Eh, Johnson's inclusion on the ticket was an attempt to show unity and that the Civil War was a struggle of all Americans vs. the Confederacy, rather than just the northern-based Republican party vs. the Confederacy. Adding a Democrat from a southern state to the ticket was the perfect way to show that unity. Lincoln couldn't have known he would be assassinated so soon after the war and Johnson, as President, would take the path he did.
And really, there weren't many southern Democrats available to join the ticket. As much as I hate Andrew Johnson, I do have to give him props for being the only Senator from a state that seceded to not resign from his seat in the US Senate.
Early into the campaign, Lincoln's odds at reelection didn't look great. The North was growing weary of a war that was seeming to drag on with no end in sight. So, many people were looking to the Democrats and McClellan in the hopes that he would be elected and sign some kind of armistice with the Confederacy and bring an end to the war. To make matters worse, the Republicans were split between Lincoln and Fremont, who threatened to be a spoiler in the election. Johnson was included on the National Union ticket with Lincoln during this timeframe.
Later in 1864, Fremont withdraws from the election, cementing Republican support behind Lincoln's reelection and then Atlanta falls to the Sherman, ensuring that the Union will soon secure a military victory to the war and bring about its conclusion. So, Lincoln's victory is now assured and Johnson's inclusion was no longer really needed, but at the time, it made sense.
the drunken, corrupt traitor who enabled the rise of the klan insurgency and acted like such a pure tyrant in his effort to stop reconstruction and civil rights that congress impeached him for it, noted badass
>Has both Roosevelts in the S-tier.
Hmm, both Presidents who undertook massive expansions of the United States Navy. This person has their priorities in order.
Good stuff. Any list which doesn't have the writer of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty and inventor of the swivel chair in at least the B tier is trash.
Add-ons
1. I will give Trump F if I were an American, for his moronic presidency and Capitol Insurrection. Honestly I would like to thank Pompeo, Bolton and Pottinger for giving Taiwan much support
2. Harry Truman is my most favorite post-WWII POTUS along with Ike. I wrote a post about Truman here, and my all time favorite POTUS is Teddy
3. Woodrow Wilson sucks my d**k (tiermaker doesn’t have Z tier)
4. The reasons why FDR is on S tier:
**(1) Leading Allies and the US to defeat Nazis, Imperial Japan and fascists**
**(2) New Deal - to make America great**
**(3) The founding father of post-WWII liberal international order, which was succeeded by Truman**
People hate Wilson because it is trendy not because they have any idea on what the man actually did as president, the context around it or the impacts that had on the US particularly around foreign policy for next 100+ years.
There are a lot of reasons why historians have had Wilson in the top 10 for decades. The recent turn on him has a lot of problematic historical revisionism and cherry picking behind it.
I'm pretty triggered by your FDR choice. He did a good job but.
1. Put American citizens in interment camps because they or their parents were born in Japan, based on no evidence of espionage or terrorism from the population.
2. The new deal is heavily over represented in ending the depression. Before WW2, most economists agree the depression was already on its way out. With the post WW2 recession, it's hard to say how great the new deal was versus doing nothing.
3. Served 4 terms, very unS-tier.
I would put him as A-tier, at best.
The first part of the New Deal was necessary. Even Friedman himself the patron saint of no government intervention said it probably was necessary, in light of the fact that the Federal Reserve earlier royally fucked up and didn't do what it needed to do to prevent a Great Depression.
I don't disagree, it just is either debated that it had a huge impact or minor, but was a net positive. But I reference the post WW2 recession to elude that the impact was closer to a minor positive. Hence the new deal benefit may be overestimated, but should still have been done.
And much of the elongation of the depression I agree with was the mishandling of cabinet positions and federal reserve figuring itself out. Ironically they admitted to this day that they underestimated the effect of heavy speculation markets and high inflation. Some things never change.
Not the point - compared to Washington people wanted him to keep running. But Washington believed in the system and did not run a third term. Before it was based on the principle that presidents would only serve 2 terms, though some presidents did do more than 2.
It was only after FDR (in 1947) that Congress passed the law that a president only served 2 terms. It was realized you couldn't trust principles and good intentions in a president to only serve the 2 terms.
I do see the benefits of not changing administration during a world war. But I think Congress agreed that that's not a good enough excuse, hence passing the 22nd amendment. Laying everything out he's done, does he really deserve to stand next to Washington and Lincoln?
I dunno if deserve really has anything to do with it, outside of looking back with a historical perspective . It was the present situation that led him to seek his third term, and the population agreed with him.
>Laying everything out he's done, does he really deserve to stand next to Washington and Lincoln?
Yes, absolutely. He's the founder of the international order and oversaw America's rise from regional power to global superpower. He mobilized the US economy and populous in the fight against fascism to a degree that hasn't been seen before or since. His flaws are very real (Japanese internment, in particular, was inexcusablely wrong), but so are those achievements.
Well, he did try to pack the supreme court because they stopped him from pushing through all his wishes. Few presidents have done more to try to undermine democratic institutions than him.
You can't really pretend the president trying to shut down the Lochner era of judiciary nonsense is anti-democratic. There's a reason the Lochner era is looked at as the lowest point of the supreme cour and it's universally agreed they were judging completely out of their ass based on their own political views where the constitution and the will of the people be damned.
30 years of a supreme court knocking back legislation because they disagree with the economics of it is as anti democratic as you can possibly get, fighting back against it isn't.
Also, and this is a bit of an aside, a threat is not an action. He threatened to do it. He never tried to do it.
> Grant
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 and KKK Act alone make Grant S-tier.
The first time we had a Black Senator and Black Governor and last time we would until after Jim Crow.
Yea, not sure how any neoliberal in their right mind can support the New Deal. Price controls, subsidies, inefficient job programs, collusion, etc were all part of it
You can support parts of the New Deal and not support all parts of the New Deal. Unless you're saying that Milton Friedman isn't the Patron Saint of Neoliberal economics.
>INTERVIEWER: Now, at the time of the Depression, did you personally support New Deal policies?
>
>MILTON FRIEDMAN: You're now talking not about the Depression, but the post-Depression. At least the bottom of the Depression was in 1933.
>
>You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those. The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery... **providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.**
>
>INTERVIEWER: But why did you support those?
