Probably because of his accomplishments as a man *before* he became President.
Posted on 06/10/2004 8:55:07 AM PDT by Cableguy
More than 3 years old, but still valid. Clinton should go down next time, given his failures on Al Qaeda and North Korea. Reagan will probably move up.
------------------ The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents
RANK NAME MEAN GREAT 1 George Washington 4.92 2 Abraham Lincoln 4.87 3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.67 NEAR GREAT 4 Thomas Jefferson 4.25 5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.22 6 Andrew Jackson 3.99 7 Harry Truman 3.95 8 Ronald Reagan 3.81 9 Dwight Eisenhower 3.71 10 James Polk 3.70 11 Woodrow Wilson 3.68 ABOVE AVERAGE 12 Grover Cleveland 3.36 13 John Adams 3.36 14 William McKinley 3.33 15 James Madison 3.29 16 James Monroe 3.27 17 Lyndon Johnson 3.21 18 John Kennedy 3.17 AVERAGE 19 William Taft 3.00 20 John Quincy Adams 2.93 21 George Bush 2.92 22 Rutherford Hayes 2.79 23 Martin Van Buren 2.77 24 William Clinton 2.77 25 Calvin Coolidge 2.71 26 Chester Arthur 2.71 BELOW AVERAGE 27 Benjamin Harrison 2.62 28 Gerald Ford 2.59 29 Herbert Hoover 2.53 30 Jimmy Carter 2.47 31 Zachary Taylor 2.40 32 Ulysses Grant 2.28 33 Richard Nixon 2.22 34 John Tyler 2.03 35 Millard Fillmore 1.91 FAILURE 36 Andrew Johnson 1.65 37 Franklin Pierce 1.58 38 Warren Harding 1.58 39 James Buchanan 1.33
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Arthur may have risen to the occasion in some sense, but he is still one of only two sitting presidents of less than two terms who was NOT renominated by his party (the other was Fillmore, btw). Not exactly a favourable verdict of his presidency from his colleagues, eh?
Your criticisms of FDR reek of Monday morning quarterbacking. They remind me when intellectual leftists criticize the founding fathers for not abolishing slavery. Most didn't like the practice but they didn't know what to do about.
FDR needed the Soviets cooperation to get rid of Hitler and defeat Japan. He achieved that goal. To turn on an "ally" after a brutal war was not advisable at the time.
A year ago I would have agreed with you. Lately I have seen two presentations on the Top Secret Corona Project that Eisenhower funded to put spy satellites over the USSR. The project proved that there was no bomber gap (they had less than 50 long rang bombers) and probably no missile gap. Eisenhower was willing to fade the heat over problems that did not exist to keep the secret. Kennedy who ran on a platform to close the gap almost let the info out by changing his tune within days of being sworn in.
So where will these same guys put GWB? I think they won't even consider him average due to their probable left leanings. This poll is a farce due to who is doing the polling.
Don't get me wrong, they really were up to evil and it is probably a good thing we defeated them and Germany.
On the other hand I recall reading in Churchill's 6 volumn history of WWII that we had not accomplished anything at the end of the war. He said they went to war over Poland and ended up giving it to Russia which was just as bad as the Nazis.
>>William Clinton = average? The average president gets impeached?<<
EXACTLY!!
I could nitpick this list, but the one that jumps out at me as a glaring injustice is Nixon as "Below Average". It seems to me that Watergate is being given a bit too much weight here, as usual. Give it another generation.
Truman & Reagan. The bookends of the Cold War. Both should be higher.
Probably because of his accomplishments as a man *before* he became President.
This is a GREAT suggestion. Here's to hoping it becomes reality.
Great thread, Freepers. As a former history major, I've enjoyed everyone's thoughts.
TRYING to be objective about this, I think you've got to have FDR and Truman up there. McCullough's biography of Truman is a classic. The guy did what he thought was right and didn't care what the media or polls said. FDR gave us leadership when we needed it. Not to rank FDR high is equivalent to libs not ranking Reagan high, IMO.
OTOH, how can LBJ be above average? He's below average at best, and only getting worse with time, as the failure of his policies continue. Ford is average or above average--what the heck was he supposed to do given the hand he was dealt? And Carter was a failure. Wilson is overrated, IMO.
You would have thought Clinton would have been higher with historians. Guess it depends on the historian.
I will call a spade a spade and FDR was;
1.)The founder of the nanny state.
2.)The founder of the Soviet Union and modern marxism.
He brought us the "Great Society." See post #52 for the answer.
FDR #3 and "great"???!!! This whole list is suspect after seeiing this.
I'd put Reagan above TJ, Jackson, TR, Truman, and even FDR. Only Washington and Lincoln were better.
He was a member of the Pendergast gang in Missouri. He took a proactive role in stealing the Senate seat from Coke Stephensen and giving it to LBJ. He didn't do what was right he did what was evil.
He presided over an administration that was chock full of commies and he knew it. He did everything he could to support them and attacked the ones trying to rid the government of them.
By the way, Cleveland and Coolidge are so far ahead of any of the rest of these guys---other than Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, TR, and maybe FDR---that it's a shame. Cleveland and Coolidge were great, great presidents.
FDR was the founder of big government liberalism and yes for that he is owed criticism.
Historians also love warrior presidents. Notice, that the best guarantee of great or near great status is to get us into a war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.