And the Greatest President of All Time Is …
The bottom of the list also contains both surprises and yawn-inducing pandering to current popular opinion. I see that good old “All Hat and No Cattle” managed to land at number 36 of 42. (This rates slightly higher than the mathematical equivalent of John McCain’s scholastic ranking at the Midshipman’s Academy as I recall.) Bush has been quick to point out that “you can’t possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed.” James Buchanan, in a letter to one of his Southern anti-abolition supporters, once made a similar claim regarding how the long lens of history would view his positions prior to the War of Northern Aggression. His current occupation of the number 42 spot should only serve to remind us that “some time” can be long indeed.
On a related note, how on Earth did poor John Tyler manage a spot in the bottom ten, a full eight positions below both Carter and Nixon? Our tenth president took his oath following the death of a predecessor who was “rarely interested in his advice and Tyler offered none in return.” He was greeted by a Congress who found his legitimacy so in question that, nearly to a man, they would have cheerfully thrown him an anvil were he to be found in danger of drowning.
His perceived lack of significant accomplishments pales in comparison to his ability to make it in to work each day without a hot poker finding its way into his nether regions. We often forget that Tyler secured our right to trade in Chinese ports with the 1844 Treaty of Wanghia. If nothing else, he managed the annexation of Texas — a feat for which even fans of the Washington Redskins have surely forgiven him by now. Does he truly rate a lower placement than Tricky Dick or the Georgia peanut farmer?
While such rankings are an admittedly inexact science, our modern, media-soaked generation has managed to aggrandize only those leaders whom they can digest in familiar bites. The upper portions of this list are populated by icons and images drilled into our hindbrains — grainy black and white clips of America’s Camelot vie with the cardboard cutouts reminiscent of childhood textbooks. Accomplished leaders who lacked the advantage of lasting public relations efforts or modern media technology are left to molder in obscurity. But I suppose we’ll keep these historians in business as long as they continue feeding us their learned conclusions. After all, we need something to keep us occupied between elections.
That is indeed a bizzare list. I would count any presidential rating as suspect which didn’t place Washington as number one. I suppose his character is so alien to modern pundits that he is lucky to be one the list. Still, without Washington I see no way in which America would exist today.
But then to put FDR as #3 and to include Kennedy and Wilson in the top 10 is mind boggling. FDR extended a recession into a full blown depression and expanded the government beyound recognition. Kennedy was barely mediocre and nearly catastrophic when dealing with the USSR. His only positive in my mind was the support of NASA. Wilson had no positive characteristics. I suppose he got a pass for being the president of Princeton.
Eisenhower was the perfect leader for the years he was in office. Three quarters of our past presidents would have never been able to restrain themselves from messing it up. He worked quitely and effectivly with no fanfare or hoopla.
Ok, I could pick at this list for a very long time but it is what it is, a popularity contest. Of course that is all it can be says more about those voting than those voted for.
Andrew Jackson? No president disdained the Constitution more than he for at least another 100 years.
Any ranking that doesn’t have Carter at the absolute bottom is just plain wrong.
From my point of view Lincoln ranks near dead last. He made war on the south and caused 600,000 American deaths. Roosevelt, the man who next to Obama has done the most to install socialism, would be next to last. Doubtless Lincoln will be replaced by Obama.
Martin Van Buren got shafted.
Any ranking that does not list Jimmy Carter as worst of all time is automatically a joke!
Don Rhudy – Amazing in space of four sentances you have revealed to the public you complete ignorance
“I see that good old “All Hat and No Cattle” managed to land at number 36 of 42. (This rates slightly higher than the mathematical equivalent of John McCain’s scholastic ranking at the Midshipman’s Academy as I recall.) Bush has been quick to point out that “you can’t possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed.”
I’m guessing that Bush meant “Hopefully people will forget how terrible a president I was after a whole lot of time has passed”?
Jimmy Carter never lied to the American public in order to gain support for a meaningless war that stretched our military to the point of breaking, needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, drained our treasury and ultimately made the Middle East a more dangerous place with more terrorists. That automatically gets Carter spot # 35.
Obama’s legacy; First and only president to get the U.S. nuked.
So true Cybergeezer…so sad but true.
Uh, Jazz, on Andrew Jackson, there was the little point of the Removal. What white folks call the “Trail of Tears”.
Carter over Nixon says it all. In fact Carter above anyone says it all.
JFK over Nixon does too: JFK–a decent man, stylish dresser and snappy joke teller; but his acomplishments? He blindly missed missles going into Cuba until the launchers were almost up; then risked a nuclear war to stop the shipments, started a land war in Asia, and inflicted Robert McNamara and Adlai Stevenson on us. By any standard other than what people hoped he might be, he is no way in the top 20, no matter how great a human being. No matter how much people liked those pillbox hats on Jackie.
Woodrow Wilson doomed the League of Nations with his partisianship. Before that he unrealistically lectured the desperate allies who were fighting to oppose Germany, as if they were equals). How on earth does he merit the top ten?
LBJ: ramped up the Vietnam war, started the era of modern deficits and inflation. He got the Civil Rights Act passsed which was great but geez! For all the damage he did, he ought to be bounced down a long ways.
Eisenhower ought to be higher: he rsisted helping the French in Vietnam, kept a lid on inflation, used the National Guard to integrate schools and left the US better than he found it. How many of them can say that? But the academics have never liked him: not “bold” or “stylish” enough for them.
FDR deserves his ranking: he did a stupendous job at an incredibly tough time.
Steve P,
Bush-haters like you never let facts get in the way of your opinion. You must not have lived through Carter’s term where he basically did everything wrong with the wind behind his back of having a Democratic Senate and Congress. His post Presidential exploits in an earlier day would have been viewed as treason. I voted for this turkey as an uninformed college student. A big mistake I have not repeated since. Carter is clearly a bottom 5 contender.
Bush on the other hand has freed 50 million people from oppression among a variety of other achievements while being mercilessly pounded by people like you with an anti-American progressive agenda. Bringing Democracy to the Middle East? Eliminating a rogue dictatorship thought to be close to developing WMDs? Yeah…truly meaningless. Like I said, you have an agenda and the ends (of distortion)apparently justify the means (of demonizing Bush).
What is the source of your “hundreds of thousands of civilian” casualties? The completely discredited extrapolated casualty Lancet study? If so you are a true progressive moron. The magic of the internet now allows us to observe your foolishness first-hand.
Woodrow Wilson in the Top Ten?
Yup…they’re smokin’ crack.
Talk about fighting an unecessary war!
It was the Versailles Treaty that made Hitler possible
Oh, he set up a League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, huh?
He should be performing a pas de deux with Buchanan for the anchorman position.
And how did the “accidental president” (Ford) end up that high? Granted anyone looks good compared to his predecessor and successor, but…
Truman & Eisenhower between them built and cemented the policies and institutions that made containment of the USSR possible. They deserve to be in the top 10.
As for Wilson, frankly I think a lot of historians like him because he was an academic himself. How they overlook his malignant racism, his deliberate persecution of suspected Reds, pacifists, German-Americans and anyone else he found objectionable, let alone his enthusiasm for eugenics, is beyond me.
