C-span’s historian Presidential Rankings are out for 2009. George W. Bush, the newest addition to the pantheon, hits the charts at #36, nudging out Millard Fillmore for that spot. Herbert Hoover is two above him at #34. The top three, as you would expect, are Lincoln, Washington, and FDR.
Rounding out the top ten are Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Jefferson, Eisenhower, Wilson, and Reagan. Kennedy and Reagan in particular, seem to benefit from the nostalgia of the living. In another 50 years or so, I doubt either will fare so well. Jefferson, Jackson, Madison, and Monroe should probably be higher in my opinion — Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe probably more for what they did before assuming the Presidency than for their actual term of office, so maybe I’m just not thinking in terms of the correct criteria.
I rank Truman higher than FDR. I don’t think anybody ever had weightier decisions to make while President, including Lincoln. Truman did amazingly well considering the hole FDR the elitist jerk put him in, keeping Truman in the dark while he was VP, making the decisions that faced him in his sudden Presidency that much heavier.
I’m also surprised Bush ranked that high.
Agree that Kennedy is overrated. Well, a Camelot aura, a doting press, and a sudden end will do that for you. When I think of JFK, it’s hard not to think of a deepening of our involvement in Viet Nam, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, all of which were self-created maladies, the latter bringing us to the brink, which for all his numerous faults, GW Bush never did.
all of which were self-created maladies, the latter bringing us to the brink, which for all his numerous faults, GW Bush never did.
Eh? We’re not on the brink? – Katrina, which had nothing to do with a storm everything to do with Mitch’s bloody cuts to infrastructure that people were literally begging to have shored up, destroyed an American city. Self-created malady indeed, and one of the worst imaginable. Topped only by…
The economy – we were close to falling as a country, not just as an economic system but as a political system entire – on September 18th of this past year. Allowing the whole country to fail because you spent eight years rallying behind deregulation is a self-created malady. One that should earn Bush the #42 spot on that ranking.
Maybe I’m not awake yet, Steph, are you blaming Katrina on Mitch Daniels now?
Didn’t you see the photos of Cheney in scuba gear handing the plastic explosives to Rove at the levees just before the storm hit?
Heck even Farakhan knows that..
Did Mike not mention Teddy and Wilson? Wilson’s not in my top ten.
I’m not sure where I fall on Wilson. I’ve read some arguments that seemed plausible suggesting that Wilson should be somewhere near the bottom of the list.
I agree with Mr. Kole. On foreign policy alone, Truman was a giant. Agree with all his decisions or not, it’s hard to deny his accomplishments.
Japan surrenders
The Marshall Plan enacted
Establishment of the U.N.
Recognizing Israel and Pakistan
William Henry Harrison should rank higher than Bush. Although by not taking the Harrison approach to presidentin’, Bush did spare us a President Cheney. Not that it mattered much.
An interesting list. The sub-categories were particularly thought-provoking.
If anything, I would rank Jackson much lower, not higher. He came into office by undermining his predecessor (JQA) through vicious, false, personal attacks, drove the nation toward civil war through his bull-headed defense of the outrageous tariff that had been passed to bribe voters into his camp, destroyed the national banking system and drove the nation into its worst depression to that time, and forced the brutal removal of tens of thousands of American Indians in direct disregard for the Supreme Court’s decisions. He forced his entire Cabinet into resignation over the Peggy Eaton affair and instead relied on his hillbilly “kitchen cabinet,” and eventually gave us Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the worst SC decision in history in Dred Scott.
But, hey, he’s on the twenty.
Sadly, No had an amusing post a day or two back about what an utter, pinko commie bastard Truman would be painted as in today’s political climate. Here it is.
It starts:
You make a good point about Jackson. Certainly, I agree that his approach to Indiana affairs was horrific.
My recollection is that the campaign between Jackson and JQ Adams was brutal on both sides. Jackson was particularly incensed at how Adams had come to take office in the first place. Jackson had taken 11% more of the vote than Adams and 99 electoral votes to Adams’ 85. But, because there was no majority of electoral votes, it was decided in the House where 4th place finisher, Henry Clay, commanded a lot of influence and swung the election to Adams.
