Ranking the presidents

I thought it might be fun to play a little parlor game. Below, you will find my selections for the Top and Bottom 10 Presidents in U.S. history. Lists like this are, admittedly, highly subjective by their very nature - and yet, various ranking lists from the first great original done by Arthur Schlesinger in 1948 to C-SPAN's poll in 1999 all indicate similar results for the best and worst. My results below match fairly closely to these others with mostly differences in ranking by no more than 5 spots or so.

For judging the top ten Presidents in U.S. history, I chose the following criteria: Their handling of Crisis Management, Domestic/Economic Policy, Foreign Policy, Moral Character, Leadership, Legacy, and the pursuit of Civil Rights and Individual Liberty.

Thus, Wilson, who is typically ranked at or on the top ten on most polls, is not given that honor on my list, mostly due to his regressive policies towards blacks and civil rights as well as his foreign policy which was a complete failure.

Similarly, the presence of Jimmy Carter and (much as it pains me personally) Ulysses S. Grant on the bottom ten portion - Both were men of impeccable personal moral character - yet neither proved capable of leadership or crisis management as Chief Executive.

There are several choices which may not seem consistent with the above criteria (most notably Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson) but mitigating or special circumstances may have influenced them.

In any case, that's how I did it. You may agree or not - I just thought I should spend this holiday wisely as opposed to the way most of our free-vacations from work are handled (mine included).

In each case I give three reasons for my choice. In each case, the reasons match one of the top six criteria. (NOTE: For the Top Ten anyway - for the Bottom Ten I just sorta rant as in most cases, 3 reasons were not enough).

Created a breathing, working Presidency from theory and ideals through sheer force of will and unblemished moral character.

Led the United States of America into the greatest experiment (and success) in self-rule ever attempted in the history of civilization.

Solidification of the Federal Government's authority over the States and the establishment of the United States of America we now know it.
The destruction of slavery and the great "Original Sin" which lay at the heart of this nations founding.

Saved the world from the greatest evil in the history of civilization.
Saved the world from the greatest evil in the history of civilization.

Orchestrated the greatest non-wartime national rebirth (from the economic, militarily, and psychological ashes of the 70's) in U.S. history.

The courage, wisdom, and mercy (yes…mercy) that enabled him to end WWII by the use of nuclear weapons as opposed to the bloodbath of invasion (generous estimates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki dead are at 400,000 - conservative estimates of U.S. dead alone for an invasion of Japan were 500,000 with millions of dead Japanese).
The Truman Doctrine & Marshall Plan - nuff said…
The desegregation of the U.S military and all Federal Service.

The Panama Canal - nuff said
The establishment of an activist foreign policy which bolstered American security and prestige while simultaneously winning TR the Nobel Peace Prize.
The establishment of the American conservationist legacy by the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which declared 235 million acres as permanent national forests and parks.

VII James K. Polk:

The Securing of the Oregon Territory (while simultaneously furthering the "Monroe Doctrine precedent by facing down the U.K.).
The establishment of an Independent U.S. Treasury.

VIII Grover Cleveland:

The most fiscally conservative Democrat in U.S. History, Cleveland forever solidified in the American psyche the concept that free market capitalism was a great good and tariffs and protectionism were evils to be abolished.
His attitudes and respect for the indigenous peoples of Hawaii and Cuba (in the face of possible annexation) laid the foundations for the future handling of all U.S. foreign affairs with an eye towards restraint and conscience as well as the eventual rejection of colonial imperialism.
He was the most scrupulously honest and courageous President of the Gilded Age and these character traits did much to set the future tone of American politics, fiscal policies, and human rights.

IX Andrew Jackson:
The Annexation of Florida
The establishment of Federal Power over States (and the delaying of a Civil War for a few more decades). South Carolina was but one step from secession over it's right to "nullify" Federal Authority as subordinate to States Rights. Jackson corrected them with the threat of U.S. military intervention.

Established the legacy of the President being beholden to the will of the people, as well as the rise of mass political parties as a coalition of interests.
NOTE: His treatment of Native American's (the infamous "Trail of Tears") almost made me remove him but, unlike Jefferson, he did not talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue and was very much a product of his time (as lame as that sounds) and in any case, was no different from the treatment handed out by most U.S. Presidents.

