs aren't justified get schooled by the history enthusiasts to the point where they result to arguments like dropping warning nukes. It was justified, it saved a lot more lives that it took, Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb, Russia wasn't going to be a factor in Japan's surrender, and it wasn't an easy call for Truman to make.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
The second bomb was to show that it wasn't just a one off, that they had more bombs and were able to do it wherever they wanted to.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Looking at the scorecard, I noticed FDR is number one for public persuasion, which reminded me of one of my favorite political speeches of all time. He gave it just before the election where he would go on to win his second term.
The man had balls to just call out the banks and the Republicans looking to return government involvement to pre-Depression levels. And the parallels to today are kinda shocking.
Here's audio of that part I quoted above, but there's more to the actual speech, if anyone's interested.
https://youtu.be/IjSTQwamo8M
FDR said:For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.
For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peacebusiness and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for meand I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
The man had balls to just call out the banks and the Republicans looking to return government involvement to pre-Depression levels. And the parallels to today are kinda shocking.
Here's audio of that part I quoted above, but there's more to the actual speech, if anyone's interested.
https://youtu.be/IjSTQwamo8M
How were the Soviets a non factor? They would have been which is the point that the nukes negated.Let's not have this turn into an atomic bomb thread where all the people who say dropping the bombs aren't justified get schooled by the history enthusiasts to the point where they result to arguments like dropping warning nukes. It was justified, it saved a lot more lives that it took, Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb, Russia wasn't going a factor in Japan's surrender, and it wasn't an easy call for Truman to make.
theignoramus
Member
I reject your characterisation of the options availabe to Truman after the first bombing, Nagasaki being bombed a mere 72 hours after Hiroshima was a draconian move meant to humiliate and punish the Japanese.But they didn't surrender after the first. What should we have done, then? Invade Japan? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
This is simply not true. The Nuclear Bombs made Japan surrender.
I mean, why would Russia joining the war make that much of a difference to Japan? If an invasion happened, they were going to be conquered whether it was the US alone or the US and USSR together.
I reject your characterisation of the options availabe to Truman after the first bombing, Nagasaki being bombed a mere 72 hours after Hiroshima was a draconian move meant to humiliate and punish the Japanese.
So, basically you are taking the position that if we waited another week or two, then Japan would have eventually surrendered, even though there is no actual evidence from Japanese communications that they would have?
Infernostew
Member
How were the Soviets a non factor? They would have been which is the point that the nukes negated.
Even though Russia was making strides throughout Japanese occupation in China, the Japanese weren't going to surrender to Russia is what I mean. When people try to refute the use of the nukes, they like to make up this alternate universe where the Japanese were extremely close to surrendering to Russia just before the bombs dropped.
Throwing a nuclear bomb in a non millitary city cannot be justified under any utilitarian bullshit. Killing civilians unrepentantly is not war. Fuck that noise.He chose the best option among multiple. The Japanese weren't going to surrender, they didn't believe in it. Would you have rather we invaded the mainland and cost millions of people their lives? (Not just American lives, many Japanese would have died as well)
Dropping a nuclear bomb shouldn't be taken lightly and I don't think he did. He weighed how many lives it would have cost plus the ongoing cost of the war to invade Japan and chose another option. His choice still resulted in a lot of people dying, but it was orders of magnitude less than if we had invaded.
War is messy and there is rarely ever an "I'll go with Option C" choice where nobody dies.
Maybe its just me but isn't it a bit early to judge that?
Nah. I agree. In general I think a 20-year moratorium on that kind of appraisal is prudent.
Also, I cannot put Lincoln above Washington. The guy turned down being king and prevented a military overthrow of the government. He's basically the single greatest factor in why the American Revolution successfully transitioned to a peaceful republican government and didn't get mired in years of civil war and strife like the vast majority of revolutions since.
Both of their scores on international issues though really shows how much of these rankings are informed by presidential preferences first, categories second, though. Presidential rankings are basically the historian's equivalent of arguing about who's the greatest sportsball player,
Throwing a nuclear bomb in a non millitary city cannot be justified under any utilitarian bullshit. Killing civilians unrepentantly is not war. Fuck that noise.
Both cities had military targets in them, and the whole idea of a "non military city" itself makes no sense in a total war scenario; where is the sliding scale of when it is appropriate or not to bomb a target to aid your military aims contra civilian casualties?
To be fair to Tyler, a lot of that hate comes about because his contemporaries never viewed him as the rightful President. They referred to him as "His Accidency" and his own cabinet (which was actually Harrison's cabinet) tried for a power play by telling him that they would handle all executive actions themselves before he shut them down.
The infighting that followed his rise to power overshadowed his few accomplishments, like settling parts of the US-Canadian border and starting toward the annexation of Texas (which, while controversial, was instrumental in shaping the US).
Edit: And yes, I'm aware he was a racist shitbag. It's pretty well settled that just about every president was around this time. And yes, I know he even won a spot in the Confederate House of Representatives (I think it was). I'm just saying it's not like he accomplished absolutely nothing.