As for Jackson’s economic approach, it seems to have broken the power of the economic and political elite to some extent. Consider the clubbiness of the Presidential succession up to Jackson. Vice-President Adams succeeds Washington. Washington’s Secretary of State, Jefferson, succeeds Adams. Jefferson’s Secretary of State Madison succeeds Jefferson. Madison’s Secretary of State Monroe succeeds Madison. Monroe’s Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams -son of former President John Adams- succeeds Monroe. That’s 40 years of political incest. (Not that these guys were bad Presidents, necessarily, most of them were pretty good.)
Also, Wikipedia has a decent article on The Second Bank of the United States which was a primary target of Jackson’s during his campaign due to the perception that it was corrupt and that it benefited the moneyed elites at the expense of the common man. (Whether that was actually the case or whether, instead, the Bank was a convenient scapegoat is probably an open question.)
At least William Henry Harrison was not in last place! Dang you must really suck to be beateb out by a pres. who was in his sickbed his whole (extremely short) presidency;-)
And for Bush to be beaten out by Grant-damn that’s gotta leave a mark-a drunken mark!
It is incoherent to put Reagan much below FDR.
On economics, it is incoherent to rate Hoover much differently than FDR.
Eric, I’m aware from reading other posts that you think the New Deal is way overrated. Sorry, but I still think regardless that FDR’s leadership during the Great Depression kept the US from sliding into either fascism or communism, which was a true threat at the time. And there was the whole winning WWII thing, which started with keeping England afloat before we officially entered the war, over the objection of isolationist Republicans. Ronald Reagan presided over the end of the Cold War. Fine, but he had a big assist from Gorbachev on that one.
Oops I should say George H.W. Bush presided over the very end of the Cold War…
Steph- You think this is ‘the brink’? Come on, but you were around during the Cold War. This isn’t even close to peril brought us by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laughable to compare Katrina to nuclear obliteration.
You might also consider that had New Orleans and Louisiana spent the billion or so dollars allocated to infrastructure, that went instead to other pet projects, then maybe, just maybe all the blame doesn’t fall on the sitting President.
Heaven help Obama if a similar hurricane or natural disaster smashes a major American city. The right will be ready to pounce and return the favor. Good for the goose, and all.
VG- Definitely, Wilson is way at the bottom of my list, bottom five.
Non-leadership at Versailles is top of the scrap heap, but add the Federal Reserve Act, the Sedition Act, The 16th Amendment, The 17th Amendment, promoted segregation in his White House and cabinet departments, and didn’t know whether to back the Germans or British until the sinking of the Lusitania.
Make George W Bush look like a civil rights respecting genius.
Glenn,
Independent of one’s assessment of the New Deal, you can’t distinguish that strongly between FDR and Hoover on economic policy. (In other words, if you like the New Deal that much, then you have to rate Hoover a lot higher.) And if you assign credit to FDR for the reasons you give, then you have to give similar props to Reagan for the recovery from the post-70s malaise.
One can argue that FDR should get a lot of credit for WWII. But to borrow from your Gorbachev point to diminish Reagan, we could say the same thing about Churchill (and Stalin, in a sense).
If you rate FDR #3 (which I don’t), I can’t imagine how you could rate Reagan lower than #4 or 5. And you’d have to move Hoover to at least the middle of the pack.
By the way, I think the “FDR kept us out of fascism/communism” discussion is interesting and possible. I don’t know enough about the history to say anything definitive about it. (Are there any experts on this thread who can help us out here?)
In any case, his policies helped make the Great Depression what it was in terms of length and depth.
I would respectfully submit that the 70s malaise, as malise-ish as it was, was nothing compared to the challenges FDR faced coming into office, and I’d further respectfully submit that the 70s malaise was not AS bad precisely because of many of the New Deal accomplishments. As for Hoover, while he might not have been as laissez-faire as he’s sometimes portrayed, it was FDR who pushed for the FDIC, Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the SEC, and on and on, things we take for granted today.
As for whether the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, I think that’s been hashed out quite a bit, including on Doug’s site. I see the fact that unemployment was “still” about 19% in 1938 to be a chief argument against the New Deal. This omits that for the first 4 years of the New Deal, the U.S. economy had substantial growth & unemployment went from about 25% to 15%. Then FDR tried cutting a deal with congressional Republicans to cut spending, balance the budget, etc., and the recession of 1937-38 followed. By 1941 (before we fully entered WWII) unemployment was back down to almost 10%, I think.
