Let's talk Presidents: The Good & Bad, the terrible and the great.

I'll start with a few.

Best: Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington
Worst: Jackson, Nixon, Bush the Lesser and especially Buchanon.

Why Theodore? Well he completely kicked ass and was moral to the point of near priggishness. Only Old Hickory was probably as tough and he was pretty much evil. Teddy (as he hated to be called) was a trustbuster, smart military mind, trustbuster, progressive, fiscally conservative as far as paying for what you spend, in favor of goverment healthcare, the first green President and he more than anyone else thrust the US onto the world stage with both the Great White Fleet and negotiating the peaceful ending to the Russo-Japanese War.

As a man, he was too awesome to be real. If you wrote a story with him as your main character everyone would complain he was the author’s Mary-Sue. He overcame severe asthma and kicked it into submission. He pushed himself like few others. He was a good boxer and wrestler and mastered judo. Would swim the icy Potomac regularly, hunting down the men that stole his boat in a bitter Dakota winter and caught them and brought them to legal justice when almost anyone else in the territory would have just shot them. He was a cattleman, explorer, writer, hunter, boatman, designed his own awesome house, went a long way towards cleaning up the NY police department as Police Commissioner, was shot by an assassin, saved by his eye glass case and as he wasn’t coughing up blood gave his long speech before seeking medical attention to remove the bullet. He explored the River of Doubt that was later named after him. He of course is the last man to run outside of the two parties and beat one of them. He came in second to Wilson and soundly defeated Taft.

I post more of my opinions if this takes off at all. Please add your own and argue and debate.

I think one of the problems with this sort of list is that often it's not simply the actions of a person in the office of President that gets considered. Just to pick on the OP's example, a lot of what is mentioned with TR, while part of the man and legend, and all laudable, has nothing to do with his Presidency.

Similarly, while Jackson's actions as President are far from being laudatory (I tend to view his pig-headed determination to kill the Bank as a disaster.), it's his support for the Trail of Tears, which happened during Van Buren's Presidency, that he seems most tarred with these days.

If we restrict ourselves to just discussing someone's actions during their years as President, you'll end up leaving off Taft from any list of greats. If you start to include what else they may have accomplished, he starts to look a lot better based on his genuinely excellent work in the Supreme Court. I think that his is the most significant post-Presidency career.

As much as Jim hates Buchanan, I hate Rutherfraud Hayes even more. Two men who both, in different ways, allowed their political aspirations fuck up the nation. With effects that went on for generations.

Bad: Ulysses S. Grant

A drunk and an anti-semite Grant allowed his cabinet and appointees to loot the country with little to no penalties. Great general, horrible president.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Bad: Ulysses S. Grant

A drunk and an anti-semite Grant allowed his cabinet and appointees to loot the country with little to no penalties. Great general, horrible president.

---

No argument, there.

I like Ike. He kept the Cold War from turning Hot at a crucial time and set the stage for J.F.K. thru Regan to follow.

Glazer, I agree with you about that, but I think Ike's biggest contribution to the country was his support for the Interstate Highway System. It's not an unmixed blessing, but quite literally it's made our current economy possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

I think one of the problems with this sort of list is that often it's not simply the actions of a person in the office of President that gets considered. Just to pick on the OP's example, a lot of what is mentioned with TR, while part of the man and legend, and all laudable, has nothing to do with his Presidency.

Similarly, while Jackson's actions as President are far from being laudatory (I tend to view his pig-headed determination to kill the Bank as a disaster.), it's his support for the Trail of Tears, which happened during Van Buren's Presidency, that he seems most tarred with these days.

If we restrict ourselves to just discussing someone's actions during their years as President, you'll end up leaving off Taft from any list of greats. If you start to include what else they may have accomplished, he starts to look a lot better based on his genuinely excellent work in the Supreme Court. I think that his is the most significant post-Presidency career.

As much as Jim hates Buchanan, I hate Rutherfraud Hayes even more. Two men who both, in different ways, allowed their political aspirations fuck up the nation. With effects that went on for generations.

