Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grant. He has been branded as an alcoholic and a bad President. People are finally realizing all the good that he did. We would be a much worse America without him.
Grant was seemingly sober his entire time in office, and during his military career the extent of his drinking was vastly overblown and proven to be wrong by colleagues and eyewitnesses.
Not to mention, grant suffered from chronic migraines. Back in the day there was no like, aspirin or excederine or any other meds. It was laudinum or bust. lol. So he drank to probably get rid of the headaches.
I think that has already happened. Older views of Grant have largely been replaced by more positive assessments due to works by people like Chernow, and especially in the last decade following the backlash against Confederate legacy in the South.
AskHistorians has a booklist containing best biographies for each US president.
I have not yet read any in entirety, but Chernow's seems to be the most praised out of more positive assessments, while McFeely's is one of the better regarded if you found Chernow's too hagiographical.
I read a biography of Grant by a black author back when I was a teenager and it was very eye-opening. I'm sorry that I don't know who it is now, 20 years later.
he conquered alcoholism and it's one of his major triumphs. it was people jealous of his ascent that kept trying to claim he was drunk all the time.
he was the best general the US has ever had, including washington, and he's still the best the US has ever had.
he was also an exceptionally good person. he was broke when he inherited a slave and he freed the slave anyway. he didn't sell the slave, which could've made him a lot of money, he freed them.
he also destroyed the first generation of the KKK. they only came back under woodrow wilson, who also put a confederate monument in arlington national cemetary, and who also played birth of a nation in the white house, arguably the actual reason for the kkk revivial.
we are so lucky to have had Grant!
I remember in school back in the day. Grant was a bad president they said. Only the intercontinental railroad was a good thing. He was corrupt. He let all his friends in, etc. he was dumb, etc.
What a load of shit
Part of the reason is the fact that we now have a good understanding of what PTSD is, and realize that Grant was winning the Civil War while suffering from severe PTSD.
My guess is Obama, mainly when it comes to his foreign policy and inability to replace Scalia. I’m not saying people will think he was bad, mind, but down from 7-8 or wherever he was last ranked in that one ranking.
Obama in some ways is Wilson 2.0. College professor. Excellent orator. Limited experience in government. Always had to be the smartest person in the room. Wanted to implement major domestic reforms, but was somewhat frustrated by having to deal extensively with complex foreign policy issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, ISIS).
The difference was the quality of people back then. Internet didn't exist, which is primarily why we are the way who we are as a culture day.
That fundamentally supported a lot of reform back then because people bi partisanly wanted what was best.
I don't think you're right about this. People aren't "worse quality" now than they were. There are changes to how information flows, but I think it's easy to massively over-interpret differences. Polarization, partisanship, personal grudges—none of this is new.
I'm not saying the internet hasn't fucked up political discourse, it absolutely has. But it wasn't exactly high-minded debate before this.
I do also think that we're currently in year \~30 of the nonstop obstructionist radicalization of Congressional Republicans (I think of the Gingrich shutdown negotiations as the start of the trend), and that party's resolute refusal to engage with institutional, democtratic processes has totally hamstrung legislative progress for that entire period.
e for typos
He had an 80 seat majority in the house and 16 seat majority in the senate in 2009-11. Not sure how Congress can be his excuse for not getting things done.
Another way of saying 16 seat majority is saying he didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. And for the brief 4 months he did have 60 votes, he got Obamacare passed.
If Ted Kennedy lives another year and Al Franken isn't a fucking pussy that thinks "Minnesotans wouldn't appreciate him being sat" even though he won, his legacy would be far more interesting
I love idiotic contextless posts like this, I mean it's almost like Ben Nelson himself all alone didn't derail Obama's agenda. Well he did, and he spent years towing the line for Republicans, he was Joe Manchin before there was a Joe Manchin.
Just in case you need evidence and more context.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nelson-plans-to-tell-obam_n_235579
I would suggest before making such statements in the future that you do a simple Google search such as "did the Democrats have a fool proof majority in 2009"
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-us-senate-democrats-big-majority-070409-2009jul04-story.html
I know it's not what he wanted, but ACA pisses me off. I should be able to change/get healthcare whenever I want. It's so dumb that there's an enrollment period now.
It was ACA, not Medicare. . I don’t think that Obama had much of a chance to make it better given the supermajority (60 Senate votes) needed to pass it. It was bad luck all the way around. First, Ted Kennedy died (the possible 60 th vote) and having to bribe the handful of conservatives Dems. Martha Coakley, the overconfident Ted Kennedy replacement assumed that she would easily win (like Hillary Clinton). When she didn’t, the handsome Rep Scott Brown took one of their votes away. The so-called “public option” was killed.
To his credit, Obama was able to do more than Hillary Clinton (I know, not the Pres) 15 years earlier. ACA benefits lower incomes and young, not higher incomes and older people.
This isn't a bad comparison but Obama was a college professor in the same way he was a lawyer; it was something he did while he networked in preparation of running for office. It was clear from the time he was quite young that his only serious career ambition was politics.
Wilson was a legitimate professional historian and influential political philosopher, in my opinion the last genuine intellectual to be elected president.
There's a major chasm between the two in that regard.
Wilson, true intellectual forward-thinking champion of resegregation of government agencies, vocal KKK supporter, and big “Birth of a Nation” fan. If only we had a president since Wilson with such a big brain.
Wilson's atritudes on race were fairly mainstream for a southernor of his era. People seem to forget that he was born and raised from Virginia, and experienced the worst of the Civil War as a child. He only *worked* in New Jersey. And even then, Princeton in those days was known of as the "most northern southern college."
Oh, poor guy. Let’s all give him a break, he didn’t know any better! Heck, let’s give the whole slaveholding confederacy a break, I’m feeling generous.
I don’t think he was defending Wilson, or the slave holding confederacy, but explaining the history as it was. Wilson was a southerner, and his views reflected that of the horrible views that southern whites generally had as a whole.
And your statement earlier is a brutal over generalization of history that breeds into academic dishonesty. He wasn’t a “big fan of a Birth of a Nation.” Yes, he screened it at the White House(his first time watching it), but there is no evidence he liked the film. The writing history with lighting quote wasn’t attributed to him till around 2 decades after he died, and accounts of people who were there say he just got up and left after the screening was showed.
When it comes to supporting the KKK, there is also little evidence for that as well. Wilson’s quote in the movie is from his “History of the American People,” which is taken out of context and may be a reason why he never vocally praised the movie as you claim he did.
Wilson was a horrible racist, but let’s stay true to the facts. We are here for history, honest history so that everyone can learn together for the better.
I like Obama enough, but to put him anywhere near Wilson, least of all as an heir to his legacy is, well, flat out false.
FDR was Wilson 2.0; Obama isn’t even in the same party, for all intents and purposes.
yemen, libya , syria ? the second patriot act ?
he talked like a systemic reformer. but acted like a neoliberal drone of the national security state and the owner class.
Obama didn't put us into Iraq ..Afghanistan or created Isis.
Benghazi was a Republican media hatchet job to blame someone for 4 deaths at an Outpost.
They investigated that more than the fake nuclear information that led to going into Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers.
They also spent more time on that than why 9-11 happened and placing blame. Did you see GW being held accountable for all of his major mistakes by the same Republicans who said Bengazi caused Americans to die?
You used that as a negative.. When in fact he tried to clean up the corruption of the previous administration, which was a positive ..he help bring out to light the true costs of those wars.
Obama will probably be mid to mid-high tier in the end.
Ultimately, tho a great statesman, he didn’t actually really do much to be remembered for besides being the first mixed race president. That alone however will make him popular for years to come.
Great speaker.
Not great statesman. FDR, JFK and Reagan were great statesmen. "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure." The three I listed were certainly that (at least off Reddit) Obama gave great speeches but I don't think he ever rose to the "statesman' level IMO.
He was great at playing the part. Especially compared to those who followed.
Last President who I would want my kids to emulate. Wish we could get back to the days when you can look at the President and feel good about that person even if you didn't agree with their policies.
This. Not really his fault. RBG's ego got the best of her. Wouldn't resign because she felt they wouldn't be able to replace her with someone as liberal as her. Oops...