But how they can rank him as “great” given the eventual failure of all his major policy initiatives (other than his decision to introduce formal segregation to the federal work force) is a mystery.
Wilson was just awful. It’s hard to find anything especially redeeming about his time in office unless you happen to share his sympathy for the Confederacy, or believe successfully backing an 8 hour work day for railroad workers is a sign of greatness.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on Truman.
Steve P.
“lied to the American public in order to gain support for a meaningless war”
I think 50MM Iraqis have found a little meaning.
As for the left’s “Bush Lied” meme. How come no one remembers that Bush debated with congress about Iraq for over a year and got bipartisan support. And that congress had access to the same intelligence reports that Bush did. And he got an international consensus to go forward with countries that had thier own intelligence and analysis to rely upon? And that we found poison gas shells and tons of yellowcake in Iraq? What does a WMD look like anyway? Criminy. Guess the left would not have been happy unless we found some cartoon like giant cannonball with a lit fuse that had WMD stenciled in big block letters on the side.
Steve P: The campaign is over, the lying side won.
@ Jersey Mark – A study by Johns Hopkins cited an estimate of about 600,000 dead between the war’s start, in March 2003, and July 2006. The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.
PEB writes: I think 50MM Iraqis have found a little meaning.
Really? How many Iraqis have told you how grateful they are that we destroyed their country?
PEB writes: As for the left’s “Bush Lied” meme. How come no one remembers that Bush debated with congress about Iraq for over a year and got bipartisan support.
Don’t bring that BS around here. There was never any debate. The bipartisan support came from spineless Democrats who were simply too afraid to fight Bush and risk looking unpatriotic.
PEB writes:And that congress had access to the same intelligence reports that Bush did.
Wrong again! They did not have access to the same information. They had access to an edited report that Bush gave them. And they were foolish enough to trust him.
PEB writes: And he got an international consensus to go forward with countries that had thier own intelligence and analysis to rely upon?
An internation consensus that vanished when they realized that Bush was full of it and had no clear plan.
PEB writes: And that we found poison gas shells and tons of yellowcake in Iraq?
Big flipping deal. Nearly every industrialized country in the world has massive amounts of yellowcake. That’s completely irrelevent.
PEB writes: Criminy. Guess the left would not have been happy unless we found some cartoon like giant cannonball with a lit fuse that had WMD stenciled in big block letters on the side.
Personally, I just would have been happy with the truth. But hopefully we’ll get that from the war crimes trials coming soon.
“Lied to the public in order to gain support for a meaningless war?”
SteveP:
Then LBJ should be the worst. He fibbed and lied and avoided any fair discussion. FDR knew all along that we HAD to get into WWII but shamelessly fibbed in the 1940 election. It was mark of his far seeeing genius that he did know and did fib. And a mark of the unity of purpose of his GOP opponent Wilkie that FDR wasn’t savaged for it either.
Bush hid nothing: Both Bill and Hillary Clinton backed removal of Saddam befroe and after the war. As for “meaningless,” if your parents aren’t freezing in the dark while petroleum-based fertilizer is still avaliable to help feed people, thanks George Bush.
I wonder what people will say when Iran finsihes its nuke–is it better to have US troops there or not? (of course, you probably think Iran only started work on its nuke after Bush was elected–like N Korea).
“Nearly every industrialized country in the world has massive amounts of yellowcake.”
But Steve, most of them weren’t headed by a homicidal maniac that had already declared war on Iran, used gas, and invaded Kuwait. Just like it made a difference when one country that had no airforce began pumping out Stukas and ME 109′s. ust like it matters who has the gun–the cop or the criminal.
Ben Franklin: But Steve, most of them weren’t headed by a homicidal maniac that had already declared war on Iran, used gas, and invaded Kuwait. Just like it made a difference when one country that had no airforce began pumping out Stukas and ME 109’s. ust like it matters who has the gun–the cop or the criminal.
Oh. I see. I didn’t know that our staunch ally Iran was in danger from the Iraqis. Well, then, I’m glad we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to defend our Iranian brethren.
WAIT, WHAT?????
I would admit that the list was better than pure chance. The list does help explain why when the pharoahs, great emperors, and god-kings ruled, that they made a habit of emtombing their slaves, syncopats, groupies, and their publicists. That is, that there is no better way to maintain the legend than to also bury the witnesses off their reign.
First, Ronald Reagan is underrated at 10. He inspired more people in the right direction of freedom and independent thinking than anyone. Almost 30 years after he took office, conservatives are still trying to find his replacement. He should be the fifth face on Mount Rushmore.
George Washington should be first. Lincoln was great, but there would have been no America without Washington. He pulled the Continental Army’s chestnuts out of the fire on numerous occasions. Then he could have made himself the dictator and he walked away from power, the first leader in history to do so. He was unparalleled.
Kennedy and Johnson as a previous writer noted should be dropped way down the list.
The fifties were a minefield of potential disasters. That Eisenhower made it look easy confirms how good he was.
Lincoln is not nearly my favorite, because of the way he abused the powers of his office. Sure, he saved the Union thereby (despite bungling the process early), and perhaps it was the only way to do so, but the persecution of those who were critical of him was over the top. Still, he freed the slaves and preserved the Union. Great accomplishments.
The Jackson thing, I’m sure was tongue-in-cheek.
The debate about FDR will rage. I note that he, unlike Washington, did not have the grace to step down after 2 terms. He also was an ignoramus on international affairs. He really thought Japan would back down. He sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta. He made the Depression Great, something that would not ne accepted at all today. If we were voting in ’36, he’d've been out on his ear.
Carter was dreadful. Were I President today, I’d revoke his passport.
Ford was actually okay. He inherited a really bad situation: post-Watergate; end in ‘Nam; ’73 oil embargo; Yom Kippur War. He didn’t fix much, but he didn’t make it worse. I think his greatest failure was not getting Congress to provide funding to support Vietnam in ’75, allowing it to fall.
Nixon was great in some ways, but Jacksonian in his Imperial manner.
Reagan belongs near the top; fixing a really bad economy; defeating the USSR peacefully. A domestic and international success. Some mistakes, sure, but great achievements, indeed.
I’m no big fan of Ike. He was a capable administrator and politician. Internationally, he did things okay. Domestically, he inherited a good situation and it got worse, not better.
Truman was fine. Slapping down MacArthur was truly excellent. Not doing so would have been a very bad precedent. Can’t allow Imperial manners among our Generals.
Bush I & II were both average. Their inability to relate to the public, to lead, was their achilles heels.
Clinton was dreadful. He was saved by the Pub takeover of Congress in ’95. It was Speaker Gingrich who made things go right. Clinton did best when he did nothing.
Steve P.
Good luck with your war crimes trials. You and your tin hat crowd are always good for some hoots.
Hey Stevo…Just curious. Since you are so willing to accept the John Hopkins “estimate” why are you so strident and demanding that the WMD intelligence “estimates” leading up to the Iraq War were false and that Bush then knowingly lied. You can’t have it both ways buddy.
