The left complains about the money we spent in Iraq. Well worth it if it translates into a safer world. Can't say the same for the great society trillions can we.
. . . and that brings up the issue of the comparison of presidents since 1952.
- Eisenhower
- good on civil rights, given no credit. Bad on SCOTUS appointments, including Warren and Brennan. Interstate Highway System. Strong on Foreign policy but allowed Castro to take over Cuba.
- Kennedy
- dropped the ball at the Bay of Pigs; when I learned what had happened it literally turned my stomach. Soviets built the Berlin Wall on his watch, and provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis. Established the predicate for heavy US involvement in Vietnam. On the plus side, he did significantly cut the top income tax rate.
- Johnson
- put 500,000 troops in Southeast Asia and, politically, had lost the war by the time he left office. "Great Society" (actually a pledge of a "great government") damaged society and slowed racial reconciliation - at the cost of a trillion dollars (in 1970 dollars). Bad SCOTUS nominees.
- Nixon
- nearly pulled victory out of the defeat that Johnson had baked in the Vietnam cake. Watergate, but at least he resigned rather than try to pull a Bill Clinton. Stagnant economy, beginnings of the 1970s inflation. Wage/price controls. Mediocre SCOTUS nominations.
- Ford
- short timer whose chief accomplishments were to pardon Nixon and, just barely, prevent the nomination in 1976 of Ronald Reagan. "Whip Inflation Now" (snort!) buttons.
- Carter
- turned ally state Iran into a very dangerous enemy. Weak posture toward the Soviet Union. Gas lines. Stagnation and very serious inflation.
- Reagan
- got the country going again, whipped inflation, tamed the energy crisis, and transcended Communism. Mediocre SCOTUS nominations.
- GHW Bush
- absorbed the hit of the S & L crisis, helped Yeltsin defeat the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Nominated Clarence Thomas (as well as Souter). Betrayed the tax pledge. Defeated Saddam's army but allowed the regime to remain, to fester into the mess which his son is still laboring to clear up.
- Clinton
- established the predicates of the present hostile Russia in Yugoslavia, and aggressively fought his enemies in the Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Raised taxes. Cut the military by a third. Jamie Gorelick's "wall" while OBL was hatching the 911 plot. Lied under oath in court, an endless litany of scandals, including Filegate - for which he should have been impeached in his first year in office. Bad SCOTUS nominees.
- GW Bush
- Tax cuts, engagement of the enemy in Afghanistan/Iraq, Alito/Roberts. On the negative side, laxity in dismantling the Clinton legacy in the Justice Department guaranteed that 911 would not be detected in time, weak handling of the press after Katrina and in regard to the Plame/Wilson affair. Signed McCain-Feingold, which is probably why we don't have a Reaganite nominated for POTUS this year.
My rankings of those presidents would place all the Republicans above all the Democrats:
But you could rank Johnson worse. And, if you stretched it, you could rank Kennedy above Ford. And you could debate whether GW Bush was actually worse than Eisenhower, especially considering SCOTUS nominations. I discount Watergate in light of the treatment of Clinton, whose Filegate scandal was objectively the equal of Watergate. "Who hired Craig Livingstone?"
- Reagan
- Eisenhower
- GW Bush.
- Nixon
- GHW Bush
- Ford
- Kennedy
- Johnson
- Carter
- Clinton
I’d put Kennedy above Ford, because Kennedy was a supply-sider. And I argue that if Kennedy had served two terms, Reagan would never had become president. The democrat party would have been the home of supply-side economics. And Kennedy was a staunch anti-communist so the McGovern wing of the party would not have taken over as it has. You’d have a Zell Miller dominated democrat party which would not be a bad thing.