Trump IS something of an outlier; he is decidedly worse than Nixon. I didn't like Nixon at all, but in some ways he deserves to be in the plus column (albeit a low number). Johnson was more likable than Nixon, and if you hated Nixon's Vietnam's policies, they weren't worse than Johnson's. I would rate Reagan very low. He wasn't a crook (per Nixon), but his domestic policies were terrible. His Star Wars Initiative was ruinously expensive for us, as well as the soviets.

I don't think the first few presidents were all that hot either. Had I been around back then, I would have been a Federalist. Jackson? Quite disagreeable. Lincoln deserves a 5.

I can't remember enough about the presidents after Johnson (Lincoln's vice prez) but what I do remember was that they were not all that bad.

Harding maybe deserves a -2 or -3. When Dorothy Parker heard that Calvin Coolidge had died, she asked, "How could they tell?"

Hoover's reputation may be underrated. He was a very competent executive, so I have heard. True, his austerity program at the onset of the Great depression (which at the time wasn't yet called the Great Depression) failed, when a perhaps non-intuitive generous increase in spending was called for. Everyone wasn't a Keynesian yet.

Kennedy probably deserves a 2 instead of a 1; he was at least inspiring, and the press back then had the decency not to tell us about his exceptionally active sex life. Eisenhower a 1 or 2 instead of a 3. Carter deserves more than a 1. Had the Iran embassy rescue not blow up in his face (and dragged into the very inauguration of Reagan) he'd have a much better reputation. In fact, he might have served 2 terms.

The bushes both deserve a zero -0- at most.

Franklin Roosevelt deserves a 5.

In summary: Were we to rank congress as well as the president, we would find that many sessions of Congress were awful.

I would give a 4 to Eisenhower and 1 to older Bush and improve Reagan to at least 0.
Johnson would deserve a 2. (-5, if he was in the plot to kill JFK, but who knows.)

My assessments, I'm afraid, are fairly conventional. Wiki, etc has helped me to recall the devilish details (always mindful of historical contexts and the risks, constraints, & opportunities (missed & taken) for presidential leadership). Of course, in the end, just a game of charades (or ideological rorschach) ... :cool:

5 Best U.S. Presiden(ts) - 2 or more of the following: leadership in war; statemanship (i.e. diplomacy to prevent armed conflict); strengthened 'the rule-of-law' (i.e. constitutional order & norms); promoted civil political or fiscal reforms in order to minimize domestic social conflicts; etc

1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. TR
5. Washington

5 Worst U.S. Presiden(cies) - 2 or more of the following: mal-administration (i.e. conspicuous incompetence); flagrant corruption (further undermining public trust ...); demogoguery (i.e. inciting / pandering to "racists" "xenophobes" "misogynists" "nationalists" "religious bigots" "conspiracy" wingnut agitprop, etc); weakening 'the rule-of-law' (i.e anti-democratic abuses of one or more branches of government, etc); hawkish militarism (e.g. "wars of opportunity"); etc ...

1. TR45H (aka "Individual-1" "Putin's Bitch" "Agent Orange" "M.oscow A.sset G.overning A.merica" "SCROTUS" ...)
2. Buchanan (+ Pierce + Tyler + Fillmore)
3. Harding + Bush 43 (aka "Dubya" "Shrub")
4. A. Johnson + Cleveland 2nd
5. Cleveland 1st + B. Harrison

Overall total 46 points, Average, 1.022 — tim wood

Taking into account the alternative views expressed above, 6 points are added. New total 52, new avg. 1.155
Most of this as upgrading Garfield through Harrison for +5, from -1 to 0. Maybe too generous.

Anyway, arbitrary as it is, two conclusions: pretty good agreement on assessments and apparently most folks's history isn't up to the question. A little disappointing but not a great surprise.

1. tRUMP (aka "Individual-1" "Putin's Bitch" "Agent Orange" "M.oscow A.sset G.overning A.merica" "SCROTUS" ...)
3. Bush 43 (aka "Dubya" "Shrub") — 180 Proof

I would say, minimally, Bush's War in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has lead to the death of most likely around 400,000 people in addition to around 7,000 Americans (while also helping to birth and enable ISIS), is worse than Trump (although he's doing his best to surpass him!)

In that one regard I agree, but disagree considering all or most of what I stipulate as "worst":

5 Worst U.S. Presiden(cies) - 2 or more of the following: mal-administration (i.e. conspicuous incompetence); flagrant corruption (further undermining public trust...); demogoguery (i.e. inciting / pandering to "racists" "xenophobes" "misogynists" "nationalists" "religious bigots" "conspiracy" wingnut agitprop, etc); weakening 'the rule-of-law' (i.e anti-democratic abuses of one or more branches of government, etc); hawkish militarism (e.g. "wars of opportunity"); etc ... — 180 Proof

There's not one of these attributions (and likely several more yet to be enumerated) which does not belong to tRUMP or his presidency, whereas, in my estimation, at least two Dubya was not guilty of during his eight (tedious, shameful) years in office.

