Ten presidents
A feature on our Forum page last week included three pieces in which scholars speculated about where George W. Bush would be ranked among America’s presidents. This got me thinking, as it was intended to, but I twisted the idea a bit. Being no expert on either of the Grover Cleveland presidencies, I decided I’d rank the presidents of my lifetime.
Harry Truman was president when I was born, thus I do not remember much about him and have started with Dwight Eisenhower, the first president I have a clear memory of.
Without further fanfare, here are my rankings, from worst to best:
10. Richard Nixon – Nixon was a master politician and a pragmatist. He was no ideologue. But history is correct to judge him on Vietnam and Watergate. He has blood on his hands, and when his name comes up in a word-association game, the answer is corruption.
9. George W. Bush – In a way, it’s not fair to include Bush on the list because his presidency has two-plus years to run and we lack perspective on it. On the other hand, his blundering into Iraq was breathtaking in its ignorance. As a result, our country has lost blood, treasure and moral standing in the world.
8. Lyndon B. Johnson – The most fascinating character among the presidents of my lifetime. I admire the political skills with which he set the country on the right course on civil rights. But, most cynically, Johnson took the country deeper into a bloody and divisive conflict even after he knew it was one we couldn’t win.
7. Gerald Ford – Decent man, short presidency, not much to show for it.
6. Jimmy Carter – If the presidency were about good morals and good intentions, Carter would rate much higher. But politically he managed to split his own party, and on the economy, energy, the environment and the hostages in Iran, he failed to execute effectively. An excellent ex-president.
5. John F. Kennedy – He was certainly inspirational – a great face for the country – but because he was assassinated, his presidency is often overrated. The Bay of Pigs, the womanizing (kept secret at the time), foot-dragging on civil rights: not much of a record.
4. George H.W. Bush – Non-ideological. Courageously raised taxes (alas, after saying he wouldn’t). Won the first Gulf war. Eschewed regime change in Iraq. Whatever gene led to this last decision Bush should have passed on to his son.
3. Bill Clinton – Presided in good times not of his own making, but that shouldn’t count against him. Brilliant and articulate, he made more progress on race and diversity than any president before him. Wisely sought the middle on most issues. Balanced the budget. Had Clinton controlled his lust, he might have made the top of the list. The Lewinsky affair ruined his second term and helped to usher his party out of the White House.
2. Ronald Reagan – I disagreed with Reagan on almost everything, and he gets too much credit for the downfall of Soviet communism. Nevertheless, Reagan guided the country in the right direction in his effort to control the growth of government and do away with social programs that weren’t working. Most important, his sunny disposition helped end a long spell of destructive pessimism about America.
1. Dwight D. Eisenhower – The American 1950s are often portrayed as a period of suburban bliss and gray flannel suits. It was instead a tumultuous decade, filled with mortal threats and social upheaval. Tempered by war, Eisenhower steered a wise course through the great perils of his time. He wasn’t a brilliant phrase-maker or an especially charismatic man, but his solidity, experience and goodness were just what the country needed.
best presidents
Your blog on the presidents was very interesting. I hadn't worked out my own list, and that may be why I was somewhat surprised to see where you had Ike, but after giving the matter further thought I find it difficult to disagree with you. I'm older than you, and that may explain why I'd be very tempted to rank Truman ahead of some of those presidents you listed, chiefly because he should be credited with the genius of the Marshall Plan (a hugely Good Thing). That's offset, in my mind anyway, by his decision to drop the two atom bombs. I know the argument - that doing so saved the lives of many Americans and our allies - but it nags at me that he didn't first order some sort of a demonstration designed to persuade the Japanese that it was over. Also, as bad as Nixon was, I think Bush is much worse and, in time, will be seen to have been far more destructive to America's best interests. Nixon did, after all, go to China, and that was no small thing at the time. Can you imagine Bush ever doing anything on that scale?
Ten Presidents
I, too, go back farther than you, and based on my reading I'd put Truman at the top of your list of 10 (11 with Truman). He was bold and direct, forthright. Nixon ranks mid-list with me, for his positive influence in foreign affairs. Think China. Jimmy Carter, perhaps our greatest ex-president, ranks near the bottom in my opinion. I liked Reagan and generally rank him high, but he left us with a massive debt (what is it about these "conservative" presidents and their penchant for spending taxpayer money?). Gerald Ford, not great, but greatly underrated. It took courage to pardon Nixon, and it was the right thing to do (I said so at the time, but few wanted to hear it then).
As for George W. Bush, I believe the damage he has done to this country and the world is so great that America will never fully recover, and that history will rate him the worst president we've ever had. He is psychologically unfit to be president. He is still struggling to prove he is a better leader than his father. That fight is long lost, but until he is willing to give it up he will never be able to make clear, balanced, informed decisons about Iraq.