---

Taft is interesting, bad President and much better Gov. of PI and Supreme Court career. I would say Carter competes with Taft for post Presidency redemption. A failed President by any standard but a good Governor of Georgia and a great Statesman and Diplomat post Presidency.

Could you go into more details on Hayes please. I am not studied on him at all.

As to Jackson his slime trail was in his criminal appointments, his setting in motion the Indian removal against people that helped him in war. His illegal support of southern Post Masters destroying the mail from Abolitionist, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Bad: Ulysses S. Grant

A drunk and an anti-semite Grant allowed his cabinet and appointees to loot the country with little to no penalties. Great general, horrible president.

---

Grant is a good example. A lot like Bush the Lesser. Not an evil man like Jackson but a terrible President that let other run his administration far too much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

I like Ike. He kept the Cold War from turning Hot at a crucial time and set the stage for J.F.K. thru Regan to follow.

---

I like Ike too. A good President and of course a rather successful General like few others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Could you go into more details on Hayes please. I am not studied on him at all.

---

First off, to talk at all about Hayes, you've got to remember that he came after 8 years of Grant's mismanagement. While I don't think Grant, himself, was a corrupt man, far too many of his appointments were. That, and the continuing drain of dealing with Reconstruction, were wearing on the nation.

When Hayes ran against Tilden, Tilden actually got more of the popular vote, and Tilden had a bare majority in the Electoral College. Based on the assumption that EC votes would be apportioned based upon the popular vote, that is.

Hayes, or one of his supporters, started a campaign to get one vote to shift in the EC, which is how he came to win the election. As part of the dealing to get that EC shift, Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction, and allow the South to govern itself. With the implication that things like enforcing the 14th Amendment would go by the wayside. It was during Hayes' administration that the Jim Crow laws were mostly enacted, and the segregation of the races because legitimized again in the legal code where during Reconstruction the law was trying to force the 14th Amendment down the throats of the South (and to a much lesser extent in the North, too.).

Because of this, I hold Hayes, and his supporters, responsible for much of the legal discrimination that bedeviled race relations in the 20th century. A legacy that we're still fighting, now. It's not that I think that without Hayes' actions everything would have been sweetness and light, I only think that we'd be further along in trying to enforce an equality between the races than we are now, without the backsliding of the Jim Crow era.

Pretty damning indeed on Hayes. Thank you.

Which brings us back to Ike. Ike turned the Federal Government Back to supporting the Civil Rights Movement.

I don't know that much about American presidents, but I have the impression historians are starting to reconsider Grant a bit. He was the last president for a long time to do anything to protect black rights, and crushed the first Ku Klux Klan.

The older I get, the more Ike, who had a pretty dismal reputation when I was young, impresses me. As an actual war winning general, he had nothing to prove in military terms, and under his administration the U.S. wasn't deep into wasteful foreign adventures.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Bad: Ulysses S. Grant

A drunk and an anti-semite Grant allowed his cabinet and appointees to loot the country with little to no penalties. Great general, horrible president.

---

I would even qualify the assessment of his generalship - he was the first Union general to realize that, in comparison to the ragtag Confederate Army, he was bringing a gun to a knife fight. He was the one who realized that he could afford to lose two for one and still win the war, and after he realized it, that's pretty much exactly what he did. When your own enlisted men nickname you "The Butcher," it isn't a compliment. :hist:

From a modern standpoint I agree with you, but from the Napoleonic standpoint that they were all taught at West Point it was a perfectly valid and rational idea. Soldiers are fodder for the greater idea, no more, no less. They were as expendable as mini balls.

ETA - Not to say that I would have wanted to serve under him, but I wouldn't have wanted to serve in the Civil War period. I would have gone missing faster than you can say "Which way is the California territory?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

From a modern standpoint I agree with you, but from the Napoleonic standpoint that they were all taught at West Point it was a perfectly valid and rational idea. Soldiers are fodder for the greater idea, no more, no less. They were as expendable as mini balls.

