U.S. Presidents - Cold War and New Millennium Edition

AIDS is one big strike against Reagan, apartheid another which I find even more unforgivable.

anyway, rankings:

Ike tied w/LBJ
Bill Clinton
John F. Kennedy
Jimmy Carter
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
Harry S. Truman
George H.W. Bush
Richard M. Nixon
George W. Bush

but yeah all these guys did some loathsome shit, I'm not excited about any of them really

Clinton did a lot of lame shit but at least he didn't annihilate any other countries/embroil us in wars and the economy more or less functioned well

Why Clinton so high? Not that I disagree, just that his failures spring to mind far more readily than his successes. [oh wait, you've just answered that, sort of] And I'm surprised you rate Carter and Ford so highly, but I'm sure there's stuff I'm forgetting.

Really hard not to put George W at the bottom, whichever angle you're coming from.

As the Morris and Cannon biographies stress, by 1987 Reagan was in his early seventies, visibly aging, and his attention only held by (a) negotiating with Gorby (b) freeing the hostages. You could legitimately argue that Alzheimer's was already showing itself. It's a stretch for me to imagine a man of his age and generation to talk openly about gay men and hemophiliacs.

This sounds like I'm forgiving him, but I'm not as outraged. I just don't think any presidential candidate (Ted Kennedy excepted) would have given this crisis an evangelical force. Had Carter won reelection in '80, his political appointees wouldn't have done much either.

Shakes, your list is fascinating. Why Ike tied with LBJ? Why Reagan over Truman?

otoh I hold Reagan responsible for, yes, apartheid, and his batshit Central America policies.

it's more like Carter and Ford were the LEAST BAD as opposed to any good - maybe would've been more reflective of my actual opinion to include a "fuck the rest" category as Alfred did.

I've always kinda had a soft-spot for Jimmy due to his energy czar/"we must pursue renewable energy" schtick, even if it went nowhere. Ford's a jackass but he didn't really do anything bad afaict apart from pardoning Tricky Dick. The bottom four are there for being war-mongers, basically. I give Reagan credit for the Cold War management, which in hindsight really is remarkable. But that's as far as I'll go with him. Reagan never nuked anybody, ergo he beats Truman. In general I'm not down with the American war machine, LBJ's embrace of it is easily his biggest failing - it's just that in his case I think his other accomplishments almost (but only almost) make up for it

x-post

Great bit in the Cannon book where he mixes up El Salvador and Nicaragua when he's talking about who the US is backing. Adds a note of black comedy to the whole cynical mess.

haha -- I have to remind myself too. "Oh, right, El Salvador had the right wing junta ruling, while the Contras were the American-backed militia."

I think I'd rank them like this, with some ambivalence about how to weigh up general ineptitude against real achievements + evil shit. Seems to me that Reagan was in most senses a better president than Carter or Ford, even though he did far more things I disagree with. Otherwise, pro-Dem bias a given.

LBJ
JFK
Ike
Truman
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Bush Snr
Bush Jnr

Reagan was in most senses a better president than Carter or Ford, even though he did far more things I disagree with.

That's how I come down too. And I do accept the argument that, the reality to the contrary, Reagan was the most "transformational" prez since FDR. His continued popularity is not something anyone can sneeze at; it reminds me of the love some people's grandparents felt for FDR. And, of course, conservatives (and liberals) have real problems with FDR too.

Not much talk about JFK here, and deservedly, I suppose.

The thing about judging Truman for the atomic bombs is a red herring: after tests in the US, he had been briefed on the likely destruction. He knew it wouldn't be any greater than the Tokyo firestorms that March, but he also knew that (as long as it worked) it would be certain. Tokyo, was a precedent that made Hiroshima and Nagasaki OK. It's only in hindsight (with many of us growing up during Cold War years) that we think that nuclear is substantively different.

eisenhower wins this pretty easily; even his flaws (nixon as VP, CIA coups) seem minor compared to what his successors got away with. of the rest, johnson stands out for his domestic record -- as flawed as the great society was (robert sherrill's "the accidental president," from 1968, is eye-opening on this), it's still a more ambitious set of policies than any other president in history, even FDR, ever tried. on the other hand, he was a lying warmonger and a pretty repellent human being on a personal level. par for the course with presidents, i guess.

i'd rather hang out with truman than most of these guys, but he rates low in my book for illegally waging a war in korea (a pretty unnecessary one in my view, though i'm sure there're plenty of "global strategy" types who disagree), setting the stage for too many of his successors.

what did all those mao-loving students think of nixon/china? funny that nixon didn't seem to see any contradiction in sitting around swapping jokes and compliments with the world's most prominent communist leader whilst accelerating a vicious war allegedly started in order to contain "world communism."