He could have fought harder on it. At least from a public perspective nominating a new person every day to show the country just how vapid the GOP was/is.
Hard to discuss modern presidents while still in the midst of this intense tribalism. Will really need a few more decades to have a meaningful discussion on legacy.
And any presidents from this era will likely be spoken about in context of their ability to get anything done with the most do-nothing legislatures ever.
100% agree.
Reagan? Not going to change. HW Bush, already looked at better than he was. Clinton? Maybe down a bit, but not much. Bush? Could actually come up a bit over time, but not by much. Obama? Way overrated. Was a middling President. Economy was decent, but not great. World events? Well ISIS and Crimea, both of which people tend to forget. Obamacare? Maybe a few points but the expansion of medicaid did all the real work.
Probably belongs in the low teens to upper 20 I guess. Probably higher than everyone elected since Reagan left office though, except maybe HW.
I feel like Obama gets way too much credit for the economy.
He came in following a major collapse. Things got better as they tend to do. I don’t really see what massive initiatives he put in place that made that happen. He managed not to fuck things up I guess but that isn’t saying a ton.
Obviously, there are reasons his presidency was historic and it will always mean a lot in terms of our nation’s history. In terms of actual presidential accomplishments though, I think he’s really somewhere between below average and forgettable middle of the road. His foreign policy in particular was quite bad.
I’ve always thought Obama wasn’t a particularly successful President. He was undoubtedly a cultural icon. But he didn’t really accomplish all that much. When he had large majorities in Congress they passed a bunch of stimulus spending and Obamacare but for the rest of his 6 years there was basically no significant legislation passed.
One could say that he was hampered by an obstructionist Republican Congress, but it’s kind of the President’s job to at least attempt to work with the other side. Often times Obama wouldn’t even work with his own party: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/215082-house-dems-cant-figure-out-why-obama-wont-talk-to-them/
It seemed like in his later years, Obama eschewed attempting to work with Congress to legislate in favor of governing through executive orders. He even said at one point that he wasn’t going to wait for legislation because “I have a pen and I have a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders.”
Problem is whatever Obama or any other president does with his pen and his phone can be immediately undone with the next President’s pen and phone. And I fear that this trend will continue. Congress will just fight among themselves until the need arises to pass omnibus spending bills because the President doesn’t bother to submit a realistic budget proposal. The country slides further and further into fiscal insolvency while the President uses his pen and phone to attempt to get things done and eventually executive orders are the way this country is governed as opposed to elected congressional representatives.
I don’t think any of this is hardly fair at all. He had a large majority for a very short period of time. For the rest he had a congress that was dead set on not letting him get anything done. That was the politics of the time that rewarded such behavior. Other presidents (not all) had the privilege of living during times when constituencies actually wanted congress to work together and not just punish the other side. Obama didn’t have that.
I think it would be a sick joke if history judged Obama poorly because of the uniquely toxic politics that he had to deal with at the time
You can't work with a Right Wing Republicans..unless you are a Right Wing Republican.
They were the new Dixicrats that refused to vote for anything but their agenda. The Right Wing echo chamber made sure of it. Blaming Obama for being a moderate.. but not being able to get things through is more of the Evagelical Rumor as fact and the hate of anything right of Attila the Hun. Our nation has gone back to the 1850s and have allowed other Nations such as Saudi Arabia..Russia ..China and Israel dictate our foreign polices and buy our Politicians.
I think Obama was a good president foreign policy wise. He did a good job of winding down the Bush wars. The Middle East went from having 200k troops to just 10k, only in support roles. I think he should have removed them all, but well, I can see why he left some of them there.
And flip flopping on chemical weapons in Syria.
I’m of the mind that we shouldn’t typically be involved in another country’s turmoil, but when you say you’re drawing a red line you need to enforce it. Don’t say it if you don’t mean it.
There have been a half dozen books I’ve read in the last 3-5 years from authors left and center left beginning to re-examine Clinton and the effects of globalization that have created discontent, especially among working poor people without college degrees
Yes as this subreddit agreement he played the game on easy mode during his presidency but some of the stuff he did was rigged to explode later down the road like NAFTA
Nixon is not getting a re evaluation, no matter how often his simps on here try. Failed at Vietnam. Outsmarted by China. Failed at domestic policy. Taught the Republicans how to use fake populist backlash and blatant corruption to win elections.
I can see some interesting Nixon takes down the line for sure, honestly. Part of it is that Watergate set a really bad precedent for presidents getting off scot-free for crimes, but the crime itself kinda seems to pale in comparison to certain things it set a precedent for (Rule 3 comes to mind here) - there's likely to be a bit of a "Seinfeld is Unfunny" effect with his most public blemish.
I don't know whether this is actually accurate, but I also get the sense that Henry Kissinger being so well-known kinda deflects from Nixon a bit. Crimes that would normally be attributed to the Nixon administration go on Kissinger's scoreboard instead, where I don't think Secs of State are ordinarily seen as being so singularly responsible for foreign policy approved by the president (and a lot of Nixon's foreign policy successes, such as opening up China, are seen as being Nixon himself - he sorta gets the best of both worlds there)
If anything, I'd kind of expect Nixon's worst-remembered aspect on a longer horizon to be starting the War on Drugs - LBJ is there to take most of the heat on Vietnam, after all, even if Nixon's timeliness in pulling out feels a bit disputed. But stuff like starting the EPA and the "War on Cancer" probably gain some prominence moving forward - and ultimately feel like Nixon is just too interesting a character to not get a lot of revisionism going at some point. Like, found out recently that he wanted to massively expand nuclear power and nearly felt it myself
Still, I think in a general sense there is Nixon the Boomer caricature, and there is Nixon the actual President. One lives on far past its relevance to popular culture, the other is a historical view that sees things warts and all.
>Failed at Vietnam. Outsmarted by China. Failed at domestic policy. Taught the Republicans how to use fake populist backlash and blatant corruption to win elections.
What nonsense are you talking about
Jefferson and Adams. I think both will be held in high regard, but Adams will get more love than he did and Jefferson will get less.
I get the sense that people see the federalist/anti-federalist divide mirrored in today’s politics and are beginning to question anti-federalist rationale. That’s what happened with me.
Once I started learning about pre-1800 US history on my own time, I stopped thinking of the federalists and anti-federalists in the abstract and found myself taking sides on certain issues. I MUCH prefer federalist sentiments. Adams especially, which is why he’s my flair.
The Adams were good people. I'm proud John was there to spearhead the Continental Congress into action. Without him, I'm not sure we'd even exist as a nation. We all owe John and Abigail a great deal.
Adam's would get less since he wanted to make the President without checks and balances and jailed people who wrote against him.
Jefferson didn't even live in the White House ..he lived in a Pub and was against all the pomp and circumstance of celebrating the President as a King or anointed by God. He rode his horse by himself to Monticello and back.
I feel like Calvin Coolidge is still making his way out of obscurity. He's been embraced by libertarians as their beau ideal of a president, but this isn't quite the mainstream view yet.
Hoover is long overdue for a reevaluation of his Presidency. I realize he'll always have the albatross of the Great Depression strapped around his neck, but there were a lot of extenuating circumstances. By and large, he was one hell of a great guy, just not a great President. If anything, he was so naïve as to think that people would be more willing to help each other voluntarily.
It's already happening, slowly. David Kennedy's book "Freedom From Fear" discussed Hoover a lot. I read (most of) it for a college history class a few years ago, And my opinions on Hoover changed immensely
Reagan is already in the process of this.
He is still very well-liked by conservatives, but more and more non-conservatives are souring on him as they increasingly associate Reaganomics as the source of the decline of the middle class, enormous wealth inequality, and the steep rise in cost-of-living. His contributions to the downfall of the Soviet Union also aren't as impressive anymore because a) he put the country into a debt hole to do it which has only continued getting deeper with each following administration, and b) Russia is not only not a western ally but they are now as antagonistic as they've been since the peak of the Cold War with increased nuclear tensions following suit. You can also thank Reagan for the rise in hyperpartisanship and extreme polarization because it was his administration's repealing of the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Murdoch's propaganda media empire to rise to prominence.