:mask: :point:

5 Best U.S. Presiden(ts) - 2 or more of the following: leadership in war; statemanship (i.e. diplomacy to prevent armed conflict); strengthened 'the rule-of-law' (i.e. constitutional order & norms); promoted civil political or fiscal reforms in order to minimize domestic social conflicts; etc

(IMHO)

1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. TR
5. Washington

5 Worst U.S. Presiden(cies) - 2 or more of the following: mal-administration (i.e. conspicuous incompetence); flagrant corruption (further undermining public trust ...); demogoguery (i.e. inciting / pandering to "racists" "xenophobes" "misogynists" "nationalists" "religious bigots" "conspiracy" wingnut agitprop, etc); weakening 'the rule-of-law' (i.e anti-democratic abuses of one or more branches of government, etc); hawkish militarism (e.g. "wars of opportunity"); etc ...

(IMHO)

1. TR45H (aka "Putin's Bitch", "Agent Orange", "Individual-1", CovIDIOT-1")
2. Buchanan (+ Pierce + Tyler + Fillmore)
3. Harding + Bush 43 (aka "Dubya" "Shrub")
4. A. Johnson + Cleveland 2nd
5. Cleveland 1st + B. Harrison — 180 Proof

'INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION'. The only question left: Can DJT do any worse in the last 11 days of his term? Of course he can. :eyes:

edit:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) — 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Imho, Kennedy is a particularly interesting case.

He seems to have single handedly saved Western civilization during the Cuban Missile Crisis which, if true, would seem to be a bigger accomplishment than pretty much any other president. On the other hand, it was Kennedy's failure to convince the Russians he couldn't be bluffed that was the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, he fucked up way bad, and then fixed his own mistake just in the nick of time.

Kennedy was a very intelligent person with a cool head on the job, but was also wildly irresponsible with his personal life, leaving himself wide open to blackmail by foreign powers, the mob etc. Such contrasts within any single human being are always interesting.

I would suggest we shouldn't judge presidents by whether we agree with them or not, but by how successful they were in achieving their stated goals. So for example, by this standard Reagan deserves a much higher mark.

3 Truman
3 Eisenhower
1 Kennedy
3 Johnson — tim wood

How can you say such a thing? I'm actually kind of a Communist, but still know that those ones and threes need to be swapped.

He seems to have single handedly saved Western civilization during the Cuban Missile Crisis which, if true, would seem to be a bigger accomplishment than pretty much any other president. On the other hand, it was Kennedy's failure to convince the Russians he couldn't be bluffed that was the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, he fucked up way bad, and then fixed his own mistake just in the nick of time. — Hippyhead

By the "Cuban Missile Crisis", are you referring to the Civil Rights Act?

And why?

Truman is responsible for the Truman Doctrine, more or less the foundational basis for the Central Intelligence Agency arming, training, and funding Neo-Fascists and other terrorists around the world. Eisenhower, I guess, did bring out of the Korean War, but that obviously hasn't been terribly effective, and, so, only so much credit can be given to good old Ike, and Lyndon B. Johnson was very much so responsible for our continued engagement in the war in Vietnam.

John F. Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act, brought us to the moon, and his brother would've been the best president in almost all of United States' history.

The Truman Doctrine: "The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy the stated purpose of which was to contain Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War. It was announced to Congress by President Harry S. ... More generally, the Truman Doctrine implied American support for other nations thought to be threatened by Soviet communism." And he made the difficult decision to drop our two atomic bombs on the Japanese, and while some may not like that decision, a close look at history justifies it.

Eisenhower: can you say Brown v. Board of Education and Little Rock? His warning against the military-industrial complex, the interstate highway system?

Lyndon Johnson: "This Day in History: President Lyndon B. Johnson Signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

And Kennedy seduced us all. Not such a bad thing. But had he survived his reputation may well have become like Bill Clinton's, in tatters.

Rate them as you like, but a little more history might have you both adjust your own ratings and appreciate a little more all of what there is to know.

I had forgotten what I had learned in Civics class, and, so, meant to say that Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson just signed it into law. By my estimation, it seems to have been his bill.

Eisenhower, whatever. I don't really feel a need to contend this outside of that he is ranked well and Kennedy is not.

Truman, though...

the stated purpose of which — tim wood

What, to American Intelligence, that entailed was the arming, training, and funding of who, I guess, at the time, would've just been Fascists, as per what generally gets referred to as "Operation Gladio", as that is what has come out of the Italian courts, a set of clandestine actions that would later lead to a coup d'état in Iran, which we orchestrated, one in Greece, which we are known to have been involved with, and one in Chile, which we are long suspected to have backed, though the website for the Central Intelligence Agency still denies this.