Yeah, I mentioned the Nixon-Mao shit-talking sessions above because it's obvious each found a kindred spirit.

Funny how Ike was for thirty years dismissed as the Reagan of his time, until Stephen Ambrose's (excellent) bio. Dude was the most preternaturally self-possessed prez of the last fifty years.

I agree: Ike, followed, I guess, by WJC. But I can't tell if my dislike of LBJ (as a person) is unfair: his social programs form so much good stuff now taken for granted (esp. Medicaid & Medicare, Higher Ed Act, PBS, NEH, NEA, Wilderness Acts).

Ike:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Prescient, eh?

I can't believe it--when in office, I was fixated on many of the same things that drove his enemies round the bend--and I still haven't made up my mind about how he conducted himself in 2008, but I'm going to vote for Clinton. I only feel comfortable voting for someone who was at least in office during my lifetime, and that eliminates Truman and Eisenhower. I'm basically a wishy-washy left/left-centre guy, so that eliminates Ford, Reagan, and Bush I right off the bat; part of my job is to teach kids that it's a good thing to be smart, so that eliminates Bush II. Nixon and Johnson, are, to resort to a cliche, tragically flawed. Carter presided over (very) interesting times, but he just hunkered down and lost control. Kennedy...I have no strong feelings about him one way or the other; my loss, and I think I experienced some of what I missed with Obama in 2008. I think Clinton was in some ways the luckiest guy in the world to see the internet economy take root during his presidency, but the fact is, he left the country in good shape (longer view, hard to say; I've seen some of what led to the recent financial collapse laid at his doorstep, and conservatives will have you believe that 9/11 was all his fault). And I've come full circle on his personal escapades, or, more accurately, how he handled the fallout. I think he was 100% correct to resort to lies and legalisms over something so utterly irrelevant to his job performance, and I can't believe I ever believed otherwise.

and conservatives will have you believe that 9/11 was all his fault).

some liberals will hold him partly accountable, too

My problem with Clinton's lies is how little he offered in recompense. Even though I was eighteen, I was struck by the callousness with which then Gov. Clinton flew back to Arkansas to sign and oversee the death of Ricky Ray Rector just so he could prove he was Tough on Crime. I never fully gave him the benefit of the doubt subsequently.

I only defend him when Republicans bash him. As I hinted upthread, he was a better Reagan than Reagan -- he represented the apotheosis and triumph of Reaganism. Like Nixon and China, only a Democrat could preside and approve of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rampant deregulation, welfare reform, and the bombing of a Sudanese pill factory.

Polls of Americans and non-Americans would be interesting. Don't think the result would be that different 'cept non-Americans wouldn't know much about Truman and Eisenhower and boring guys like Ford

This is true. They're the ones I find hardest to assess.

We were a bit preoccupied with our own problems when Truman was Pres.

Also I suspect Carter presidency seems a bit dull to non-Americans. Even LBJ, who along with Nixon is the most interesting Pres. on the list imo, at the time I doubt he made much impression outside the US except as the guy who took over from JFK (who everyone was in love with)

Even though I was eighteen, I was struck by the callousness with which then Gov. Clinton flew back to Arkansas to sign and oversee the death of Ricky Ray Rector just so he could prove he was Tough on Crime.

But that's the thing--they've all got problems. You just don't escape the presidency without a laundry list of unseemly stuff. You rank LBJ and Eisenhower ahead of Clinton. Did Clinton engage in anything as catastrophic as Vietnam? Or Eisenhower's relucatance to do anything more than the bare minimum on civil rights? (My understanding, anyway, which is why I didn't want to vote for anyone from before I was born--that may be an unfair characterization.) The fact that Clinton's shortcomings are so manifest and so fresh in everyone's memory, yet his presidency is still viewed as largely successful by a majority of Americans, is no small achievement, I think. On the other hand, a) (to repeat) I'm not sure if he was just lucky in terms of the economy, and b) preceding Bush II is a gift in terms of how your own presidency is remembered.

We were a bit preoccupied with our own problems when Truman was Pres.

Marshall Plan and Berlin airlift, yo.

Or Eisenhower's relucatance to do anything more than the bare minimum on civil rights?