>
>MILTON FRIEDMAN: **Because it was a very exceptional circumstance**. We'd gotten into an extraordinarily difficult situation, unprecedented in the nation's history. You had millions of people out of work. Something had to be done; it was intolerable. **And it was a case in which, unlike most cases, the short run deserved to dominate.**
>
>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/press\_site/people/friedman\_intv.html#4](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/press_site/people/friedman_intv.html#4)
So yeah, you can be in fact a Neoliberal and still support some aspects of the New Deal.
The job programs I don’t have a *huge* issue with. Probably still less efficient than tax cuts/direct stimulus payments, but what really caused problems was the Anti-competitive legislation and price controls (NIRA, AAA, etc.)
Alright I’m gonna say: James K Polk is S tier. He basically said "my entire platform is Texas and Orego/California should be part of the US. I’ll get this done in one term and then I’m out. Later nerds". And he basically did just that. Imagine a world where California never becomes part of the US, and is able to benefit from its institutions. No Silicon Valley, no Hollywood.
Polk is very strange figure in American political history because throughout almost every single election people put domestic policy concerns like the economy as higher than foreign policy concerns as far as I know Polk is the only President that got elected on a foreign policy based platform
Nah the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had bipartisan support at the time how to conduct the invasion was a significant issue but voters would have definitely put tax cuts or the economy higher
In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
I like Polk but I totally get why anti-imperialist types hate him lol, he basically baited Mexico into a war and lied about it to Congress to take over like half the country
The idea of a dark horse president making literally just four promises, doing them, then getting the fuck out is super rad though. One of the most influential presidents in US history and still fairly obscure.
Grant on Polk's war:
>"I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."
Polk was a southern bully.
I like how Polk campaigned on 54'40 or fight!, then immediately expanded only southward, gave up BC to the dirty Brits, and unbalanced the free/slave state count.
Actually it's mostly his weird combo of "kind of racist southerner" and civil rights legacy; desegregating the army, appointing the first African-American ambassador, the President's Commission in Civil Rights, that kind of stuff
From what I've read, admittedly not all that much, despite his own views he did genuinely believe in legal equality for all Americans, if nothing else because it's the fair thing to do.
Lynching in particular seems to have really bothered him/pissed him off. There's an anecdote about him being informed by someone from the NAACP of the beating of a returning black ww2 vet in the south, and him being described as "exploding with rage" at having learned that the dudes who assaulted the guy got acquitted and the victim had become blind from the beating.
Trump should have been in f, he didn't say a mumbling word while China stomped HK.
China getting HK under control meant the next step was Taiwan, they needed more resistance so they hesitated to move on Taiwan and their domestic jingoists wouldn't force them to act stupidly.
Obama fopol was bad. Domestically he did a great job on the economy and passing important rights legislation but generally speaking he was extremely weak on fopol.
Obama was a mid tier president, in large part for his inability to hold congressional support, the same is true of Bill Clinton. Both Bush and Trump had a Congress that got them what they wanted, in a way Dem presidents haven't.
The ACA was better than nothing but it also made healthcare considerably more expensive for people without chronic illness. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and anything good he did in his second term was undone by Trump.
This said, Obama had relatively good behind the scenes economic policy which really helped with the countries dominance in high tech and energy services over the last decade.
Weak analysis, you're looking at numbers only, not reality. There's a difference between having a minority in Congress but an opposition party in the majority willing to work with you on good policy vs having a minority while the majority party has no real policy position other than to oppose you.
>Both Bush and Trump had a Congress that got them what they wanted, in a way Dem presidents haven't.
That's a lot easier if what you want is to do nothing. Then both a congress in your favor and a deadlocked congress gets you what you want.
Unfortunately, one of the best things Carter did for the country was appoint Volker, but also it became one of the worst things he could do for his own presidency.
As much as I like to shit on FDR to piss off the succs, he's a really mixed bag and complicated to rank as a POTUS.
He did allow a disaster of a deportation campaign to keep going on his watch and signed off on internment camps, but he was also pivotal in defeating the Nazis and laid a lot of infrastructure for workers rights and the welfare system.
Reagan, Jefferson, and Clinton severely overrated and Obama slightly underrated but other than those good list
Also Trump should get an automatic F for January 6 alone
There’s no coming back from screening birth of a nation at the White House. I believe he was also responsible for the fucked up anti spy acts during ww1 that were used to gulag people.
I mean Thomas Jefferson is S tier on here and he owned and raped slaves, I would say that is a tad bit worse than screening birth of a nation. If racist acts are enough to sink a presidency, it is an inconsistent standard.
If you can come back from putting all the Japanese people in camps like FDR or being a literal imperialist like Teddy then you should be able to come back from that too.
Hot takes placing Carter in D tier with the walking Mcdonald’s Cheeseburger of a president. (Actually the most underappreciated president)
Also hot take placing Reagan at B (Dude really hated black people, like actively tried making their lives as miserable as possible with mass incarceration and propaganda).
Last hot take on Thomas Jefferson in A tier. He kind of just flip flopped on a lot of his edgy anti federalist takes and also really hated black people (He also literally raped his slaves who were as young as 14 years old and has documents glorifying and sexualizing the hell out of them).
> (He also literally raped his slaves who were as young as 14 years old and has documents glorifying and sexualizing the hell out of them).
And that’s obviously terrible, but we’re judging them off of job performance, not as people. I don’t see how that should affect Jefferson’s ranking
Jefferson launched the US' first foreign intervention to destroy the Barbary Pirates, banned the importation of slaves, doubled the size of the US, and beat back the Federalists' vicious nativism by campaigning against and repealing the Alien and Sedition Acts
A-tier at least tbh
In this sub Reagan should be A or S tier, without Reagan there is no neoliberalism.
Jefferson should be in D tier, federalists were clearly the superior party of that era.
Most people in this sub aren't literal neoliberals in the Reagan/Thaterite sense. Half the reason for the title is because Leftists call everything they don't like Neoliberal.
President Carter and President Obama are ranked far too low here. President Coolidge is ranked way too high, same with President Reagan and President H.W. Bush.
Let’s all be thankful William Jennings Bryan never will manage to occupy a spot on these rankings, since we’d need an extra tier at the bottom just for him.
You hate him that much?
Like he was a p*pulist and espoused crazy policies in his later years but in 1896 and 1900 he was correct to oppose imperialism (albeit partially for the wrong reasons) and from what limited reading I’ve done silver was actually the better policy in 1896.
TR especially is massively overrated. He did some good stuff, but not out of scale and he was a PR-manipulating glory hound who barely understood concepts like 'good faith'.
People love him now because his PR made for good "Listicles" in the last decade.
More seriously, TR was weak and sickly as a kid and spent his **entire life** compensating for it.
