sometimes we hear reports that historians have rank ordered all the presidents. These rankings all depend on the criteria used to evaluate the historic impact of a president. FDR is often near the top of such lists, because of his being president during the depression and World War II.
Some rankings show President Hoover near the bottom, for his allegedly causing the depression.
I think we all know that events are much more complex, than saying Hoover caused a depression, and that FDR ended it. But people’s perceptions are often based on very simplistic criteria.
I would say that Carter is responsible for the “malaise” of the 70’s and Reagan was responsible for the prosperity of the 80’s.
Would you agree?
I just had a comment about this a few weeks back.
Generally speaking, it should be that the best presidents “do nothing”.
Exceptions, of course - Washington having to carve out a niche and keep things grounded in uncertain territory, Lincoln (though I don’t like him) with the division, FDR perhaps for what he “did” in uncertain times also.
But I suspect the “unknown” presidents who are usually denigrated for not doing much actually should be much higher on the list!