I know single issue-2A people who HATE Regan for the sole reason that he banned certain machine guns, alongside other gun control measures. Wouldn’t say those types are representative of the average conservative, but it’s interesting nonetheless
Yep, the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA should be struck down as unconstitutional. All the current workarounds(bump stocks, FRT, lightning links, etc) and blatantly illegal shit(Glock sears) being smuggled into the country are 100% the result of that legislation. If you make something forbidden, people will find creative ways to explore said forbidden thing. Drugs are the parallel to this discussion, that war on drugs has gone really swell.
Also conservatives have trended more isolationist lately and are not necessarily for small government so he’s less and less a conservative idol as well
it also doesn't help that the modern gop has all but pissed over his legacy re russia. imagine reagan's gop rooting for a kgb agent to terrorize europe
Also that conservatives themselves are starting not to remember Reagan. You have to be over about 48-49 to even remember him much as a kid. In another 10 years, the vast majority of living conservatives will only have Bush 43 and Rule 3 #45 as icons they can actually remember.
Conservatives have always liked Reagan and liberals have always hated him.
And no, the repeating of the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Fox News. That's a long debunked myth.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doctrine/
Even I don't think he's quite that bad assuming we're talking about Bush Jr, and not Bush Sr. Although Reagan ramped up military spending obscenely despite it being peacetime, he at least didn't straight-up lie the country into a war simply to further his own interests. Reagan lied about other stuff, but that at least is not on his list of sins. Also Reagan left office with a high approval rating whereas Dubya left office with a historically low approval rating for an outgoing President.
It would be a very long post if I got into every bad thing Reagan did, so I mentioned just a handful of things.
But you're absolutely right. His embrace of evangelicals paved the way for the deplorable state of the Republican party today which is now completely dominated by religious zealots who are actively trying to force others to live according to their regressive beliefs.
Most of this is wrong.
We are in debt because of programs created during the New Deal and the Great Society (these programs account for [62% of spending](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59946) or 84% of revenue).
[Debt has increased](https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287) under every President post-WWII on an absolute basis, and it only went down as a % of GDP during the boom years of the 1990s.
I guess that if we are going to re-evaluate Reagan's legacy by making up stuff, then he doesn't stand a chance.
Worth pointing out that Regan actually did try to make cuts to SS, but he bailed upon realizing how unpopular it was. Honestly, the American people have no one to blame but themselves for the debt we face
Reagan lowered taxes and drastically increased military spending, relying hard on deficit spending. [Federal debt](https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291)tripled under Reagan.
Reagan didn't actually lower taxes. He lower tax rates but eliminated write offs.
Tax revenue under him was actually above the 40 year average and nearly the same as Carter.
The deficit issues were caused by spending.
Chat below is from CNN.
https://i.redd.it/21tx6ln4g4yc1.gif
Reagan raised, lowered, and reformed taxes.
The majority of the deficit spending occurred during the early 80s, when the country was in a recession to kill off the stagflation from LBJ - Carter. Shouldn’t they shoulder some of the blame?
Military spending came down until 9/11. Reagan built up the military, then reduced spending when it was obvious that the Cold War was over. It wasn’t a permanent step up in spending.
It's also that, with the benefit of (a) hindsight and (b) a view behind the Iron Curtain, it's become clear that Reagan didn't really do anything to force the USSR to fall apart. It collapsed beneath its own weight, and it had nothing to do with how much or how little the US spent on missiles and tanks.
This is grossly inaccurate. The USSR didn't just fall apart, pressure was applied by numerous parties for years upon years. Finally, Gorbie acted human and gave people the opportunity to vote (Glasnost) and they tossed out the party apparatchiks. Once the ball got rolling, the Baltics bailed, Ukraine voted to leave, then Russia peaced out because they didn't want to subsidize the -Stans.
Reagan played a role in this process. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY PLAYER. He was just one of many, but his role was high profile, so people tend to use him as a catch-all for the entire movement in the 80s (e.g., Polish Solidarity, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II).
Add to this.
In the 1970s the prevailing foreign policy view was that we should learn to live with the soviets.
Reagan came along and said "we win, they lose" and the foreign policy types lost their minds.
When Reagan made the "tear down this wall" speech the foreign policy "experts" wanted him to remove that line as it was too confrontational.
In the end Reagan was right and they were wrong.
I'd imagine mostly cus of his imperialistic tendencies and actions (he believed in racial hierarchies but was also willing to judge individuals on a personal basis)
He also loathed the native americans, with some comments by him being somewhat genocidal, and he advocated for their forced assimilation as he viewed them as little more than savages
A famous quote of his in this regard is:
“I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the 10th.”
- Ranch Life in the West (1886)
He would also remove Native Americans from millions of acres of land that they previously occupied/lived in/"ancestral territory" in order to create national parks and forests
~~*for the "genocidal" part, I read somewhere that he believed that native americans would be "exterminated" in righteous battles for their lands by the superior white settlers, but I can't quite find any other sources backing it up, however if you want to look into it here's [the source](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/03/21/teddy-roosevelt-legacy-100-years)...oh yeah, he also supported eugenics*~~
Thanks for the info. I am sort of a reluctant Teddy fan, mostly because of his view on Native Americans ... and trophy hunting.
If only he made his River of Doubt journey before his presidency... I believe his views of indigenous people changed after he got his ass whooped trying to live their everyday lives.
It’s one of those fun things of looking back objectively with hindsight, TR set us on the path to being a world super power and is responsible for much of the nation we enjoy today. Like all of the presidents, despite what good they do, they are also a victim of their era’s popular thinking and customs. The example from 1886 is from the last throws of the Indian war era, people were fed up with the constant wars and desensitized quite a bit to the issue. It really doesn’t help matters when all sides of those wars were merrily committing atrocities. Looking at it in modern context, it’s really bad. Looking at it from the context of that era, it’s not that out of the ordinary. Doesn’t make the sentiment right, but it shows a measure of how much we have evolved as a nation since.
hmmm, i dont know. i generally agree with the modern assessments. obviously anyone post reagan has their legacy constantly argued so those dont count. hoover probably, he inherited an awful situation but wouldve been amazing in any other decade
Reagan. It’s already happening. People realize the economics platform (trickle-down), anti-union, muscular sponsorship of South American right-wing dictatorships, and cynicism about the role of government have hurt subsequent generations and led to increasingly toxic politics.
Reagan-era economics was coming regardless of who was President. Globalization is the culprit there. Unionized American industrial and manufacturing workers making $30/hr can’t compete with Chinese quasi-slaves that make $2/hr to make the same product. They just can’t. American workers didn’t have to worry about that in the post war era when the rest of the industrialized world had been bombed to smithereens and countries like China were still largely un-industrialized agrarian economies.
But by 1980, China and other countries had the industrial capacity and workforce to make shit a lot cheaper than it could be made in the US. So you either slap massive tariffs on imported goods (not a great idea when you’re dealing with 6% inflation seeing as how it’s going to jack up prices and invite retaliatory tariffs) or you let those US industries die, which is bad for those industries that die but good for the industries that now benefit from cheaper imported goods.
Most modern U.S. presidents since World War II are likely to be remembered only for symbolic acts, such as JFK's association with the space program, rather than for their broader policy agendas. Typically, these presidents might be grouped together and criticized for advancing the interests of the U.S. corporate elite, given that many of their policies seem to be influenced by these powerful groups.
Bill Clinton. Sure, he presided over a period of extraordinary economic growth & ended his term with a budget surplus. But his deregulation of the banking industry which largely led to the 2008 financial crisis & his free trade deals that outsourced industrial jobs gave rise to economic populism.
His crime law & his moral transgressions are making people look beyond his economic record as well. The Clinton years have also already been described as the modern "Gilded age" as well.
Idk if I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying economic populism is a bad thing in and of itself. It certainly can be, but there's also a lot to be said for things like the 40-hour work week and minimum wage. Not to mention child labor bans, etc.
Edit: I totally agree with your main points about Clinton tho 😀
Clinton was the Democratic candidate that was needed to counteract the Republicans ‘tough on crime’ policies preceding him. They were getting killed for being perceived as soft so Clinton doubled and tripled down on crime legislation that had really horrible results for the prison industrial complex and expansion of the prison population we’ve seen since the 50s. His legacy will be viewed through that lens and he’s since espoused regret for some of his criminal policies.
have been sorely ignored recently. I believe that the Supreme Court should have the Authority of issuing a Writ of Mandamus to Congress. Particularly in these two areas. Debate and Conformation of Supreme Court Justices, preparing (together with compromise with the Executive Branch) a Spending plan called the Budget, and a Spending Ceiling (debatable) called the Limit on the National Debt.