To be fair to all the pre-Civil War presidents, a lot of their accomplishments or relative failures or successes are always overshadowed by the fact that we, the omnipotent viewer, know the Civil War is coming and so knock them all for not doing enough to prevent it. The reality is I'm not really sure a change in executive would be the pivot point to avert the Civil War itself, especially since a lot of the sparks on that tinder were because of the fallout of legislative compromises repeatedly failing. I'm not a huge fan of the overarching "the second war's origins like in the first one's" way of interpreting history, and the idea that the Civil War was unavoidable because of the compromises embedded in the Constitution, but there were certain elements that were always going to come to a head, and the idea of slavery in a republic built on the idea of personal liberty was always going to be one of them.
Even though Russia was making strides throughout Japanese occupation in China, the Japanese weren't going to surrender to Russia is what I mean. When people try to refute the use of the nukes, they like to make up this alternate universe where the Japanese were extremely close to surrendering to Russia just before the bombs dropped.
So the Japanese didn't care about Soviet involvement at all? They were only worried about the Americans?
Infernostew
Member
Throwing a nuclear bomb in a non millitary city cannot be justified under any utilitarian bullshit. Killing civilians unrepentantly is not war. Fuck that noise.
Both cities were chosen because they were military targets.
America definitely posed the immediate threat and Russia had only recently declared war on Japan before the bombs were dropped. The US and UK had plans drawn for a land invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) which was going to be a real mess since Japan was training and arming civilian men, women and children for the campaign. While Russia was putting pressure on Japan from the north, I'm not exactly sure that they would have the naval power for an invasion of northern Japan as it seemed that Japan was going to stage a defense of it's land.So the Japanese didn't care about Soviet involvement at all? They were only worried about the Americans?
ShooterMcGavin
Member
This is absolutely false.Harry Truman was one of the worst fucking human being. Asshole dropped 2 nuclear bomb for sake of it. He should be last in the list. So fuck this list.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Nah. I agree. In general I think a 20-year moratorium on that kind of appraisal is prudent.
Also, I cannot put Lincoln above Washington. The guy turned down being king and prevented a military overthrow of the government. He's basically the single greatest factor in why the American Revolution successfully transitioned to a peaceful republican government and didn't get mired in years of civil war and strife like the vast majority of revolutions since.
Both of their scores on international issues though really shows how much of these rankings are informed by presidential preferences first, categories second, though. Presidential rankings are basically the historian's equivalent of arguing about who's the greatest sportsball player,
I get what you're saying on Washington, but I'd still put Lincoln higher. He held the Union together through a bloody Civil War that was fought (primarily) so that we could finally move toward living up to the phrase "All Men are Created Equal" written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
And yes, we're still fighting to live up to that creed. But Lincoln (as well as countless known and unknown slaves, freed former slaves, and abolitionists) took one hell of a massive step in the right direction.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
Reagan at number 9?
Haha wow, fuck this list. Reagan is fucking trash tier, easily the worst modern president.
Haha wow, fuck this list. Reagan is fucking trash tier, easily the worst modern president.
Agreed. Lyndon had really good domestic policy that he makes my top 10. FDR being three seems a little low. Guess the internment camps pushed him lower than Washington. Washington is also a super overrated president. Great leader but really dumb. A lot of his excellence came from luck. Andrew Johnson is way worse than Buchanan imho. He put our country over 100 years behind based on his fucking horrible laws. Because of his dumbass deciding to put the military in the south, there is still bitter resentment about the civil war that is felt today with all the white supremacy taking seats in the government.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.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Agreed. Lyndon is had really good domestic policy that he makes my top 10. FDR being three seems a little low. Guess the internment camps pushed him lower than Washington. Washington is also a super overrated president. Great leader but really dumb. A lot of his excellence came from luck.
As others have pointed out, I think a lot of Washington's admiration comes from how he handled the power of the presidency and how he gracefully bowed out after two terms.
The man became leader of a new nation with a type of government that was somewhat foreign to the people who put it together. Despite having power thrust upon him, he stayed quite humble, even insisting that he not be referred to as "Your Highness" or any other title. He told people to call him "Mister President." That deserves some points.
theignoramus
Member
If America had accepted a conditional surrender from Japan, the second bombing could've been avoided. Also, the US could've continued a devastating conventional bombing campaign after Hiroshima, it's not like there was some kind of false choice between dropping a second bomb versus inaction or an outright invasion.So, basically you are taking the position that if we waited another week or two, then Japan would have eventually surrendered, even though there is no actual evidence from Japanese communications that they would have?
I agree I think it does but FDRs actions define what we expect out of the modern day presidents. His expansion of power into the executive branch was paramount to giving the branch of government real tangible power. He does lose significant points for being an extreme racist.As others have pointed out, I think a lot of Washington's admiration comes from how he handled the power of the presidency and how he gracefully bowed out after two terms.
The man became leader of a new nation with a type of govenrnment that was somewhat foreign to the people who put it together. That deserves some points.
If America had accepted a conditional surrender from Japan, the second bombing could've been avoided. Also, the US could've continued a devastating conventional bombing campaign after Hiroshima, it's not like there was some kind of false choice between dropping a second bomb versus inaction or an outright invasion.
