Posted on 06/10/2004 8:55:07 AM PDT by Cableguy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
FDR is much too high.
"Remember, this is a survey of historians, many of whom are liberal."
********************************************************
True...and therefore rendered another worthless ranking.
LBJ needs to be in the 6 worst, IMO.
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.
How can anyone putting a list like this together, not place clinton and carter at the bottom?
Reagan didn't nuke anybody. Truman did.
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.
"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-
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.
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.
I have to agree with you, I just don't like him.
These clowns have no credibility since they listed FDR higher than horrible!
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.