Ranking recent Presidents
The Eisenhower years were not the "good old days" as portraited in television shows or in some movies. Mike's right about that but he doesn't address signiicant areas where the Eisenhower Administration made grievously wrong, immoral policy choices. These were the years when Senator Joseph McCarthy terrorized people,destroying the lives and careers of many with false accusations of being communists. President Eisenhower not only didn't speak up against McCarthy his silence emboldened him. How could an analysis of Eisenhower's Presidency ignore his complete failure to confront McCarthy?
President Eisenhower did lead America down the path of regime change. President Truman's Administration had decided to be on the right side of history by supporting emerging nations against threats by their former European colonialists. This is why Truman didn't support British plans to overthrow Iran's Government. However, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers had CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt coordinate the successful plot in 1953 to get rid Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. The tragic consequences of this policy are still being felt today relative to our relationship with Iran and the entire region.
American blacks in the 1950's were still second class citizens. There was no leadership from Eisenhower's Administration in the area of civil rights. In fact President Eisenhower regetted naming Earl Warren Chief Justice to the Supreme Court because of the landmark decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education which ended state support for segregation in schools. This was an emerging issue of the times but President Eisenhower, again, demonstrated no capacity to recognize or deal with issues of race and social justice.
Whether it was McCarthy, Iran or civil rights Eisenhower was on the wrong course of history. I'll post additional comments at another time.
Eisenhower Administration
In regard to foreign policy you ignore, something which historians won't forget, the Eisenhower Administration's overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954. "A wise course through" the "perils of his time" perhaps if you were an executive of the United Fruit company. People who believed in democracy and freedom for Guatamala would strenuously object to your stuningly superficial and simplistic analysis.
The Eisenhower Administration was owned by corporate America and they showed their gratitude by purchasing for him his Gettsburg farm.
Eisenhower Administration
Eisenhower's Administration gets a grade of D from me and that's being generous.
10. Nixon There's no
10. Nixon There's no recovery here for Nixon as Watergate threatened many of the freedoms Americans take for granted. Nixon also gave us Spiro Agnew who discraced his office as well. Nixon did open China. Where would we be without them financing the War in Iraq? Nixon governed as a moderste regarding domestic policy.
43. George W. Bush He's second banana to Cheney. No President has, in my memory, had less grasp of foreign or demestic policies. There was never an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam but Iraq could have been a success had Bush listened to the Pentagon and others regarding planning for the occupation. Where's the peace process for Israel and the Palestinians?
George W. Bush
43. Bush forty-three operates an administration that likes to let the fox guard the chicken house. Mine owners determine and sporadically enforce safety regulations and this is true of many industries. When it comes to taxes the rich and super rich get even more wealthy enjoying every tax break while middle class wages remain stagnant. Bush even opposes a moderate increase in the minimum wage which hasn't been raised in years.
8. George H.W. Bush The conventional wisdom is that Bush forty-one, saved us in 1991 from getting too mired in Iraq. Bush is now the unlikely hero to many liberals who despised him while he served in office. However, Iraq's Shia remember, to this day, how his administration betrayed their 1991 revolt against Saddam. Bush himself pleaded for the Iraqi people to arise and get rid of Saddam and his regime. Americans spread leaflets around the countryside encouraging the rebellion.
Bush had a change of heart and even allowed Saddam's helicopter gunships to fly against the rebels killing tens of thousands of people. We, apparently, by your analysis shouldn't care about the consequences of our foreign policy. Saddam, after crushing the revolt, killed another 300,000 of Iraq's Shia.
In 1991 we would have had the enthusiastic support of Iraq's Shia and Kurds in overthrowing Saddam and proably wouldn't have even had to go to Baghdad. Saddam's four Republican Guard Divisions were in exposed postions in the field.
Well at least our soldiers died to protect our oil and the Emir of Kuwait.
I Like Ike - Responding to Mr. John S. Hancock
I was young when Ike was president, and I can't quite shake my initial feelings for him as the kindly, knowledgeable grandfatherly type, but I agree with your hard-nosed assessment. I just finished reading Overthrow by Steven Kinzer and have a whole new "appreciation" for the Dulles boys and Ike's admin. Some of the criticism I've heard leveled about our actions in Central America now make sense to me (what took long?).
But you've still got to give him some credit for the Interstate Highway system.
Incidentally, guess who our ambassador to Honduras was when we stood up for the interests of United Fruit rather than the Honduran people? None other than our former ambassador to Iraq (post-invasion) and current Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte.
