ranking US Presidents

[rightwinger]

You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?

For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:

Best High-era president: George Washington

Worst High-era president: Grover Cleveland

Best Awakening-era president: Theodore Roosevelt

Worst Awakening-era president: John Quincy Adams

Best Unraveling-era president: Bill Clinton

Worse Unraveling-era president: James Buchanan

Best Crisis-era president: tie, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt

Worst Crisis-era president: Herbert Hoover

That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.

Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.

It really comes down to how you did compared to the hand you were dealt by history. Lincoln and FDR were dealt a pretty bad hand. Clinton led in a time of peace and prosperity. Hard to compare the two

In determining how great a President is you have to look at what challenges did they face and how they responded to those challenges as well as what lasting contribution they made to this country

 

[Artevelde]

We cracked the Japanese codes, Dear.

In December 1941 the German Army was practically banging on the gates of the Kremlin, so it was not looking good for the hometeam of many of FDR's closets advisers.

They let the attack happen because the Kremlin NEEDED us to be in the war.

Also, try to stay focused, this isn't about "Boosh" and I'll admit that the evidence that FDR allowed Pearl is circumstantial at best -- but what a set of circumstances!

For your information: I'm not your dear.

Somehow you seem to overlook the little fact that it is the Japanese who attacked. And they decided to do this (and well before december 1941 I might add).

There is absolutely no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) indicating that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen. Just a myth. I prefer real history.

Oh sure there's plenty of evidence: stacking the aircraft like firewood, sending the AA teams home, having the carriers out of Sunday maneuvers AWAY from the incoming strike force, standing down from high alert status

You're seriously saying Roosevelt ordered all that? And that he ordered the Japanese to launch this whole operation? Seek help.

 

[Artevelde]

You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?

For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:

Best High-era president: George Washington

Worst High-era president: Grover Cleveland

Best Awakening-era president: Theodore Roosevelt

Worst Awakening-era president: John Quincy Adams

Best Unraveling-era president: Bill Clinton

Worse Unraveling-era president: James Buchanan

Best Crisis-era president: tie, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt

Worst Crisis-era president: Herbert Hoover

That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.

Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.

It really comes down to how you did compared to the hand you were dealt by history. Lincoln and FDR were dealt a pretty bad hand. Clinton led in a time of peace and prosperity. Hard to compare the two

In determining how great a President is you have to look at what challenges did they face and how they responded to those challenges as well as what lasting contribution they made to this country

I disagree. You have to look at how great the contribution (positive and negative) was that they made to the historical develoment of the country. Every President has ample opportunity for that.

 

[Artevelde]

Because WWI was a good idea? Read up on Wilson and get back to us. Nobody but a supporter of totalitarianism and warmongering (and overt racism) would rank Wilson anywhere but near the bottom.

Have you actually read any serious historical works on Wilson?

Yes I have, extensively. As a student of Classical Liberalism, I have sought to understand America's movement away from individual liberty and towards increased central planning. Certainly Wilson is among the president's that did more than others to usher us down that path. I've studied Wilson because I know the importance of rule #1: know thy enemy.

That Wilson was a racist fuck of the worst sort is just icing on the cake.

The idea that Wilson steered the US towards central planning is pretty laughable.

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.

Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.

It really comes down to how you did compared to the hand you were dealt by history. Lincoln and FDR were dealt a pretty bad hand. Clinton led in a time of peace and prosperity. Hard to compare the two

In determining how great a President is you have to look at what challenges did they face and how they responded to those challenges as well as what lasting contribution they made to this country

I disagree. You have to look at how great the contribution (positive and negative) was that they made to the historical develoment of the country. Every President has ample opportunity for that.

To assume that every President has an equal shot at greatness is short sighted. When you look at our truly great presidents, they all faced great challenges and handled a national crisis exemplarily.
Most face calm times and either just ride the tide or use it as an opportunity to move the nation to a new level.
Teddy Roosevelt is a good example

 

[eflatminor]

The idea that Wilson steered the US towards central planning is pretty laughable.