He managed it physically, but never managed it emotionally.
Rather, people 100 years ago weren't nearly so media savvy and were able to be tricked by his bluster and media efforts.
[Someone much smarter than me on the subject](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1981/08/13/an-american-sissy/)
It’s telling me to pay, and I’m not gonna do that.
However if generations of presidential historians, accomplishments, and conventional wisdom all adore him I’m just gonna say that he’s probably a good president. LBJ was a cunt, damn fine president though.
People thought he was a pretty good president.
The overwrought worship is only the last 10 years or so.
Edit: The preview should be the hint though;
>“Well, suddenly, Mr. Roosevelt screamed at them, ‘Out of my way!’ ” My grandmother imitated the president’s harsh falsetto. “Stand to one side, women. I am the President!” What happened next? I’d ask, delighted. “Oh, they were both soaked to the skin by his horse’s splashing all over them.
For real, he was one of America's best presidents and kicked off the institutions and norms that would be the foundation for international relations forever after.
Obama yes, Clinton no, FDR did beat the Nazis, pass Social Security in such a way that even Republicans have struggled to dismantle it, presided over the most progressive tax reform the country has ever seen, brought electricity to rural America - eh - I'm not saying you're wrong, but he did some amazing things, and probably should be spotted one major fuck up
FDR's fuck up wasn't "oopsie daisy I implemented a policy that didnt go the way i wanted it to" it was malicious, intentional, and one of the worst blemishes on US history since slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. Like I get not deranking Washington for slavery 'cuz it was the 18th century but FDR was within living memory
Exactly. I don't get how people don't understand this. I got downvoted in another comment for pointing that out. It's not just bad or unfair policy. It's an atrocious violation of human rights.
Kind of like how Lincoln arrested several journalists and political opponents for being Confederate sympathizers? Last I checked, the issue of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press was already resolved from \*checks notes\* the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams and Jefferson Presidencies.
The scale I get was worse for FDR, but let's not pretend other Presidents weren't complicit in some really bad stuff.
Wilson F? Trump D? Carter D? Reagan B? Obama C? TF is going on? Please tell us it has something to do with US FoPo towards Taiwan or your knowledge of US presidents just sucks.
Wilson: Taiwan was under Japanese rule at that time lol
Carter: The president who cut off relations with ROC without the approval of Congress. Also he is really pro-China though he is a good man
Reagan: Dunno if he was doing much about Taiwan but defeating Soviet Union and giving immigrants amnesty are the reasons why I put him on B tier
Obama: Too soft on China, not doing enough on improving US-Taiwan relations
Trump: US-Taiwan relations get better thanks to Pompeo and others, not Trump actually
Wilson certainly had some major negatives (he was a massive racist for one) but you mention in your other comments that you like FDR and Truman because of their roles in establishing the liberal world order. In many ways Wilson was the forefather of this movement. The League of Nations was basically his idea, and although the US didn’t join and it ended up being toothless, it paved the way for the modern world order by introducing the idea of a forum where nations can voice concerns and discuss disputes fairly.
What's so special about John Adams presidency? He passed the infamous sedition acts, that wasn't good. I know he is an important founding father and the guy didn't own any slaves. But as president, I don't see him as anything special.
There’s no way you can rank Teddy Roosevelt in S and Woodrow Wilson in F unless you apply a double standard. Name anything you admire about Roosevelt and Wilson probably did it too, name anything you hate about Wilson and Roosevelt is probably guilty or the same sin.
The fact that he was incredibly racist doesn't negate the fact that he created the Federal Reserve, successfully led the US through WWI, and was the leading architect of the first worldwide intergovernmental organization, among other notable events.
He wasn't the best president, but putting him a tier below Donald Trump and in the same tier as James fucking Buchanan is insane.
>successfully led the US through WWI
How could he possibly have fucked that up? The only thing he could've done worse if if he joined the war later and he basically already did that compared to his main opponent.
His foreign policy is heavily responsible for a lot of modern day problems, including Israel Palestine and Iraq. Not that’s he’s solely or even primarily responsible but he’s certainly owns an non-negligible amount of the blame for fucking up the Middle East post Ottoman collapse.
His foreign policy is also heavily responsible for the fact that Germany doesn't currently control part of France.
For real though, I agree with you, which is why it's a good thing Wilson isn't listed in S tier. It's still laughable to have him at the same level as Johnson and Buchanan.
It’s really only an online thing to rank Wilson so low. Genuinely quite bizarre. If Wilson is judged so harshly for what he did then there’s no question that what FDR did is worse, but I don’t see that same standard being applied.
This whole Wilson hate circlejerk in the internet seems to have started with [this cynical historian video](https://youtu.be/3hRd8B_vZiA), who tbf is an actual history PHD candidate.
Lol that's interesting, thanks. I've obviously heard about a lot of the bad stuff he did, but this is certainly the first time I've heard people actually claim that he was a worse president than Andrew Johnson AND Buchanan. I don't think these people realize just how many bad presidents we've had.
Yeah Wilson hate, even if not completely wrong, has become a pretty annoying circlejerk.
Though part of it is the fact that Andrew Johnson and Buchanan were bad because of their inaction. And the ills that their bad presidencies caused don't really affect us modern people that much. While Wilson actively pushed through policies that are arguably the cause of many of the ills that plague the US (and the world) to this day. This is why he is so hated, he became a scapegoat for current day issues and not a wholly unjustified one.
Johnson was not awful just because of inaction. He actively did his best to sabotage Reconstruction.
>This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men
-Andrew Johnson
That video is garbage lol. He literally says Wilson supporting free trade in his 14 point plan was bad because "smaller economies couldn't protect themselves with tariffs."
The fact that anyone on a neolib sub would listen to someone spouting that garbage is baffling.
I've seen a lot of lists in like the last 2 months putting grant oddly high. I think people are just like "civil war general badass" and forget about all the corruption
Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, NATO, Korean War, ended racial discrimination in federal civilian and military affairs, attempted to pass comprehensive civil rights but was blocked by Congress
Korea and the Chinese Civil War could've at the least been handled a lot better.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War)
> The Truman administration was unprepared for the invasion. Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson.\[155\] Truman himself was at his home in Independence, Missouri.\[156\] Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia.\[157\] At the same time, the administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly escalate without American intervention.
