Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 13, 2016.
Why isn't Woodrow Wilson up there?
Reading is so hard.
It's the first line in the first post of the thread. Do better.
Yeah ok but Polk over Wilson? He basically created the precursor to the UN.
That's not how your fellow posters voted, man.
And Wilson did a lot, but he did a lot that was unpopular.
Republicans and libertarians don't like that he was the President at the time of the creation of the Income Tax amendment and the Federal Reserve.
Democrats don't like that he was even more racist than his predecessors.
Both tend to not like him agreeing to join World War I, how he treated civil liberties in that time, though Democrats give him a little credit for his post-war 14 Points plan.
He's a very mixed, controversial, and overall negative. He definitely did have an impact, though.
I know, I know. Not technically an "American President", but more American than any of them, and a better president even not having been one.
I'm going with Geronimo.
I don't think he'd like to be a president of a Nation he fought against.
I'd also like to point out my suggestion of Wilson is not an Endorsement.
That is one of history's great what-if's. When I read about the time of reconstruction I find myself agreeing with the Radical Republicans the most.
An official 2017 ranking by historians:
OLD TIPPECANOE WAS ROBBED.
That top 10 is almost perfect! Although I'd drop HST to the 20s. I'd also will put LBJ in the teens.
Now where to put The Donald once his tenure is up?
Good list. I'd put Truman where Kennedy is, and maybe move Andy Jackson a little higher. Dude was a mess.
Oh huh, I was wondering how Truman and Wilson got so far up there, then I looked again and saw "based on responses of 90 historians, writers and journalists".
Truman's increased favorability among "historians, writers and journalists" after his Presidency is entirely undeserved. He ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs on not just one but two cities; the Truman Doctrine escalated the Cold War and solidified the continuing U.S. policy of supporting right-wing pieces of **** as long as they were against deh kohmmies (notably the USSR did not support the leftists in Greece and Turkey that Truman targeted); he intervened in Korea without a Congressional declaration, setting the precedent for all U.S. wars since; he presided over the post-war weakening of labor in the United States with legislation such as Taft-Hartley and the breaking of major strikes. The list goes on and on and on.
But he desegregated the military. Best leader evar.
Also, **** Eisenhower. Entrenched car culture with the interstate system, let the sociopathic Dulles brothers have their way...
And Polk, who led the charge for the unprovoked conquest and annexation of half of a sovereign state. The fact that he and McKinley are ranked so high says a lot about this country.
Really, **** all of 'em.
Well I guess what I meant was that I wouldn't have expected the average person to rank Truman that highly. And the country seems to have decisively rejected Wilsonianism, so same story there.
Yes, Wilsonianism. Self-determination and equality on the international stage as long as you're white.
Okay yeah, he wasn't perfect, but it was a good step for his time and we've improved on it since. And no, we're not perfect today either, but the important thing is that we keep taking those steps to make the world more equitable.
See, saying someone "wasn't perfect" sounds like a weak excuse that could be used for literally any fault. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed white supremacist who, among other things, cleared the Federal government of African-Americans who were appointed by Theodore Roosevelt and Taft, made The Birth of a Nation the first film ever screened in the White House and reportedly praised it (contributing to the resurgence of the KKK), and ignored non-white delegations to Versailles which included Japan, a Pan-African delegation, and Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh among them). There were many contemporary voices who vehemently opposed these Wilsonian stances, so it can't be handwaved by saying he was simply the product of his times.
Yeah, Wilson is a legit POS.
For the six below Hoover, well, you might as well have just taken a nice four year **** and never left the pot. Good news is, you'll have company soon down there at the bottom, Buchanan!
Reagan continues to drop. Good. He was a terrible President.
Andrew Jackson at 18? He's one of the most evil bastards to walk the face of the earth.
Grant at 22? He was drunk for his entire presidency.
Gerry Ford at 25? His greatest accomplishment was not being a criminal.
These lists are stupid.
I think they should do lists based on individual categories. These all or nothing rankings allow for no nuance. We don't get a sense of the criteria for things or the bias of the historian.
I'm pretty sure Reagan will never drop into the bottom 10. He still haves alot of support.
I mean, there's progress, He used to consistently be in the top 10. Should be in the bottom 5, but at least the trend is moving in the right direction.
But overall, yes, the lists are stupid.
They do have that. Each of the qualities has its own separate ranking. The overall is a composite score from all subcategory lists. That alleviates but doesn't absolve stupidity.
I agree Reagan and Kennedy are overrated, but they'll probably always be ranked in the top half just because of the "tone" of optimism they each gave the country. And being good communicators of their vision, people having faith in them, and appearing to improve the economy. Whether it was real or not, or if the long-term effects were off, it's public perception of being great that's the biggest indicator of how well they're ranked and remembered, and historians just acknowledging that factor.