ETA - Not to say that I would have wanted to serve under him, but I wouldn't have wanted to serve in the Civil War period. I would have gone missing faster than you can say "Which way is the California territory?"

---

There is also in his favor that even expending his men the way he did was less deadly than most generals of the day. The holding actions, the slow advances and of course disease in most cases exceeded Grant's bloody advances. He could have been a better strategist, but at least he saw his big advantages and used it. Most of the Union Generals were far worse than him.

As to fighting in the war, I suspect if I was in the age group I would have signed on into the Union Navy. If it broke out when I was already in my 40s with kids, I would have not volunteered and paid to avoid it if needed and then do what I could to support organizations to help the soldiers and the slaves that did manage to flee. Not the noblest action but the most pragmatic.

I'm still not sure what I would have done in Vietnam. I know I would have joined before I got drafted, but I would have gone Navy or Airforce even then. I don't see myself joining the army at any time except maybe the Revolution.

I really can't imagine what it would have been like to live in a time prior to WWII. Life was short, brutish and nasty in general. People drank mercury laced opium out of lead cups and bears came and dragged your kids off in the middle of the night. Everyone smelled terrible and had missing teeth, and chances were that something, be it man, beast or germ was actively trying to kill you ever moment of every day. The roads were full of horseshit and tobacco spit and the air was full of toxic waste and fever. Even so much as cutting your finger with a knife while making dinner could be a death sentance. I can't say what I would have done during the Civil War really because I can't honestly imagine what living in a world like that would be like.

I mean, I'm sure that people grieved for the loss of a loved one, but really when you had to have 10 kids to have 4 make it to adulthood and when every winter was a 50/50 shot of all the adults dying of starvation and disease I think that the concept of going to war isn't anything near to what it is today. It was an adventure and at least in war you knew what was trying to kill you and you could do something about it, instead of just hoping that today isn't the day where your number is up and you get kicked in the head by a horse or had Indians come burn your house down.

The name that is almost never talked about among the worst presidents, but who certainly should be, is John F. Kennedy. His brief administration is best remembered for being a time of hope and optimism in the nation, with the pretty president and a prettier first lady. In retrospect however, I wouldn't consider it at all shocking to think that the CIA whacked him to end the harm he was doing to the USA. There was the botched Bay of Pigs invasion. The first surge of "military advisers" began to appear in Vietnam. A lot of talk about equal rights for minorities but no action (that would require the work of Martin Luther King, among others). And who can forget the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the woefully outgunned and utterly overmatched Soviets managed to not only earn themselves a stalemate with some aggressive brinkmanship, but also brokered a withdrawal agreement that included having the States back off from their presence around the Middle East, which opened the door for the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, which led to years of civil war in that country, with the Mujahadeen backed by American arms eventually pushing out the Ruskies and the US-supported Taliban taking over control of the country. We all know that well that turned out...

I don't think JFK was the worst president of all, but I'd put him in the bottom three.

I strongly disagree about JFK.

He inspired a generation to public service. He was a decorated naval hero and a Pulitzer Prize winner. He firmly committed the Federal government to the cause of civil rights even though it hurt him politically in the previously Solid (Democratic) South. He stared down Big Steel. He established the Peace Corps and boldly set the nation on course for a Moon landing by the end of the decade. He cut taxes and sparked an economic boom. He brilliantly handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. He pushed for and saw to the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He of course had many personal failings, but all in all I think Kennedy was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century.

As I mentioned in the SDMB Presidential Elimination thread, if you want to read more about him, I'd recommend The Essence of Decision by Graham Allison (the classic study of the Cuban Missile Crisis); President Kennedy by Richard Reeves (a comprehensive but very readable overview of his administration from the perspective of 30-some years later); Kennedy's Wars by Lawrence Freedman (a British historian's take on JFK's diplomacy and military policies), and A Thousand Days by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (a fine contemporary account by JFK's resident intellectual). Read any or all of them, and I think you'll come away with a higher opinion of the man.