600,000 is a figure comparable to the discredited Lancet study. Official figures from even the Iraqi government are far lower. I believe well inside 100 thousand. But of course you are the only one that knows the truth. I see at a minimum you cherry pick your studies. Like I said you have an agenda and will spout anything no matter how goofy that supports your end goal.
Furthermore, on the casualties…Any breakout between coalition caused deaths and those caused by the various Al Qeada folks and the death squads? Or do you cherrypick here too? Oh I’m sure by your logic it is all the US’s fault. As if there were no deaths previously in Iraq by Saddam. Perhaps you would be happy the rape rooms were still in place.
Liberal moralists of your ilk never cease to entertain. Outraged when the US takes a stand that leads to unintended deaths and yet silent as the night about the atrocities that occurred before or that could occur as a result of a rogue regime. You people are professional second guessers and backseat drivers.
Your arguments are unsupported by facts. Just curious. How old are you, 19?
“Oh. I see. I didn’t know that our staunch ally Iran was in danger from the Iraqis. Well, then, I’m glad we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to defend our Iranian brethren.”
Steve: did you get up today vowing to oppose logic and common sense wherever you find it? Are you a critical studies professor at Duke?
We don’t measure world security nor ours by reference to Iran alone: a dangerous homicidal dictator that has invaded 2 countries, threatens the world’s oil and peace in the region is not a plaything–even if he might be a counterpoint to Iran; even if we’re not on the best of terms with Iran. Example: once we fought a country called Germany even though Germany threatened the USSR which was fine by us, but we decided the Nazis had to go. (You can read all about this in books.).
But enough about Presidents who lied to the American people about their intentions to go to war, wanted war, and dragged us into a war that caused millions of deaths. I personally like FDR. I’d like to have your view, if you wouldn’t mind, on the rankings for JFK and Wilson.
Of course you people wouldn’t like Lincoln, he kicked the crap out of the south. I’ve studied the lives of all presidents since I was in grade school. And while I’ve always felt that Washington was a true hero, a great leader, courageous in battle, humble in spirit, and setting the tone for a new nation and all presidents that followed, Lincoln consistently comes out on top for me (sorry George), considering the magnitude of what he was faced with, as well as single-handedly recreating the nation we love today. He stood up for what he believed, and agonized day and night over a war created by the slave states that killed hundreds of thousands of our citizens. And all for the cause of bringing all of American back together in freedom and justice for all citizens. There’s no contest, he’s number one. Washington is number two. Then you can shuffled the rest of them around any way you like.
I would rank Washington first, and Lincoln second. And I agree with those who say Wilson and JFK are both vastly overrated (I don’t think an honest appraisal of JFK will come until the baby boomers are 6 ft. under. They are incapable of letting go of the Camelot that never was.)
FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression but it’s un-PC to point that out since we are now embarking on the “New New Deal” – one that will really bankrupt us. His statute as a war president is what puts him in the top 10.
And as for Dubya, despite what Steve P. says, it is far too early to know how he will ultimately be ranked. If Iraq manages to develop a halfway decent representative government and the peace lasts, then Bush will be seen as great and his detractors will be lumped in with the Copperheads who did everything they could to undermine Lincoln during the Civil War.
Margaret Thatcher once said that reality has a way of asserting itself, no matter what one wants to believe. Hitler deluded himself into thinking the war was still winnable in 1945, but bombed out Berlin told another story. If a stable and democratic Iraq emerges in the ME, Bush will be seen as a success – and nothing Steve P. does or says or writes can change that. All he can do is pray – that Iraqis once again fall prey to a murderous dictator.
JackT: there is no doubt in my mind that Lincoln was a very, very great man. But while reading “Washington’s Crossing” about Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, I was struck by how very easily America might not have come into being at all. We have Washington to thank for the existence of the nation, and that’s why I put him in the top slot. But Lincoln was all the things you said he was and I have no quarrel, really, with anybody who wishes to put him first.
“Example: once we fought a country called Germany even though Germany threatened the USSR which was fine by us…”
We did not declare war on Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler declared war on us a few days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We were going to be dragged into that conflict whether we liked it or not. Hitler was also probably conned by the Japanese fascists. He likely thought they were going to declare war on the Soviet Union. They instead left him high and dry.
#29 JackT:
“There’s no contest, he’s{Lincoln} number one. Washington is number two. Then you can shuffled the rest of them around any way you like.”
Uh-huh. I’d buy Washington and Lincoln as #1 and #2, in that order.
Too bad for you that George Washibgton owned Black people as slaves, and Lincoln did not like Blacks.
In fact, Lincoln’s stated goal after Emancipation was to have all former slaves deported to Africa.
Not sure what he would have done with Free People of Color, but his thoughts on the slaves are there to be seen.
My vote is for Ike, how many people can be leader of the free world and keep a single digit handicap? That my friends is impressive.
SteveP, but, but, but, Joe Wilson said Saddam had no yellowcake and Bush was just a big fat liar who was envious of his pretty wife. So which is it?
I think George Bush was the greatest president. Who’s with me?
And Big Red, Joe Wilson disputed Bush’s claim that Sadaam/Iraq had gone to Niger to purchase yellow cake. He said nothing of what Iraq may have had in-country . . . but, but, but my ass.
we still fighting over Iraq, we won that. Washington 1st Lincoln 2nd, and Obama 3rd.
Washington established the nation,Lincoln kept it together, and Obama….ok Obama last. he comes in 44th.
Oh, really? Linky, Einstein?
37 John from cinncinatti . . . three weeks into his term and you’ve already judged Obama to be the worst president history. I’ll give you this, it’s a fair and balanced opinion. Are you sure you’re not actually Herb from WKRP?
Yes, it is entirely too early to rank G.W. Bush.
Truman, now thought of as one of the better presidents was reviled when he left office and thought poorly of even into the early eighties.
40. Tolbert . . . you say it’s “entirely too early to rank G.W. Bush” a scant three weeks after his two terms.
Could you speak with john from cincinnati up there at #37. He’s already ranked Obama a scant three weeks INTO his first term.
David Thompson: I didn’t say we delared war on Germany. The issue was if we would fight a war to oust a dictator (saddam or hitler) which benefitted a less then friendly nation (iran and the ussr) because our own security would benefit. The answer was ‘yes’ we would and yes we did. And that both Bush II and FDR did exactly that for good reasons. And that people trashing Bush for the war are a bit light on perspective.
The US was “at war” with Germany before Germany declared war on the US The decisions to lend lease supplies to Britain and do the destroyer swap were considered acts of war by Germany, which tried till Pearl harbor to avoid involving the US.
I can only comment from personal experience, and then I can’t really say very much. I swore my oath entering the Army simultaneously with JFK’s oath of office – there was a TV in the room. I knew people who knew Francis Gary Powers of U2 fame – worked with them. I was in Peshawar, Pakistan during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Perhaps in a couple of decades more details will come out. We are only now seeing the real stories behind WWII. Eisenhower was a giant. Kennedy almost got us all dead, criminally exposed us to Russian nuclear capabilities and precipitated Vietnam.