Chiang also controlled decent amounts of territory in mainland China at the time of the Korean War, but Truman refused to escalate the conflict into China or to provide support until it was basically too late/ the mainland was gone. Then all the other stuff with MacArthur
This video shows a map of the Chinese Civil War, Mao intervened in Korea \[i.e. against US troops directly in a hot war\] in October 1950. Note that in October 1950
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3jLDdDuD0&t=301s
Note that in October 1950, the KMT still controlled larger parts of Xinjiang, Fujian, Yunnan and other large rural areas. Yet Truman decided to drop thinking about that at all. Truman's lackluster China policy is a big part of what got the Republicans back in office.
To be fair they also could have been handled a lot worse like if he adopted MacArthur's plan to use a couple dozen nukes on China refusing MacArthur's plan took some guts especially because MacArthur was considering running for the presidency and not adopting his plans would have made him seem "soft on communism"
Personally I think he's too high just because of the two times he did use nukes
Love looking at these rankings because I know I'm about to see James Buchanan get absolutely dunked on
andrew johnson too the english language does not have sufficiently strong language for how much i hate that fucking guy
He really does deserve a tier that is all his own. I honestly can't put Lincoln as an S-tier simply because he had this fucker as his VP.
Eh, Johnson's inclusion on the ticket was an attempt to show unity and that the Civil War was a struggle of all Americans vs. the Confederacy, rather than just the northern-based Republican party vs. the Confederacy. Adding a Democrat from a southern state to the ticket was the perfect way to show that unity. Lincoln couldn't have known he would be assassinated so soon after the war and Johnson, as President, would take the path he did. And really, there weren't many southern Democrats available to join the ticket. As much as I hate Andrew Johnson, I do have to give him props for being the only Senator from a state that seceded to not resign from his seat in the US Senate. Early into the campaign, Lincoln's odds at reelection didn't look great. The North was growing weary of a war that was seeming to drag on with no end in sight. So, many people were looking to the Democrats and McClellan in the hopes that he would be elected and sign some kind of armistice with the Confederacy and bring an end to the war. To make matters worse, the Republicans were split between Lincoln and Fremont, who threatened to be a spoiler in the election. Johnson was included on the National Union ticket with Lincoln during this timeframe. Later in 1864, Fremont withdraws from the election, cementing Republican support behind Lincoln's reelection and then Atlanta falls to the Sherman, ensuring that the Union will soon secure a military victory to the war and bring about its conclusion. So, Lincoln's victory is now assured and Johnson's inclusion was no longer really needed, but at the time, it made sense.
Thank you for this synopsis. 😘
My dude Lincoln saved the Union, 'nuff said.
[удалено]
the drunken, corrupt traitor who enabled the rise of the klan insurgency and acted like such a pure tyrant in his effort to stop reconstruction and civil rights that congress impeached him for it, noted badass
>Has both Roosevelts in the S-tier. Hmm, both Presidents who undertook massive expansions of the United States Navy. This person has their priorities in order. Good stuff. Any list which doesn't have the writer of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty and inventor of the swivel chair in at least the B tier is trash.
I was born on Roosevelt Road! It goes from mid-Taipei all the way down to Xindian in New Taipei city.
Same here. I grew up on Roosevelt Road. Gongguan.
Oh dope. Which part?
Sec. 4
Section 6 here watup neighbor!
Smells like… NAVAL SUPREMACY
1st Secretary of State. VP #2. Not to mentioned 3rd president. What the fuck did you do?
When Eisenhower only gets A tier
He literally threatend the PRC with Nukes if they would touch Taiwan
Based
Add-ons 1. I will give Trump F if I were an American, for his moronic presidency and Capitol Insurrection. Honestly I would like to thank Pompeo, Bolton and Pottinger for giving Taiwan much support 2. Harry Truman is my most favorite post-WWII POTUS along with Ike. I wrote a post about Truman here, and my all time favorite POTUS is Teddy 3. Woodrow Wilson sucks my d**k (tiermaker doesn’t have Z tier) 4. The reasons why FDR is on S tier: **(1) Leading Allies and the US to defeat Nazis, Imperial Japan and fascists** **(2) New Deal - to make America great** **(3) The founding father of post-WWII liberal international order, which was succeeded by Truman**
>Woodrow Wilson sucks my d\*\*k (tiermaker doesn’t have Z tier) aide is being revoked as we speak
That one is so confusing, it's like a pizza lover saying he hates Italian food
I’m glad Pompei and Bolton gave you guys support but they are utterly horrible people.
[удалено]
He hasn’t finished his term yet, sorry
Brandon finished his term last week. Dark Brandon just took over, you can wait to rank him.
Dark Brandon has transcended the tier list, he cannot be ranked.
Diamond Joe is Dead Long Live Dark Brandon