X Thomas Jefferson:
The Louisiana Purchase - which more than doubled the size of America with the stroke of a pen (and $15 Million to Napoleon).

The Shores of Tripoli." - The Barbary Coast Wars. The first foreign military intervention by U.S. forces to secure American rights and which also set a precedent, still active today, of U.S. refusal to be blackmailed by "terrorists" or rogue states.

NOTE: Jefferson's position - at 10 - may be a conceit on my part (I harbor a secret fondness for him). The reality is that the majority of the great accomplishments he is most worshiped for came before his Presidency. In addition, it is impossible to gloss over his appalling hypocrisy on the issue of "all men are created equal" while continuing to own human beings due to no other motivation than personal greed. In the end, Jefferson is on my list as a representation of the highest ideals of America (even when we fail to achieve them).

Ike is on most of the lists I have seen. His moral character, and leadership are undeniable, and his reign during some of the most optimistic and golden periods in American history (the 50's) is more than just coincidence. On the other hand, his foreign policy endeavors were largely appalling failures. The bay of Pigs was planned by his administration. His words on Communist Europe were proven (at great cost - ask Hungary) to be bluster while his policies on South East Asia began what would be the greatest military, domestic, and foreign policy disaster in U.S. history - Viet Nam. When coupled with his lukewarm attitudes towards Truman's fledgling civil rights advances, he must be relegated to somewhere less than top 10.
James Monroe:

JFK was a womanizer, an elitist, and a political slickster who's administration double-dealed, held mortal grudges, and practiced the politics of personal vendetta. The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, his personal war against Castro was illegal (and would eventually play a part in his assassination), and he accelerated Vietnam.
Having said all that (which is why he is not in the Top Ten) He was also, if hypocritically so, deeply committed to Civil Rights advancement. His brinkmanship with Russia nearly ended the world - but did not - and for that he must be given great credit. He was the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the 20th Century and his vision for America and our role in the world (The Apollo Moon Missions, The Peace Corps, The international succoring of liberty) where both real and genuinely stirring.
The Bottom Ten - The Worst Presidents in U.S. History:

The worst President in U.S. history. Played with himself while the nation moved towards Civil War and 600,000 deaths. His inaction was a colossal betrayal of trust and duty. When he did act, he only made things worse. Indeed, it was the incompetence and moral cowardice of Buchanan that underscored the superiority of his successor, Abraham Lincoln.

II Andrew Johnson:
After Lincoln's assassination, Johnson single-handedly ensured that reconstruction would fail. He undid all of Lincoln's promises of "Charity towards all, malice towards none" by simultaneously antagonizing white southerners while abandoning the recently freed slaves. A Southerner and racist, no one could have been a worse successor for the great Lincoln. He supported the enactment of "Black codes". He so alienated his own party and congress, they moved to hedge his authority. When he crossed them, the House of Representatives impeached him (one of only two Presidents in U.S. History). He was spared removal from office by one vote in the Senate.

One of the most disappointing and tragic figures on my list. A man of great intelligence, sensitivity and moral fortitude, who turned out to be unable to face the challenges of office and adversity. A micromanager and idealist, Carter's naiveté coupled with an unwillingness to accept advice placed him a position of being feckless by default. On both the home front and internationally, tremendous energies were expended with no forward motion. The Soviet Union accumulated the greatest political and military advancements since the end of WWII while the Carter administration stood like a deer in the headlights. The oil crisis, unemployment, interest rates, and capped off by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Like a great academic politico, Carter could not handle the big chair when it came time to actually sit.

IV William Jefferson Clinton:

Clinton's first inaugural promise of being "The most Ethical Administration in the history of the United States", is a joke of such cosmic, gargantuan proportions, it is almost difficult to believe he actually said them. His moral turpitude, contempt for the rule of law, and outright corruption, coupled with several large policy failures (Energy Policy, Foreign Policy, Mid East Peace, The Military) are not offset by his one or two modest successes (GATT/WTO and welfare reform) nor his small part in one very large success (The economic boom). When you add in his horrifying disregard for the law, ethics, and personal accountability, Clinton emerges from the dust as a man of low practical ability and morals who played the instruments of personal politics and influence while the White House burned. The second President in U.S. history to be impeached. Like Johnson, he avoided being removed from office by one vote

V Calvin Coolidge:
If Clinton "fiddled while Rome Burned" then "Cool Cal" was in a coma under the guise of "minimalist conservative government". In addition, his high protective tariffs were a complete reversal of the free market ideals supported by his predecessors and aided in the coming of the Great Depression. Hoover often gets most of the blame for the great depression - I say it was Cal.