These ranking must have been compiled by schoolchildren in San Francisco after listening to their leftist parents’ babblings. Jimmy Carter would have to be in the bottom 5 of any credible rankings. My list would rate the unbelievably incompetent Carter dead last. FDR is ranked far too high, as his socialist economic policies greatly extended the depression. Woodrow Wilson belongs in the bottom ten for his fateful obsession with the League of Nations. And can anyone tell me what JFK accomplished to be ranked so highly?
Steve P-
“Jimmy Carter never lied to the American public in order to gain support for a meaningless war that stretched our military to the point of breaking, needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, drained our treasury and ultimately made the Middle East a more dangerous place with more terrorists. That automatically gets Carter spot # 35.”
Guess since LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which I might remind you Steve was the direct cause of the Vietnam war, gets him the # 37 spot under Bush. A war in which 56 thousand Americans lost their lives and about a million Vietnamese civilians were killed. Let’s not forget his sweeping Great Society, which turned entitlement spending on its ear as far as spending goes. Ironically it is still bleeding our treasure, far worse than Bush could have ever imagined.
Post your own top 10 and bottom 3. See if we can get some consensus. Here’s mine:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Truman
5. Reagan
6. Jefferson
7. Teddy Roosevelt
8. Eisenhower
9. Clinton
10. Nixon
#43 Roy Lofquist – Kennedy didn’t almost get us all dead. The American people did that when they elected a little-experience, charismatic, young, internationally-naive, wimpy Democrat to be President. (Oh, wait….) When the Russians met him in Vienna, they were emboldened.
To his credit, JFK DID pull us back from that nuclear war situation, although it cost us an invasion-free Cuba.
The List is bogus from the start. The Historians selected already lean to the Left. And the criteria to judge and develop a net score on are almost a joke from the start:
Public Persuasion
Crisis Leadership
Economic Management
Moral Authority
International Relations
Administrative Skills
Relations with Congress
Vision/Setting An Agenda
Pursued Equal Justice For All
Performance Within Context of Times
Adding 3 of 10 scores are derived from “touchy-feely” crap…
Like “moral authority” and pursuing equal justice. And being such an adroit leader in crises are actually better if averted instead of blown up by ineptitude into some grave Historical moment that never should have happened (JFK’s self inflicted Cuban Missile Crisis vs. Eisenhowers complete finesse. Keeping the Soviet invasion of Hungary from blowing up into WWIII as many Right Wingers wanted, stopping the 1956 ME War cold? Commies trying to take over Iran checkmated, 101st into Little Rock settling down the whole South, smooth wind down of the Korean War, decison not to match the Red Army tank for tank and quietly spend billions to get spy satellites so we could see into the Warsaw Pact and China? The steady hand of restrained, Top Leadership at work.)
It’s far more interesting to ask people steeped in history of America, but in other countrys’ leadership or academia.
I asked a retired Korean general and someone who was in the Junta they had, and a huge America buff educated here – how he would rate the top Presidents. And I asked a couple of Italian and Chinese academics specializing in US history.
They all agreed on the top 5. And at least 2 out of 3 agreed on the next 5.
1. George Washington.
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. Lincoln
5. Eisenhower
6. Madison (slightly above Nixon)
7. Nixon
8. TDR.
9. Reagan
10. LBJ or Clinton.
And strong opinions that Polk, Jackson, and JFK belonged in 2nd 5 on the list from at least one foreigner asked.
I add that the Korean, Chinese, and Italian US history buffs in my informal survey weren’t asked and likely didn’t give a crap about moral authority, promoting diversity, or blundering into crises they later managed to salvage their asses from. (The scholars and Korean general all dissed Truman on that…worthless guy..ITO..) They all mentioned Jefferson not for all the “sacred parchment” work he did, but for the Louisiana Purchase. Tripling the size of your country with enormously rich lands at a bargain price was considered one hellaciously good President in action..
Steve P:
By your logic, FDR should be charged with “causing” over 70 million deaths in WWII. Get a clue. The Coalition didn’t kill 600,000 Iraqis, or even 100,000. I would doubt 40,000. Nearly all the deaths were due to action by Saddamites and Al Qaeda — both groups having had a lot of practice over the years.
Maybe it also escaped your attention that Al Qaeda ran tens of thousands of people through terrorist training camps during the Clinton years. Given the recent success at knocking off terrorists in Iraq, I seriously doubt that the number of “terrorists” has gone up since 2001.
General observation:
I think the bias of the survey is revealed in the categories selected for scoring:
# Public Persuasion
# Crisis Leadership
# Economic Management
# Moral Authority
# International Relations
# Administrative Skills
# Relations with Congress
# Vision/Setting An Agenda
# Pursued Equal Justice For All
# Performance Within Context of Times
Okay, I’m ignorant, but by what consideration does Abraham Lincoln score second, behind George Washington for “Economic Management”? What monetary policy did either of these otherwise wonderful leaders pursue, in a time when the federal gummint had practically nothing to do with the economy? There is also that little matter of the Civil War, which lasted Lincoln’s entire reign, which would seem to have thrown a monkey wrench into any nascent Keynesianism of Lincoln’s. I suspect it shows that historians by and large have no training in economics.
It’s ironic that Washington and FDR score #1 and #2 on “International Relations”, since they seemed to have had diametrically opposite views on entangling foreign alliances. I won’t even discuss W’s low score other than to mention that it exhibits the myopia of the community of professional historians. I doubt James “My Name Is Earl” Carter could have assembled an alliance of sixty countries to deal with a threat like Iraq.
But what really turns my stomach is FDR’s top ten rating in “Pursued Equal Justice For All”. Try Googling “Executive Order 9066″.
But hey, it’s always fun criticizing.
BBB
I don’t get why everyone worships Lincoln. People seem to think that he was this futuristic civil rights leader who could do no wrong. Lincoln didn’t invade the South to free the slaves. He invaded the South to force them back into the Union at gunpoint. He was more of a brutal facist than a man of justice and enllightment. He didn’t even think highly of black people. He actually wanted to ship them all back to Africa since he didn’t believe they had the intellectual capacity to ever thrive in a civilized white society. Yet people protray him as an MLK type figure. He violated way more civil rights than Bush ever did. He arrested private citizens and democratically elected politicians and threw them in prison to rot without trials. He killed over 600,000 Americans which when adjusted to todays population figures would equate to tens of millions of dead Americans. Ultimately I think he made the right decision to perserve the unification of America. But that’s no reason to worship him as some kind of God.
Ronald Rogaine, no doubt. Now there was a war president. Well, not all along the way, but he made sure he got one in before he went back to the ranch. And those dentistry students will be eternally grateful. That’s what I call a commander in chief! I mean, it’s not like he was a Naval Academy grad or anything. And he was never interviewed by Admiral Rickover and hand-picked to be one of the first officers in the nuclear sub program. But he did star in Hellcats of the Navy!
He was definitely not a myth. And he was in no way overrated. I mean, it’s like he was good and then he got even gooder until he was better than gooder. He was . . . like a god! He really was. People call Obama The Messiah, but they don’t really mean it. When they talk about Rogaine, well, they mean it. He was like Lincoln only without the beard because he couldn’t grow one but that’s OK. He had a full-grown beard on the inside.
