C-Span's has polled several historians to rank the Presidents. Trump is 41 out of 45. Obama was ranked at 10. Holding onto the top spot the with strong O capabilities, length and the WAR of all presidents is Lincoln. https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
Eisenhower climbing. Andrew Jackson falling hard. Can't believe they found 3 presidents worse than Trump.
Lol, Trump is last in Moral Authority and Administrative Skills, and second-to-last in International Relations. His best score is Public Persuasion, which makes sense if lying, bullying and gaslighting counts as persuasion, which I guess they do. And how the hell are Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson worse than Trump at Crisis Leadership? I can accept James Buchanan, who is often blamed for the Civil War.
A lot of this has to do with the perspective of history and I'm glad they didn't put Trump at worst just because he is recent. To get a fuller understanding of where Trump ranks we will need much more time and a few more Presidents. I said this frequently during GW Bush's presidency that it was very premature to declare him the worst President, just as it was to declare the Obama the best during his first term.
Johnson is easy as he flubbed Reconstruction and couldn't satisfy either those who supported a strong Reconstruction or reconciliation with the South. Franklin Pierce also failed to address the divide of the Slave and Free states and his signing of Kansas - Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Act added to that divide.
Granted, but is something like the Fugitive Slave Act a 'crisis'? The Civil War was a crisis. Covid is a crisis. I feel like Johnson's and Pierce's incompetence in the pre-Civil War and Reconstruction decisions were already represented in the other, non-crisis categories. I don't think they had an opportunity as big as Covid to screw up.
Do these historian's opinions matter? We all know all academics are part of the deep state fake news media cabal.
How the hell is Reagan ranked that high with historians? No he didn’t lead us into a civil war or anything but he single handily began a revolution on the right of anti government sentiment all with the obvious purpose of recreating a system of politics that served and propped up an oligarchy… which led to where we are today with Democracy hanging on by a thread. It all started with Reagan in so many negative ways. Shame on these historians for just glossing over that fact and giving him high rankings because the current Republicans love what he did that led to them being in power when they would otherwise have no business managing a Dunkin Donuts.
There rankings are puzzling in some ways. They seem to be based more on impact or power wielded at the time. I find it extremely puzzling that Andrew Jackson is below others like Grant (who was corrupt and incompetent). People do not have to like Andrew Jackson but he is one of the most influential and iconic President's in history. He was the framework for the Democratic party until FDR (who I would argue should be #1 on this list ahead of Lincoln and Washington).
Reagan should be high, he to this day still has some degree of influence over the Republican party. He ushered in the style of republican government we say for 30 years after he was first elected. There also is no George Bush or G. W. Bush without Reagan.
Ron Chernow argues Grant has been misinterpreted as incompetent--he was more a victim of his own loyalty to corrupt subordinates and associates. Chernow also argues pretty convincingly that without Grant Reconstruction might have gone far worse than it did. Presumably historians are taking into account some of these revisionist treatment's of Grant's presidency.
I have read the book and I enjoyed it as well. I also agree with you that the influence of Chernow likely plays a part in all of this. Having said that, being overly loyal to corrupt associates and subordinates IS incompetence IMO. James K Polk is too low on the list IMO as well.... but that is just my opinion.
Polk is low because the War with Mexico was a racist and imperialistic war of expansion. I'm more sympathetic to that critique.
Depends on your political leanings.... and while I agree they are not pluses, they are still examples of influence.
Those weren't as immediate crisis as the Civil War but I think the leadup and following the war could count as crisis. When Pierce was President there already was fighting in territories between those who wanted slavery expanded or stopped. After the war there was still tensions and killings in the South. Both Pierce and Johnson had the chance to change the country for the better and both arguably made things worse.
This is where history matters. Certainly a lot of what Reagan did hasn't ended up good but we have to consider the situation the country was in in the late 70's. Stagflation was a serious problem and the previous policies didn't seem capable of addressing it. The reforms of the Reagan did open up the economy and usher in a lot of new economic development. The amount of deregulation that started during Reagan changed the way our economy works. One very obvious way is anyone taking a trip this weekend can look at how competitive air fares are and how easy it is to get a flight. That wasn't possible if we air travel hadn't been deregulated. We also have to consider that much of what Reagan did would be anathema to today's Right but were important in shaping the direction of this country. This was also the president who bailed out Chrysler that did likely save many jobs and foreshadowed Obama's bailing out of the auto industry. While he is known for tax cuts he did work with Congress and passed the 1986 tax reform that made taxes fairer with the actual result of a tax increase on wealthier individuals. He also passed the last major immigration reform that addressed illegal immigration realistically and not just punitively. While he started as a hawk he addressed the impending collapse of the USSR not as an opportunity to crush them but did reach out to Gorbachev. He also seriously considered working with Gorbachev to do away with nuclear weapons. Reagan is judged a lot for the image crafted of him by the GOP since his presidency and much of the criticism of him is based on that image. While there is a lot to that it's not exactly what his presidency was about.