An actual bulwark against Soviet expansion in Europe would've been comprised of regular standing armies. The CIA effectively became as it did under Truman which, though Operation Gladio isn't officially listed as having begun until 1956, does lead me to suspect that such machinations have been part and parcel to their praxis since its inception. There's an American G.I. who has an interesting bit on Klaus Barbie in the documentary on it. I'm also pretty sure that such operations were well underway in Italy before then, but the only real evidence that I have to support this is that the Gehlen Organization was set up immediately after the war.

A lot of this is speculation, but I do kind of think that Truman could be directly responsible for some of the more notorious abuses of power by the organization throughout more or less all of postmodernity. Everyone thinks that he was a fairly good president, though.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also an atrocity and the origin of the Cold War.

Being said, it could've just been Eisenhower, though. It was one or both, but not neither of them, and, so, at least one of them should get a -1 and Kennedy should get a 3.

Edit: Taking a look at our involvement in regime changes on Wikipedia, I've decided to blame Eisenhower for this. We backed the Christian Democrats in the 1948 general election in Italy and subsequently blocked any Communists from participating within elections for the next twenty-four years, but the regime changes didn't really pick up until Eisenhower, which is how, though, perhaps, beginning before then, I'd suspect that the strategy of Fascist collaboration really took hold around then.

I'd give Truman a 1, Eisenhower a -1, Kennedy a 3, and Johnson a 1. I'm too lazy to complete this entire list. I'd also give Washington and Lincoln a 5, the abolitionists relatively high scores, Carter a 4, and mostly everyone else not all that great of a score.

Carry on with this thread, I guess.

Edit 2: Eisnehower a 0, for tim wood's aforementioned reasons.

Edit 3: Johnson a 1.5

Again, feel free to ignore this and just carry on.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also an atrocity... — thewonder

This easy to say, and many have said it, but what happens if they weren't? Do you know the history of the fire-bombing of cities?

and the origin of the Cold War. — thewonder

If by Cold War you mean that war that was never hot because of them, then you can make a case. If you mean they caused or were the origin of the Cold War, no. No doubt you do well with what you know and think you know, but there's more to know, and with that, I'm pretty sure you would revise. But we can leave it here if you like.

That is what I would like. Anyways, I don't want to derail your thread.

con't ...

Just like I said after 9-11. Never forget that the Islamic terrorists came to our country and attacked us. And you know what? I said we needed to call them Islamic terrorists. You know why? Because they were Islamic  terrorists. You know what these people are? They are TRUMP TERRORISTS. Call them by their name. — Joe Scarborough

https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/27/joe-scarborough-has-harsh-words-for-trump-terrorists.html

[deleted]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882497

Chomsky's breezy rundown in the video of the war crimes / atrocities of postwar US Presidents, who, in fact, were (are) presiding over the American Imperial project, is indisputable. Throughout history from "Manifest Destiny" to "Sino-Soviet Containment" to the "War on Terror", some were better at administering "Pax Americana" (while also minimizing social conflicts & national costs) and some were very much worse; this is how I interpret any published "Ranking of US Presidents" from the historically bad to very bad to worst presidential record.

:up:

With that caveat, I’d say FDR was the last decent president— perhaps the best ever.

For me, FDR is 2nd only to Lincoln.

His Star Wars Initiative was ruinously expensive for us, as well as the soviets. — BC

This is by his supporters seen as part of his genius. Because it (or the weapons race in general) was really ruinous for the Soviets. Even if btw. the weapons armament program had been already started by Carter, which the Carter supporters aren't keen to admit.

I think George Washington should get some merit. He could have become a King, or at least a president for life. He didn't, which was one of the first obstacles for the new Republic. One crucial hurdle, actually.

I feel like Truman is generally underrated. If you look at his dairies, he absolutely knew he was going to lose his shot at a third term over Korea, but he did the hard thing instead of the easy thing in canning MacArthur (absolutely warranted), avoiding nuclear brinkmanship and a larger war, and giving Rigeway what he needed while not allowing Europe to become weakened to the point where it enticed Soviet action.

The Post-War relief efforts, Marshall Plan, NATO, containment as the successful grand strategy of the Cold War, the reorganization of Japan, all feathers in his cap. West Germany, Japan, and South Korea all ended up as flourishing, free states, although Korea took a while. It really helps his legacy just how well Korea has done, from being an incredibly poor state to one of the wealthiest, and just how poorly North Korea has done.

I also feel like Bush I is deeply underrated. He did the hard thing with taxes and deficits instead of the easy thing of ballooning the debt, and handled the end of the USSR as well as could have been imagined in 88. He was probably America's most able foreign policy President in many decades.

And I would tend to rate Obama quite highly. I am more skeptical at attempts to rehabilitate LBJ's reputation.