Wow. That is the single most ignorant statement I've yet seen on this site.

Congratulations.

I could provide plenty of links to studies outlining Wilson's fascist, warmongering, racist and anti-Constitutional policies...but I expect you wish to remain willfully ignorant. Good luck with that.

 

[Dragon]

That doesn't really fly. Clinton faced lots of crises and handled most of them pretty badly. But it is much too soon to judge his presidency.

Also this whole era-thing is completely bogus.

If you think that Clinton handled, or was faced with, anything remotely comparable to the Civil War, that helps explain why you think the saeculum is "bogus." The big issue of his presidency consisted of stains on a blue dress.

I suggest actually studying the idea before dismissing it. It was used to predict another Crisis era starting in the first decade of the 21st century, and look, here we are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For your information: I'm not your dear.

Somehow you seem to overlook the little fact that it is the Japanese who attacked. And they decided to do this (and well before december 1941 I might add).

There is absolutely no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) indicating that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen. Just a myth. I prefer real history.

Oh sure there's plenty of evidence: stacking the aircraft like firewood, sending the AA teams home, having the carriers out of Sunday maneuvers AWAY from the incoming strike force, standing down from high alert status

You're seriously saying Roosevelt ordered all that? And that he ordered the Japanese to launch this whole operation? Seek help.

I'm saying we knew the Japanese Fleet was inbound and the FDR Administration took steps to insure their "Surprise" attack would be devastating

 

[rightwinger]

Oh sure there's plenty of evidence: stacking the aircraft like firewood, sending the AA teams home, having the carriers out of Sunday maneuvers AWAY from the incoming strike force, standing down from high alert status

You're seriously saying Roosevelt ordered all that? And that he ordered the Japanese to launch this whole operation? Seek help.

I'm saying we knew the Japanese Fleet was inbound and the FDR Administration took steps to insure their "Surprise" attack would be devastating

FDR could have prevented the whole thing by handing out tin foil hats

 

[Peach]

The idea that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen is just as much a myth as the idea that George W. Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen.

We cracked the Japanese codes, Dear.

In December 1941 the German Army was practically banging on the gates of the Kremlin, so it was not looking good for the hometeam of many of FDR's closets advisers.

They let the attack happen because the Kremlin NEEDED us to be in the war.

Also, try to stay focused, this isn't about "Boosh" and I'll admit that the evidence that FDR allowed Pearl is circumstantial at best -- but what a set of circumstances!

For your information: I'm not your dear.

Somehow you seem to overlook the little fact that it is the Japanese who attacked. And they decided to do this (and well before december 1941 I might add).

There is absolutely no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) indicating that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen. Just a myth. I prefer real history.

The US thought the attack would come in the Philippines................

 

[Dragon]

The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.

 

[Unkotare]

I disagree. He made the US into the World Power that it is today, guided it through one of its greatest domestic crises, etc.

He burdened all succeeding generations with unsustainable expenses. Most damningly, he threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps. Name another president who did that. We've never had anything closer to an actual dictator in our nation's history.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Why bother quoting me so you can post something unrelated to my comments?

 

[BrianH]

FDR should be dead last on that list.

I disagree. He made the US into the World Power that it is today, guided it through one of its greatest domestic crises, etc.

He also destroyed the Constitution...and Lincoln as well.

 

[BrianH]

FDR should be dead last on that list.

I disagree. He made the US into the World Power that it is today, guided it through one of its greatest domestic crises, etc.

Reagan above Eisenhower, Truman and Nixon? How?

Eisenhower should be in the top 5...

 

[BrianH]

You have to consider the times in which they governed. It's ridiculous to compare Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the worst crisis in the nation's history, to Bill Clinton, who was president in a time of peace, prosperity, and nothing-very-important-going-on. How can anyone tell how Clinton would have handled the Civil War?

