The top 40 US presidents

Skybird · 01-17-11, 06:37 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111

Ranking done by British academic experts. Their top five would have been my top five, too.

Also note this:

Quote:

Currently being computed, the survey findings will be posted on the USPC website (www.americas.sas.ac.uk/research/USPC.html) on January 17, 2011, just before President Obama starts his third year in office.

from: http://www.sas.ac.uk/465.html?&tx_tt...ash=444f78a086

Feuer Frei! · 01-17-11, 06:51 AM

Good to see Ronald Regan in the top 10 (8), i always liked his leadership style.

Takeda Shingen · 01-17-11, 07:05 AM

Something in there struck me as interesting:

Quote:

UK scholars, by contrast, elevated FDR in recognition of the breadth of the challenges he faced as president during the Great Depression and World War II, his confident and inspirational leadership in both of these crises, and the significance of his New Deal legacy.

There is no greater crisis for a nation than to be at war with itself. So, by the criteria listed above, shouldn't Lincoln have won anyway? The American Civil War, by the nature of the conflict itself, was more traumatic for America than both the Great Depression and the Second World War combined.

tater · 01-17-11, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Something in there struck me as interesting:

There is no greater crisis for a nation than to be at war with itself. So, by the criteria listed above, shouldn't Lincoln have won anyway? The American Civil War, by the nature of the conflict itself, was more traumatic for America than both the Great Depression and the Second World War combined.

Yep. FDR was likely elevated because he was a more socialist than most others. I think FDR did grave damage to the US in the long term since the Entitlements are going to ruin us.

Takeda Shingen · 01-17-11, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Yep. FDR was likely elevated because he was a more socialist than most others. I think FDR did grave damage to the US in the long term since the Entitlements are going to ruin us.

Actually, I think that FDR was probably a 'top five' president, just not the top president.

CCIP · 01-17-11, 11:41 AM

Well, this is a British experts' list. Given how FDR doggedly tried to support Britain in her worst moments even through isolationist sentiment and red tape at home, I think it's not surprising they're a little grateful to him.

tater · 01-17-11, 11:51 AM

Any "ranking" of things is pretty absurd (except actual, direct competitions like a race where there is a non-subjective 1st, 2d, 3d, etc).

Best fighter plane in WW2? What metric?

Best submarine?

It's pretty much nonsense. Even a 3-way lumping of good, bad, and neither good nor bad would be subjective. Do they get "bad" credit for starting a program that will later bankrupt the country?

Using things like "effective" where it means getting their own pet legislation enacted is less subjective, but says nothing about their overall value to the nation since the pet project could be a disaster.

How about a "broke things the least" metric?

It's nonsense, as all rankings are.

Growler · 01-17-11, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Yep. FDR was likely elevated because he was a more socialist than most others. I think FDR did grave damage to the US in the long term since the Entitlements are going to ruin us.

How is this even possible? It's not like there's been a socialist agenda in place since Roosevelt held office; I understand that this is your opinion, but I don't understand how you can say "the Entitlements are going to ruin us" when, clearly, there's been lots of other fellows of opposing political theories in office since to undo those Entitlements, if they were so bad. So why are they not undone?

Clearly, Roosevelt deserves mention at the top. Like him or not, he managed the US during the lean years of the Depression (well or not, he did stay in office, so the people liked him enough) and took the country through the trying years of WW2 - the world's first truly global conflict, waged in a manner far different even from the first World War - the first modern war, for sure. Roosevelt did so with virtually no Army and an emasculated Navy that was saved by a few individuals' foresight in investing in submarines and naval aviation. He supported allied nations even before the US got involved militarily, and kept the country moving forward toward economic recovery. He was the first US President, in essence, to project the US beyond the borders of just that nation itself, and it shows in the popular perception of US troops that exists to this day, even after the damage done to the US image by post-9-11 moves into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does all of this make him "great"? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it make him influential? Oh, hell yeah. Roosevelt was the first US president to involve the nation on the global stage, at the point in time when it was most needed. I'm not saying that Commonwealth and Soviet forces couldn't have beaten Hitler and Tojo; the price would have been far, far higher for everyone had Roosevelt continued to sit the US out. And the global political situation has been vastly different ever since. For good or ill remains to be decided.

Takeda Shingen · 01-17-11, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Any "ranking" of things is pretty absurd (except actual, direct competitions like a race where there is a non-subjective 1st, 2d, 3d, etc).

Best fighter plane in WW2? What metric?

Best submarine?

It's pretty much nonsense. Even a 3-way lumping of good, bad, and neither good nor bad would be subjective. Do they get "bad" credit for starting a program that will later bankrupt the country?

Using things like "effective" where it means getting their own pet legislation enacted is less subjective, but says nothing about their overall value to the nation since the pet project could be a disaster.