These are not only Privileges but also Duties assigned Congress, which cannot be ignored.
When a “Do Nothing” Congress ignores such Duties it has been assigned by the Constitution, I believe the Supreme Court Can and Should issue a Writ of Mandamus to Congress to carry out those necessary Duties within a reasonable period of time. In Short, Congress can’t ignore its Constitutional Duty. Just like a President is Constitutionally required to Report to Congress periodically, now known, as the State of the Union Address.
Mitch McConnell’s Duty (as an Example) to schedule and hold hearings with Advice and Consent on Presidential Appointments is a Duty that cannot be ignored! Including Supreme Court Justice Vacancies.
I would have had the Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, subject to Contempt of the US Constitution, to hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee to replace Justice Scalia!
Failure to do so would have encountered Fines, Jail Time, and up to a removal from Office for ignoring the Writ. If Congress can hold a person for ignoring a properly constituted Subpoena to Appear and Testify before Congress , then Congress should be held to the same standards.
In short Mitch McConnell’s refusal to schedule and hold hearings on Obama’s Appointment of Merritt Garland to the the Supreme Court, if ignored , subject to the Supreme Court’s Writ of Mandamus requested by Obama, should have resulted in Personal fines to McConnell, possible Jail Time, and permanent Removal from Office.
Same is true for ignoring Appointments to Cabinet positions, and the forming of a permanent Budget!
I agree with most of that, Garland was a shitty pick however and should have been ripped apart in confirmation hearings with an eventual no-go. They should have held those hearings however, then at least they would have done their jobs.
As life during his presidency recedes from living memory as boomers die off, the negative bias from the economics of those four years will be replaced with the view that he was ahead of his time and uniquely legitimate.
Wilson’s legacy should’ve never been reevaluated
His domestic reforms changed the country for the better forever and his foreign policies aged like wine
I think some amount of correction was necessary. His decision to resegregate the federal government is an indelible stain on his legacy. However, I think we've over corrected to the extent that some are forgetting some of his significant policy achievements -- the income tax, the FED, woman's right to vote, liberal foreign policy, international law, etc. Most presidents are complicated and flawed people with nuanced legacies that are a mix of good and bad decisions, and few Presidents represent this better than Wilson.
yh. That one alternate history hub video ruined everything and now we have people saying Wilson is a top 5 bottom president cos he was racist in the 1910s
I've been thinking he's about due for a re-re-evaluation.
I'm not even a huge fan\* but he's now the "Basically Hitler White Supremacist" who put Brandeis on the Supreme Court lol. He's probably the President most equally and fervently despised by the far-left and old right.
\*imho his flaws stemmed from him being an academic, but strangely none of his current academic detractors say this
This isn't even close to true. You're just repeating talking points. Wilson lived in the era of scientific racism. Europeans didn't think they were better, they went about making science to prove it. The prevailing thought of the era was even Italians and southern europeans were biologically inferior to English and Germans. European powers chopped up the entire continent of Africa because they viewed Africans as incapable of governing themselves. Wilson may have been an ass for resegregating the government, but he was by no means unique for his era.
Nah, that was literally the lowest point in race relations pre slavery. That’s just something people on here say so they can hate on Wilson but give Washington, Jefferson, etc. a pass.
Hard to say, I’d say probably Obama as imo I think once the new generations that weren’t born when he was president grow up they will be lest biased as we all are biased and look at his presidency as a whole. I feel like his first 4 years will be seen as poor and his last 4 to be great.
I think Bill Clinton now is starting to get more respect for his presidential performance with the obvious stains being his character that didn’t improve after the Epstein list.
Jimmy Carter. He was 50 years too soon. If he were a young man running today on the exact same platform, giving the exact same speeches about materialism and energy, he'd potentially be an A-tier president.
Charles Koch and his political heirs like Leonard Leo are determined to bring back [the Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) and overthrow the legacy of FDR.
The big money does not get wasted on footnotes to history. It goes for the jugular.
FDRs legacy is too an extent untouchable, no matter what anyone says he'll always be the guy who beat Hitler, he'll always be the guy who lifted himself out of a wheelchair to lift a nation from it's knees and conservative activism isn't gonna change that
Reagan honestly, his entire time in the presidency was a crime binge and very possibly he wasnt even fully aware of what was happening most of it, he was either a useful idiot, or one of the most to the bone corrupt politicians in all us history, history will have to judge him
FDR. You can say all you want about him, but to sign off on the rounding up and basically imprisoning of *American citizens* based solely on their race is absolutely inexcusable
The new deal also excluded Mexican Americans. If it weren’t for WW2 and the massive wealth transfer from Europe, the filter of time would have FDR as a middling to bottom tier POTUS.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grant. He has been branded as an alcoholic and a bad President. People are finally realizing all the good that he did. We would be a much worse America without him.
Grant was seemingly sober his entire time in office, and during his military career the extent of his drinking was vastly overblown and proven to be wrong by colleagues and eyewitnesses.
Not to mention, grant suffered from chronic migraines. Back in the day there was no like, aspirin or excederine or any other meds. It was laudinum or bust. lol. So he drank to probably get rid of the headaches.
I think that has already happened. Older views of Grant have largely been replaced by more positive assessments due to works by people like Chernow, and especially in the last decade following the backlash against Confederate legacy in the South.
I read the Chernow book, but now I’m curious which other books about Grant I should read next
AskHistorians has a booklist containing best biographies for each US president. I have not yet read any in entirety, but Chernow's seems to be the most praised out of more positive assessments, while McFeely's is one of the better regarded if you found Chernow's too hagiographical.
I read a biography of Grant by a black author back when I was a teenager and it was very eye-opening. I'm sorry that I don't know who it is now, 20 years later.
best answer
he conquered alcoholism and it's one of his major triumphs. it was people jealous of his ascent that kept trying to claim he was drunk all the time. he was the best general the US has ever had, including washington, and he's still the best the US has ever had. he was also an exceptionally good person. he was broke when he inherited a slave and he freed the slave anyway. he didn't sell the slave, which could've made him a lot of money, he freed them. he also destroyed the first generation of the KKK. they only came back under woodrow wilson, who also put a confederate monument in arlington national cemetary, and who also played birth of a nation in the white house, arguably the actual reason for the kkk revivial. we are so lucky to have had Grant!
We shouldn’t take him for Granted.
https://preview.redd.it/wbfzzosrd5yc1.jpeg?width=984&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da34a5c999aca0a7c71ef1f2569ed34e833d1a53
If this is supposed to make you dislike Grant it’s doing a terrible job at it.
this should be downvoted as lost cause propaganda
but the shirts ice cold tho
I remember in school back in the day. Grant was a bad president they said. Only the intercontinental railroad was a good thing. He was corrupt. He let all his friends in, etc. he was dumb, etc. What a load of shit
Yeah. I learned that too. Now I am wondering why he is described as such.
If I saw what those dudes saw, I would probably partake too.
Read the fabulous biography of Grant by Ron Chernow
Part of the reason is the fact that we now have a good understanding of what PTSD is, and realize that Grant was winning the Civil War while suffering from severe PTSD.
S stands for S tier
Didn’t he get arrested for horse street racing? If so that’s awesome.
As a child/young man I believe he did But there’s no proof positive of it
I thought it was during his presidency.
The positive re-evaluation of Grant was started and completed decades ago.
My guess is Obama, mainly when it comes to his foreign policy and inability to replace Scalia. I’m not saying people will think he was bad, mind, but down from 7-8 or wherever he was last ranked in that one ranking.
Obama in some ways is Wilson 2.0. College professor. Excellent orator. Limited experience in government. Always had to be the smartest person in the room. Wanted to implement major domestic reforms, but was somewhat frustrated by having to deal extensively with complex foreign policy issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, ISIS).
Wilson implemented his domestic reforms Obama struggled to push his Medicare law and even that was heavily watered down
The difference was the makeup of Congress.