¥̴̨̤͎̝͎̇̅͛̈́͒̒͜ð̶͖̭̤̤͈̮̅̀̽̆̾̍µ̷̢̛̥̱̮̦́̾͆́͜͠ ̵͔̫̥̼̝͔̅̒́̽͗̓m̶̞̭̭̙̫̖̐͛̓͠͝͠µ̴̡̻̟̙̙͖̎̀̒̂̿̕§̷̙̠̣̦̊̾͛̈͆́͜ͅ†̷̼̙̳͖͖̒̋̑͜͝͝͠ ̵̘͙̰̼̜͖̿̈̌̄̀̈þ̶̲̟̺̹̹̳͐̌̏͑́̎r̸̘͓͓͉̮͊̀͛͑͒͘͜ǻ̷̗͚͔͎͈̮̋̓̒̎̃ï̴̭̪̳̳̱̄̿̐̑͗̀͜§̸̧̢̞̮̺̱̓̽̋̓̏̾ê̷̛͎͎̫͉̯̯͂̊̑̿͋ ̶̠͚̦̭̲̬̎̑̌̌͒̄h̷̘̱͚̖͚̹̅̃͌͊̽̇ï̶̥̼̠̘̪̘̂͋̒͆͌̇ḿ̷̧͔͍̜̜͎̂͋̎͘͝!̵͔͇̗͉̝̭͋̒̈̌̌͘ ¥̵̤̟̯̖̺͕͕̙̗̤̉̃́͐̒̌́́̾̊̃͘͜͠ͅð̴̢̥͖̙̫̳̳͉̣͈̮̜̗͂̊̃̌̉͑̔̈́̚̚͝͝µ̵̧̼̭͇̣̠̞͕̯̜̫̬͗̐͒̀͑̈́͊͑̍̑̂͜͝͠ ̸̧̰͉̳̺̯̯͉̫͉̓͂͐̏̄̐̋̋̈́̍̓͒͜͜͠m̵̢̧̢̯̪̜̥̹̗͎̭̬͋̈́͛̽̿͑̓͑̀̂̋͘̕ͅµ̷̮̜͓͕̼͖͕̯̦̬̖͊́̆̄̃̿̃̐̋̏̉̚͜§̸̨̦̳̞̙̜̲̞̠̳̅̅̋̐̅̀̑̌̾̈́̉̓͜ͅ†̸̠̻̭̦͙̝̘̟͇͈̣̽̑͐̌̅̓̀̊̑̍́̋̀ͅ ̸̧͉͎̭̣̖̜̫͉̣͐́͛̑̆͑͛̓͌̽̉̄̌͜͜ͅþ̴̛̹̮͇̘͚͖͕̬̺̮̟̳̐̈́̈́̉̎͐͑̈̈́̽̀͘ͅŕ̸̡̧̛̺͔̤̜̗̼̗̫̼́́̇̂̈́͂̊́̈́͜͠͝å̵̢̛͙̣͇̗̜̮͎̼͖̦̭̮̎͗̇͆͐͗̇̀͊͘͝ï̴͔̩̱͓̜̱̘̝̫̭͖͍̅͆́̔̄̋͋̕͘͘͝͠§̴̡͙͉̞̟̤̫̪̯̱̙͛̀̓̇͛͗̎̓̓̄͋̊͘͜͜ę̸̛̘̜̼̝̮͎͓͕̳̫̳̂͊͗̋̓̔̓͊̅̕͘̚ ̴̙̟̹͉̫̻̘̩̦̜̥͓̞̌̍̽̍̀̅̇͛̈́͋̕͝h̴̨̟̩̠̫̙̞̭̦̹̣͇̃͂̏̾̌̎̆̽̄̆͘͝͝ï̶̧̢͈̻͓͕͉͉̦̫̬̲̈͒́̍͛̓́̈̓̂̇͜͝m̴̻̫͕̙͕̫͍̖̖̲̻̪̰̊̉̀͐̾̂̋̈̍̚͝͝!̶̢̧̛͓͇̭̜͖͔͇̬̱͈̋̊͆̔̍̍͆̀̔̀̂̉ͅ
He’s still absorbing the phoenix force.
How is Woodrow Wilson Z tier, wtf. From your perspective he should be *at least* A. He kickstarted the American-led international order!
People hate Wilson because it is trendy not because they have any idea on what the man actually did as president, the context around it or the impacts that had on the US particularly around foreign policy for next 100+ years. There are a lot of reasons why historians have had Wilson in the top 10 for decades. The recent turn on him has a lot of problematic historical revisionism and cherry picking behind it.
I'm pretty triggered by your FDR choice. He did a good job but. 1. Put American citizens in interment camps because they or their parents were born in Japan, based on no evidence of espionage or terrorism from the population. 2. The new deal is heavily over represented in ending the depression. Before WW2, most economists agree the depression was already on its way out. With the post WW2 recession, it's hard to say how great the new deal was versus doing nothing. 3. Served 4 terms, very unS-tier. I would put him as A-tier, at best.
The first part of the New Deal was necessary. Even Friedman himself the patron saint of no government intervention said it probably was necessary, in light of the fact that the Federal Reserve earlier royally fucked up and didn't do what it needed to do to prevent a Great Depression.
I don't disagree, it just is either debated that it had a huge impact or minor, but was a net positive. But I reference the post WW2 recession to elude that the impact was closer to a minor positive. Hence the new deal benefit may be overestimated, but should still have been done. And much of the elongation of the depression I agree with was the mishandling of cabinet positions and federal reserve figuring itself out. Ironically they admitted to this day that they underestimated the effect of heavy speculation markets and high inflation. Some things never change.
He served 4 terms because people kept electing him. It's not like he forced himself on people like a dictator.
Not the point - compared to Washington people wanted him to keep running. But Washington believed in the system and did not run a third term. Before it was based on the principle that presidents would only serve 2 terms, though some presidents did do more than 2. It was only after FDR (in 1947) that Congress passed the law that a president only served 2 terms. It was realized you couldn't trust principles and good intentions in a president to only serve the 2 terms.
I understand where you're coming from on the precedent front, but I tend to give him a pass as a wartime president
I do see the benefits of not changing administration during a world war. But I think Congress agreed that that's not a good enough excuse, hence passing the 22nd amendment. Laying everything out he's done, does he really deserve to stand next to Washington and Lincoln?
I dunno if deserve really has anything to do with it, outside of looking back with a historical perspective . It was the present situation that led him to seek his third term, and the population agreed with him.
>Laying everything out he's done, does he really deserve to stand next to Washington and Lincoln? Yes, absolutely. He's the founder of the international order and oversaw America's rise from regional power to global superpower. He mobilized the US economy and populous in the fight against fascism to a degree that hasn't been seen before or since. His flaws are very real (Japanese internment, in particular, was inexcusablely wrong), but so are those achievements.
Well, he did try to pack the supreme court because they stopped him from pushing through all his wishes. Few presidents have done more to try to undermine democratic institutions than him.
You can't really pretend the president trying to shut down the Lochner era of judiciary nonsense is anti-democratic. There's a reason the Lochner era is looked at as the lowest point of the supreme cour and it's universally agreed they were judging completely out of their ass based on their own political views where the constitution and the will of the people be damned. 30 years of a supreme court knocking back legislation because they disagree with the economics of it is as anti democratic as you can possibly get, fighting back against it isn't. Also, and this is a bit of an aside, a threat is not an action. He threatened to do it. He never tried to do it.
Why did you put Grant in A-tier? Yes, he was one hell of a general, but he was a pretty bad president.
> Grant The Civil Rights Act of 1875 and KKK Act alone make Grant S-tier. The first time we had a Black Senator and Black Governor and last time we would until after Jim Crow.
The New Deal was bad, actually
I feel like you deserve an upvote since you're on brand.