Greatest President: Washington, with Lincoln a very close second. Washington practically invented the job, guided the infant republic through dangerous shoals and willingly gave up power after two terms when many would have preferred to have him become a king. Lincoln saw the nation through its most dangerous subsequent trial and, although he made many mistakes, toughed it out and emerged triumphant. I also like TR, FDR, Cleveland, JFK and Truman for various accomplishments and personal attributes, but none of them are in Washington's and Lincoln's league. I think Obama has the potential to join their ranks, but it's much too soon to say.

Worst President: Nixon, for his venality, paranoia and unforgiveable assault on the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend. Followed closely by Buchanan, for not lifting a finger to forestall the Civil War, and Bush the Lesser, for far too many foolish, stubborn mistakes and for rushing us into a needless war that is still costing us dearly in blood and treasure. Followed a bit more distantly by Harding and Grant, for general haplessness and for being unable to keep their crooked friends in line.

Incidentally, Grant was capable of manuever warfare. His Fts. Henry and Donelson and Vicksburg campaigns were masterful, but I think he was somewhat overwhelmed by the scale of things when he came east, and did little but pound away at Lee to wear him down. It eventually worked, but at a terrible cost.

On JFK: Why was staring down Big Steel good? It seem to hurt us long term.
Overall I think JFK was not as good as most older people seem to think but nowhere near as bad as Jimbo thinks.

Nixon: Was a terrible person but accomplished more for the common good than most. Opening of China was huge. Est. of the EPA, signing into effect the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were monumental. He was the last Republican executive openly in favor of more goverment healthcare, it took him forever but at least he got us out of Vietnam. I really have mixed feeling about this guy.

We were actually more entangled in Vietnam and had a much smaller advantage than in Iraq and yet Iraq has gone on longer and Obama does not exactly have a firm timetable in place. I am using this to demonstrate that maybe Nixon gets too much crap for not getting us out of Vietnam faster.

On the other hand, he subverted the constitution though probably not as much or often as Jackson or Bush the Lesser. He was a nasty person. While he was a good VP for Ike, his association with McCarthy is another big strike against him. Nixon is very tough.

Buchanan did nothing good and a lot bad. He was allowing the US to break up. I need more time to really demonstrate my reason to pick him as worst but the man never should have been President. He was almost surely less qualified than even W. Less competent too.

Washington and Lincoln are my second and third choices.

Washington overall seemed like the greater man and a great leader of men though not the best tactical general. The fact he chose to serve but two terms and put it in a way that no one should serve more was huge. It allowed our country to make its many mistakes and slowly improve with time. I give him a lot of credit for freeing all of his slaves in the end. I don’t believe any of the other slaves owning Presidents did. I know Jackson and Jefferson did not. However I cannot point to a lot he did as President and so don’t hold him as highly as some others. Still #2 on my list though.

Lincoln is simple, no greater challenge and he met it. I believe others would have met it and some better. I firmly believe that Theodore and Ike would have done a better job. If Washington or scumbag Jackson chose to defend the Union they would have done a better job. Even Bush the Elder would have been a good man for the job. But we’ll never know and we know that Lincoln has met the challenge. I wonder if he had lived if he could have done a better job with reconstruction.

Speaking of Reconstruction, Andrew Johnson was pretty awful overall.

Washington established the Cabinet system and recruited the best men for the jobs (an all-star Cabinet incl. Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox, etc.), adroitly upheld American neutrality during the Anglo-French wars, appointed the entire Federal judiciary, gained approval for the construction of six excellent frigates as the foundation of the U.S. Navy, backed Hamilton's reform plans which set the infant republic on sound economic and fiscal footing, put down the Whiskey Rebellion and then pardoned its leaders, saw to the establishment of the Federal City that would later bear his name, etc. He toured every state and knit the country together by his example of character and leadership. Washington got a lot done in eight years as President.