How about a "broke things the least" metric?

It's nonsense, as all rankings are.

It is nonsense, but it is what we all do. We rank everything from football teams to late night comedians and all that falls in between. It only seems natural that politicians get rankings as well.

Penguin · 01-17-11, 12:23 PM

(yeah I know they are not 40, got bored after 35

)

tater · 01-17-11, 12:26 PM

SS is socialism. Setting up Fannie Mae and thus getting the feds involved with home ownership...

Entitlements have shown themselves to be impossible to remove. It's charity, and a pyramid scheme. People like getting free stuff taken from others. Since all of it is paid for by a minority, it is hard to get support for removal since even people who claim to be conservative will whine about getting their due (even if the current "due" is grossly out of sorts with what they should have expected during their working lives).

All the years of SS until recently have run on a surplus. The surplus was then loaned to the government (they bought t-bills with it) to finance government spending beyond their means. That spending was for programs enacted and done during the working lives of those now collecting. So they overpaid for entitlements, then allowed their government to spend that money—ON THEMSELVES—not complain when those of us left with the tab have to pay for their mistakes. Ugh. Anyway, FDR started US socialism in earnest, and all since was simply tagged onto it.

Regardless, rankings are stupid, no matter who you put on top, or what metric you use to make the ranking as they are ALL subjective.

Growler · 01-17-11, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

SS is socialism. Setting up Fannie Mae and thus getting the feds involved with home ownership...

Entitlements have shown themselves to be impossible to remove. It's charity, and a pyramid scheme. People like getting free stuff taken from others. Since all of it is paid for by a minority, it is hard to get support for removal since even people who claim to be conservative will whine about getting their due (even if the current "due" is grossly out of sorts with what they should have expected during their working lives).

All the years of SS until recently have run on a surplus. The surplus was then loaned to the government (they bought t-bills with it) to finance government spending beyond their means. That spending was for programs enacted and done during the working lives of those now collecting. So they overpaid for entitlements, then allowed their government to spend that money—ON THEMSELVES—not complain when those of us left with the tab have to pay for their mistakes. Ugh. Anyway, FDR started US socialism in earnest, and all since was simply tagged onto it.

Regardless, rankings are stupid, no matter who you put on top, or what metric you use to make the ranking as they are ALL subjective.

I hear you, tater. What I was trying to get to was the fact that it's not the Entitlements themselves that are ruining us - it's our (collectively) unwillingness to remove said entitlements that leads us towards ruin; so its our responsibility to ourselves and each other - sod the gummint - to fix the problem. If we can't remove the entitlements, we can choose to live without them. I don't have to take SS when I'm older; people choose it. On a wholly personal sidenote: My mom retired at 63 after her leukemia diagnosis in April. Her first SS payment was to arrive in January, as it turned out, two months after her death. So, there's at least one person who didn't draw down the SS fund.

tater · 01-17-11, 01:12 PM

I think that people should get out a reasonable pay out based upon what they have paid in. That said, the excess tax that was used to spend us into deficit needs to be taken into account (as programs all grow, so setting up something "paid for" by excess SS taxes 40 years ago comes to roost when there is no more "excess" SS revenue. I'd personally eliminate SS and medicare as they are known now, but in a gradual way since many have planned around the charity hand out.

I also don;t think that anyone should get benefits that were not on the table during the bulk of their working life. No retirees right now should get the Medicare Part D (drug beni). None. They never paid for that, they have no right top expect it (in any ranking I'd ding W down to the bottom for not vetoing that POS entitlement expansion).

My personal take is that SS should be what it was when started. VERY low tax rate (like 1%), and insurance, not "retirement." There is no right to retirement.

That said, I would also be a bit peeved to have paid in 15 grand a year for a long time, then get nothing out.

Skybird · 01-17-11, 01:51 PM

I think one should not think there is meaning in two ranks just one number apart. The general tendency is what gives the interesting picture. Most of us probably agree that those five they oiucked at the top, are indeed the top five - the actual sequence in which you sort them, is not so important. Interesting is that for example the Brits share my sentiment that Kennedy is massively overestimated and by far no name amongst the top. Interesting is that GWB is the lowest ranling president since "the scandal-hit Warren Harding (1921-23, 38th). Interesting is that both American and now the British rankings see Lincoln very much at the very top. Interesting is that Carter, often ridiculed by the Americans in this forum, is not seen in the lower end of the list, but safely in the midfield, like Clinton. And so on.

Splitting hairs over whether president A was 12th and president B was 13th, or the other way around, is leading nowhere.

tater · 01-17-11, 03:40 PM

The metrics they use are of course subject to subjective views. Positive historical impact? Most any US President would have won ww2, for example, it would have had to have been grossly mismanaged to be lost. Not dinging FDR down for the huge negatives of his socialist bent is simply subjective. Ask a bunch of people from a country where middle of the road US democrats are considered "right" and you'll get unsurprising results.