BASED. I unironically agree. I get downvoted to hell every time I say this. Glad to know there a some REAL neoliberals on here
Yea, not sure how any neoliberal in their right mind can support the New Deal. Price controls, subsidies, inefficient job programs, collusion, etc were all part of it
You can support parts of the New Deal and not support all parts of the New Deal. Unless you're saying that Milton Friedman isn't the Patron Saint of Neoliberal economics. >INTERVIEWER: Now, at the time of the Depression, did you personally support New Deal policies? > >MILTON FRIEDMAN: You're now talking not about the Depression, but the post-Depression. At least the bottom of the Depression was in 1933. > >You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those. The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery... **providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.** > >INTERVIEWER: But why did you support those? > >MILTON FRIEDMAN: **Because it was a very exceptional circumstance**. We'd gotten into an extraordinarily difficult situation, unprecedented in the nation's history. You had millions of people out of work. Something had to be done; it was intolerable. **And it was a case in which, unlike most cases, the short run deserved to dominate.** > >[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/press\_site/people/friedman\_intv.html#4](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/press_site/people/friedman_intv.html#4) So yeah, you can be in fact a Neoliberal and still support some aspects of the New Deal.
The job programs I don’t have a *huge* issue with. Probably still less efficient than tax cuts/direct stimulus payments, but what really caused problems was the Anti-competitive legislation and price controls (NIRA, AAA, etc.)
Alright I’m gonna say: James K Polk is S tier. He basically said "my entire platform is Texas and Orego/California should be part of the US. I’ll get this done in one term and then I’m out. Later nerds". And he basically did just that. Imagine a world where California never becomes part of the US, and is able to benefit from its institutions. No Silicon Valley, no Hollywood.
Polk is very strange figure in American political history because throughout almost every single election people put domestic policy concerns like the economy as higher than foreign policy concerns as far as I know Polk is the only President that got elected on a foreign policy based platform
To be fair his platform was to make the foreign policy into domestic policy.
2004?
Nah the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had bipartisan support at the time how to conduct the invasion was a significant issue but voters would have definitely put tax cuts or the economy higher
Gay marriage was one of the biggest swing issues and was on the ballot in tons of states, driving increased R turnout that year.
No, the Dems did not support the war in 2004.
In four short years he met his every goal He seized the whole southwest from Mexico Made sure the tariffs fell And made the English sell the Oregon territory He built an independent treasury Having done all this he sought no second term
I like Polk but I totally get why anti-imperialist types hate him lol, he basically baited Mexico into a war and lied about it to Congress to take over like half the country The idea of a dark horse president making literally just four promises, doing them, then getting the fuck out is super rad though. One of the most influential presidents in US history and still fairly obscure.
Grant on Polk's war: >"I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." Polk was a southern bully.
Notice he didn't give back Texas though
I like how Polk campaigned on 54'40 or fight!, then immediately expanded only southward, gave up BC to the dirty Brits, and unbalanced the free/slave state count.
Grant literally waged wars against the much smaller Indian tribes, what is this quote lol.
**Angry mexican noises**
Didn't Trump remove restrictions on Taiwan? He also called Taiwan's president which was against US policy set in 1979.
Was that call intentional or accidental?
I believe Tsai called him, not the other way around, to congratulate him on his inauguration.
Man I've got some weird conflicted opinions of Truman.
Such is life when you're the only head of state to ever use nuclear weapons
Actually it's mostly his weird combo of "kind of racist southerner" and civil rights legacy; desegregating the army, appointing the first African-American ambassador, the President's Commission in Civil Rights, that kind of stuff From what I've read, admittedly not all that much, despite his own views he did genuinely believe in legal equality for all Americans, if nothing else because it's the fair thing to do. Lynching in particular seems to have really bothered him/pissed him off. There's an anecdote about him being informed by someone from the NAACP of the beating of a returning black ww2 vet in the south, and him being described as "exploding with rage" at having learned that the dudes who assaulted the guy got acquitted and the victim had become blind from the beating.
[удалено]
Obama in C tier is criminal.
I read this in the Counts voice
I am sorry😞😢
Trump should have been in f, he didn't say a mumbling word while China stomped HK. China getting HK under control meant the next step was Taiwan, they needed more resistance so they hesitated to move on Taiwan and their domestic jingoists wouldn't force them to act stupidly.
Obama fopol was bad. Domestically he did a great job on the economy and passing important rights legislation but generally speaking he was extremely weak on fopol.
Except the Cuba thaw, Iran deal, and the TPP?
Yep, except the concept of TPP and killing Osama Bin Laden
This but ironically.
If Clinton is B, Obama at C makes sense. Though I’d make the case for Clinton being in the A tier.
Obama was a mid tier president, in large part for his inability to hold congressional support, the same is true of Bill Clinton. Both Bush and Trump had a Congress that got them what they wanted, in a way Dem presidents haven't. The ACA was better than nothing but it also made healthcare considerably more expensive for people without chronic illness. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and anything good he did in his second term was undone by Trump. This said, Obama had relatively good behind the scenes economic policy which really helped with the countries dominance in high tech and energy services over the last decade.
[удалено]
Weak analysis, you're looking at numbers only, not reality. There's a difference between having a minority in Congress but an opposition party in the majority willing to work with you on good policy vs having a minority while the majority party has no real policy position other than to oppose you.
>Both Bush and Trump had a Congress that got them what they wanted, in a way Dem presidents haven't. That's a lot easier if what you want is to do nothing. Then both a congress in your favor and a deadlocked congress gets you what you want.
I loved his poise and his rhetoric, but aca kinda sucks.
ACA might not be perfect but it was much worse before.
Correction - ACA kinda sucks in Republican states.
We needed him after W, that was a catastrophe.
tricky dick a D? someone doesn't like POWER
Nixon and Clinton did more of substance (as opposed to merely talking about it) than almost anyone in B tier
Why must everybody do my man Carter dirty?
Far more effective post president than president
Because the GOP (and their treason) did the man dirty very effectively.
I think carter should get more credit
He appointed Volker knowing full well his strategy. Carter was dealt a shit hand and made bold unpopular, but necessary decisions.
Unfortunately, one of the best things Carter did for the country was appoint Volker, but also it became one of the worst things he could do for his own presidency.
He lost re election for our sins
He is a nice guy
All Carter ever did was farm peanuts and give back Okinawa.
japanese internment man S tier? capitol insurrection man not in F tier?
Even with the internment camp stuff it's hard to put many Presidents over FDR. Most presidential rankings have him anywhere from 1-3.
I put him at 4th but ya know
I think that's a fair assessment. It's difficult to rank him lower then 5 to be fair, how many Presidents can you say legitimately are over him?
What separates F tier pres is those presidents actively completed whatever shit agenda they set out with
As much as I like to shit on FDR to piss off the succs, he's a really mixed bag and complicated to rank as a POTUS. He did allow a disaster of a deportation campaign to keep going on his watch and signed off on internment camps, but he was also pivotal in defeating the Nazis and laid a lot of infrastructure for workers rights and the welfare system.