The only timeline they were facing was the so called non factor Soviets controlling the peace. Bombs were dropped for American dominance. Saying it was the merciful thing to do is pure malarkey.
He was pretty good but the dude has some extreme lows. War of drugs, expansion of the police system, reganomics setting the scene for the housing bubble that crashed the economy, etc. Imho hes is right below Obama at 12-13ish. Just not top ten.Reagan is arguably one of the best Republican presidents and GAF obviously loathes him. My guess is that if you are on the right you are rated too high for this site. Gonna go ahead and say the responses to my post proves my point.
The second bomb was flexing the US's power to say that we are the superpower of the world. It wasn't because we still thought the Japanese would continue fighting. The first bomb is justified to me, not the second.If America had accepted a conditional surrender from Japan, the second bombing could've been avoided. Also, the US could've continued a devastating conventional bombing campaign after Hiroshima, it's not like there was some kind of false choice between dropping a second bomb versus inaction or an outright invasion.
I get what you're saying on Washington, but I'd still put Lincoln higher. He held the Union together through a bloody Civil War that was fought (primarily) so that we could finally move toward living up to the phrase "All Men are Created Equal" written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
And yes, we're still fighting to live up to that creed. But Lincoln (as well as countless known and unknown slaves, freed former slaves, and abolitionists) took one hell of a massive step in the right direction.
He fought the Civil War to preserve the Union. If he could have done it by keeping slavery, he would have (even if I do believe he was a genuine supporter of abolition.) The Emancipation Proclamation was a masterful piece of political theater, not a profound expression of moral purpose, and this is before we get into the arguments of whether you can preserve your country by trampling on its bedrock principles (suspension of habeas corpus, etc.)
I do give the man credit for his role in history and his actions, but turning him into "The Great Emancipator" feels like it's more about making heroes and villains in our national story. Plus, it will forever be the Republicans' answer to "why haven't you done anything good on civil rights in sixty years?"
Agreed. Lyndon had really good domestic policy that he makes my top 10. FDR being three seems a little low. Guess the internment camps pushed him lower than Washington. Washington is also a super overrated president. Great leader but really dumb. A lot of his excellence came from luck.
I don't see where your assertion that Washington was dumb comes from. He was not a genius of warcraft like Alexander or Hannibal, but he didn't need to be.
If there was a spot I'd give most of the Founding Fathers a knock on the reason standpoint, it was their optimism that slavery would die out on its own. That was probably just their economic necessities blinding them to the reality that a system of racial oppression would need to be hammered at.
He was pretty good but the dude has some extreme lows. War of drugs, expansion of the police system, reganomics setting the scene for the housing bubble that crashed the economy, etc. Imho hes is right below Obama at 12-13ish. Just not top ten.
Nice post. I do agree he isn't top 10, but he wasn't a shit tier president like a few we could all name. He is up there as one of the best, but top 10 is a tad bit high.
How tuned in are you to the field of history exactly? I'd say since around the 60's the field has been stressing continuity more than change, to its detriment no less.
What the field wants and what the people get are two different things, obviously. Obama was a "change" in attitude but ro many people represents stability at all costs. Eight years of relative domestic tranquility under Eisenhower and Clinton were followed by opposition parties winning the presidency.
How Regan handled the USSR situation alone puts him up there. He was better than Clinton imho.Nice post. I do agree he isn't top 10, but he wasn't a shit tier president like a few we could all name. He is up there as one of the best, but top 10 is a tad bit high.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Reagan is arguably one of the best Republican presidents and GAF obviously loathes him. My guess is that if you are on the right you are rated too high for this site. Gonna go ahead and say the responses to my post proves my point.
I'd put him a few points lower, just based on his policies that negatively affected minorities in a disproportionate way. Beyond the expansion of police powers and the War on Drugs, there's also Reaganomics, which Republicans still try to convince us is a workable method of economic policy.
If it's any consolation, I'd personally also move JFK down, probably just below Reagan. His only real consequential actions involved civil rights, but his legacy there is mostly overshadowed by LBJ.
neurosisxeno
Member
He was pretty good but the dude has some extreme lows. War of drugs, expansion of the police system, reganomics setting the scene for the housing bubble that crashed the economy, etc. Imho hes is right below Obama at 12-13ish. Just not top ten.
You're being generous.
The War on Drugs, Crack Cocaine, AIDS Epidemic, Iran-Contra, Blurring of Church and State, Targeted killing of Moderates in the Middle East (mostly Afghanistan), Turning down multiple disarmament treaties with Gorbachev, Star Wars program, Invading Grenada, Reaganomics, the rise of Conservatism, Crippling South and Central America...
Reagan is probably the single most damaging President in modern history. You can trace almost any problem facing this country directly to decisions made under Ronald Reagan.
Not Grant personally.Wait why the FUCK is Grant so high. The dude committed one of the biggest fraud scandals in president history.
But regardless, Grant's ranking has gone up over the years (though it's still in the lower end of the scale) because of increasing recognition of his government's efforts to secure the rights of the freedmen during Reconstruction. He was the last president until Truman to really put the weight of the US government behind civil rights.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.