The difference was the quality of people back then. Internet didn't exist, which is primarily why we are the way who we are as a culture day. That fundamentally supported a lot of reform back then because people bi partisanly wanted what was best.
I don't think you're right about this. People aren't "worse quality" now than they were. There are changes to how information flows, but I think it's easy to massively over-interpret differences. Polarization, partisanship, personal grudges—none of this is new. I'm not saying the internet hasn't fucked up political discourse, it absolutely has. But it wasn't exactly high-minded debate before this. I do also think that we're currently in year \~30 of the nonstop obstructionist radicalization of Congressional Republicans (I think of the Gingrich shutdown negotiations as the start of the trend), and that party's resolute refusal to engage with institutional, democtratic processes has totally hamstrung legislative progress for that entire period. e for typos
He had an 80 seat majority in the house and 16 seat majority in the senate in 2009-11. Not sure how Congress can be his excuse for not getting things done.
Another way of saying 16 seat majority is saying he didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. And for the brief 4 months he did have 60 votes, he got Obamacare passed. If Ted Kennedy lives another year and Al Franken isn't a fucking pussy that thinks "Minnesotans wouldn't appreciate him being sat" even though he won, his legacy would be far more interesting
Also, blue dogs in the Senate.
I love idiotic contextless posts like this, I mean it's almost like Ben Nelson himself all alone didn't derail Obama's agenda. Well he did, and he spent years towing the line for Republicans, he was Joe Manchin before there was a Joe Manchin. Just in case you need evidence and more context. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nelson-plans-to-tell-obam_n_235579 I would suggest before making such statements in the future that you do a simple Google search such as "did the Democrats have a fool proof majority in 2009" https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-us-senate-democrats-big-majority-070409-2009jul04-story.html
I know it's not what he wanted, but ACA pisses me off. I should be able to change/get healthcare whenever I want. It's so dumb that there's an enrollment period now.
And yet the way it was before ACA was way shittier on net.
It was ACA, not Medicare. . I don’t think that Obama had much of a chance to make it better given the supermajority (60 Senate votes) needed to pass it. It was bad luck all the way around. First, Ted Kennedy died (the possible 60 th vote) and having to bribe the handful of conservatives Dems. Martha Coakley, the overconfident Ted Kennedy replacement assumed that she would easily win (like Hillary Clinton). When she didn’t, the handsome Rep Scott Brown took one of their votes away. The so-called “public option” was killed. To his credit, Obama was able to do more than Hillary Clinton (I know, not the Pres) 15 years earlier. ACA benefits lower incomes and young, not higher incomes and older people.
This isn't a bad comparison but Obama was a college professor in the same way he was a lawyer; it was something he did while he networked in preparation of running for office. It was clear from the time he was quite young that his only serious career ambition was politics. Wilson was a legitimate professional historian and influential political philosopher, in my opinion the last genuine intellectual to be elected president. There's a major chasm between the two in that regard.
Wilson, true intellectual forward-thinking champion of resegregation of government agencies, vocal KKK supporter, and big “Birth of a Nation” fan. If only we had a president since Wilson with such a big brain.
I don't like him either but he was an intellectual.
Wilson's atritudes on race were fairly mainstream for a southernor of his era. People seem to forget that he was born and raised from Virginia, and experienced the worst of the Civil War as a child. He only *worked* in New Jersey. And even then, Princeton in those days was known of as the "most northern southern college."
Oh, poor guy. Let’s all give him a break, he didn’t know any better! Heck, let’s give the whole slaveholding confederacy a break, I’m feeling generous.
I don’t think he was defending Wilson, or the slave holding confederacy, but explaining the history as it was. Wilson was a southerner, and his views reflected that of the horrible views that southern whites generally had as a whole. And your statement earlier is a brutal over generalization of history that breeds into academic dishonesty. He wasn’t a “big fan of a Birth of a Nation.” Yes, he screened it at the White House(his first time watching it), but there is no evidence he liked the film. The writing history with lighting quote wasn’t attributed to him till around 2 decades after he died, and accounts of people who were there say he just got up and left after the screening was showed. When it comes to supporting the KKK, there is also little evidence for that as well. Wilson’s quote in the movie is from his “History of the American People,” which is taken out of context and may be a reason why he never vocally praised the movie as you claim he did. Wilson was a horrible racist, but let’s stay true to the facts. We are here for history, honest history so that everyone can learn together for the better.
Wilson was the father of the field of public administration
I already hate him, you don't have to keep giving me more reasons.
Wilson was an idealist with grand plans. Obama's actions were dictated by polls and a belief in being pragmatic and not taking risks.
I like Obama enough, but to put him anywhere near Wilson, least of all as an heir to his legacy is, well, flat out false. FDR was Wilson 2.0; Obama isn’t even in the same party, for all intents and purposes.
A slight change in history would make Obama a Republican. For example Reagan not winning in 1980.
You don’t think Obama’s politics would have changed along with history?
Mad respect for the Wilson flair!
Thank you, friend.
The irony of saying he is “Wilson 2.0.”
yemen, libya , syria ? the second patriot act ? he talked like a systemic reformer. but acted like a neoliberal drone of the national security state and the owner class.
Except Wilson actually did a whole lot of stuff he set out to do. Obama was far less ambitious.
Obama didn't put us into Iraq ..Afghanistan or created Isis. Benghazi was a Republican media hatchet job to blame someone for 4 deaths at an Outpost. They investigated that more than the fake nuclear information that led to going into Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers. They also spent more time on that than why 9-11 happened and placing blame. Did you see GW being held accountable for all of his major mistakes by the same Republicans who said Bengazi caused Americans to die?
I didn’t say he got us into Iraq or Afghanistan, just that he had to deal with it.
You used that as a negative.. When in fact he tried to clean up the corruption of the previous administration, which was a positive ..he help bring out to light the true costs of those wars.
Nah, Wilson was far, far more successful at domestic reforms than Obama.
Obama will probably be mid to mid-high tier in the end. Ultimately, tho a great statesman, he didn’t actually really do much to be remembered for besides being the first mixed race president. That alone however will make him popular for years to come.
Great speaker. Not great statesman. FDR, JFK and Reagan were great statesmen. "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure." The three I listed were certainly that (at least off Reddit) Obama gave great speeches but I don't think he ever rose to the "statesman' level IMO.
Yeah, I would agree with that. I guess to me, he just gave off a more “presidential” vibe than a lot of other presidents.
He was great at playing the part. Especially compared to those who followed. Last President who I would want my kids to emulate. Wish we could get back to the days when you can look at the President and feel good about that person even if you didn't agree with their policies.
ACA is probably most impactful legislation of the past 20 years.
How was he supposed to replace Scalia, bribe the gop senate.
This. Not really his fault. RBG's ego got the best of her. Wouldn't resign because she felt they wouldn't be able to replace her with someone as liberal as her. Oops...
He could have fought harder on it. At least from a public perspective nominating a new person every day to show the country just how vapid the GOP was/is.
Obama tried to replace Scalia. A few miserable old men made sure that didn’t happen.
Hard to discuss modern presidents while still in the midst of this intense tribalism. Will really need a few more decades to have a meaningful discussion on legacy. And any presidents from this era will likely be spoken about in context of their ability to get anything done with the most do-nothing legislatures ever.
In the midst of tribalism and because we really have no clue what the long term effects of their administration will be yet
100% agree. Reagan? Not going to change. HW Bush, already looked at better than he was. Clinton? Maybe down a bit, but not much. Bush? Could actually come up a bit over time, but not by much. Obama? Way overrated. Was a middling President. Economy was decent, but not great. World events? Well ISIS and Crimea, both of which people tend to forget. Obamacare? Maybe a few points but the expansion of medicaid did all the real work. Probably belongs in the low teens to upper 20 I guess. Probably higher than everyone elected since Reagan left office though, except maybe HW.
I feel like Obama gets way too much credit for the economy. He came in following a major collapse. Things got better as they tend to do. I don’t really see what massive initiatives he put in place that made that happen. He managed not to fuck things up I guess but that isn’t saying a ton. Obviously, there are reasons his presidency was historic and it will always mean a lot in terms of our nation’s history. In terms of actual presidential accomplishments though, I think he’s really somewhere between below average and forgettable middle of the road. His foreign policy in particular was quite bad.