His "great society" and "war on poverty" is a legacy we are still paying for today. The class warfare attitudes and cycle of government dependence created by his failed attempts at democratizing socialism formed the basis of a divisive and counterproductive policy which helped lock hundreds of thousands of lives into permanent poverty and underclass. His escalation of the War in Vietnam for purely personal political purposes was underscored by his cowardice in refusing to run for a second elected term when it became clear he would be the "first President to lose a War". Only his support of civil rights (ironic considering what a vicious racist he was) prevents him from being in the top 5 of my list.

VII Gerald Ford:
Knew nothing, did nothing. As a congressman, never introduced ONE bill in 22 years! Was a gleeful participant in the greatest lie ever forced on the American people (the Warren Commission investigation of JFK's assassination). While these had nothing to do with his presidency, we should have seen the rest coming. Gerald Ford's sole job was to secure a Presidential pardon for Nixon. That is the only reason Nixon picked him. There is no other way this cosmic milquetoast could have even managed a wet-dream about becoming President.

Shocked are you? I know most people who are acquainted with me will be.
Even if you do not like him, "can he be that bad?" you ask? Yes.
Why? Forget leaving Saddam in power (not his fault) forget the economy (not his fault), Bush's biggest problem was his need to cover up his past and his willingness to utilize his most sacred Presidential power to do so.

On Christmas Eve, 1989, George Bush ordered the invasion of Panama, a sovereign neighbor, to remove the arguably popularly supported head of state so he could stand CRIMINAL charges in an America Court for narcotics trafficking. Huh? That would be like Tony Blair unleashing the British military (on the 4th of July) to invade New Hampshire because the mayor of Butts-ville was doing 100 mph in a 55 zone. Why did Bush do it? To avoid impeachment. Noriega was a U.S. CIA puppet who helped run drugs and launder money for the CIA. Bush was involved (both as VP and as CIA director) and Noriega was too dangerous to leave around. During his trial, 4 DEA agents were barred from testifying, under oath, that Noriega was working with the U.S. Have ya ever wondered what happened to Noriega? Have not heard anything about that since have we? The whole thing just kinda went away...

Obvious - the only reasons which kept him out of the top five (and ALMOST took him off the top ten)
a) Only Nixon could go to China...
b) He ended the Vietnam war.

X Ulysses S. Grant:
*sigh* Another one I weep to place on the list (like Carter). Great man, honest man, man of tremendous personal character and leadership. Naive, politically lazy, and a sucker. The most corrupt administration in U.S. history (due to the fact that Grant was surrounded by slime that he was never quite able to recognize or deal with). Only his personal traits save him from more damaging condemnation.

- Zachary Taylor/Millard Fillmore/Franklin Pierce: The three Presidents who preceded Buchanan and Lincoln. All aided in their own way the coming storm of Civil War.

As an historian, I have to disagree with my fellows.

My top 5:

1. George Washington.

He creates the post and all its powers. I have a copy of a letter from Jefferson to him, written when GW was done his second term, TJ fears the next Pres will try to become a king, TJ asks him to become king, for he knows he is benevolent.

2. Theodore Roosevelt.

He almost single handedly creates modern America

3. Ronald Reagan.

Do I have to explain it to you?
(It is commonly understood in the historical communtity, that you don't judge your contemporary leaders, but is also understood that Ron is an exception.)

4.Jemmy Madison. (Spelled intentionally wrong)

Who better to be president, than the man who wrote the constitution?

5. James Polk.

I just like the guy, without him Santa Anna keeps Texas, therefore keeping GWB. (Although he did give us California)

Bottom 5:

38. James Buchanan.

Who? So that's who the high school is named after.
Unlike Lincoln, he had no cajones.

39. Warren Harding.

Women elected him as there first president. LOL.

40. Franklin Pierce.

Was all about staying in power, much like WJC.

41. There Royal Lowness's, William and Hillery Clinton.

Again, do I have to explain it to you?