For that reason, I find Strauss & Howe's four turning idea useful, and can say:

Best High-era president: George Washington

Worst High-era president: Grover Cleveland

Best Awakening-era president: Theodore Roosevelt

Worst Awakening-era president: John Quincy Adams

Best Unraveling-era president: Bill Clinton

Worse Unraveling-era president: James Buchanan

Best Crisis-era president: tie, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt

Worst Crisis-era president: Herbert Hoover

It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe? Was it that states wanted their land back that were being occupied by federal troops but they refused to leave? (Even though the Constitution never forbade the secession of the states... This is how the Articles of Confederation were overturned--because the states seceded.) Every other nation officially ended slavery without a war. Lincoln strong-armed the states and caused the "crisis" in which you speak. Make a not to yourself: Any crisis the government is trying to solve for "us" is a crisis caused by the government 99% of the time. The government likes to cause problems and then step in like the conquering hero and tell us they're helping clean up our mess...

 

[Oddball]

The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.

What a completely convoluted argument.

Win or loss, the Japanese attack would've been launched and a state of war would have existed.

Do you FDR fluffer schmucks bother to rub two cells of grey matter together before hitting submit?

 

[BrianH]

Ford did absolutely nothing to bring back confidence and was a very weak President, as was Carter.

Nixon did the opposite of causing the downfall of the USSR. He was the main proponent of detente and learning to live with a Soviet Union that always would be there. It took Reagan to imagine again the possibility that this would not be so.

As for Truman, he fought in WWI, NOT WWII. Truman, by the way, was often very unpopular and connected with the American people a whole lot less than Reagan.

Correct, Truman fought in WWI; I never connected with Reagan, nor his DEBT. Reagan POSED and spent, not much else.

I disagree. The whole of US politics was different after Reagan, and frankly I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with that.

It sounds like this list should be titled :Most Influential Presidents because it seems like you're ranking them based on how they influenced the country to change directions at certain times in history. To rank them on "job performance" is really more of an opinion. And you have to be clear on what you're using to base your opinion. If you're using the Constitution then this list is screwed up like a shit sandwhich.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR should be dead last on that list.

I disagree. He made the US into the World Power that it is today, guided it through one of its greatest domestic crises, etc.

He also destroyed the Constitution...and Lincoln as well.

Without Lincoln the Union might very likely have been permanently broken.

 

[Unkotare]

It makes you ask the question about why Lincoln was in the worst crisis...? Was it possibly because he forcefully was stripping the states of their individual sovereignty...maybe? Was it that states wanted their land back that were being occupied by federal troops but they refused to leave? (Even though the Constitution never forbade the secession of the states... This is how the Articles of Confederation were overturned--because the states seceded.) Every other nation officially ended slavery without a war. Lincoln strong-armed the states and caused the "crisis" in which you speak. Make a not to yourself: Any crisis the government is trying to solve for "us" is a crisis caused by the government 99% of the time. The government likes to cause problems and then step in like the conquering hero and tell us they're helping clean up our mess...

The seeds of civil war were sown long before Lincoln was ever born, and had born the fruit of the inevitable well before he had entered politics on any level.

 

[rightwinger]

The best argument against the conspiracy theory involving FDR and Pearl Harbor is that we lost the battle. A victory would have served as well as a defeat to get the U.S. into the war, and would have left us in a better position in regard to winning it. Roosevelt would have had to be a cretin (which he certainly wasn't) to allow the attack to come off successfully if he'd had detailed advanced warning of it.

What a completely convoluted argument.

Win or loss, the Japanese attack would've been launched and a state of war would have existed.

Do you FDR fluffer schmucks bother to rub two cells of grey matter together before hitting submit?

That was his point. As soon as Japan launched an attack, we were at war. Why would FDR sacrifice his entire fleet of battleships for no reason?