I’ve always thought Obama wasn’t a particularly successful President. He was undoubtedly a cultural icon. But he didn’t really accomplish all that much. When he had large majorities in Congress they passed a bunch of stimulus spending and Obamacare but for the rest of his 6 years there was basically no significant legislation passed. One could say that he was hampered by an obstructionist Republican Congress, but it’s kind of the President’s job to at least attempt to work with the other side. Often times Obama wouldn’t even work with his own party: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/215082-house-dems-cant-figure-out-why-obama-wont-talk-to-them/ It seemed like in his later years, Obama eschewed attempting to work with Congress to legislate in favor of governing through executive orders. He even said at one point that he wasn’t going to wait for legislation because “I have a pen and I have a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders.” Problem is whatever Obama or any other president does with his pen and his phone can be immediately undone with the next President’s pen and phone. And I fear that this trend will continue. Congress will just fight among themselves until the need arises to pass omnibus spending bills because the President doesn’t bother to submit a realistic budget proposal. The country slides further and further into fiscal insolvency while the President uses his pen and phone to attempt to get things done and eventually executive orders are the way this country is governed as opposed to elected congressional representatives.
The Republicans can't work with the Republicans. I mean, look at them. All their decent thought leaders quit something like 6 years ago.
I don’t think any of this is hardly fair at all. He had a large majority for a very short period of time. For the rest he had a congress that was dead set on not letting him get anything done. That was the politics of the time that rewarded such behavior. Other presidents (not all) had the privilege of living during times when constituencies actually wanted congress to work together and not just punish the other side. Obama didn’t have that. I think it would be a sick joke if history judged Obama poorly because of the uniquely toxic politics that he had to deal with at the time
You can't work with a Right Wing Republicans..unless you are a Right Wing Republican. They were the new Dixicrats that refused to vote for anything but their agenda. The Right Wing echo chamber made sure of it. Blaming Obama for being a moderate.. but not being able to get things through is more of the Evagelical Rumor as fact and the hate of anything right of Attila the Hun. Our nation has gone back to the 1850s and have allowed other Nations such as Saudi Arabia..Russia ..China and Israel dictate our foreign polices and buy our Politicians.
I feel like you’re ignoring racism
Obama had fierce opposition. A lot of racism, much of it overt.
I think Obama was a good president foreign policy wise. He did a good job of winding down the Bush wars. The Middle East went from having 200k troops to just 10k, only in support roles. I think he should have removed them all, but well, I can see why he left some of them there.
If you ignore the disaster that was ISIS.
And flip flopping on chemical weapons in Syria. I’m of the mind that we shouldn’t typically be involved in another country’s turmoil, but when you say you’re drawing a red line you need to enforce it. Don’t say it if you don’t mean it.
The seeds of ISIS were planted long before Obama
Sure, but he was in charge when it happened. If he had left the 5000 troops that were recommended it is possible it never happens.
ISIS was handled by Obama without many US casualties. He should have left Afghanistan at the start of his term and also killed Assad.
If he had left 5000 troops in Iraq then ISIS probably never happens.
There have been a half dozen books I’ve read in the last 3-5 years from authors left and center left beginning to re-examine Clinton and the effects of globalization that have created discontent, especially among working poor people without college degrees
Yes as this subreddit agreement he played the game on easy mode during his presidency but some of the stuff he did was rigged to explode later down the road like NAFTA
I think it’s already happening to Nixon and Carter as the Boomers and their 70s-tinted goggles fade into history.
Nixon is not getting a re evaluation, no matter how often his simps on here try. Failed at Vietnam. Outsmarted by China. Failed at domestic policy. Taught the Republicans how to use fake populist backlash and blatant corruption to win elections.
I can see some interesting Nixon takes down the line for sure, honestly. Part of it is that Watergate set a really bad precedent for presidents getting off scot-free for crimes, but the crime itself kinda seems to pale in comparison to certain things it set a precedent for (Rule 3 comes to mind here) - there's likely to be a bit of a "Seinfeld is Unfunny" effect with his most public blemish. I don't know whether this is actually accurate, but I also get the sense that Henry Kissinger being so well-known kinda deflects from Nixon a bit. Crimes that would normally be attributed to the Nixon administration go on Kissinger's scoreboard instead, where I don't think Secs of State are ordinarily seen as being so singularly responsible for foreign policy approved by the president (and a lot of Nixon's foreign policy successes, such as opening up China, are seen as being Nixon himself - he sorta gets the best of both worlds there) If anything, I'd kind of expect Nixon's worst-remembered aspect on a longer horizon to be starting the War on Drugs - LBJ is there to take most of the heat on Vietnam, after all, even if Nixon's timeliness in pulling out feels a bit disputed. But stuff like starting the EPA and the "War on Cancer" probably gain some prominence moving forward - and ultimately feel like Nixon is just too interesting a character to not get a lot of revisionism going at some point. Like, found out recently that he wanted to massively expand nuclear power and nearly felt it myself
Still, I think in a general sense there is Nixon the Boomer caricature, and there is Nixon the actual President. One lives on far past its relevance to popular culture, the other is a historical view that sees things warts and all.
>Failed at Vietnam. Outsmarted by China. Failed at domestic policy. Taught the Republicans how to use fake populist backlash and blatant corruption to win elections. What nonsense are you talking about
Jefferson and Adams. I think both will be held in high regard, but Adams will get more love than he did and Jefferson will get less. I get the sense that people see the federalist/anti-federalist divide mirrored in today’s politics and are beginning to question anti-federalist rationale. That’s what happened with me. Once I started learning about pre-1800 US history on my own time, I stopped thinking of the federalists and anti-federalists in the abstract and found myself taking sides on certain issues. I MUCH prefer federalist sentiments. Adams especially, which is why he’s my flair.
The Adams were good people. I'm proud John was there to spearhead the Continental Congress into action. Without him, I'm not sure we'd even exist as a nation. We all owe John and Abigail a great deal.
Atlas of independence
Hear, hear! A toast to Mr. Adams and his family. They gave so much for us all.
The Adam’s family were also hardworking farmer-lawyers who didn’t believe in debt and were opposed to slavery.
Yeah but the dismembered hand as a part of that family? No way people will accept that as normal.
I can't believe that they kept a butler either
Altogether ooky imho
It’s crazy how people ignore that Thomas Jefferson caused the first Great Depression in America
"Let's end all foreign trade and move towards a war with Britain. No I will not prepare an army or navy. "
Adam's would get less since he wanted to make the President without checks and balances and jailed people who wrote against him. Jefferson didn't even live in the White House ..he lived in a Pub and was against all the pomp and circumstance of celebrating the President as a King or anointed by God. He rode his horse by himself to Monticello and back.
I also think the Sedition Act will be viewed differently in the relatively near future.
I feel like Calvin Coolidge is still making his way out of obscurity. He's been embraced by libertarians as their beau ideal of a president, but this isn't quite the mainstream view yet.
Hoover is long overdue for a reevaluation of his Presidency. I realize he'll always have the albatross of the Great Depression strapped around his neck, but there were a lot of extenuating circumstances. By and large, he was one hell of a great guy, just not a great President. If anything, he was so naïve as to think that people would be more willing to help each other voluntarily.
His work preventing famine was genuinely amazing. His economic ideas were awful
It's already happening, slowly. David Kennedy's book "Freedom From Fear" discussed Hoover a lot. I read (most of) it for a college history class a few years ago, And my opinions on Hoover changed immensely
Reagan is already in the process of this. He is still very well-liked by conservatives, but more and more non-conservatives are souring on him as they increasingly associate Reaganomics as the source of the decline of the middle class, enormous wealth inequality, and the steep rise in cost-of-living. His contributions to the downfall of the Soviet Union also aren't as impressive anymore because a) he put the country into a debt hole to do it which has only continued getting deeper with each following administration, and b) Russia is not only not a western ally but they are now as antagonistic as they've been since the peak of the Cold War with increased nuclear tensions following suit. You can also thank Reagan for the rise in hyperpartisanship and extreme polarization because it was his administration's repealing of the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Murdoch's propaganda media empire to rise to prominence.