Oh gracey cakes how I miss that man. And I miss Nancy. I know she’s not dead yet, but you know, what’s the difference, really, when you’re talking about a national treasure. Did anybody catch the Republican debates at the Rogaine Library? It’s the only library i ever saw that has a full-blown replica of Air Force 1 in it. you know how many toothpicks and sugar cubes it took to build that thing? Me neither but I know it’s lots. Oh, Mister Rogaine . . . Oh! I am so sorry . . . Mister President Rogaine . . . you are in my prayers every night, though you don’t need to be because, well (hey, that’s just like you used to do . . . “Well . . . “) . . . well anyway,Ii know you and your buddy JC are playing pinochle at thee right hand of God. Do me a favor, will ya champ? Tell him I said Hi . . . and save me a seat. Good-night , Gip.
Oh, and I just have to pass along Ann Coulter’s appraisal of this effort:
Putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy or FDR in the same category as Reagan or Washington is like a teenage girl ranking the Jonas Brothers with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles as the three greatest bands of all time.
BBB
A couple of comments. First I think Lincoln is vastly overrated and belongs in the bottom 5. His incompetence and bungling unnecessarly dragged out the Civil War. He was deified after the war ny the Republicans. C. Vann Woodward a liberal historian made an interesting comparison between Lincoln and Lenin. In both cases they led their parties to victory in a Civil War then died suddenly afterwards. Their parties were new parties made up of different factions and newcomers so both men were glorified to stimulate party unity.
As for Washington he is also overrated. His great accomplishments came before he was President. As President he was only average or a little better. My personal favorite is Jefferson. He kept us out of war, doubled the size of the country, reduced taxes, reduced the size of government and paid down the national debt to almost nothing. In other words the things Reagan promised to do but didn’t.
“The American people did that when they elected a little-experience, charismatic, young, internationally-naive, wimpy Democrat to be President.”
Actually, they didn’t elect Kennedy, the Chicago political machine rigged the election… oh, wait.
#47 Milton – Hmmm.
#1 Washington (Walked away)
#2 Reagan (Nearly crushed Communism and Liberalism)
#3 Lincoln (Freed laves; Saved the Union in an ugly fashion)
#4 Coolidge (MR. Small Government)
#5 Truman (Used a Nuke or two! Hotdam! Fired MacArthur)
Falls off sharply after that. Lots of plusses and minusses.
#41 Grant (Corrupt drunk. Jim Crowe era. Carpetbagging.)
#42 Carter (Socialist. 1st Mr. HopenChange)
#43 FDR (Our first Socialist)
I have several observations, some of which (I think) bring up issues that aren’t discussed elsewhere in these comments.
First, my high school history teacher taught us that the U.S. had three truly bad presidents. Nixon because he was crooked, Grant because he was dumb (as President, anyway), and Harding was the worst because he was crooked *and* stupid. Interesting to see where they place on this list now. I wonder what Mr. van Hulzen would say about this.
Second point is something no one else seems to have looked at. On that page that shows you the list, you can view the list of historians they asked to participate in this study. The interesting thing here is the people who are missing from the list. There are several participants who’re associated with one or another of the presidents on the list. I think Brooks Simpson edits or edited U.S. Grant’s papers, for instance. But there’s no Michael Beschloss, no Doris Kearns Goodwin, no Jon Meacham, no David McCullough. You could make an argument that James McPherson should be included, though he’s not a true biographer, really. As much controversy as the ranking of the presidents generates, frankly I’m more fascinated by the list of historians involved.
And lastly, I’m fascinated by one thing which has been ignored by most everyone else here. Among recent presidents, Reagan ranks highest. Kennedy is higher, but he’s not really modern any more, since the sixties were a long time ago. Frankly I’m surprised that he’s ranked as low as he is. In days gone by he was the best president after Lincoln and Washington, and maybe FDR. I’ve always put it down to the opposite of what’s happening now with GWB. George will move up the list somewhat (I don’t think he’ll be in the top 10 ever, but it’s important to note that the lowest approval rating ever for a president leaving office, prior to W, was Harry Truman, and he’s ranked #5 on the list), at some point. Kennedy, because of his youth and vigor (which were almost completely manufactured, of course, with his Addison’s disease being concealed from the public) was imbued with all sorts of possibilities, many of which weren’t realistic. In that way he is rather like Obama. Point is he was killed before everyone could figure out that his promise was mostly empty rhetoric, or at least only half-full rhetoric.
Also, it’s weird to include Garfield and the elder Harrison on a list like this. If it were up to me, they would be excluded. Harrison was our oldest President prior to Reagan. On Inauguration day it was cold, and he gave his speech on the White House steps in his shirt sleeves, intending to show how robust he was. Instead he caught cold, it turned into pneumonia, and he died within a month and a half of being inaugurated. How do you rate such a presidency, and compare him with someone who served 4 years, let alone 8. Garfield was shot by a disappointed office seeker very soon after his inauguration too, and died after a prolonged decline. Neither man really did much of anything as President. How do you rate one over the other?
Lastly, to those recalcitrant southerners who somehow thing Lincoln was something less than the best President of the United States, we should review a few facts. First, Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. Several southern politicians did, mostly because they were upset they lost an election to a political opponent they couldn’t stomach. Other than the sectional element it’s not that different from today. Does anyone really argue, today, that the country would be better off if slavery had continued after the South was allowed to secede? Delusional thinking like this is truly strange. Lastly, there’s the famous observation that before the Civil War, the proper usage (in newspapers and so forth) was “…the United States are going to…” whereas, soon after the war, it became more common to read “…the United States is going to…” The term United States, as the name of our country, changed from plural to singular. A few holdouts from South Carolina notwithstanding, that’s actually a good thing.
DavidN:
Your Mr. van Hulzen really did you a disservice if he taught you this:
“First, Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. Several southern politicians did, mostly because they were upset they lost an election to a political opponent they couldn’t stomach.”
Southerners SECEDED over the election of Lincoln, since they saw the writing on the wall that it would be highly likely that their slaves/property would be emancipated without any form of compensation.
The WAR began at Fort Sumter because Lincoln refused to evacuate US forces from Southern soil, and indeed attempted reinforcing the garrison in Charleston Harbor.
Try as you might to sound like the US was the aggrieved party, in point of fact, it persisted in occupying territory which no longer belonged to it.
And when things REALLY started getting going, I’d remind you and your Mr. van Hulzen that it was the US Army that marched on the defensive Confederate positions at Manassas…which is located in Virginia.
And, just for the record, if you argue that secession wasn’t legal, I’d offer the 48 counties that seceded from Virginia to form the state of West-by Gawd-Virginia, and were quickly recognized by the Lincoln Administration, as they are recognized to this day.
#56 DavidN:
“Does anyone really argue, today, that the country would be better off if slavery had continued after the South was allowed to secede? Delusional thinking like this is truly strange.”
Well, it wouldn’t necessarily be YOUR country, so it’s not as though you’d have to worry about it.