As for JFK, Big Steel, led by U.S. Steel, was going to raise prices despite earlier assuring the country it wouldn't do so. This would have had a major negative economic impact, and was widely (and correctly, IMHO) interpreted as a shot across the Kennedy White House's bow. By jawboning, steering Federal contracts away from Big Steel and weighing criminal/antitrust prosecutions (somewhat similar to Obama's dealings with BP now, come to think of it), Kennedy prevailed. Here's a pretty good overview of the crisis: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...,_Bush_and_Oil

I think you give Nixon far too much credit. The opening to China was at the expense of Taiwan, which had been our friend far longer, and is now a much more healthy democracy than the PRC has ever been. He signed the EPA Act, but did nothing to get it passed in the first place; it was hardly a signature policy of the Nixon Administration. The Clean Air Act first passed in 1963, under JFK. Nixon got us out of Vietnam, true, but only after illegally widening the scope of the war including invading Cambodia, and South Vietnam fell just eight months after Nixon left office. (Incidentally, today is the anniversary of the Watergate break-in!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elendil's Heir

Washington established the Cabinet system and recruited the best men for the jobs (an all-star Cabinet incl. Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox, etc.), adroitly upheld American neutrality during the Anglo-French wars, appointed the entire Federal judiciary, gained approval for the construction of six excellent frigates as the foundation of the U.S. Navy, backed Hamilton's reform plans which set the infant republic on sound economic and fiscal footing, put down the Whiskey Rebellion and then pardoned its leaders, saw to the establishment of the Federal City that would later bear his name, etc. He toured every state and knit the country together by his example of character and leadership. Washington got a lot done in eight years as President.

As for JFK, Big Steel, led by U.S. Steel, was going to raise prices despite earlier assuring the country it wouldn't do so. This would have had a major negative economic impact, and was widely (and correctly, IMHO) interpreted as a shot across the Kennedy White House's bow. By jawboning, steering Federal contracts away from Big Steel and weighing criminal/antitrust prosecutions (somewhat similar to Obama's dealings with BP now, come to think of it), Kennedy prevailed. Here's a pretty good overview of the crisis: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_and_Steel,_Bush_and_Oil

I think you give Nixon far too much credit. The opening to China was at the expense of Taiwan, which had been our friend far longer, and is now a much more healthy democracy than the PRC has ever been. He signed the EPA Act, but did nothing to get it passed in the first place; it was hardly a signature policy of the Nixon Administration. The Clean Air Act first passed in 1963, under JFK. Nixon got us out of Vietnam, true, but only after illegally widening the scope of the war including invading Cambodia, and South Vietnam fell just eight months after Nixon left office. (Incidentally, today is the anniversary of the Watergate break-in!)

---

You know I think I am really confused, GW create the cabinet system or just picked the initial cabinet? I did not realize he created it for the US. Good list of his accomplishments.

Back to Big Steel, I've seen it shown somewhere that JFK's actions led to the end of Big Steel and effectively opened the door for foreign competition. If JFK had done nothing wouldn't outside market forces have brought the price to where it should be?

Over to Nixon, I know better on the Clean Air act, sorry about that. :smack

I think opening China though did a lot of good for the Cold War. It was an excellent strategic move that led to the beginning of the end of the cold war. As the scale of this threat was so high, I do tend to give Nixon a lot of credit in this area.

BTW: I am beginning to sour on Obama though mainly I am very annoyed at the Dems for wasting their majority when they had it.
But I really did expect Guantanamo Bay to be closed by now. I expected more on energy than I have seen and the health care debate was pretty sad. I knew he could not get us out of the wars swiftly, so that part I am not down on him about. This is not to say I don't like him and still have hope he will get us out of the dozen problems he inherited but my hopes of him being a great one is lower.

The Constitution merely says that the President may require written reports of "the principal officer in each of the executive departments." It says nothing about a Cabinet, or meetings thereof. Washington drew upon British precedent in convening meetings for discussions, advice, testing the waters and guidance.

I'm no economist, but AFAICT JFK's approach to Big Steel did nothing either to speed or to retard the rise of foreign competition to it. That was inevitable. The U.S. steel industry really didn't swoon until the late Seventies/early Eighties, anyway.