As for Reagan & the Cold War, all the commentary when he died about his supposedly “defeating” the Soviet Union by massively increasing defense spending, etc., just drove me bananas. The Soviet system was rotten to the core & destined to collapse, no matter what. I think the only real question was whether the USSR would go out quietly or with a bang…with Gorbachev at the helm, thankfully, it went out quietly.
P.S. We defeated the Japanese pretty much with zero help from either Churchill or Stalin, while simultaneously helping those 2 defeat Nazi Germany.
Eric & Glenn,
FDR preventing fascism or communism? Presidents of any strength don’t have that much clout.
Hmm…”short” version.
Fascism. Plenty of fascism (but not fascist) sympathizers around here in the 1930s. Mein Kampf (with the plans for European Jewry redacted out) was a best seller in the US. But, a combination of three main things prevented more than a flirtation.
1) The political plurality within the two party system (something that the “either you’re with us, or agin’ us” types don’t seem to value).
2) Extremely “weak” internal leadership.
3) Extremely weak competition (socialists, syndicalists, anarchists and communists). Not enough to breed fear and mistrust.
Communism. Also plenty of (weak) leftist movements, including communists during the 1920s and 1930s. Popular in academia (still is). McCarthy (for all his faults) was correct in that communist “agents” had infiltrated the USA government. FDR not very vigilant. Hoover too worried about other “stuff”.
Still, it was generally either poorly coordinated, academic, fashionable (see Hollywood), or lone wolves looking for something narciscisstic in nature. And, it really wasn’t all that pervasive. There weren’t commies “everywhere”. They were (are) there, but there weren’t cells in every town.
In effect, it wasn’t very popular with regular people. People just weren’t moved by the message.
Lucky, I suppose. There are some wreckers and kulaks around here who could use a good purging right now. And, I don’t mean a colon cleaning either. ;)
Uh-oh Glenn,
I’m turning you over to the Commonwealth historical society. I would be careful about spouting off that MacArthur “I did it all by myself” drivel, if you were to visit Australia, India or Taiwan.
Your review of the New Deal is overly superificial, and hence lacking in validity. Like all else, the New Deal had its good points and bad points. Still, what worked (or didn’t work) then, differs from the problems we face today. Back then, cutting spending and “balancing” the budget were bad ideas. Today, I’m not yet convinced one way or the other. the variables are sufficiently different to make it a completely separate formulation.
Yes, Varangianguard, that was a very superficial overview of the New Deal, as befits a comment posting on a blog, but it is a superficial overview counteracting the superficial argument that always gets trotted out that since unemployment was 19% in 1938, the New Deal was a failure.
And please note, I was responding to Eric’s comment that Churchill & Stalin get credit along with FDR for winning WWII…not so much as far as Japan is concerned. Sorry to have offended any Aussies & Chinese (the Nationalists that is and certainly not Mao’s Red Army, who was more interested in fighting Chiang Kai-Shek than the Japanese) who also fought in the Pacific. Still, overwhelmingly an American effort in terms of men & materiel.
The New Deal wasn’t a resounding success, or failure. In a panic, Republicans let the New Deal be enacted, then spent the next four (or is it 77?) years obstructing and dismantling it. Some of the less stellar attributes of the New Deal are the direct result of those actions.
That is something politicians should keep in mind right now, I’d imagine. Won’t, but should.
You’re wrong about the War in the Pacific. I’ll certainly agree with materiel aspect of the US contribution (which was an amazing feat), but not manpower. Not by a long shot. Just in the campaigns you know about. If you require it, I’ll look up the numbers…
VG- What New Deal items were dismantled? Got a list?
Yes, the 70s malaise pales in comparison to the GD. But it is easily the 2nd-worst economic situation in the 20th century if not our country’s history.
The 70s malaise may have been worse because of FDR but I can’t imagine a case for the opposite.
Note that I neither claimed that Reagan inherited a mess as large as FDR nor that Hoover was as interventionistic as FDR. But if you’re going to give big credit for dealing with massive economic problems and view FDR-style interventionism as useful, then you must give big kudos to Reagan and significant love to Hoover (if you’re being consistent).