Frankly, though, chattel slavery was economically doomed, and this was apparent even in 1861.
Y’see, the pioneers of the Industrial Revolution had doped out a peculiar phenomenon…free men will work for less wealth than a slave will.
Under the new sysytem, which is still in place today, you “rent”,(by the hour or by the day), rather than “buy” your labor force.
What’s the Federal Minimum Hourly Wage again?
Try living on that…
This is why the northeast, which developed it’s industrial capacity ahead of the rest of the nation, had pretty much emancipated THEIR slaves,(yes…even New Englanders were once slaveowners…a fact they HATE to be reminded of), by about 1845 or so.
It would have died a natural economic death due to market forces.
“FDR extended a recession into a full blown depression and expanded the government beyound recognition”–Plus: he is more responsible than anyone else for turning the USSR from a poor and miserable dictatorship into a dangerous military superpower that owned half of Europe. We owe the cold war to FDR.
Actually, we have an example of what the world had been like if Lincoln hadn’t ‘provoked’ the
South at Ft, Sumter, ‘southern fried apartheid,’
other wise known as Jim Crow, from 1877-1964, and it extended itself into places like Kansas, hence the other party in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Lincoln’s experience with the role of France and the UK, in facilitating the Confederacy, notably with the Alabama affair, for commercial interests actually validate Washington’s critique of ‘entangling alliances’ Marc, you’re very on point, about electing an inexperienced leader, although JFK seems like a Titan compared to this fellow, Henry Wallace is a close analogue. Yes, he did almost get us killed, by not taking the threats in Cuba, and later Berlin seriously, and exporting that error to Vietnam and Laos.
This list is missing someone – Woodrow Wilson’s wife, who unconstitutionally ran the country after the President was incapacitated by a stroke.
#60 narciso:
“Actually, we have an example of what the world had been like if Lincoln hadn’t ‘provoked’ the
South at Ft, Sumter, ’southern fried apartheid,’
other wise known as Jim Crow, from 1877-1964, and it extended itself into places like Kansas, hence the other party in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.”
Sigh…my northern neighbors, always so quick to point out southern bigotry.
Thanks ever so much for that, it’s tempered us.
You DO realize that the state with the most African-American elected officials is Mississippi, right?
And if you peruse this map, you’ll note that the representation of the old Confederacy has a distinctly higher proportion of melanin than anywhere else:
http://www.gmcl.org/maps/BlackElectedOfficials.gif
To be neighborly, I won’t mention the racism and discrimination that were experienced by Black Americans when they emigrated to the Yankee Promised Land, save to observe that in the mid and late 60′s, all the big race riots occurred in cities NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line.
Bilgeman, do you really hate the US that much? By the by Lincoln had made it known he would not emancipate the slaves of southern states because he believed slavery would wither away and he had no desire for a civil war. He did state that he would not allow a new state to enter the Union as a slave state. The south left because they saw their political power waining.
I would rate Lincoln second to Washington because as I see it he was the only president not to make a major mistake and he shaped the Presidency. It isn’t easy to make something from whole cloth.
Jefferson made a better president than could be expected but his only major accomplishment was the Louisiana purchase Few presidents would have passed that deal up. I am always leary of Jefferson since his preffered form of govenment was an oligarcy of “Gentleman farmers” which in his time ment a plantation owner directing his slaves who did all the work. Washington learned over his life that slavery was not only uneconomical but wrong. He was man of his times but he rose above it as he did in many other areas.
I used to think historians were smart and knew history. Of course at one time, I believed in Santa Claus.
I rate presidents based on their adherence to the Constitution of the United States. By that standard, Lincoln ranks very low on a list of greatest presidents.
For an alternative view on Lincoln, I recommend Mark Alexander’s essay “Lincoln’s Legacy at 200″: http://patriotpost.us/pdf/09-06s.pdf
#63 Michael:
“Bilgeman, do you really hate the US that much?”
Don’t conflate your own sectional interests and chauvinism with that of the nation at large.
I am, as Southern Christian White Male, getting pretty tired of being the “designated stereotypical bad guy”.
If the rest of you good folks canot begin casting a gimlet eye on your OWN flaws, and insist that white Southerners continue to be the Judas Goats and whipping-boys for everything that has ever been wrong with America, by anyone,anywhere and at anytime, then you’re REALLY not leaving me, and the rest of us, much to love you for.
It might be better for us if we DID effect a divorce from the lot of you.
I can clearly see a direct line from the Politically Correct demonization of Southern Whites to the mountains of dung hurled against the Conservative movement.
It’s part n’ parcel of the same old-same old. Even the language is the same.
I post some observations pointing out the undisputed racism and discrimination suffered by Black Americans in the North, and factual data showing that Mississippi is no longer all “Night Riders” and “Lynch Mobs”, and you respond by implying that I “hate the US”…
Let me turn your question back on you.
Do YOU hate the US that much?
Jon:
Have you read Thomas DiLorenzo’s “Lincoln Unmasked” or “The Real Lincoln?”
LOL, I am not a “Northener” by any stretch of the imagination and you are speaking to the choir about the wrongs done to southern white males being the only allowed targets of jokes and racism.
And all that has nothing to do with what I wrote. As bad as things are now I don’t see any way they would be any better being replaced by several (or several dozen) minor countries taking the place of the US. Politicians are just as bad no matter what section you are talk about.
Oh goodness
I think we should make BHO #1 right now, I mean he is like God or something… don’t you think
*swoooooon*
blarg
I think this reflects more about the political tastes of historians than history.
SFASU7392:
Indeed. I recommend “The Real Lincoln” to pretty much everyone with whom I discuss the issues of federalism and states’ rights. I merely linked to Alexander’s essay because it hits the most important points, and is easier on the attention span.
One’s opinion of Lincoln probably depends largely on one’s view of the “Union”, and specifically whether states retained the right to secede from that union. Both sides of that particular issue would probably cite some constitutional argument, but that document is largely silent as to whether uniting with the other states was an irrevocable act.
And that, in a larger sense is what makes lists such as this one so silly. There is certainly a disconnect between academia, particularly in history departments, and say, me, when it comes to the values ascribed to most, if not all of the stated criteria. So naturally our lists would look completely different. And naturally, I think mine is the far more accurate… while they, in all defiance of logic and truth, still prefer their own biases.
At the end of the day, anyone who thinks there are that many presidents worse than Jimmy Carter are either just not paying attention or sadly delusional. And that’s just fact, not opinion!
Has nothing to do with that, I live in Florida. I mean the system of Government, the Bourbon Redeemers that purged all blacks out of society
after 1877, and was ratified by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1895; catered to by the Democrats for nearly a hundred years that shut out the Republicans for almost as long. The problem is that the Democrats after 1964; refused to consider the totality of cultural issues that don’t bear on race, the apotheosis of which is this Administration. So don’t put words in my mouth, and say I’m blaming the South; I’m blaming Jim Crowe and the attitudes that stem from it.
Bligeman – your name speaks volumes about most of the misinformation that you spout
Quote:
65. Jon:
I rate presidents based on their adherence to the Constitution of the United States. By that standard, Lincoln ranks very low on a list of greatest presidents.
