Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historians rank Reagan #8 among presidents
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 16, 2000

Posted on 06/10/2004 8:55:07 AM PDT by Cableguy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-246 next last
To: tabsternager
As a result of FDR's Lend-Lease, we supplied our allies with what it took to win WWII, with our suffering way fewer casualties than our allies did, ...

The differences of opinion is what makes these polls so much fun.

As far as battlefield casualties go, there are still widely differing estimates of casulaties. At this site; WW2 casualties, the data shows only the USSR, China and Yugoslavia having more battlefield casualties among the allied powers than the US did.

Although given what happened after the war its a strange group of allies. Losing China to the communists is not exactly a great coup either.

It sounds like you're saying that FDR is great because he gave all our money away. He could've done that in 1933 and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

181 posted on 06/10/2004 2:40:49 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
His social policies will be debated, but he will remain high in the rankings because during a period of great national distress, he held the heart and sole of the nation in his hands and carried them safely through.

Just like clinton did.

But seriously I think his reputation will tarnish as future, more conservative generations look at what he really did, like here.

Hey, I'm an optimist.

182 posted on 06/10/2004 2:44:29 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine
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.

YES!!!!!!!!

What President Washington did with was to set a precedent, not only for this country, but for governments everywhere. This can NEVER be underestimated for what it means for the limitations on power.

Oh, that the countries who have only ONE initial free and fair election could learn from Washington.

183 posted on 06/10/2004 2:45:11 PM PDT by happygrl (The democrats are trying to pave a road to the white house with the bodies of dead American soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

Only Nixon could go to China.

Nixon started the cancer initiative.

I would Rank Reagan Higher than FDR.


I would put clinton in the failure column. He had TWO chanches and for lack of a better term, blew it.


184 posted on 06/10/2004 2:47:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
On the whole, this is a pretty good survey.

One major problem is how much the Presidency has changed since the 19th century. Today's Presidents have to deal with economic and foreign policy questions that are far more complicated than those of 19th century government leaders. On the other hand, we do remember our 18th and 19th century leaders as men of character and principle in a way that 20th century Presidents often weren't. So it's a tough call.

I'd take Madison and Jackson down a few pegs, though. Madison gets good ratings for his mind and character, and not so much for his record in office. He caved in to the War Hawks and produced the messy and unsuccessful War of 1812. Jackson, though a good President and a great influence on American history, had much less pressing problems to deal with than Reagan or Truman. Doubtless, he wins some points from libertarians (and also, strangely enough from liberal Democrats and those who want a strong Presidency), but he loses some for his racism and expansionism, and I think his ratings will drop a few ticks in the years to come.

But you can see the problem with such contests by looking at Jerry Ford. He came in at a very difficult time for the country and his party. Democrats were in control of Congress. What more could Ford have done at the time? The option of taking the country in a new direction (like TR) wasn't open to him, nor did his predecessor leave him an agenda to fulfill (as some say JFK did for LBJ). I suppose he could have pulled a Truman and pushed for a more assertive foreign policy or at least won reelection, sparing the country Carter, but realistically, it's hard to see how Ford could have been very much "better" or achieved more. This "below average" President was a success in ways that some on the higher rungs weren't.

Andrew Johnson has never been at the top of these lists, but it's amazing how he's shot to the bottom ranks in recent years. Within living memory, Johnson was praised for keeping the Presidency "strong" and not giving into Congress, but today he's reviled for his racial views and attitude towards reconstruction, while Grant has moved up a few notches. Nothing wrong with that. It was probably only fair, but I don't think historians have really thought that era through yet.

The old New Deal/Great Society equation of "strong Presidents" with "reform" and "progress" and "the people" has been broken as racial issues have taken precedence, and there may be more unravelling to come. Hoover and Coolidge have likewise risen from where the last generation's liberal historians put them. Can Harding be far behind?

185 posted on 06/10/2004 2:48:21 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

"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."

My--we seem to have touched a nerve here.

Could well be that Santorum is distorting and lying about Reagan's record but I doubt it based on what I know about the Reagan era and about Santorum. I really have not done or seen any analysis that would support or refute Santorum, and I doubt if you have either.

Your suggestion that Bush is a socialist and a globalist is absurd.