There is no debate about the GD being prolonged by FDR. The only interesting debate is the extent to which the GD was initially caused by govt intervention (e.g., Smoot-Hawley) vs. markets. SS and the minimum wage are plenty sufficient to explain why unemployment would spike in 1937-38. That’s what happens when you increase the price of labor and tax it. Their ability to miss those two little examples of cause & effect is amazing.
Again, the same sorts of arguments are made concerning Hitler’s Germany (if not Japan) and other historical figures. I suppose one can try to piecemeal a story that gives full credit to FDR and little credit to Reagan. I don’t want to dance that much and will give considerable credit to each.
Glenn,
There were only 89 Republicans in the House (out of 435) and 17 in the Senate (out of 96). I know it’s good clean American fun to blame Republicans for everything. But how was FDR hamstrung by House Republicans?
A little trinket I just discovered in dealing with an error from economist Paul Krugman. He said described the stimulus package as such: “even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession.â€
The problem– aside from his analysis– is quantitative: Hoover increased spending by 34% in nominal terms and 78% in real terms (controlling for deflation).
V, I’ll admit to much more Chinese being involved in WWII than Americans, though they made basically no progress against the Japanese, thanks to Mao wanting to use WWII to further the Communist agenda & undermine Chiang. Australians, Indians, New Zealanders combined may have approached the number of Americans.
I’m sorry Eric, but simply saying there’s “no debate” the New Deal prolonged the GD doesn’t make it so. I’d say there’s considerable debate and you currently are holding the minority position among historians & economists.
Glenn, saying there is a debate doesn’t make it so either!
As an example, find me an economist– or even an E100 student– who says an effective minimum wage and taxing labor will not increase unemployment!
Not exactly apples-to-apples. Even assuming the minimum wage and tax on labor (Social Security?) created downward pressure on employment, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this downward pressure wasn’t more than counterbalanced by increased spending by those people who had more money in their pockets because of the minimum wage and social security in addition to the increased demands for labor created by direct government spending.
Supreme Court Republicans until 1938. 11 out of 16 of the “alphabet” programs were struck down between 1935 and 1938 by the Supreme Court, including the National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Trying to change the balance of the Court before its time was probably one of FDR’s two biggest political mistakes.
Successful or not, the various Chinese forces held down the bulk of the Japanese and Kwantung Armies, when they could have been dug in all across the Pacific.
The Indian Army contributed large numbers of troops who served not only in Burma and Malaya, but in the North African and Middle Eastern campaigns as well.
Mao and the ChiCom armies are another story. Mao pretty much held aloof until the Soviets fulfilled their commitments to open a northern front in industrial Manchuria in 1945. Then, the ChiCom troops came out of the woodwork, conveniently acquiring most of the surrending Kwantung arms, and the factories still complete in Manchuria. Sometimes, timing is everything.
“Even assuming the minimum wage and payroll taxes created downward pressure on employment…”
–> I think we’re safe assuming that, right? Increase the price of something and tax it– all other things equal– you’ll get less of it exchanged in the market. Is there a counterexample to overturn two basic economic principles?
“…counterbalanced by increased spending by those people who had more money in their pockets because of the minimum wage and social security”
–> Extend this further: If increasing the price of labor and taxing it were good for workers and the economy, it would have been better for FDR to double both.
During the GD, Hoover and FDR embraced the purchasing power argument. This led to wage and price floors and a policy “moral suasion”– where the presidents encouraged firms to keep wages artificially high.
Along with strengthened labor unions and deflation (from a declining money supply), the inability of wages and prices to adjust downward is a key to understanding why the market imbalances did not go away easily.
The funny thing is that people blame markets for not adjusting during the GD, while ignoring all the kicks-in-the-shorts delivered by FDR.
Ronald Reagan was a morally confused politician with a nice speaking voice. His economic policies were a focused attack on the working poor all the while extolling the virtues of “liberty” and “God”.
His legacy continues to damage our national discourse. The sooner we dismiss him from any such list, the better.
Craig,
Would you list some of the many ways in which Reagan attacked the working poor?
Thanks!
eric –
He did not want to give them money for nothing – which he knew would have to come from someone else.
Pure evil, obviously.
Did you see W.’s ranking on foreign policy? HE was second to last. Only WH Harrison was worse…
Harrison should rank way higher than Bush on foreign policy. Dying is better than living and screwing everything up.
Or Bush should have talked longer during his inauguration and caught pneumonia….wait…dang…we have treatments for that now…