home

The Greatest American Presidents

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:59:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The UK's Times Online ranks the greatest American presidents. Abraham Lincoln is first on the list. A worthy choice, although my personal favorite, Thomas Jefferson, is ranked a disappointing fourth.

In last place: James Buchanan. The Times Online ranks the current Bush in 37th place, tied with Nixon. Harrison, Van Buren, and Pierce round out the bottom.

< Saturday Night (Live) Open Thread | The Polls - 11/2 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Greatest American Presidents | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Buchanan (pronounced like the VA county): (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    the only Pennsylvania President. Ugh.

    Anyway, I think it's much easier to say who the worst Presidents are than to rank the best.

    laughable (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Turkana on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    harrison's failures were trivial compared to bush's. same with van buren's. pierce gives bush a run for his money, but we've yet to see bush's longer term consequences. i have a hunch that ignoring climate change for eight critical years will be remembered as even more disastrous than helping foster the climate that brought on the civil war. probably much more disastrous.

    Laughable and Embarrassing for the author (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:27:45 AM EST
    With these rankings it's hard to know where to start.

    Without going on for a few thousand words; the short version is that the reasons for some of the rankings simply are not relevent, the weighting of actions/events is criminally deficient.  I give the author and the people he consulted a D in American history and an F in interpretation of history.

    Appears that many of the rankings are based on emotion, news room babble and shamefully poor scholarship.  This looks all too much like the judgement of the Village.

    This must have come from a Village based UK writer.

    Parent

    It is a silly article (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jake Left on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    this near the election. I think the group rounding out the bottom were just picked so that bush wouldn't be at the bottom. History will not be kind to the resident. It's hard to be a "worst" president when you lead a country that is, at best, third rank as it was when those other "worsts" were presiding. Being elected to lead the most powerful country in the world gives idiots a chance to screw up entire hemispheres each day before breakfast.

    If your criteria is who did the very worst job of wrecking America's economy, reputation,  and influence while also creating the entire world in worse shape, no one will come close to george. Not only did he preside over the present misery, but he made decisions that will cause pain and hardship for most of the planet's population for decades.

    Worst president ever.

    Parent

    Don't wanna bust anyone's bubble, but (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by magnetics on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:30:52 AM EST
    by me Nixon was a better president than Reagan, who gets my nomination for worst of all time -- worse than GW, whose ascent he enabled.

    only just barely. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:08:24 AM EST
    by me Nixon was a better president than Reagan,

    the big difference: reagan wasn't forced to resign, though he should have been.

    having re-reviewed the list, in a more conscious state, william henry harrison should get a "bye", he had no chance to be good or bad, so shouldn't be ranked at all.

    reagan should be ranked in the bottom 5, at least, for the political, social and economic destruction he left in his wake.

    ben macintyre-writer-at-large, seems particularly uninformed about american history, especially more recent events. to rate clinton so low belies his irritation that clinton got a bj, and he didn't.

    no need to wait on "historical perspective", to rank the current bush next to last, with james buchanan last. the difference between the two?: no states have seceded.........yet, under bush.

    Parent

    "Reagan in the bottom five ...." (none / 0) (#25)
    by magnetics on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    I like it, I like it.

    Parent
    Hey IndieGirl... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by easilydistracted on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:07:22 AM EST
    remember our discussion several days ago about Reagan's teflon coating? I recall you characterizing the very real discrepancy between his perceived image and genuine image as one of life's mysteries.  This ranking represents another good example of such gobbledygook.  In the top ten best?  What a bunch of hooey.  Faux news, as much as they despise the foreign press, will be embracing this story in a heartbeat.

    What a ridiculous list. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by brodie on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:13:15 AM EST
    And one which reveals the overall political and personal biases of the panel -- not unlike the silly, not to mention overrated, rankings done on this side of the pond by the usual mainstream historian suspects.

    Right off the bat, too, there are problems, and a UK Times apparent obsession with notions of "radicalism".  E.g., Lincoln is cited as a "radical" Republican, but he was not a Radical, coming from the moderate wing of his party.  Kennedy's domestic policy is called "radical", but that would be true only from the racist and far-right perspective (something not made clear in the write-up).

    JFK, for saving civilization by keeping his cool and not acting recklessly during the Missile Crisis, should easily be in the top ten (he's in our top 5), and not just one slot ahead of the deceitful and stubborn TXan successor who wildly escalated the VN War, which led to so much domestic turmoil and tragedy that it badly damaged his own party and paved the way for a crook like Nixon to enter the Oval.

    Reagan is the most obviously wildly overrated.  And again the Times writer gets it wrong about his DP -- while he did have some economic issues handed him by Carter, RR made things worse in 81-3 with his trickle down policies which led to the worst recession since (iirc) the Great Depression.