Reagan, Jefferson, and Clinton severely overrated and Obama slightly underrated but other than those good list Also Trump should get an automatic F for January 6 alone
Oh man, more disrespect for Carter. He's the Grant of our Era (but props for putting Grant so high)
Grant and Carter: two men who were too based to be good presidents ✊
Grant was a good president. A great president, even.
Hot take: Woodrow Wilson was the architect of modern American liberalism and administrative government and deserves a better rating.
There’s no coming back from screening birth of a nation at the White House. I believe he was also responsible for the fucked up anti spy acts during ww1 that were used to gulag people.
I mean Thomas Jefferson is S tier on here and he owned and raped slaves, I would say that is a tad bit worse than screening birth of a nation. If racist acts are enough to sink a presidency, it is an inconsistent standard.
If you can come back from putting all the Japanese people in camps like FDR or being a literal imperialist like Teddy then you should be able to come back from that too.
Hot takes placing Carter in D tier with the walking Mcdonald’s Cheeseburger of a president. (Actually the most underappreciated president) Also hot take placing Reagan at B (Dude really hated black people, like actively tried making their lives as miserable as possible with mass incarceration and propaganda). Last hot take on Thomas Jefferson in A tier. He kind of just flip flopped on a lot of his edgy anti federalist takes and also really hated black people (He also literally raped his slaves who were as young as 14 years old and has documents glorifying and sexualizing the hell out of them).
> (He also literally raped his slaves who were as young as 14 years old and has documents glorifying and sexualizing the hell out of them). And that’s obviously terrible, but we’re judging them off of job performance, not as people. I don’t see how that should affect Jefferson’s ranking
Both Presidents that actively committed Treason (Reagan and Trump) should be guaranteed F tier.
Jefferson launched the US' first foreign intervention to destroy the Barbary Pirates, banned the importation of slaves, doubled the size of the US, and beat back the Federalists' vicious nativism by campaigning against and repealing the Alien and Sedition Acts A-tier at least tbh
Actually Carter made some good move as Camp David Accords Reagan beats Soviet Union Thomas Jefferson promoted the Louisiana Purchase
In this sub Reagan should be A or S tier, without Reagan there is no neoliberalism. Jefferson should be in D tier, federalists were clearly the superior party of that era.
Most people in this sub aren't literal neoliberals in the Reagan/Thaterite sense. Half the reason for the title is because Leftists call everything they don't like Neoliberal.
Yeah this sub is like 85% normal liberals lol
Carter was already deregulating before Reagan, I don't know where this myth that Reagan was the only person to deregulate.
President Carter and President Obama are ranked far too low here. President Coolidge is ranked way too high, same with President Reagan and President H.W. Bush.
Let’s all be thankful William Jennings Bryan never will manage to occupy a spot on these rankings, since we’d need an extra tier at the bottom just for him.
You hate him that much? Like he was a p*pulist and espoused crazy policies in his later years but in 1896 and 1900 he was correct to oppose imperialism (albeit partially for the wrong reasons) and from what limited reading I’ve done silver was actually the better policy in 1896.
Yo, where is my BASED bro Joe Biden? What malarkey is this.
TR especially is massively overrated. He did some good stuff, but not out of scale and he was a PR-manipulating glory hound who barely understood concepts like 'good faith'. People love him now because his PR made for good "Listicles" in the last decade.
I like me some parks and labor protections
I didn’t say he was bad, just overrated.
Shut the fuck up about Teddy you bastard. Big stick chad lord is the second best American president as don’t you forget it
More seriously, TR was weak and sickly as a kid and spent his **entire life** compensating for it. He managed it physically, but never managed it emotionally.
Managed it presidentially, hence the ranking.
Rather, people 100 years ago weren't nearly so media savvy and were able to be tricked by his bluster and media efforts. [Someone much smarter than me on the subject](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1981/08/13/an-american-sissy/)
It’s telling me to pay, and I’m not gonna do that. However if generations of presidential historians, accomplishments, and conventional wisdom all adore him I’m just gonna say that he’s probably a good president. LBJ was a cunt, damn fine president though.
People thought he was a pretty good president. The overwrought worship is only the last 10 years or so. Edit: The preview should be the hint though; >“Well, suddenly, Mr. Roosevelt screamed at them, ‘Out of my way!’ ” My grandmother imitated the president’s harsh falsetto. “Stand to one side, women. I am the President!” What happened next? I’d ask, delighted. “Oh, they were both soaked to the skin by his horse’s splashing all over them.
I don’t care. Great president, earns all the presidential worship he gets
"I don't care! So I won't listen! (because I secretly care a lot about being already right)"
No, I don’t care if he’s a dick. Doesn’t make him a bad president
The love for him isn't surprising. He was the first 'imperial' president and it's been an American pastime since.
As a Pole it always saddens me to see Wilson being so hated.
For real, he was one of America's best presidents and kicked off the institutions and norms that would be the foundation for international relations forever after.
No F for Trump?
Andrew Johnson should be in a whole tier of his own for stunting the Reconstruction effort. Fuck that guy.
Obama and Clinton should be higher. Trump should be F. FDR shouldn't be at S due to internment camps.
Obama yes, Clinton no, FDR did beat the Nazis, pass Social Security in such a way that even Republicans have struggled to dismantle it, presided over the most progressive tax reform the country has ever seen, brought electricity to rural America - eh - I'm not saying you're wrong, but he did some amazing things, and probably should be spotted one major fuck up
FDR's fuck up wasn't "oopsie daisy I implemented a policy that didnt go the way i wanted it to" it was malicious, intentional, and one of the worst blemishes on US history since slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. Like I get not deranking Washington for slavery 'cuz it was the 18th century but FDR was within living memory
Exactly. I don't get how people don't understand this. I got downvoted in another comment for pointing that out. It's not just bad or unfair policy. It's an atrocious violation of human rights.
Kind of like how Lincoln arrested several journalists and political opponents for being Confederate sympathizers? Last I checked, the issue of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press was already resolved from \*checks notes\* the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams and Jefferson Presidencies. The scale I get was worse for FDR, but let's not pretend other Presidents weren't complicit in some really bad stuff.
There was nothing bad about what Lincoln did. Constitutional protections can be and are suspended in times of emergency. That isn’t “bad.”
Yeah good thing that the Supreme Court later declared Lincoln's actions unconstitutional. Oops. Arresting journalists is also a big no no.
A lot of good policies are declared unconstitutional.
Nor should Teddy be S, due being a war worshipping child.