Not quite true! His administration lent LBJ considerable assistance in helping pass the Civil Rights Act of 1958, which no one remembers now because subsequent legislation overshadowed it but was the first to break the Solid South's filibuster.

not enough talk about reagan w/r/t economics, more important than anything else he did other than, I guess, his noble decision not to nuke russia. tax cuts were one of the greatest poor->rich wealth transfers in history, fucked the deficit in the long-term, created millions of mini-reagans - like, his effect on the GOP and american economic-thinking is probably as bad the actual things he did.

war on drugs, war on unions, so many ways he fucked millions and millions of people the middle and lower classes in ways that are easily felt ~3 decades later.

carter/ford/jfk types might have been worthless, but impossible to say that they damaged the country like he did in the long-term - even nixon didn't come close. don't care about the history professor 'but did he accomplish his goals?' perspective - other than dubya, he's the worst one here, absoultely, no question imo. could argue he was worse than dubya too.

people *in* the middle and lower classes

This is why ranking them is basically impossible. I was trying to combine objective "effectiveness" with policies I agreed with, when really you'd need two different lists. Putting Reagan in the middle, as I did last night, is a botched compromise really.

It's worthwhile to clarify what you mean "tax cuts" since the history of Reagan's economic policy is tangled and confusing. From what I've read the revisions to the tax code in 1986 were necessary (Clinton then adjusted them so that there was more parity). He also raised taxes twice, in part to cover his ass after the damage wrought in '81. But I agree with you in principle: Cheney's line ("Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter") is the animating principle of the current GOP, despite the fact that Reagan's myth didn't measure up to the reality.

alfred I gotta say you're the most interesting of the ilx grummy old politics dudes. yeah 'tax cuts' was too broad - and while there were some reasonable changes to the tax code (and the inevitable tax hikes) I don't think that there's conclusive evidence that lowering the top rate from 50% was necessary! there are countries operating fine w/ top rates much higher than that.

haha thanks! I'm not that old, although I wanna be.

and I mean, the idea that there even *is* an appropriate tax bracket structure, or system of taxation even, only makes sense if we're all going to agree on a lot of macroeconomics...

haha sorry for calling you old, I suppose you are the youngin among jd and morbs

but back to my overall idea - there isn't a president on that list who has affected american political/economic thinking in the same manner as reagan. we're still playing a game with his rules - and they're awful rules.

maybe nixon and the southern strategy could be arguably up there? but he added fuel to a fire, he didn't create the situation. I don't think a reagan-type politician was inevitable in the 80s. I don't think a dubya-type politician was inevitable in the 00s. but if nixon hadn't been born, the south would still be republican.

No, I agree with Reagan's preeminence – your comments echo what I wrote upthread.

where would you place 2010 obama?

If it sounds like I'm ducking the question, I am! His term hasn't ended yet.

but if nixon hadn't been born, the south would still be republican.

do you think so? nixon picked up the pieces LBJ broke apart, arguably. is it possible the dixiecrats/wallace could have made an enduring though regional political party? maybe all nixon did was save the two party system

put in this sorta perspective he's like a mini-lbj right now...successes aren't as epic, failures aren't either. I think his margin looks better than lbj's though. xp

Afghanistan and Iraq still major, volatile problems.

absent of race issues disappearing, I can't see any way that democrats don't abandon civil rights issues in the 20th century and keep the south.

seems to be that the dixiecrats just needed to realize they were republicans - you can't be pro-welfare state without ending up helping black people, so, - just as the rockefeller republicans just needed to realize that they were democrats.

keep the south if they don't, I mean

Political parties reconstitute their DNA every fifty years or so. At the turn of the century Progressivism had homes in both parties (in the Dem' populist Bryanist wing and eventual exploitation by Wilson) but eventually joined the Republican party until its total collapse in 1920. If you wanted to be small p progressive before 1932 you were a Republican.

don't disagree with that, but by 'realize' I mean those people were a tad behind the times? like by lbj/goldwater they should have realized who was serving their...interests

I realize that a phenomenon as complex as Progressivism is impossible to compress.

I blame Taylor Branch for making me like Lyndon Johnson as much as I do. Hearing the tapes where Johnson and MacNamara and everyone else actively realize that escalating involvement in Vietnam would almost certainly end badly are really frustrating, though; I mean I guess it is good that they did not believe going into Vietnam was actually a good idea (whereas I would be legit shocked if there ever turn out to be tapes from 2002-03 where Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld actively doubt the Iraq war strategy), but still, hearing those is a pretty good way to kill whatever whatever tiny shred of faith you have remaining that the President isn't lying to you. But I seriously like reading about LBJ as much as any American leader ever; at some point if I ever have free time again, I am going to try and read all the Robert Caro books.

I respect Nixon's political skill immensely, maybe more than any other president, even, but he was a pretty awful person, and also there's the whole Cambodia thing.

back to the main subject, I think the best way to look at this is sorta counterfactually...'value over replacement president' sorta...

like, ike comes out on or near the top of most of our lists, but (as president) he didn't have to deal w/ the types of things many of these presidents did. how would have he been in a crisis presidency?

also - this might not be a huge surprise but I'm not a huge fan of the long-term effects of the interstate highway program

otoh despite clinton's failures, would, I dunno, jerry brown have done a better job in his place?