I also think the failure to properly place Lincoln at the top shows how kooky it is. There is a reason he is virtually always at the top of such rankings in the US. His very election precipitated the Civil War. Any difference there would result in a vastly different country (or countrieS) moving forward.

01-17-11, 06:51 AM	#2
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	Good to see Ronald Regan in the top 10 (8), i always liked his leadership style. __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

01-17-11, 11:41 AM	#6
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Well, this is a British experts' list. Given how FDR doggedly tried to support Britain in her worst moments even through isolationist sentiment and red tape at home, I think it's not surprising they're a little grateful to him. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

01-17-11, 01:51 PM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,625 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I think one should not think there is meaning in two ranks just one number apart. The general tendency is what gives the interesting picture. Most of us probably agree that those five they oiucked at the top, are indeed the top five - the actual sequence in which you sort them, is not so important. Interesting is that for example the Brits share my sentiment that Kennedy is massively overestimated and by far no name amongst the top. Interesting is that GWB is the lowest ranling president since "the scandal-hit Warren Harding (1921-23, 38th). Interesting is that both American and now the British rankings see Lincoln very much at the very top. Interesting is that Carter, often ridiculed by the Americans in this forum, is not seen in the lower end of the list, but safely in the midfield, like Clinton. And so on. Splitting hairs over whether president A was 12th and president B was 13th, or the other way around, is leading nowhere. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-17-11, 11:51 AM	#7
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Any "ranking" of things is pretty absurd (except actual, direct competitions like a race where there is a non-subjective 1st, 2d, 3d, etc). Best fighter plane in WW2? What metric? Best submarine? It's pretty much nonsense. Even a 3-way lumping of good, bad, and neither good nor bad would be subjective. Do they get "bad" credit for starting a program that will later bankrupt the country? Using things like "effective" where it means getting their own pet legislation enacted is less subjective, but says nothing about their overall value to the nation since the pet project could be a disaster. How about a "broke things the least" metric? It's nonsense, as all rankings are.

01-17-11, 12:23 PM	#10
Penguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Rheinische Republik Posts: 3,322 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	(yeah I know they are not 40, got bored after 35 )

01-17-11, 12:26 PM	#11
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	SS is socialism. Setting up Fannie Mae and thus getting the feds involved with home ownership... Entitlements have shown themselves to be impossible to remove. It's charity, and a pyramid scheme. People like getting free stuff taken from others. Since all of it is paid for by a minority, it is hard to get support for removal since even people who claim to be conservative will whine about getting their due (even if the current "due" is grossly out of sorts with what they should have expected during their working lives). All the years of SS until recently have run on a surplus. The surplus was then loaned to the government (they bought t-bills with it) to finance government spending beyond their means. That spending was for programs enacted and done during the working lives of those now collecting. So they overpaid for entitlements, then allowed their government to spend that money—ON THEMSELVES—not complain when those of us left with the tab have to pay for their mistakes. Ugh. Anyway, FDR started US socialism in earnest, and all since was simply tagged onto it. Regardless, rankings are stupid, no matter who you put on top, or what metric you use to make the ranking as they are ALL subjective.

01-17-11, 01:12 PM	#13
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I think that people should get out a reasonable pay out based upon what they have paid in. That said, the excess tax that was used to spend us into deficit needs to be taken into account (as programs all grow, so setting up something "paid for" by excess SS taxes 40 years ago comes to roost when there is no more "excess" SS revenue. I'd personally eliminate SS and medicare as they are known now, but in a gradual way since many have planned around the charity hand out. I also don;t think that anyone should get benefits that were not on the table during the bulk of their working life. No retirees right now should get the Medicare Part D (drug beni). None. They never paid for that, they have no right top expect it (in any ranking I'd ding W down to the bottom for not vetoing that POS entitlement expansion). My personal take is that SS should be what it was when started. VERY low tax rate (like 1%), and insurance, not "retirement." There is no right to retirement. That said, I would also be a bit peeved to have paid in 15 grand a year for a long time, then get nothing out.

01-17-11, 03:40 PM	#15
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	The metrics they use are of course subject to subjective views. Positive historical impact? Most any US President would have won ww2, for example, it would have had to have been grossly mismanaged to be lost. Not dinging FDR down for the huge negatives of his socialist bent is simply subjective. Ask a bunch of people from a country where middle of the road US democrats are considered "right" and you'll get unsurprising results. I also think the failure to properly place Lincoln at the top shows how kooky it is. There is a reason he is virtually always at the top of such rankings in the US. His very election precipitated the Civil War. Any difference there would result in a vastly different country (or countrieS) moving forward.