42. Lyndon Johnson.

Came way too close to destroying this nation, and after close to 40 years, we are still trying to straiten up his mess.*

*Special mention should go to Andrew Johnson, the other reason why you should never vote for someone named Johnson.

The only thing that ticks me off more than the Liberals themselves is the accusation of being a sympathizer, or lacky to the ideology of Liberalism.

You are wrong in stating that JFK didn't accomplish anything. I previously mentioned the only two things that he did accomplish. Jimmy Carter, William Jefferson Clinton were the two Presidents that didn't accomplish anything.

Sorry, I am not trying to tick you off, but you sure sound like a lacky to the ideology of Liberalism. JFK is their patron saint, and one of their favorite hobbies is inventing history that grows his legend. For what it's worth, I never "stated that JFK didn't accomplish anything," but ya know what? He didn't. You mentioned the two things he accomplished. One of them was, in fact, liberal fantasy. The space race was alive and well when Kennedy came on the scene. It reached its pinnacle after he departed.

The tax cut was a novel policy from a Presidential Democrat, but it was not his idea. He admitted that he had no interest in economics. And how hard do you think he had to fight with the Republicans in Congress to get a tax cut passed?

Like Clinton, the man was charasmatic. Unlike Clinton, Kennedy did not have enough time to bring complete disgrace to the office of Commander-in-Chief (though he was well on his way). When he died, he had served three years, had one foreign policy failure, one (charitable) draw and one incomplete. And, because the Liberals got to me too, I can't bring myself to say anything worse about the guy than he doesn't belong in the top twenty. I'll leave it at that, because, at the end of the day, Presidential rankings are irrelevant. I'm just repulsed by the nonsense that people are willing to buy into when it comes to that immoral bunch from Hyannisport.

...you have to have, state and defend objective criteria, not just one's own subjective preferences. But that is very hard to do.

Absolutely, and that is why these lists are generally meaningless. That said, here's my bit for this discussion:

Great is the President who was larger than his times. Above all, greatness is for our Founders and those who preserve and protect their work. Washington and Lincoln are the archetypes. Reagan I'd add to it, certainly above the other Top Tens.

I'm uncomfortable putting FDR up there, although we must recognize his great leadership in the (gasp) Depression and the War.

Others were great leaders, but I don't see them anywhere near a Reagan or a Lincoln. Truman and Theodore Roosevelt, for example, were products of their times. Their times defined them more than they defined their times. As did Truman, T Roosevelt inherited most of his doings, Panama Canal, trusts, conservationism. He was was a doer, but he was not an innovator.* The greatness in them both was that they pulled the trigger, Truman literally, Roosevelt loudly.

Presidents who are good leaders is an entirely different category. I think Cleveland deserves credit for his leadership, especially Cleveland II. LBJ was a singularly successful manager of legislation. Polk was a great leader, too.

Our author included accomplishment in the mix, although he rejected negative accomplishment, ie. stopping something from happening. The early Presidents all deserve the shrine of greatness for making the expiriment happen. So many bad things could have happened that did not. I credit Taft the same way, for he kept some really bad ideas from becoming events.

Btw, thanks for your notes on the TR show. They ran a full page ad in today's (com)Post. Big bucks behind that production.

* On the down side for Roosevelt, where he did stir the people it was into dangerous enthusiasms. He was, as La Follette said, "Roosevelt is the keenest and ablest living interpreter of what I would call the superficial public sentiment of a given time and he is spontaneous in his response to it; but he does not distinguish between that which is a mere surface indication of a sentiment and the building up by a long process of education of a public opinion which is as deep-rooted as life."

I do so enjoy turning the progressives on each other.

JFK inspired Bill Clinton. I can't stand either one of them! If you want to talk about someone sounding like a Liberal, then take another look at your blanket statement that JFK didn't accomplish anything. You sound just like a Liberal talking about Ronald Reagan. You should always give credit where credit is due otherwise you sound like the flipside of the same broken record. Another aspect of your own Liberal tendencies is that you insist on engaging in the Liberal practice of labeling other people that disagree with you.

The fact is that JFK's tax cut broke the ground for Ronald Reagan's tax cut in the '80s. It was impossible for Tip O'Neil and the Dimocratic Congress to argue against Reagan's tax cut when JFK had done the same thing! That was JFK's greatest contribution.