/Quote
I am inclined to agree, at least with regard to the criterion. I find Lincoln’s standing a bit more difficult to judge; did he act Constitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus during war time? At any rate, on your criterion Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland should rate very high. Both were quite assiduous in vetoing legislation that, while presented as conveying noble aims, would involve the federal government in exercising powers the Constitution did not grant.
There was a comment on Washington’s not having been involved in economic policy. Given that he accepted Hamilton’s plan for a national bank, perhaps the comment should be reconsidered. Also, Lincoln’s support of the transcontinental railroad falls into the same category.
Judging G W Bush at this time is far too premature. The exercise can only demonstrate the biases of those who judge.
You can always check the validity of a Presidential poll by using one simple rule:
Where is John F. Kennedy ranked after less than 3 years of office?
And if he is ranked near the top as he is here, you can guarantee the same folks that rate FDR as one of our three greatest, think he and he alone brought us out of the Depression, and keep the fairy tale of Camelot alive, are voting the polling and it will be biased as hell left.
My personal favorite after reading the history?
Our first one. No doubt in my mind he was the best.
11 Ben Franklin –
I find it difficult to call any womanizer of Kennedy’s stripe “decent.” Outside of that, I agree with you
mister man,
51. was great!!! HaHAhahahahahaha.. oh, man, I have to catch my breath. If you submit this one to the Daily Show, I’m sure THIS time they’ll hire you. …But seriously, Obama is off to a fantastic start. More than half his initial cabinet is allegedly current in their taxes and more than two-thirds have no history of graft and corruption. And, it took more than three weeks before he was openly mocked on the floor of the CBOT on CNBC. Heck, he now has three-and-a-half weeks of executive experience. That’s one week more than my nine-year old nephew who ran a food drive in his classroom (though my nephew managed to achieve HIS goals and probably added more to the country’s GDP in the same time frame). And what president in his first three weeks of office managed to get mocked and b-slapped by no less than two world leaders? And no president in recent memory has been so afraid of exposure that he choreographed his first major presser. Heck, he even honked off Helen Thomas, which I don’t believe has ever been accomplished by a Dem president in so short a time period! He is indeed change we have been waiting for. I even cancelled my Netflix membership because I can get all the crime drama and comedy daily by following this no-talent Alfred E Neuman of a president daily. And remember as you furiously type up a zinger of a response to my insults of you and the Dear Leader:
“Never attribute malevolence to what can be more easily attributed to incompetence.” G-day!
#74 Attila the Hun:
“your name speaks volumes about most of the misinformation that you spout”
Got some examples, or are you just “harrumphing”?
#73 narciso:
“So don’t put words in my mouth, and say I’m blaming the South; I’m blaming Jim Crowe and the attitudes that stem from it.”
I’m sorry…that must have been a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT “narciso” that offered the term “southern fried apartheid”.
“I live in Florida.”
Where did you move there from?
Bilgeman – Why cast pearls before swine?
Steve P. ,
may I call you “Revisionist Steve?”
To quote you: “Jimmy Carter never…made the Middle East a more dangerous place with more terrorists.” Whaaa?? Please step into my time machine as we set the destination to 1979, Tehran… Ever hear about the Iranian Revolution? You know the one that allowed the psychotic Mullahs to take over? Ever hear a story about the Shah of Iran? The one who was quasi-friendly with the West? Do you know who turned his back on him in his hour of need? Hint: initials are “J” C”. Did you ever see “Aliens?” You know the movie that expanded on the original Alien by showing that the source of all the incubating monsters was this enormous “mother” alien? Well, JC was Ripley, but in this version, decided to pass on setting the mining colony to self-destruct – thereby letting Mommy Alien lay more eggs! Oh well. BTW, Revisionist Steve, you are potentially redeemable. I noticed you used the word “terrorist” in context and not “freedom-fighter” or “insurgent.” Good for you!
#81 Attila the Hun:
“Why cast pearls before swine?”
Thought so…you’re holding a busted flush.
Do you deny, bilgeman, that Jim Crowe, was a truly horrid era, that it’s continuation without
an effective constitutional challenge, led to the acceptance of the Warren Court’s questionable short cuts and ultimately the success of the mau mauing we see today. I use this example to show that Lincoln didn’t really have any choice in the matter. I agree with most critiques of Kennedy and specially Carter, who not only only empowered the Iranian
revolution, but the Wahhabis starting with the Grand Mosque siege, continuing to their role in forming the future cadres of AQ and the Taliban.
Kevin: Can I call you Mister Half Staff?
Did you ever wonder why Iranians resented American for overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a puppet Shah? It was the CIA’s first triumphant coup. Seems some of us folks here in the U.S. and the UK didn’t appreciate Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalizing the oil industry. “Oopsie, we’d like a do-over! Yeah, that whole democracy thing? Don’t worry about that right now. We’ll get to that later. In the meantime, we have a new guy for you, wears really nice jackets. You’re gonna love him. We do. And that’s a promise we can keep.Oh, and this is NOT about oil. It never will be.
Remember that time you found your dad’s porn in his sock drawer? That’s kind of how the U.S. moves through life . . . mostly reasonable, but with some tragic faults, none of which it’s willing to admit. Don’t succumb to the myth. Be strong. Truth only hurts for a little bit, but denial eats away at your soul. Then again, I’m sure you’d look quite dapper dressed in a black mac and fedora while being pushed around in a wheel chair. I’ve seen that look on TV recently . . . stunning.
78. Kevin . . . forget the Daily Show, I’m going straight for The Half-Hour News Hour. Oh, wait, that got cancelled after what, 20 minutes. Why? Because conservatives aren’t funny. Can write. Can’t recognize it. (No, no, don’t offer to prove it again. You’ve done plenty with your Alfred E Newman reference. Don’t you people even TRY to be original? Next time try this one . . . Vote for a Democrat? I’d rather have a root canal! ) I suggest you stick with Googling quotes. As for MSNBC, I thought the MSM was biased? I wouldn’t be so quick to relinquish that lie. It’s all you got (unless you count Eric Cantor . . . and if you do, you’ll be the first).
Kevin: may I call you “Revisionist Steve?”
To quote you: “Jimmy Carter never…made the Middle East a more dangerous place with more terrorists.” Whaaa?? Please step into my time machine as we set the destination to 1979, Tehran… Ever hear about the Iranian Revolution? You know the one that allowed the psychotic Mullahs to take over? Ever hear a story about the Shah of Iran? The one who was quasi-friendly with the West? Do you know who turned his back on him in his hour of need? Hint: initials are “J” C”. Did you ever see “Aliens?” You know the movie that expanded on the original Alien by showing that the source of all the incubating monsters was this enormous “mother” alien? Well, JC was Ripley, but in this version, decided to pass on setting the mining colony to self-destruct – thereby letting Mommy Alien lay more eggs! Oh well. BTW, Revisionist Steve, you are potentially redeemable. I noticed you used the word “terrorist” in context and not “freedom-fighter” or “insurgent.” Good for you!