Reply to johnk
Dear John, I really appreciated your response to my posting. I've read patrs of "Overthrow" too but his book "All the Shaw's Men" gives a detailed accounting of the 1953 coup in Iran and good insight into their tremendous leader Mohammad Mossadegh. what a tragedy that he was overthrown. We're still dealing with the consequences of that event in 1953 today and the Iranian people haven't ever forgotten america's role in the coup.
I'd recoomend the book "Hidden Iran" by Ray Takeyh for an excellent insight into Iran's current political scene today. It's not as portraited by the Bush Administration.
Respose to johnk
You're right about giving Eisenhower credit for the interstate highway system. He's also due much praise for warning us about the "military industrial complex." Eisenhower proably would have liked to dump Nixon too but didn't.
In foreign policy matters, despite the official line of fighting communism, the Eisenhower Administration knew it was really defending the interests of the oil companies in Iran and United Fruit in Guatemala when it overthrew their democratic governments.
Anyway, Mike Pride did an excellent job of initiating a discussion of this subject. I have, like yourself, alot of admiration for Harry Truman but FDR is my favorite President for the modern era.
Concluding? response to John S. Hancock
Thanks for the follow-on comments. I'll add the Kinzer book to my list. Unfortunately, I can buy them faster than I can read them.
Seasons' Greetings
Reply to johnk
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and Mike Pride. This is a good site to express our opinions. "All the Shah's Men" is an excellent book. I can't help but feel great sympathy for Dr. Mossadegh. He was truly motivated to improve the lives of his people. You know the British were stealing Iran's oil and treating Iranian workers miserably.
I'm the same way about books. I've got to catch up on my reading. I really recommend "Hidden Iran" a very good book about our relationship with that country. Take care.
Books on Eisenhower
Mr. Hancock;
Have you read the books on Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose? If not, you should. They are a most thorough biography of Eisenhower at war, and in the presidency.
My rankings
10. Ronald Reagan, for destroying the fairness doctrine in media, invading Grenada, financing terrorism (Iran-conta, Guatemala, and much more), pulling the roots from under a socialist America which worked fairly well and let Corporate CEOs pull the strings in Washington instead of defending the people and the Constitution from greed, which was his job and sworn oath. As for Russia and the Cold War, today Russia and China are much bigger threats to us, than they were when they were communists, communism kept them weak.
9. Bush-Nixon tie here for all the obvious reasons
8. Clinton for sanctions against Iraq which killed half a million children.
7. Johnson for sacrificing Americans to please military contractors by starting the war in Vietnam
6. Truman for Hiroshima and Nagazaki both were not necessary to save our soldiers lives, they were dropped so our ally the USSR would not get there before us and claim Japan.
5. Eisenhower for replacing a true Democracy in Iran with a dictator (CIA led overthrow in 1953) that eventually led to Savak (cia trained) terrorism for the Iranian people and eventually religious terrorism , when they were well on their way to being a social democracy like the USA in 1953. The reason was oil, the Iranian social democracy wanted to distribute the oil riches to the people not give it to the oil companies. Bad move Ike.
4. Bush Daddy, for continuing the work of Reagan in the erosian of our middle class and the erosian of our hard fought for civil rights.
3. Ford for being a coward in pardoning Nixon, who should have been thrown in jail for war crimes, crimes against humanity etc especially his work with Kissinger in destroying budding democracies in South America and replacing them with tyrannical dictators. Ford also encouraged the massacre in East Timor a war crime in itself.
2. Kennedy, great President, though he screwed up big time with Cuba and Vietnam because of his fear of the Republican party and not getting re-elected, yet had they not killed him I'm sure he would have made this country truly great.
1. Carter for his start of the green economy that the Republicans killed, for his great strides resolving the Palestinian crisis, the best President this country has had since Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln... had he been re-elected instead of Reagan we would be completely independent from Saudi oil and we'd be exporting green technology around the world with a huge booming economy today, 9/11 never would have happened, elections do have consequences my friends.
Unfortunately, Bush Junior
Unfortunately, Bush Junior ruined the good impression he could've made based on his father's good actions. He should go on a tatil which is vacation in Turkish, and leave us alone!
This is a very succinct and insightful review of the last 54 years in the White House. One item buried deep in the piece is a comment regarding President Clinton and his good fortune to preside over good times, generally, not of his making. This single comment brings to the fore the contrast between the electorate's desire for instant results and the glacier pace at which government intervention produces results. It is the drastic overhaul of the US economy initiated by Ronald Reagan that ultimately created the perfect economic conditions of the 1990's. We should all consider the implications of this phenomenon on the events transpiring in the Middle East.