Afraid I have to disagree with Truman.

The only thing he did was drop bombs on Japan to end the war. Notice it took two bombs before Japan decided to call it quits. However, this was more of a continuation of a procees fully in place before he took over. He also started the Cold War because of his naivete at Potsdam and was the Father of Appeasement in both postwar Germany and Korea and would have done the same in Japan had not MacArthur been in charge there. By putting limitations on the military about when and where they could fight in Korea, he probably inspired LBJ to do the same in Viet Nam.

Sir, I regret that your vehement abhorrance to the "Liberal" mantel. It is not my intention to insult you. Nevertheless, the harder you try to fight off the tag, the more firmly it appears to stick to you, because you are going out of your way to defend the poster-boy for the American liberal movement. Now you have committed the cardinal sin of comparing Kennedy to Reagan.

Look this all started because I said Kennedy had no legacy as president. You incorrectly offered up the space race, and somewhat correctly offered up the tax cut as a legacy. That is not enough. Regan won the Cold war. He restored America's feeling of Patriotism. He re-established our reputation as the force of right in the world. And he cut taxes and revived our economy. But the tax cut will be an afterthought on his legacy in history. And don't you forget it. And don't you EVER compare Kennedy to Reagan again. If you want out of this debate, just say "You're right, Kennedy was, at best, a second-rate president."

PS> Taking pleasure in posting this from the Scarsdale NY Public Library. Scarsdale: The limosine-Liberal Capital of the East Coast.

Just out of curiosity, how do you keep a straight face defending JFK like a mother bear, while at the same time claiming not to be a liberal?

You are of course comparing JFK to Reagan by pointing out the accident that they both touted tax cuts. The similarities end there. Reagan's tax cut also called for smaller goverenment. Kennedy expanded social services.

Oh, and for future reference? The "I know you are, but what am I" defense, stopped being effective sometime around third grade. Go back and read the thread if you must. You are the one trying to come up with positive things to say about JFK. I think he is one of history's greatest posers.

For the record: I am NOT defending JFK! I am NOT comparing JFK to Ronald Reagan! There is NO comparison!! Ronald Reagan was a great man, and a great president. JFK was neither.

However, you are WRONG to say that JFK didn't accomplish anything! JFK had one great accomplishment in that his tax cut made it impossible for the Dimocrats to derail Ronald Reagan's tax cut without losing face!! That is the single biggest reason that Reagan's tax cut ever even happened at all.

It is obvious to me that your hatred of JFK has blinded you to the FACT that he actually helped our side. Now, let's see you deny that!

so I won't waste any more time trying to talk sense to you.

It is obvious that your highschool crush on John Kennedy has turned you into a liar. But, if you insist on continuing to run around in public with your pants around your ankles, I'm willing to humor you...

1) You did, in fact compare compare JFK to Reagan when you pointed out that their detractors use similiar tactics. The problem is that in Kennedy's case, the criticism is warranted.

However, you are WRONG to say that JFK didn't accomplish anything! JFK had one great accomplishment in that his tax cut made it impossible for the Dimocrats to derail Ronald Reagan's tax cut without losing face!! That is the single biggest reason that Reagan's tax cut ever even happened at all.

Again, read the thread. This whole debate has become a Chinese Finger Prison for you. The harder you try to extricate yourself, the tighter the squeeze. I conceded the tax cut from the beginning, but sought to downplay its significance. In order validate yourself on a small point, you are turning the tax cut into the Lousiana Purchase. And then, when you make outrageous claims like "it was the single biggest reason Reagan's tax cut even happened," you sound like you have gone off the deep end. I suspect that you are not even particularly familiar with the particulars of either one. Do just a little research, and you will discover (1) that the two were inspired for very different reasons, (2) that the scope of the two was entirely different, and (3) that the perspective of the congresses to which they were proposed had absolutely no similarities. Your assertation is nonsense.

Given all of that, my assertation was not that "JFK didn't accomplish anything," but that I wouldn't rank him in the top 20 US Presidents. Assuming that his tax cut was as great an accomplishment as you seem to think, how would that refute my argument? We are talking about men who built nations, freed the slaves, destroyed facism, and stared down nuclear communism. What else did JFK do?

Note: Think about the corner you have painted yourself into before you rush to respond.

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.