Nice history fail you got there, bucko. I’d love to school you on the both the ultimate and proximate causes of the Iranian revolution, but I guess for you to understand I’d have to make it an analogy to Predator, and i’m not insane enough to try.
But here’s the short version: In 1953, the U.S. and Britain orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq because he threatened to nationalize Iran’s natural resources, including oil, which pissed off American and British oil men who were previously making big $$$ off of Iranian oil. Mohammad Reza is appointed shah, and proceeds to piss off the entire country big time by ruling as an oppressive tyrant despite the fact that he was not even elected. So of course, in 1979, the people revolt and try to take their country back, but, of course, as revolutions go, the secular pro-American pychos who were kicked out of power were replaced by religious anti-American psychos, so the people never got their democracy back and continued to suffer from our meddling.
The lesson to be learned here is that when we try to destabilize a foreign government/culture that we don’t fully understand just so we can grab some cheap oil, we run the risk of it violently blowing up in our faces a few years down the road when the emerging extremist populist movements have little difficulty convincing the people that the West is to blame.
And then morons like you who can’t read history end up blaming Jimmy Carter.
I recently visited the (new) Lincoln museum in Springfield Ill. There is one room that contains newspaper clippings and cartoons from the newspapers of his time. Boy, if you think ‘W’ had it bad, you won’t believe the stuff printed and drawn about ole Abe. Kinda makes you think that longer lense may ultimately see Bush differently — especially when those afflicted with severe Bush Derangement Syndrome are planted 6 feet under.
PEB writes: I think 50MM Iraqis have found a little meaning.
Really? How many Iraqis have told you how grateful they are that we destroyed their country?
No Steve P ur right im sure they were much happier when Saddam and his crazy lil kids were torturing them and gassing them all the time. Im sure the average Iraqi citizens loved seeing so many Saddam statues everywhere they looked, thats why they are all still standing 2day. Ohh wait a minute they tore all those things down the second he was removed from power. Mayb u should have gone to Iraq with Sean Penn and talked about how b4 the terrible US army came it was full of candy rivers and it rained gumdrops while people walked around singing songs. Ohhh and as for those war crime trials please, please hold ur breath on that one, cuz then we’d have one less idiot walking around. Mayb Bush shoulda handled the Middle East the way Clinton did, u kno do nothing and set up meaningless treaties that everyone involved knew wouldnt last. And yes congress did have access to intelligence reports u moron, just cuz Keith Olberman is ur hero and u wake off to him everynite doesnt mean every line of crap he feeds u is true. Please never reproduce, we dont need any more liberal, whiney,i dont know any1 that died in Iraq but im guna cry about the war cuz Madonna told me to lil trolls like u around. Fukn idiot.
lmfao at anyone that mocks conservative newsshows as opposed to that liberal trash. thats why O’Reilly b slaps olberman 24/7. and wow that chris matthews is so entertaining. mayb his leg is still tingling from listening to obama accept the resignation of what 3 cabinet members in the first two weeks???? ohhh and that air america is really a stunning success huh???? god if liberals had their way the US would just let Iran and North Korea build nukes together and let all those poor terrorists(all they did was plot or kill american citizens what the big deal??) out of gitmo cuz that not very nice of us. Steve please kill urself and move to Iran, tell me how u like it f u c k e r
Wilson himself admitted he ruined the country when he signed the Federal Reserve act.
77: Big Dana
Touche.
Mr. Lincoln was the first Prez to advocate and legislate through executive fiat the abrogation of the writ of habeus corpus and the ordered arrest and imprisonment of approx 4000 political opponents (re: democrats) and anti-Lincoln newspaper editors throughout the North and for an “indeterminent time”. He was the first president in American history to order the concept of “total war” (read the memoirs of Grant and Sherman) against the civilian populace of the South, resulting in the period of so-called “Reconstruction” (strangely enough, because of the untimely death of Lincoln) that has radicalized the South and, opposite the intended effect, set back racial healing through carpetbagging political redicalization of the subjugated white populace. Contrary to accepted Northern historical revisionism, the majority of Southern slaves were considered members of the family farm and educated along with the white populace (albeit 30-35%,according to accepted records, not so different from white farm kids – Yankees will readily agree with the percentage of “educated” white Southrons”.)What continues to set the Southron people apart from their northern brethern at present is our “stiff-necked” Scottish and Irish belief in the preeminence of God, family and COUNTRY, in that order. Politics will come and go with the breeze of the latest demagogue. Those that rely on the leavings of the political elite will be enslaved or perish. Bubba will survive.
A curious Tidbit: Tyler’s Grandson is still alive. Thats right. GRAND..not great-great-great..etc, but his son’s son.
No kidding.
Washington was “overrated”?
There are no parallels to the man in world history: he kept giving up power when in fact power PURSUED him. Without him, there would BE no America – either its independence (war) or its constitution (convention). What ELSE makes America what it is? Madison and Wilson and assorted eggheads could’ve argued about the framing of the constitution for years and things could’ve fallen apart, if not for the grim fear and respect evoked by Washington’s very presence in that room. Of course, you could go into details of these two foundational aspects of his contribution, starting with the fact that he made certain not even HE was indispensable – he refused a third term.
The American calendar should start with the day Washington resigned his commission
not with the dates in the life of the only Other Obamaic messiah a.k.a Jesus.
FDR didn’t cause the depression. The depression was caused, in large part, by the collapse of the mom & pop banking system that was part of Americana in the early 20th century. The run on these banks, who were insured sometimes only up to $100,000, was caused due to the failure of the farming industry because the rest of the world was already in a severe global depression.
FDR’s goals and challenge early in his presidency were strickly to regain public confidence. Especially in the banks. That’s why he start calling them “Bank Holiday’s” instead of closures, just to lighten the mood.
As far as introducing communism goes…you should read your history book. Democracy (or constitutional republics, if you prefer) was on the run in 1933. Democracy was all but a breath away from being dead. Many American’s favored a conversion to communism. Luckily for us, FDR was wise enough to stave back his inclination to become a dictator (which he probably could have done, and arguably did do with his 3 + terms in office. We did ELECT him though!). He almost rallied the American Legion, which was comprised of able bodied ex-WWI solgiers, and created his own army like Mussilini did in Italy. Mussilini, by the way, was very very popular in America at this time!
Without FDR, you and I would not likely be here in this capacity today.
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Jefferson (Louisianna Purchase / Declairation of Independance)
4. Washington
5. John Adams
This is a 2 question survey asking who you think is the best president and the worst.
Please answer, thanks
http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=r0j0rfdj6655kiu605947
Within a week C-Span’s ranking of America’s best presidents Galloup polled average American’s conservative, moderate, and liberal. Which poll is more correct? A poll of educated men with a very likely liberal bias or a cross-section of America. I
Personally, I feel the ranking of President Reagan number 10 by C-Span is wrong. The Gallup Poll I do not totally agree with.
I feel Reagan does deserve to be a top five president. Reagan came to office in very difficult times and when he left office America was on its way to winning the Cold War and in the 5th or 6th year of the greatest expansion of the American economy.