Perhaps this next bit should be in a debate thread. I'm inclined to agree with you about Obama, but given the huge raft of problems he inherited just a year and a half ago, and the implacable opposition of the Capitol Hill GOP despite his repeated outreach, I'd say he's done pretty damn well. So far: the stimulus package, a surge in Afghanistan, a drawdown in Iraq, prohibiting torture, putting Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, passing the Ledbetter Act, healthcare reform, progress on DADT, START nuclear weapons reductions with the Russians, etc. Still a lot of work to be done, though, of course.

Well keep in mind, I did not say I thought Obama was bad, I've just removed his Sainthood if you will. He's no Teddy but he is a far cry above the Bushes or Carter at this point as examples.

Better than Carter. Now that's damning with faint praise if I've ever heard it.

Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs, a war that at it's conclusion will have done more national and international damage than Viet Nam and The War On Terror combined. In it's evolution it's sent two generations of inner city youth into a death spiral of prison and violence, eroded our constitutional rights to an afterthought, allowed the CIA to set South American politics back 100 years, and kick started a border war with Mexico that threatens our own safety. For that alone he heads right near the bottom of the list.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs, a war that at it's conclusion will have done more national and international damage than Viet Nam and The War On Terror combined. In it's evolution it's sent two generations of inner city youth into a death spiral of prison and violence, eroded our constitutional rights to an afterthought, allowed the CIA to set South American politics back 100 years, and kick started a border war with Mexico that threatens our own safety. For that alone he heads right near the bottom of the list.

---

Here. Here. This is also why I can't put Regan at the top of the list even considering what he did to end the Cold War.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well keep in mind, I did not say I thought Obama was bad, I've just removed his Sainthood if you will. He's no Teddy but he is a far cry above the Bushes or Carter at this point as examples.

---

Oh, good god.

I don't put Obama at the bottom of the list of worst Presidents quite yet, but every frickin' day, he crawls closer and closer. Hell, he's making Jimmy Carter look competent.

I don't really get all the Jimmy Carter hate or how he ended up with a reputation of being incompetent. With hindsight I can see where his appointment of Stansfield Turner to the head of the CIA and in turn Turner's reliance on technology intel over human intel ended up costing us in the long run, but my suspicion is that a great deal of it stems from the Iranian hostage crisis which would have been an enormous clusterfuck for any administration.

Gerald Ford was more of a bumbling idiot and he pardoned Nixon, but like Carter I tend to view his term in office as mostly benign.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

I don't really get all the Jimmy Carter hate or how he ended up with a reputation of being incompetent. With hindsight I can see where his appointment of Stansfield Turner to the head of the CIA and in turn Turner's reliance on technology intel over human intel ended up costing us in the long run, but my suspicion is that a great deal of it stems from the Iranian hostage crisis which would have been an enormous clusterfuck for any administration.

---

Carter got almost none of his good ideas passed, he could not control or conjole his party. He should have set in motion at least 12 years of democratic control after the pathos of Watergate and instead ushered in Reagan as a reaction to how much the US was being dragged through the dirt as patsies and how useless the Dems appeared at the time. He was the posterboy though Ted Kennedy was probably the real cause. Carter was a dismal failure as President. At the time common opinion was the US was going down the drain and Carter was speeding it up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

At the time common opinion was the US was going down the drain and Carter was speeding it up.

---

Has there been a president since Kennedy who's name couldn't really be plugged in the same sentance and still have it be true though?

I mean we are going down the drain, have been for a long time since we didn't heed Ike's words about the military industrial complex and in the end have allowed all businesses to become part of some horrible cabal of iterests that are cabable of literally robbing taxpayers of their life, liberty and persuit of happiness.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who wants the job of being president is absolutely fucked in the head. Sure it's THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, but it's like unshielded nuclear fuel rods at this point. You have a lot of power, but it's going to destroy you just for being in proximity to it.

