Skip to comments.Historians rank Reagan #8 among presidents
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 ...
Historians today, who are preponderantly Marxists, don't know shit from shinola. They're mostly ivory tower academics who've bought into the whole panoply of leftist bullshit that they've gladly and stupidly eaten from undergrad to grad schools. Anyone who is mildly familiar with American history would find practically all of their rankings on this list absolutely laughable!
I call that speculation, not history. Just my opinion.
Lincoln elevated the issue of slavery to the place where it needed to be, namely to the moral plane.
Nonsense, he advocated sending the slaves away from America. He never made it the issue until it suited his needs.
Moreover, to keep the "war coalition" together was a tremendous feat---he was far more of a "minority president" than Bush was. Talk about red and blue states---Lincoln didn't get a vote below the Mason-Dixon line.
In other words, all the people who wanted to leave the Union, and they had the right IMO, didn't vote for him. Not surprising.
He crapped all over the constitution to get what he wanted. He wanted the Union preserved, it was the only thing he really cared about, by his own admission.
I disagree on Lincoln. Washington was the rare guy who did what he was supposed to do. It made him a hero, I guess. I don't have any problem with him and most others don't either, that's why he is always rated high.
And if you like sending American off to die for no reason, fighting wars you don't intend to win then Truman is your man.
"George Bush should not be considered great until his presidency is over."
I was referring to his father as underrated.
As for George the Younger, I agree that we will have to wait till his Presidency ends to judge. I would disagree that he not done anything about abortion. He did sign the ban on late term abortions. I would also disagree with your criticism of the growth of government under his watch. It is a little hard to compare growth under his Presidency with Clinton's because 9/11 and the war on terror created the necessity for higher defense costs and the creation of the homeland defense department. Rick Santorum commented on this this morning on Imus and suggested that if you ignore increases in the military and homeland defense, Bush has a better record then Ronald Reagan on government growth.
Thedistortions and decietes that supporters of Bush will use, even to lie qbout Reagon record to make their man look good, is disgusting.
Will I vote for Bush, yea holding my nose, is Bush a big government, socialists globalist that doesn't give a damn about the USA? You bet he is.
The Russian troops already controled that real estate. What would you have had FDR do? Start another world war to beat htem back to Russia? You're falling into the same line of liberal euro-weenie thinking that blames the US instead of the people who started the Cold War and made it necessary. The US isn't nearly as culpable for not doing something to stop another's evil acts. Blame the party that committed the acts - the Russians. Those countries that got taken over should also shoulder some of the blame for resisting so weakly and/or for being part of the Axis in the first place. I'm surprised you also didn't criticize FDR for not acting preemptively and preventing France from being overrun. Blaming FDR and by extension the US, doesn't make sense in this instance. There was plenty of things wrong with FDR's policies but not attacking an ally right after a long and bloody war to free-up some former enemies because they might be enslaved for the next few decades isn't one of them.
McKinley is only average and the highest Mountain in the country bares his name? That should be Mt. Reagan.
The problem with this type of analysis is that it totally hides the criteria. If one were to be labeled a "failure", then the immediate question should be: "Doing what?"
For instance, if the goal is to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving their stated aim of world conquest, then Jimmy Carter, indeed, was an abject failure. However, opposing the Soviet's was NOT Carter's stated goal. He clearly believed in accommodating the Soviet Union. Based on that goal, Jimmy Carter did a pretty good job and probably should be ranked higher.
Unfortunately, many of the "historians" who participate in these rankings are still lamenting the demise of the Soviet Empire. They clearly would not give President Reagan credit for its collapse.
In many ways, Reagan's achievements dwarf Roosevelt's. The media and the "elite" were not hounding Roosevelt to abandaon his goals. The country readily rallied to oppose a clear Nazi threat. Reagan had to "sound the alarm" himself.
The economic recovery of the U.S. did not actually occur until we were into WWII. It's not plain that Roosevelt's economic programs were any better than a holding pattern. Reagan's tax cuts pulled the U.S. out of an inflationary spiral and provided a major boom which lasted for many years.
I've heard lots of rehashes of Reagan's first two years blaming his economic program for a full recession. Most conveniently ignore the double digit inflation he inherited. It took "Reaganomics" about 2.5 years to turn the economy around. (It took 6 months to pass congress.) By the time the campaigns began for his second term, the country was clearly on the road to recovery. We should compare that legacy with Roosevelt's record. Roosevelt's programs had not solved the depression in 2.5 years!
Albert Fall and the Tea Pot Dome scandal did his reputation in.
I found it curious that when Albert Gore sold the same Tea Pot dome oil fields to Occidental Petroleum for development, that no one in the press made the least amount of noise about it.
Fortunately you do not have to.
Washington's greatest gift was to establish the various precedents for those chosen as President of the United States, including and most importantly, the orderly and peaceful transfer of power to a political successor.
Remember that there were many, including his officers that urged him to take power in his own name, and others that offered him a crown.
For me and for always, he is "First in War, first in Peace and First in the hearts of his countrymen"
Basically all we had to do was tell Stalin to get out of town before sundown.
Of course Stalin had so many accomplises in the U.S. Government, he knew we weren't going to do anything.
Top level office holders have to be careful they are disassociated from business these days. All this noise about Cheney and Halliburton is nothing more than a reminder that everybody is watching. Interior has to be above reproach, partly because of Teapot Dome. We expect certain ethical boundaries between gov't and business so that business competition is fair. Got to be fair.
OK, so where is the history nut who is going to explain to me why Jackson is so danged high? I understand the lib-love for FDR, but Jackson? Polk? puh-leezz ...
Nevertheless, a clean Top 10, great points day, team-mates finishing 1, 2, 5, 8 & 9 puts us in good shape for the championship...
Looks very good.
If you ask me, though, Alaska missed being a big part of Teapot Dome by a cat's whisker. On another note, somewhat distantly related, are you aware that lease bids on NPR-A opened last week and they estimate 6 billion barrels, coincidently the same size as ANWR?
Reagan ended a 100 year menace in communism. Though it is still out there, the legs got completely sawed off in it's old form by Reagan.
He also had to deal with Carter collapsing the economy and he and Bush 1 inherited the savings and loan crisis through the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act(DIDMCA) of 1980, signed into law on March 31, 1980, by President Jimmy Carter.
Not only did it raise the insurance of bank accounts from 40k to 100k, but included were things that allowed financial institutions to make bad loans and that caused the crisis.
Also it was popular because of Democrats and Carter in particular to take hostages. Reagan would kill them all for doing that to his credit and that brought more respect to America for it.
Clinton gave away guidance and rocket technology to China so they can now nuke us anywhere in the US. That made Clinton the worst President ever and there could be a real case for treason against him.
Keep in mind that these same historians are the kooks who leave American history out of the history book and are instead offering a PC history of near lies.
I wouldn't trust that group an inch.
for post 1920 Presidents, bump up all the Repubs one section, and bump down all Dems one section, and it's a pretty accurate take.
Not sure about Eisenhauer being under near great. Clinton should be below average and not failure, because it was largely a prosperous time. Individuals like Carter should be in the Failure category, as that was a disasterous period here and abroad.
While I would consider him a so-so president, Kennedy was very strong on Defense, and also believe in cutting tax rates. Not very liberal issues in most circles.
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.