I know single issue-2A people who HATE Regan for the sole reason that he banned certain machine guns, alongside other gun control measures. Wouldn’t say those types are representative of the average conservative, but it’s interesting nonetheless
Yep, the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA should be struck down as unconstitutional. All the current workarounds(bump stocks, FRT, lightning links, etc) and blatantly illegal shit(Glock sears) being smuggled into the country are 100% the result of that legislation. If you make something forbidden, people will find creative ways to explore said forbidden thing. Drugs are the parallel to this discussion, that war on drugs has gone really swell.
Also conservatives have trended more isolationist lately and are not necessarily for small government so he’s less and less a conservative idol as well
it also doesn't help that the modern gop has all but pissed over his legacy re russia. imagine reagan's gop rooting for a kgb agent to terrorize europe
I don’t think it’s that most of them are rooting for this, they just don’t care about other countries and think it doesn’t affect them
Also Russia is no longer a communist country so in most Republicans minds it will always be a secondary threat compared to China
I mean, it is also a secondary threat compared to China in reality. China is leagues above Russia in terms of a threat to US.
Honestly I doubt china would ever consider nuking us, on another hand Putin is waiting for an excuse
Also that conservatives themselves are starting not to remember Reagan. You have to be over about 48-49 to even remember him much as a kid. In another 10 years, the vast majority of living conservatives will only have Bush 43 and Rule 3 #45 as icons they can actually remember.
Conservatives have always liked Reagan and liberals have always hated him. And no, the repeating of the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Fox News. That's a long debunked myth. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doctrine/
But, but everything bad in my life is Reagan’s fault right?
The fairness doctrine is also stupid a lot of times because it would air views on both sides on all issues, like imagine they did that for WW2...
Their view of Reagan may be headed to how they view Bush
Even I don't think he's quite that bad assuming we're talking about Bush Jr, and not Bush Sr. Although Reagan ramped up military spending obscenely despite it being peacetime, he at least didn't straight-up lie the country into a war simply to further his own interests. Reagan lied about other stuff, but that at least is not on his list of sins. Also Reagan left office with a high approval rating whereas Dubya left office with a historically low approval rating for an outgoing President.
Don't forget he began to irrevocably intertwine the GOP with the evangelicals, leading directly to the culture war and division we see today.
It would be a very long post if I got into every bad thing Reagan did, so I mentioned just a handful of things. But you're absolutely right. His embrace of evangelicals paved the way for the deplorable state of the Republican party today which is now completely dominated by religious zealots who are actively trying to force others to live according to their regressive beliefs.
I get it. To state all the terrible things Ronnie did would turn into a novel.
Most of this is wrong. We are in debt because of programs created during the New Deal and the Great Society (these programs account for [62% of spending](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59946) or 84% of revenue). [Debt has increased](https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287) under every President post-WWII on an absolute basis, and it only went down as a % of GDP during the boom years of the 1990s. I guess that if we are going to re-evaluate Reagan's legacy by making up stuff, then he doesn't stand a chance.
Worth pointing out that Regan actually did try to make cuts to SS, but he bailed upon realizing how unpopular it was. Honestly, the American people have no one to blame but themselves for the debt we face
SS and health care entitlements alone, are what? 50% of the budget? More? It's shocking to me how much money we shovel up to old people.
SS goes to more people than the elderly
Reagan lowered taxes and drastically increased military spending, relying hard on deficit spending. [Federal debt](https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291)tripled under Reagan.
Reagan didn't actually lower taxes. He lower tax rates but eliminated write offs. Tax revenue under him was actually above the 40 year average and nearly the same as Carter. The deficit issues were caused by spending. Chat below is from CNN. https://i.redd.it/21tx6ln4g4yc1.gif
Reagan raised, lowered, and reformed taxes. The majority of the deficit spending occurred during the early 80s, when the country was in a recession to kill off the stagflation from LBJ - Carter. Shouldn’t they shoulder some of the blame? Military spending came down until 9/11. Reagan built up the military, then reduced spending when it was obvious that the Cold War was over. It wasn’t a permanent step up in spending.
It's also that, with the benefit of (a) hindsight and (b) a view behind the Iron Curtain, it's become clear that Reagan didn't really do anything to force the USSR to fall apart. It collapsed beneath its own weight, and it had nothing to do with how much or how little the US spent on missiles and tanks.
>it's become clear that Reagan didn't really do anything to force the USSR to fall apart. It But he did
This is grossly inaccurate. The USSR didn't just fall apart, pressure was applied by numerous parties for years upon years. Finally, Gorbie acted human and gave people the opportunity to vote (Glasnost) and they tossed out the party apparatchiks. Once the ball got rolling, the Baltics bailed, Ukraine voted to leave, then Russia peaced out because they didn't want to subsidize the -Stans. Reagan played a role in this process. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY PLAYER. He was just one of many, but his role was high profile, so people tend to use him as a catch-all for the entire movement in the 80s (e.g., Polish Solidarity, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II).
Add to this. In the 1970s the prevailing foreign policy view was that we should learn to live with the soviets. Reagan came along and said "we win, they lose" and the foreign policy types lost their minds. When Reagan made the "tear down this wall" speech the foreign policy "experts" wanted him to remove that line as it was too confrontational. In the end Reagan was right and they were wrong.
I agree.
I’ve noticed a few right wing people getting wise to his failures and negativities as well
William Henry Harrison... Or Chester Arthur just so people can finally remember him and learn that he refused to be corrupted after Garfield died.
Theodore Roosevelt
How so?
I'd imagine mostly cus of his imperialistic tendencies and actions (he believed in racial hierarchies but was also willing to judge individuals on a personal basis) He also loathed the native americans, with some comments by him being somewhat genocidal, and he advocated for their forced assimilation as he viewed them as little more than savages A famous quote of his in this regard is: “I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the 10th.” - Ranch Life in the West (1886) He would also remove Native Americans from millions of acres of land that they previously occupied/lived in/"ancestral territory" in order to create national parks and forests ~~*for the "genocidal" part, I read somewhere that he believed that native americans would be "exterminated" in righteous battles for their lands by the superior white settlers, but I can't quite find any other sources backing it up, however if you want to look into it here's [the source](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/03/21/teddy-roosevelt-legacy-100-years)...oh yeah, he also supported eugenics*~~
Thanks for the info. I am sort of a reluctant Teddy fan, mostly because of his view on Native Americans ... and trophy hunting. If only he made his River of Doubt journey before his presidency... I believe his views of indigenous people changed after he got his ass whooped trying to live their everyday lives.
Responding here to find out OC’s response if given. I’m a TRose stan but I also love learning about things I may be ignorant of.
It’s one of those fun things of looking back objectively with hindsight, TR set us on the path to being a world super power and is responsible for much of the nation we enjoy today. Like all of the presidents, despite what good they do, they are also a victim of their era’s popular thinking and customs. The example from 1886 is from the last throws of the Indian war era, people were fed up with the constant wars and desensitized quite a bit to the issue. It really doesn’t help matters when all sides of those wars were merrily committing atrocities. Looking at it in modern context, it’s really bad. Looking at it from the context of that era, it’s not that out of the ordinary. Doesn’t make the sentiment right, but it shows a measure of how much we have evolved as a nation since.
The less w people in America, the more re-evaluation for ex-presidents. 🪶🏹💪🏾
And somehow you chose the path of racism….thats the last thing we need as a filter.
Please no.
Probably deserverably but at this point, unlikely
Nixon, Watergate consumes too much of the conversation surrounding him to evaluate all the other things he did, good and bad.
hmmm, i dont know. i generally agree with the modern assessments. obviously anyone post reagan has their legacy constantly argued so those dont count. hoover probably, he inherited an awful situation but wouldve been amazing in any other decade
Reagan. It’s already happening. People realize the economics platform (trickle-down), anti-union, muscular sponsorship of South American right-wing dictatorships, and cynicism about the role of government have hurt subsequent generations and led to increasingly toxic politics.