Well for a lot of us, we thought Reagan left the US stronger and better off. The Soviet Union was crumbling. The economy seemed good at least. Our military could pretty kick ass against all comers. There were no shortage of issues but I don't think most people felt the US was circling the drain. Same for even Bush the Elder and Clinton really. Did you really thinking the US was in bad shape before Bush the Lesser screwed things up royally?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elendil's Heir

I strongly disagree about JFK.

He inspired a generation to public service. He was a decorated naval hero and a Pulitzer Prize winner. He firmly committed the Federal government to the cause of civil rights even though it hurt him politically in the previously Solid (Democratic) South. He stared down Big Steel. He established the Peace Corps and boldly set the nation on course for a Moon landing by the end of the decade. He cut taxes and sparked an economic boom. He brilliantly handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. He pushed for and saw to the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He of course had many personal failings, but all in all I think Kennedy was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century.

As I mentioned in the SDMB Presidential Elimination thread, if you want to read more about him, I'd recommend The Essence of Decision by Graham Allison (the classic study of the Cuban Missile Crisis); President Kennedy by Richard Reeves (a comprehensive but very readable overview of his administration from the perspective of 30-some years later); Kennedy's Wars by Lawrence Freedman (a British historian's take on JFK's diplomacy and military policies), and A Thousand Days by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (a fine contemporary account by JFK's resident intellectual). Read any or all of them, and I think you'll come away with a higher opinion of the man.

---

I'll give you the Peace Corps, his push for a moon landing, and lower taxes. But I don't think being a naval hero or a Pulitzer Prize winner has anything to do with his performance as president. Also, I disagree with your take on his success with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which I consider to be a dismal failure and the source for all the difficulties the USA is facing in the Middle East right now -- repercussions that continue to hurt a nation almost 50 years after the fact are highly damning evidence, IMO, but YMMV.

Reagan's trickle-down economic push ultimately set the stage for the current economic downturn by re-focussing power in the hands of Big Business and creating a climate that allowed them to overplay their hands to the point of utter failure. As with Kennedy, a popular president who looked good on camera and mostly said the right things, but not particularly stellar as far as I'm concerned.

To each their own re: JFK.

I think Carter still takes such a pounding because, as What Exit? said, he was able to accomplish very little in office. Over time he became hated even by the Dems on Capitol Hill for what was seen as his arrogant and holier-than-thou attitude, and could get almost nothing passed. He seemed ineffectual in the face of a very sluggish economy and the energy crisis, and the Tehran hostage crisis just dragged on and on and on. Crime got worse and the cities continued to crumble. The national mood soured, and his so-called "malaise" speech (even though he didn't use that word) seemed to blame the American people for his own leadership failings. IMHO, he was a well-meaning, good-hearted man who just couldn't handle the job.

I was very leery of Reagan, and supported Carter's reelection in 1980 - one of the very few in my high school to do so, which was a little awkward ;) - but I'm not under any illusions that he was a great leader. His best years were definitely after he left the White House.

I think that for those who don't remember the seventies well, it's hard to put yourself in that feeling of everything's bad and will only get worse that was so pervasive.

There are a lot of things I don't like about Reagan and Thatcher, but I will give them credit for actually believing things could improve.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday

I think that for those who don't remember the seventies well, it's hard to put yourself in that feeling of everything's bad and will only get worse that was so pervasive.

There are a lot of things I don't like about Reagan and Thatcher, but I will give them credit for actually believing things could improve.

---

This really sums it up nicely. The two great allies were breaking down fast and both brought in dynamic leaders that did a lot of good and bad. I think it both cases they did break their countries out of their respective slumps and malais.

The hostage crisis was all in Carter's lap. As well as a lot of the bad rep we still have in the middle east. Had Carter put pressure on the Shah to end his human rights abuses we would have had for 30 years what we are trying to build in Iraq now. At home the economy was worse than it is now. There where violent strikes across the country and city's where not safe to visit much less life in. The military was ineffectual and demoralized. All in all one of the worse times in this country. Hope was dieing.