Census Best U.S. President since 1960?

Reagan won the cold war without anybody getting nuked. That was amazing for those of us who grew up in a world where doomsday clocks, air raid shelters, and MAD were all real things. He also gets props for dragging America out of the 70's post-Vietnam/Iranian hostage/Watergate/Carter/inflation/energy crisis etc malaise.

 

Alternatively, he takes the credit for what Gorbachev and the Soviet Union did itself.

He was the person responsible for the current American cult-of-self and the unhealthy distrust of government America currently has.

He also shouldn't get credit for the solving the Iranian hostage crisis.

 

JKF is the best because all of his grandparents came from Ireland.

 

He also loses points for trickle down "economics."

 

lol @ people voting for Obama.

Best =/= "best at compromising on vision"

 

I mean, he's just not a great leader. The quality of leaders in the US has deteriorated rapidly, and while Mr Obama has been very good at selling a promise of what he could be, what he has been has been ok at best.

I mean, granted, that will be what we say of Hillary and of course he's a much better option than Bernie would be. But still. He's nowhere near the best. grd already articulated the profound changes Kennedy achieved in a short space of time; Obamacare doesn't really hold a candle to that.

 

It's depressing to think that after JFK, I can't comfortably list a second best president.

LBJ ushered in the incomparable Great Society (ending apartheid and cutting the poverty rate nearly in half), which would have placed him alongside Lincoln and FDR, but unleashed hell in Indochina (the result: 2-4 million dead), bringing America close to civil war.

Nixon thawed the Cold War, but continued and intensified the Indochina inferno while sundering the citizenry's faith in government as a force for good.

Ford was a nonentity, while Carter delivered a few decent speeches and little else.

Reagan was a near-irredeemable piece of ----, declaring war on FDR's 50-year social contract, vomiting out bellicose anti-commie rhetoric and propping up grotesque Central American death squads. Miraculously, when Gorbachev came onto the scene, the rotter actually possessed the wit to accept the olive branch.

Bush Sr. and Clinton essentially squandered the opportunities spawned by the USSR dissolution, continuing to fuel the ever-expanding "defense budget" despite our winning the Cold War.

Bush Jr. was a force unto himself, handing out tax-breaks like Coca Cola, ignoring the pre-9/11 intelligence warnings while playing lumberjack on the ranch, launched an illegal invasion of Iraq (estimated dead: 500,000 - 1 million) which would eventually plunge the Middle East into chaos, sanctioned torture, and sat on his tuckus while New Orleans drowned.

Obama, while not without his accomplishments, squandered his honeymoon by refusing to train his Justice Dept. on the banksters who nearly ruined the world economy, elevated the presidency to "Assassin-in-Chief" via extrajudicial killings and drone strikes, and waged vociferous war against whistleblowers.

 

Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, which is no small thing.

 

grd4, not that raging Bernie Sanders supporters like yourself have a casual to non-existent relationship with facts or anything but the Iraq War was not illegal. I suggest you review use of force provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, UNSC Resolution 678, 768, and 1441 at the very least.

 

Let's once and for all kill this myth that Reagan had anything to do with ending the Iran hostage crisis. The hostages were released on Reagan's day of inauguration, as he was being sworn in. What could his administration possibly have done in the few hours they have taken over that were so transformational that we can credit him for it? Were the hostage takers terrified by his grandfatherly visage?

Despite the US's repeated rhetoric of not negotiating with terrorists, the Carter administration spent its final weeks doing exactly that. They had secured their release the day prior to the inauguration, Jan 19th, but the Iranians delayed matters at the last minute and made excuses, postponing matters an additional day. The announcement of their release was made only moments after Reagan had made his inaugural address, and one can't help but think the Iranians did so on purpose to stick it to Carter one last time, for his perceived support of the Shah. Whether that was the reason or not, the fact remains that Reagan's administration had nothing to do with it.

 

From far away Hungary (I read biographies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II). Below 4 are mediocre/bad Presidents in my eyes.

1. Johnson (Civil Rights and Great Society legislation, but minus points for Vietnam, all of which made him the most consequential President after Roosevelt)
2. Clinton (IMO a highly able President who seems to have managed US economy and foreign policy very well: intervention in the Yugoslav Wars, the Oslo Accords, NAFTA. On the minus side, he seems to have made some bad compromises with the Republican Congress and lacks on the moral side.)
3. Reagan (big plus points for driving the Soviet Union into self-destruction, minus points for "trickle-down economy")
4. Kennedy (he had a short but good term, we'll never know how he would have fared in his second term. His many extra-marital affairs are certainly not endearing.)

5. Bush II (his main fault for me is that the casus belli for the Iraqi War was non-existent, but he should get points for his early management of the Great Recession [continued by Obama], his immediate 9/11 response [after he left that school ], not allowing a new terrorist attack on US soil and the since-forgotten "compassionate conservatism". Republicans should rediscover it.)
6. Obama (the only plus points are for Obamacare, Iran and Cuba, but otherwise his foreign policy is a disastrous mixture of the Bush Doctrine and harmful passivity which allowed - among other things - Putin's Russia to rise)
7. Bush I (he managed the Gulf War really well)
8. Nixon (plus points for environmental protection and China, minus points for a bulk of the Vietnam War and Watergate-style government - if the latter makes sense)

Ford and Carter: I know next to nothing about them, so I can't really rank them.

If I could include Ike on the list, he'd land in the top tier.

 

I'm not sure why Kennedy is getting so many votes.
- His election was symbolic, and he dreamed big... but his accomplishment didn't amount to much.
- The Cuban Missile Crisis was also partially our fault, for putting nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe first.
- If he didn't think the Bay of Pigs invasion was a good idea, he could have just refused to do it, or he should have gone all-in.
- He could have chosen to just not get involved in Vietnam at all.

 

I don't know why the others chose him, but since you killed the guy who ended slavery, I figured Kennedy must have done something really amazing if you killed him too.

 

This post is actually quite illuminating about you. He dreamed big but his accomplishments didn't meet that dream is a negative in your mind. This is why you prefer presidents who dream small. Two presidents could have had the exact same level of accomplishments, but the one who dreamed small will end up being better in your mind.

Fascinating.

 

Rhetoric is less useful than results, Vivec.

 

I don't prefer presidential candidates who dream small.

I prefer candidates who seem like they can get the most done.

Like I said before, I think a President Hillary Clinton will have more progressive accomplishments than a President Bernie Sanders (as well as being more prepared for the job in general). Feel free to disagree with that, but that's what I think. Let's leave it there, but if you want we can continue this conversation in the 2016 thread.

 

Sad to see Obama is tied with JFK. I even liked JFK, he was the last best Democrat until their party became more liberal. I don't think JFK would make it in today's Democratic Party. They had one good candidate and his name was Jim Webb. The only Democratic candidate I'd ever consider voting for on the Dem side

 

It's neither sad nor unexpected; Obama has reversed the significant reputational damage done to the US by his predecessor and restored dignity to the office. He's also currently serving and endured all sorts of unpardonable injustices because of his race.

He is given more votes than objectively due, but it is not a surprise that he is rated as highly as he is.

 

i think he prefers presidents who dream of summer.

anyway, obama is my favorite because his name rhymes with "no drama" and i'm totally going to work that into a rap someday.

 

Maybe you could contrast the quite efficiency of his campaign operation with the constant, public in-fighting and pettiness of the Usurper's?

 

Overlord Obama