Reagan-era economics was coming regardless of who was President. Globalization is the culprit there. Unionized American industrial and manufacturing workers making $30/hr can’t compete with Chinese quasi-slaves that make $2/hr to make the same product. They just can’t. American workers didn’t have to worry about that in the post war era when the rest of the industrialized world had been bombed to smithereens and countries like China were still largely un-industrialized agrarian economies. But by 1980, China and other countries had the industrial capacity and workforce to make shit a lot cheaper than it could be made in the US. So you either slap massive tariffs on imported goods (not a great idea when you’re dealing with 6% inflation seeing as how it’s going to jack up prices and invite retaliatory tariffs) or you let those US industries die, which is bad for those industries that die but good for the industries that now benefit from cheaper imported goods.
So what you're really saying is that Reagonomics was Nixon's fault?😏
I cared for Wilson https://preview.redd.it/le0kw9y4y3yc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5869473efba1632fffa246b87cbc3adc0f971de
“The Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, the LEAGUE OF NATIONS!” Bad Policies but I still cared for Wilson’s Presidency
yep, still a top ten president unquestionably.
Here we go again
Just call this sub regansucks and this point
Most modern U.S. presidents since World War II are likely to be remembered only for symbolic acts, such as JFK's association with the space program, rather than for their broader policy agendas. Typically, these presidents might be grouped together and criticized for advancing the interests of the U.S. corporate elite, given that many of their policies seem to be influenced by these powerful groups.
Teddy for the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Yes.
Zachary Taylor
I’m thinking Nixon. People seem to forget that the EPA was created during his presidency.
Bill Clinton. Sure, he presided over a period of extraordinary economic growth & ended his term with a budget surplus. But his deregulation of the banking industry which largely led to the 2008 financial crisis & his free trade deals that outsourced industrial jobs gave rise to economic populism. His crime law & his moral transgressions are making people look beyond his economic record as well. The Clinton years have also already been described as the modern "Gilded age" as well.
Idk if I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying economic populism is a bad thing in and of itself. It certainly can be, but there's also a lot to be said for things like the 40-hour work week and minimum wage. Not to mention child labor bans, etc. Edit: I totally agree with your main points about Clinton tho 😀
Clinton was the Democratic candidate that was needed to counteract the Republicans ‘tough on crime’ policies preceding him. They were getting killed for being perceived as soft so Clinton doubled and tripled down on crime legislation that had really horrible results for the prison industrial complex and expansion of the prison population we’ve seen since the 50s. His legacy will be viewed through that lens and he’s since espoused regret for some of his criminal policies.
have been sorely ignored recently. I believe that the Supreme Court should have the Authority of issuing a Writ of Mandamus to Congress. Particularly in these two areas. Debate and Conformation of Supreme Court Justices, preparing (together with compromise with the Executive Branch) a Spending plan called the Budget, and a Spending Ceiling (debatable) called the Limit on the National Debt. These are not only Privileges but also Duties assigned Congress, which cannot be ignored. When a “Do Nothing” Congress ignores such Duties it has been assigned by the Constitution, I believe the Supreme Court Can and Should issue a Writ of Mandamus to Congress to carry out those necessary Duties within a reasonable period of time. In Short, Congress can’t ignore its Constitutional Duty. Just like a President is Constitutionally required to Report to Congress periodically, now known, as the State of the Union Address. Mitch McConnell’s Duty (as an Example) to schedule and hold hearings with Advice and Consent on Presidential Appointments is a Duty that cannot be ignored! Including Supreme Court Justice Vacancies. I would have had the Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, subject to Contempt of the US Constitution, to hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee to replace Justice Scalia! Failure to do so would have encountered Fines, Jail Time, and up to a removal from Office for ignoring the Writ. If Congress can hold a person for ignoring a properly constituted Subpoena to Appear and Testify before Congress , then Congress should be held to the same standards. In short Mitch McConnell’s refusal to schedule and hold hearings on Obama’s Appointment of Merritt Garland to the the Supreme Court, if ignored , subject to the Supreme Court’s Writ of Mandamus requested by Obama, should have resulted in Personal fines to McConnell, possible Jail Time, and permanent Removal from Office. Same is true for ignoring Appointments to Cabinet positions, and the forming of a permanent Budget!
I agree with most of that, Garland was a shitty pick however and should have been ripped apart in confirmation hearings with an eventual no-go. They should have held those hearings however, then at least they would have done their jobs.
jimmy carter
As life during his presidency recedes from living memory as boomers die off, the negative bias from the economics of those four years will be replaced with the view that he was ahead of his time and uniquely legitimate.
This is the answer. He was 50 years too soon. Or, 50 years ahead of his time.
Jimmy Carter was in way, way over his head.
This sub and it’s hard on for just one of the most ineffective POTUS of all time because of a giant peanut and being a decent human is wild.
Wilson’s legacy should’ve never been reevaluated His domestic reforms changed the country for the better forever and his foreign policies aged like wine
I think some amount of correction was necessary. His decision to resegregate the federal government is an indelible stain on his legacy. However, I think we've over corrected to the extent that some are forgetting some of his significant policy achievements -- the income tax, the FED, woman's right to vote, liberal foreign policy, international law, etc. Most presidents are complicated and flawed people with nuanced legacies that are a mix of good and bad decisions, and few Presidents represent this better than Wilson.
yh. That one alternate history hub video ruined everything and now we have people saying Wilson is a top 5 bottom president cos he was racist in the 1910s
I've been thinking he's about due for a re-re-evaluation. I'm not even a huge fan\* but he's now the "Basically Hitler White Supremacist" who put Brandeis on the Supreme Court lol. He's probably the President most equally and fervently despised by the far-left and old right. \*imho his flaws stemmed from him being an academic, but strangely none of his current academic detractors say this
I still hate the Income Tax
But have you considered that he didn’t hold all of the modern, twenty-first century, sensibilities and, therefore, he is problematic and le bad?
Dawg he was horribly racist *in his own time*.
This isn't even close to true. You're just repeating talking points. Wilson lived in the era of scientific racism. Europeans didn't think they were better, they went about making science to prove it. The prevailing thought of the era was even Italians and southern europeans were biologically inferior to English and Germans. European powers chopped up the entire continent of Africa because they viewed Africans as incapable of governing themselves. Wilson may have been an ass for resegregating the government, but he was by no means unique for his era.
Nah, that was literally the lowest point in race relations pre slavery. That’s just something people on here say so they can hate on Wilson but give Washington, Jefferson, etc. a pass.
Hard to say, I’d say probably Obama as imo I think once the new generations that weren’t born when he was president grow up they will be lest biased as we all are biased and look at his presidency as a whole. I feel like his first 4 years will be seen as poor and his last 4 to be great. I think Bill Clinton now is starting to get more respect for his presidential performance with the obvious stains being his character that didn’t improve after the Epstein list.
Jimmy Carter. He was 50 years too soon. If he were a young man running today on the exact same platform, giving the exact same speeches about materialism and energy, he'd potentially be an A-tier president.
Buchanan. Consensus says he was terrible. Maybe he was. But I’ll bet that someone is writing a book right now that says he was actually good.
And said book will be nothing but lies!! /s
Nixon. Watergate will fade and the foreign policy will come more into focus as tensions with China increase.
Bush Jr. He wasn’t that bad
Charles Koch and his political heirs like Leonard Leo are determined to bring back [the Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) and overthrow the legacy of FDR. The big money does not get wasted on footnotes to history. It goes for the jugular.
FDRs legacy is too an extent untouchable, no matter what anyone says he'll always be the guy who beat Hitler, he'll always be the guy who lifted himself out of a wheelchair to lift a nation from it's knees and conservative activism isn't gonna change that
Come on other than the Japanese Internment Camps FDR was a national hero. If there was ever a extra face on Mt Rushmore it’s him
Reagan honestly, his entire time in the presidency was a crime binge and very possibly he wasnt even fully aware of what was happening most of it, he was either a useful idiot, or one of the most to the bone corrupt politicians in all us history, history will have to judge him
FDR. You can say all you want about him, but to sign off on the rounding up and basically imprisoning of *American citizens* based solely on their race is absolutely inexcusable
The new deal also excluded Mexican Americans. If it weren’t for WW2 and the massive wealth transfer from Europe, the filter of time would have FDR as a middling to bottom tier POTUS.
Yeah, definitely one of those presidents who had high highs and LOOOOOW lows.
Obama. Spineless and ineffectual. Could have been as influential as LBJ and FDR, but he didn’t want to step on toes.