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

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?

Looking at it that way Ford and Carter were dealt bad hands - could anyone have excelled in the late 70s? - and Clinton didn't do nearly enough with eight years of peace and prosperity.

depends on how much of the responsibility for the republican revolution you'd put on his back

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

I don't give a shit about blowjobs, but this is the kind of stuff I have a really hard time forgiving. otoh they are kinda less bad than the indiscriminate murder of tens of thousands of people so...

What was Ike doing during the McCarthy era?

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?

He really did have a crisis presidency though: Korea was still going on at his inauguration, a stalemate into which we can collapse many of the elements of the national security state that Truman bequeathed to Ike and whose super executive powers no president had to deal with. Then there was Quemoy and Matsuo, a crisis over two islands off the Chinese coast over which most of the nat'l security establishment was prepared to go to war, and which Ike, to his credit, resisted.

On the domestic front, as the first GOP guy elected since 1928 he faced any number of temptations to dismantle the welfare state created by FDR, and didn't. I don't think this is something to sneeze at. He recognized its worth and collaborated with the Dems in Congress to preserve it.

I recognize that Ike's achievements are mostly negative in the sense that he rarely exerted naked authority, but he exploited his immense prestige to a greater degree than any president until Reagan.

I bought a Woodward book thinking it was the story of the Clinton years and turned out it was just a blow-by-blow account of year one. Having read that, I think Clinton blew it from the start.

What was Ike doing during the McCarthy era?

Hated his guts, actually, but he recognized the man's popularity and his stranglehold on the GOP, so he bided his time, which looked like waffling to liberals. This is where the famous "hidden hand" theory of Ike's presidency comes into play: he actually manipulated Nixon into eroding McCarthy's power base in the Senate, then as it started happening Ike's public statements got more and more critical.

looking at the list, I can think of a bigger 'crisis' for everyone but...clinton? xp

not saying he had it easy, no american president does or ever will, but compared to 9/11, cuban missile crisis, stagflation...

I like Ike's quip after McCarthy's fall from grace about McCarthyism becoming McCarthywasm. Not a fan then.