186 posted on 06/10/2004 2:49:57 PM PDT by Busywhiskers (Non entia multiplicandia sunt prater necessetatum. William Occam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
BELOW AVERAGE 27 Benjamin Harrison 2.62 28 aGerald 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

Hmmmmm....Nixon, Ford, Carter.
A straight run of mediocracy/failure from 1968 to 1980.

Who came into office in 1980 and turned things around?

That's why I place RR in second place exceeded only by Washington.

187 posted on 06/10/2004 2:52:32 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
It's far too soon to give an objective answer on Clinton: in essence, the historians are having to predict into the future in order to assess his actions

Unless some action from the Chinese/Riady connection causes a future threat to the US or is a further embarrassment to Clinton, he will go down as an "Eisenhower.

An 8 year stewardship of a country flush with cash and mostly peaceful through no real action or inaction on their own.

A "Place-keeper", if you please.

188 posted on 06/10/2004 2:59:15 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bonaventure

FDR is much too high.


189 posted on 06/10/2004 3:00:05 PM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
You wrote:

"Remember, this is a survey of historians, many of whom are liberal."

********************************************************

True...and therefore rendered another worthless ranking.

190 posted on 06/10/2004 3:02:53 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Clinton's "Cabinet that looked like America"....contained 14 lawyers, and 10 millionaires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118

LBJ needs to be in the 6 worst, IMO.


191 posted on 06/10/2004 3:04:06 PM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
FDR is much too high.

I don't think so. Whether or not you like what he did (and for the most part I do not), he was unquestionably one of the most effective and influential presidents in American history.

192 posted on 06/10/2004 3:08:29 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

How can anyone putting a list like this together, not place clinton and carter at the bottom?


193 posted on 06/10/2004 3:08:57 PM PDT by phil1750 (Love like you've never been hurt;Dance like nobody's watching;PRAY like it's your last prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Bonaventure
Reagan may belong above Truman.

Reagan didn't nuke anybody. Truman did.

194 posted on 06/10/2004 3:11:48 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
An 8 year stewardship of a country flush with cash and mostly peaceful through no real action or inaction on their own.

Actually, he'd go down as a Coolidge -- which is exactly where they've already put him. At this point, that's about all they can do. It remains to be seen how future events will be shaped by Clinton's actions.

Right now, I'd say he has 9-11 in his "debit" column, and I think probably North Korea is headed that direction also. China is probably a wash, as far as Clinton is concerned. I believe history's going to give him a Neville Chamberlain stigma (much as has happened to Carter).

I will not be surprised when the Democrat party falls apart -- there's no way they can hold all of these extremes together; and I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton was seen as the agent of their demise.

Finally: corruption. I think more objective assessments will begin to build up over time, and Clinton's reputation will suffer for it.

195 posted on 06/10/2004 3:16:48 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You wrote:

"It's far too soon to give an objective answer on Clinton"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not for me...I don't need anymore "time" to give an answer. There are enough hard facts out there...to come to a very prudent, accurate, and yes, objective answer.

FWIW-

196 posted on 06/10/2004 3:19:33 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Clinton's "Cabinet that looked like America"....contained 14 lawyers, and 10 millionaires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
The key word is "objective." We both feel that Clinton was an absolute disgrace to the office, and an utter failure. But if we want to look at Clinton's ultimate impact on the affairs and future of the nation (which is what these historians claim to be doing), we couldn't possibly do that yet, because there hasn't been enough time for his actions to fully shake out.

You'll note my reasons for why I think Clinton's "historian" numbers can only go down. You'll note, by contrast, that Eisenhower's numbers have been going up over the years, as more about his actions become known.

197 posted on 06/10/2004 3:25:02 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: x

I would move Andrew Jackson down considerably. I used to be a fan but the more I learn about him the more I dislike him. He mishandled the Indian situation and coused us many more problems in the long run.

I would also move Polk down - I mean, really, what did he do????

Lyndon Johnson screwed up Viet Nam I'd move him Waaaay down.


198 posted on 06/10/2004 3:31:07 PM PDT by Martins kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I have to agree with you, I just don't like him.


199 posted on 06/10/2004 3:32:05 PM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

These clowns have no credibility since they listed FDR higher than horrible!


200 posted on 06/10/2004 3:39:23 PM PDT by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson