Presidential Rankings

Jimmy,

I have put the book on hold at Houston Public Library. I will definitely read it and tell my opinion. You know that FDR is my hero and that wont change, but I am open to reading other's writings. What kind of historian would I be if I didnt? To the Hoover/Roosevelt statement, yes it is.

 

Hare my rankings for the Presidents of my lifetime;

EFFECTIVENESS

1) Reagan
2) Nixon
3) Clinton
4) Bush 43
5) Johnson
6) Bush 41
7) Ford
8) Carter

TRUSTWORTHY/ETHICAL

1) Carter
2) Ford
3) Reagan
4) Bush 41
5) Bush 43
6) Johnson
7) Nixon
8) Clinton

CHARISMA

1) Reagan
2) Clinton
3) Bush 43
4) Carter
5) Bush 41
6) Ford
7) Johnson
8) Nixon

 

I like the way you have categorized them. With a few exceptions, I agree with you. I have always listed Carter, then Ford, as the most ethical/honest. Time will tell, I think, if Bush 43 will surpass either or both. Nice list!

 

Very, very nice job, Bruce. Even though we rarely agree politcally, I think your categories are excellent, and your ratings are nearly perfect.

I think that Clinton might have been slightly more effective than Nixon, but it's a tough call without a little more history behind us. Otherwise, I would not disagree on one single ranking.

(Except that, with a crystal ball, Bush 43 will likely either move slightly up or way down in terms of effectiveness.)

Thanks.

 

Here my rankings for the Presidents of my lifetime;

EFFECTIVENESS

1) Clinton
2) Johnson
3) Nixon
4) Eisenhower
5) Kennedy
6) Regan
7) 41
8) 43
9 Ford
10) Carter

TRUSTWORTHY/ETHICAL

1) Carter
2) Eisenhower
3) Ford
4) Clinton
5) 41
6) Kennedy
7) Johnson
8) Regan
9) Nixon
10) 43

CHARISMA

1) Kennedy
2) Clinton
3) Regan
4) 43
5) Carter
6) Johnson
7) Eisenhower
8) 41
9) Ford
10) Nixon

.

 

And I think Bush 43 will be crowned Tooth Fairy.

 

How was Kennedy more effective than Reagan? OK, Cuban Missle Crisis was arguably great leadership. But what else? The Bay of Pigs, perhaps?

Even if time in office were not a factor, Reagan accomplished far more in three years than Kennedy did. Right or wrong.

And Clinton was more ethical than Bush 41? You have got to be kidding me. Do you believe that Clinton fulfilled his '92 campaign promise to have "the most ethical adminstration in history?" Did he even get close. Did he even TRY?

I was stupid enough to believe him at the time. I don't anymore.

 

By the way, I happen to have a newspaper from November 25, 1963, on my wall. Right under the banner headline: "Kennedy Assasin Suspect Slain" it says:

"First Order by LBJ: Win in Vietnam."

And LBJ was effective?

 

Absolutely. There was no more effective politician at pushing through a radical program than Johnson. As a legislator, he had no peer. His civil rights legislation and war on poverty could have been passed by few other men. The impact of his implementation of that vision, has had a profound effect on this country.

.

 

Two crises immediately spring to mind: Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had either gone the other way, it is near certain neither you nor I would be here to argue the point. I remember our teacher dismissing my class early so that we might be with our families should anything "occur" that day. I lived thousands of miles from the action, nevertheless, it is sure my little island would have been ground to powder.

Kennedy was a true blue cold warrior who was effective at a point in history when it mattered most. Later, he moved deftly (hitherto he had been something less than deft) to diffuse tensions and reach an understanding with the Soviets. His 1963 American University speech was a seminal event (and one of the best and most substantive speeches I have ever heard).

Well, I believe he kept his promise to preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution of the United States. I do not care who he may or may not have had in the White House. I simply do not think it important. What impresses me more was that under his stewardship we had the greatest period of economic expansion in the history of the country. He promised things would get better if he were elected. He was, and they did.

41 was placed below Clinton for two reasons: Iran/Contra and “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Of the two, the most egregious was the former – the assault on the constitution – a document, the spirit of which he had promised to protect as Vice President and later as President. I think 41 is a good man, but if we are discussing moral relativism (and we are) Clinton’s peccadillos and, “I did not have ____ relations with that woman”, matter less that not protecting the constitution when you promised you would, and raising taxes when you promised you wouldn’t.

.

 

That was his problem - a politian trying to put people to work in jobs that aren't real jobs. FDR would have been better to let the economy deflate - both prices and costs, including wages, and have the economy back into a real growth situation within a year or so as it had in past depressions, instead of using pre-Keysian pump priming that at the end prolonged the depression for 8 or so miserable years until the war rescued the economy.

Actually, through FDR's wage freezing, he did manager to give the 80% employed a real increase in their purchasing power. But we all know the sad story of the other 20%.

The likes of Reagan and Thatcher, for all their faults and inconsistencies, did help point the economic community back to the writting of the likes of Hayek and Mises whose economics is all about the realities of the market, not salvation through government programs and dependence.

 

Don't try to interject economic theory here.

Amused,

Remember, you have people on this board who actually think Clinton caused the boom. However, I too think FDR was an effective leader much like Reagan was. He made people feel strong in a time of struggle and doubt. He also worked to restore faith in the banking system which was greatly needed. His public works projects also helped build the rural parts of the country which had been left behind by modern technology. They weren't just make work projects.

Chris

 

Selah!

 

Yeah, Johnson, a Democratic President, was barely able to push civil rights legislation through a Democratic Congress.

Of course, many of the Democrats in Congress at the time were avowed bigots, so I guess this a pretty good accomplishment.

And since Johnson was so effective, I guess he accomplished his primary objective: winning in Vietnam.

Well, no.

But Reagan did accomplish his primary objective: winning the Cold War. A MUCH more difficult accomplishment, by the way.

 

This is the Off-Topic forum, isn't it?

 

Relative contribution of presidents - defending freedom, containing communism, and winning the Cold War: 2 Sept 1945 - 26 Dec 1991


Truman - 30%
Eisenhower - 15%
Kennedy - 10%
Johnson - 5%
Nixon - 15%
Ford -
Carter - 5%
Regan - 15%
Bush 41 - 5%

 

It could be said that that began with Wilson and that the switch to combatting the Nazi/Fascist variants was but an interlude.

 

My rankings would be....
1. G.W. Bush
2. Reagan
3. G.H.W. Bush
4. Nixon
5. Ford
6. Carter
7. Clinton

 

What about Prime Ministers of Canada:

Nice guy but no Charisma:
Joe "Who" Clark (wife might have made a better choice)
(Conservative Party)

Charisma:
Pierre Elliot Trudeau (why women went screaming after him I do not know). A little arrogant/quite self confident. Once lifted the curtian on his rail car to give the finger to strikers. Became known as the Trudeau salute. Ruined the military
(Liberal Party)

Strange:
Mckenzie King (didn't he live with his mother and then after her death hold seances (sp??) looking for her.
(Liberal)

Loved his Scotch:
Sir John A. McDonald

Economic Mess:
Brian Mulroney - he did buy new military equipment. Things did not go well economically. Jay Leno did look like him (chin thing).

Quick Wit & Coolness -
Jean Chretien

Boring:
Turner

Not great looks but Great statesman Prime Minister
John Diefenbaker

Party that should have had a chance in office and might have made a big difference:
New Democratic Party (Ed Broadbent & Alan Blakney)

Ohhh

Presidential Rankings:

1) Reagan
2) Kennedy
3) Johnson
4) GHW Bush
5) Clinton
6) Nixon
7) Carter


North

 

Lester Pearson is considered by many Canadian historians to have been one of Canada's best Prime Ministers.

It's too bad Kim Campbell didn't have a chance to prove her abilities. She was Canada's first and only female Prime Ministers but had a short term of office.