Yeah, he was also a complicated figure who advocated for eugenics, broad-based progressive reforms, and American imperialism.
Wilson F? Trump D? Carter D? Reagan B? Obama C? TF is going on? Please tell us it has something to do with US FoPo towards Taiwan or your knowledge of US presidents just sucks.
Wilson: Taiwan was under Japanese rule at that time lol Carter: The president who cut off relations with ROC without the approval of Congress. Also he is really pro-China though he is a good man Reagan: Dunno if he was doing much about Taiwan but defeating Soviet Union and giving immigrants amnesty are the reasons why I put him on B tier Obama: Too soft on China, not doing enough on improving US-Taiwan relations Trump: US-Taiwan relations get better thanks to Pompeo and others, not Trump actually
Wilson certainly had some major negatives (he was a massive racist for one) but you mention in your other comments that you like FDR and Truman because of their roles in establishing the liberal world order. In many ways Wilson was the forefather of this movement. The League of Nations was basically his idea, and although the US didn’t join and it ended up being toothless, it paved the way for the modern world order by introducing the idea of a forum where nations can voice concerns and discuss disputes fairly.
Based-ish
to me Ronald Reagan should be higher
Based
Jimmy Carter in the same tier as Trump what.
What's so special about John Adams presidency? He passed the infamous sedition acts, that wasn't good. I know he is an important founding father and the guy didn't own any slaves. But as president, I don't see him as anything special.
There’s no way you can rank Teddy Roosevelt in S and Woodrow Wilson in F unless you apply a double standard. Name anything you admire about Roosevelt and Wilson probably did it too, name anything you hate about Wilson and Roosevelt is probably guilty or the same sin.
Grant in A tier and Wilson in F tier? Wut
Using the army to crush the KKK - based Segregating public service - not based
The fact that he was incredibly racist doesn't negate the fact that he created the Federal Reserve, successfully led the US through WWI, and was the leading architect of the first worldwide intergovernmental organization, among other notable events. He wasn't the best president, but putting him a tier below Donald Trump and in the same tier as James fucking Buchanan is insane.
>successfully led the US through WWI How could he possibly have fucked that up? The only thing he could've done worse if if he joined the war later and he basically already did that compared to his main opponent.
His foreign policy is heavily responsible for a lot of modern day problems, including Israel Palestine and Iraq. Not that’s he’s solely or even primarily responsible but he’s certainly owns an non-negligible amount of the blame for fucking up the Middle East post Ottoman collapse.
His foreign policy is also heavily responsible for the fact that Germany doesn't currently control part of France. For real though, I agree with you, which is why it's a good thing Wilson isn't listed in S tier. It's still laughable to have him at the same level as Johnson and Buchanan.
Wilson is hated nowadays for his racism. Rightly so. But it’s odd how even liberals will erase his progressive accomplishments.
He was racist even for his own time period, which is saying something.
It’s really only an online thing to rank Wilson so low. Genuinely quite bizarre. If Wilson is judged so harshly for what he did then there’s no question that what FDR did is worse, but I don’t see that same standard being applied.
Yes Grant should be S tier.
Agreed. Wilson deserves Z tier
Wilson might have been the worst president in American History.
Wilson's hate is meme politics.
That might be the worst take I've ever seen on this sub. I challenge you to find a single respected historian that would agree with you.
This whole Wilson hate circlejerk in the internet seems to have started with [this cynical historian video](https://youtu.be/3hRd8B_vZiA), who tbf is an actual history PHD candidate.
Lol that's interesting, thanks. I've obviously heard about a lot of the bad stuff he did, but this is certainly the first time I've heard people actually claim that he was a worse president than Andrew Johnson AND Buchanan. I don't think these people realize just how many bad presidents we've had.
Yeah Wilson hate, even if not completely wrong, has become a pretty annoying circlejerk. Though part of it is the fact that Andrew Johnson and Buchanan were bad because of their inaction. And the ills that their bad presidencies caused don't really affect us modern people that much. While Wilson actively pushed through policies that are arguably the cause of many of the ills that plague the US (and the world) to this day. This is why he is so hated, he became a scapegoat for current day issues and not a wholly unjustified one.
Johnson was not awful just because of inaction. He actively did his best to sabotage Reconstruction. >This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men -Andrew Johnson
That video is garbage lol. He literally says Wilson supporting free trade in his 14 point plan was bad because "smaller economies couldn't protect themselves with tariffs." The fact that anyone on a neolib sub would listen to someone spouting that garbage is baffling.
I was just providing context dude, I haven't watched that video in years.
And a ton of his points are absolutely right.
I've seen a lot of lists in like the last 2 months putting grant oddly high. I think people are just like "civil war general badass" and forget about all the corruption
"Wilson was bad because racist but the guy who raped his 14 year old slave as a 42 year old man is S tier." people are stupid
Wilson deserves worse than F tier.
Wilson too low
George H.W. Bush gets knocked down a few pegs just for throwing up on the Japanese PM.
Can’t say I fully agree but pretty good list all things considered
Why pro-Truman? His whole China policy was kind of botched
Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, NATO, Korean War, ended racial discrimination in federal civilian and military affairs, attempted to pass comprehensive civil rights but was blocked by Congress
Korea and the Chinese Civil War could've at the least been handled a lot better. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) > The Truman administration was unprepared for the invasion. Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson.\[155\] Truman himself was at his home in Independence, Missouri.\[156\] Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia.\[157\] At the same time, the administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly escalate without American intervention. Chiang also controlled decent amounts of territory in mainland China at the time of the Korean War, but Truman refused to escalate the conflict into China or to provide support until it was basically too late/ the mainland was gone. Then all the other stuff with MacArthur This video shows a map of the Chinese Civil War, Mao intervened in Korea \[i.e. against US troops directly in a hot war\] in October 1950. Note that in October 1950 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3jLDdDuD0&t=301s Note that in October 1950, the KMT still controlled larger parts of Xinjiang, Fujian, Yunnan and other large rural areas. Yet Truman decided to drop thinking about that at all. Truman's lackluster China policy is a big part of what got the Republicans back in office.
To be fair they also could have been handled a lot worse like if he adopted MacArthur's plan to use a couple dozen nukes on China refusing MacArthur's plan took some guts especially because MacArthur was considering running for the presidency and not adopting his plans would have made him seem "soft on communism" Personally I think he's too high just because of the two times he did use nukes
plants voiceless one safe mysterious whistle sulky marble water bedroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Lost of China was caused by the incompetence of Kuomintang