    Truman remains ridiculously overrated, and is still the Republicans new favorite Demo (they like the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, plus his instinctive GWB-/RR-like aversion to complexity as he often quickly made major decisions or deferred to the judgment of his in-house betters).  Ike, too, is absurdly too high.    

    Similarly,  Bill Clinton (#23) and his 8 yrs of peace and prosperity are given short shrift, just as his ability to withstand his many powerful enemies goes unacknowledged.  BC, given the skillful handling of the economy and success in governing, despite the many attempts to distract and damage him, makes it to about #10 on our list.  

    Reagan is the worst President in 150 years (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    in his effect. Yes, he was competent at achieving his agenda, but he started the country on a course downhill from which it has not been able to change, yet.

    Parent
    I think 4th is very good. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by illissius on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    It's going to take a near miracle for anyone else besides Washington, Lincoln, and FDR to break into the top 3. Some permutation of those 3 are at the top of every ranking I've ever seen.

    Most of Van Buren's problems were a (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    result of having to deal with the mess Jackson left behind.

    I'm glad to see Jackson at 14, because he's often ranked much higher. The man was a monster and a pretty mediocre President.

    harrison should get a break (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:22:23 AM EST
    here, he died a month after his inauguration. he never really had much opportunity to display good or bad qualities.

    pierce didn't really do much of anything in 4 years, his was an ambivalent presidency.

    as to the rest, i'd pretty much agree, except i am certain that in future lists, bush II will claim uncontested last place.

    I'd forgotten that about Harrison. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 03:37:42 AM EST
    Thanks for the reminder.

    Parent
    Ranking is for sports (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:27:46 AM EST
    Why would we pay attention to ranking of American presidents by a foreign paper?

    Ranking presidents is clearly a strange intellectual activity. A much better approach is to bunch president according to some criterion. The Times uses none. If one looks at long lasting impact you may get Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington etc. When looking at long lasting impact at difficult times you'll have Lincoln and FDR.

    All in all, the Times horse racing approach is childish.

    W Bush will be in the worst group no matter what criterion you use.

    I like the "reverse Midas touch" . (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 03:47:43 AM EST
    No matter what Bush touched, it turned to sh!t.  Even the Big Money and Big Corporations that were doing well for most of his tenure were hurt by the financial mess.

    I keep thinking there must be something that the Bush administration did that actually turned out well or at least went as planned.  Most Presidents have a mixed legacy with their achievements offset by their failings or scandals.  But Bush?  It's not looking for a needle in a haystack, it's like mucking out the barn looking for a needle.

    Parent

    His needle (none / 0) (#16)
    by Raskolnikov on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    People in Bush's defense seem to be citing his aid to Africa as his great accomplishment.  Take that as you will.

    Parent
    Africa? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    Heh.  Let's put Bill Clinton's Foundation's track record against Bush.  Heck, Bill and Linda Gates have been funding research looking for a malaria vaccine.

    Even worse, because Africa is the largest equatorial land mass, that continent will be hit the hardest by climate change and global warming.  Ocean currents can transport heat away from the equator.  Huge land mass on the equator with relatively small coast line => an oven.

    Parent

    Bah... (none / 0) (#7)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:27:52 AM EST
    Somebody should rank the British PMs.

    I rank Tony Blair as the most ridiculous.

    Come on... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Richard in Jax on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:35:36 AM EST
    Folks..this ranking, by folks that only have distant familiarity with those it ranks, places US Grant in the top 25 %. As it does Regan and GHW Bush. Regan is placed above JFK. I hope I have made my point.

    Um, Buchanan is a collateral (none / 0) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    ancestor of mine. This really hurts.

    Andrew Jackson (none / 0) (#18)
    by coigue on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    is waaaay overrated,and Bill Clinton is underrated.

    I also disagree with the position of GHW Bush.

    That reminds me: didn't (none / 0) (#22)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:39:51 PM EST
    Jefferson write about how the President could indeed violate the law, if he found it necessary for the country; however, he needed to inform Congress afterwords and take whatever punishment they saw fit.
    (very rough paraphrase).

    Brilliant man, not so brilliant leader. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    n/t

    By the way, Carter was way better than thought (none / 0) (#26)
    by magnetics on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    to be.

    The human rights policy, so derided by neo-cons, was an historic reversal of US policy on South and Central America.

    The syn-fuels project would have torn up the Rockies, and been a greenhouse disaster -- but it would have removed much of our dependence on foreign oil.

    The malaise speech: Jeez people just didn't want to hear the truth: that ya gotta turn down the thermostat.

    Plus, he put a solar panel on the White House; Reagan took it down.

    The Greatest American Presidents | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment