[We're looking for new moderators to join our team!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1asqu76/rpresidents_moderator_applications/)
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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.*
It is interesting to note how perception changes over time. A president may be viewed as great or terrible in their own time, but decades or even centuries later, the option could completely change.
Oh yeah, there was a great article in the Atlantic about Wilson's perception:
"In 1948, and again in 1962, surveys of American historians rated Wilson fourth among American presidents, lagging behind only Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt."
That’s largely because his administration has been reevaluated by some historians especially in regards to his efforts in Reconstruction and the characterization of him being a drunk who had no control over his corrupt cabinet is now seen as a big exaggeration.
The Ron Chernow book about Grant greatly helped his reputation, much like David McCullough's books enhanced Adams' and Truman's reputations.
Plus with more emphasis on racial issues in recent years, his actions involving reconstruction and the KKK have gained him a lot of respect.
His intervention with the KKK can't be overstated. They were killing free blacks in droves, actively antagonizing and bullying voters at the polls, and basically doing everything they could to make the South a terror state for black citizens.
Chernow’s biography was so great. I didn’t think he could outdo his “Washington” or “Hamilton” bios, but seriously, he writes biographies with the emotion of a novelist.
If you haven’t read “Grant”, read it.
>Plus with more emphasis on racial issues in recent years,
I think this is also rising Obama on the list. People thought racial issues where in the past, but recent years made people rethink that it's still a very alive issue.
Grant has reason. His climb in the rankings is in the context of his advocacy and action for civil rights and the strength of his actions. Today we deem that more important and impactful than people did in the past in comparison to the rest of his presidency
In order to make the Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative work, Grant had to be a foil for Lee. When you reevaluate Lee and the southern "cause," Grant looks a lot better.
Note: I have absolutely no interest in hearing anyone's defense of the Lost Cause. I'm simply noting that historians' views have changed.
I imagine that you’re right and that Grant’s reputation goes up or down in an inverse relationship to how credible the Lost Cause narrative is deemed at the time.
I can't believe you have to say that about something that is a complete lie. There can be no defense of the "Lost Cause" because it is, in its entirety a falsehood.
This is an ignorant comment, the reason for this is that it's been widely known for a long time that his reputation was in part down by former conference sympathyzing historians who not only framed Grant as a corrupt drunk President but also created the myth of the lost cause among other fraudulent southern mythology.
It's not so much that he "improved" it's just that he was never most of those things that were claimed about him by those people.
If you downgrade presidential impact of many, some will go “up” seemingly for no reason.
Perception of Grant is likely static, but many more modern presidents are viewed worse and worse as we spend more time with their impact.
Reagan is the perfect example of this. There was a 20 year period where critique of Reagan made you sound like a fringe radical…but now, long after he’s gone - we can point to his administration as a key inflection point for decline.
His status has gone way down, not that other presidents status went up.
That's why it's too early to rank Presidents from the last 20 years. You need to see long-term effects to properly judge them. A good example is Reagan. Very well-liked in his time but steadily going down in popularity as the negative effects of his policies becomes more apparent over time. His ranking will likely only get lower.
Right. It’s a grim reminder that just because a policy is popular today, doesn’t mean it will be 20 or 40 years from now. When prompts the question - should a modern President support policy that is popular with the people today? Or should the prioritize policies that they think will be looked on fondly 50 years from now?
>should a modern President support policy that is popular with the people today? Or should the prioritize policies that they think will be looked on fondly 50 years from now?
The former is what Congress and reelection are selecting for, the latter is what LBJ did.
Sometimes you dont find out that they were a shit person after they died and the secrets come out. Or the horrible long term things they did while in office.
Also what we consider good or bad changes with time.
It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in those meetings to hear the discussions of how this came about.
Honestly this is one of the most interesting points made on this post so far.
It just goes to show how far off half the country can be on an issue. Especially when viewed from the future.
It also makes me think about how every thing that is considered a step forward had to be fought for.
Over and over again you see one half of the country dragging the other half into modernity, kicking and screaming.
It's not always the same party or ideology either. Bias and only having 2 major sides to choose from have always been such a problem I guess.
Obama and Eisenhower both are pretty similar in their history, while Obama was dealing with greater economic challenges. Eisenhower gets viewed with rose colored glasses these days because of the myth of the lost ideal of the 50s but he had just as many missteps as Obama and was dealing with a far better economic and political landscape.
Definitely, Eisenhower let the CIA run wild, he let the military industrial complex balloon during peace time. He wasn’t strong enough on civil rights. He had a lot of failings. I think he was a decent President but like Clinton I think it’s more due to living during decent times, at least economically. No one can take away what he did in WWII but as President Obama dealt with larger challenges and a much more difficult political and media landscape.
Both of them in their own way put huge amounts of faith in others for things that ended up getting completely tagged to them.
Eisenhower treated his team the way he wanted to be treated - hands off and with trust. That was kind of a constant problem, because many acted without the same north star as Eisenhower had.
Oh, he’s absolutely better than Eisenhower, at least for now.
1) Ike was the first president who was systemically homophobic.
2) He was the one who turned the CIA so tyrannical that Harry Truman called it one of the two mistakes of his presidency. He contributed greatly to so many foreign countries hating us.
3) Eisenhower forced religion into American tradition.
4) He was *not* an ally to the Civil Rights movement, and he showed poor leadership during the crisis. He was far too tame compared to the president that preceded and succeeded him.
5) He has the Missiles placed in Turkey, and planed the Bay of Pigs.
I don’t think he ever really understood that a president has to act. He looks exceptionally bad when you compare him with the leadership of Harry Truman.
Is flying the 101st Airborne troops to Little Rock, to enforce de-segregation evidence of his hostility to Civil Rights? Or is it evidence that he didn't understand action?
Take Eisenhower back to the Civil War, and he would be been a Southern Unionist. He didn't really care about the fact that Little Rock was being integrated, he cared that they were not enforcing a SCOTUS decision and thus undermining federal authority. It is arguable, and ironic, that Andrew Jackson might have done the same thing, based on the nullification crisis.
he reacted to AR gov calling out his national guard to block the SCOTUS decision. thus moving this from a states-rights vs. civil-rights argument which he really didn't want to get involved in, to a Mutiny which the old general was not going to put up with for a second.
Actually, Truman and LBJ IIRC also wanted to get rid of homosexuals, and I imagine a number of earlier presidents did as well. Religion had been a significant part of American culture since the colonial era, Ike merely put it in the motto and stuff (I think it was Lincoln that started putting "In God We Trust" on coinage).
With regard to civil rights, Eisenhower certainly wasn't perfect and could have done better in a couple aspects, but he DID care from everything I've researched and was a lot more progressive than people think on the issue (he desegregated a TON of Washington DC and the federal government, completed the military's integration, passed the first two civil rights acts since Reconstruction, enforced Brown by military force at Little Rock, and established a full Civil Rights Commission to study the full extent of the discrimination toward minorities). I STRONGLY recommend people read Eisenhower's 1953 State of the Union Address (an audio recording of it is also on YouTube), he actually laid out his civil rights strategy in it, and painted segregation as a violation of America's founding principles (he even condemned racism itself as "fear and distrust in the hearts of men" and said it was a moral issue every American had to work against). The big problem with Ike's strategy is that it was too dependent on state and local government cooperation in many cases, so while it produced significant results outside the South, it didn't work well in many of the "Jim Crow" states, unfortunately (he believed it should be handled as a federal-state hybrid system, a solution that sadly wasn't going to work in the situation). Truman actually was pretty vague on civil rights, at least in terms of how far they would go and what they would fully entail, at least from all the speeches I have read from him. I admire him for advancing the issue, but I'm not sure he would have pushed for segregation to be torn down entirely.
You have some valid criticisms of some of Ike's foreign policy though, but a number of countries already hated us dating back to the early 20th Century for meddling by earlier administrations (and there was no good solution with Cuba, TBH, though perhaps we could have handled that mess better).
I think it is safe to say that 46 is probably the first president to be an unequivocal supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. Even Clinton and Obama's stated positions when they were in office come off as pretty yikes-y today.
Truman had to deal with a much more overtly segregationist coalition than Eisenhower, which is no excuse whatsoever but does explain why he didn't do more than he did.
>Ike was the first president who was systemically homophobic.
The *first* president? What? I can already tell you're judging presidents from the 20th century using 2024 standards. Name a president before Eisenhower who wasn't homophobic. I guess Buchanon, but that's probably because he was incredibly gay.
Tell me, what was Ike's stance on transgender rights? ***(/s)***
>Eisenhower forced religion into American tradition.
He wasn't even religious. He had to find a denomination to join before running for the presidency to give the illusion of having a religious faith. Also, huh? Forced religion? You're saying that the US was fairly secular before Eisenhower?
People seem to really only focus on nixon’s impeachment/watergate but it doesn’t seem like many aren’t too familiar or care about his actual career lol.
I am far from a Nixon fan, (mostly because of how I believe the Vietnam war could have been a Win in our book if it wasn’t for watergate. Watergate resulted in Nixon leaving office overnight, and pissing off congress. When Ford would plead with them to continue our aid to South Vietnam, who was winning considerably, many left the room and our promise to them was broken. This would increase Chinese/soviet aid to north Vietnam where they bulldozed the south who couldn’t fight back in most situations, resulting in the war ending. But prior to that? I already said they were winning, and winning by fighting for themselves a WHOLE TWO YEARS after we quit, so yeah they were doing amazing for themselves…considering Afghanistan who didn’t last two days before Taliban took over lol….)
but I do acknowledge his pro’s. As another ww2 vet and former 2nd string president under Eisenhower, he had many accomplishments to be proud of, did many good things.
Began the environmental protection agency, lowered the voting age, would lay down the foundation for a huge economy boost for us decades later by visiting China and opening them up to the world (for better or worse) it’s just he had a few VERY ENABLING MEMBERS OF CABINET that allowed for his obsession of knowledge about the other side (democrats) thrive. He is listed a bit way too low on this list.
I’m assuming the professors in this study had just WATERGATE as the only bulletin point under his name when considering his place lol
Yea I don’t think a lot of modern day people understand the damage that Buchanan did to this country. The repercussions of the civil war still echo to this day
I agree Buchanan is easily in the top 3 or even 2 worst presidents ever, but for sake of argument and so I can learn more, why Buchanan worse than Andrew Johnson, out of curiosity?
In my own opinion I would say it was Buchanan’s failure to do anything to stop the Civil War. The Southern states began to secede before Lincoln was sworn in during his lame duck period. They raided several armories before Fort Sumter. So even if you want to say oh the Civil War was inevitable, you can make that argument. But Buchanan definitely gave them a head start by allowing them time to organize and gather supplies.
Johnson sucked to, I think he was more interested in getting back at his fellow southerners than actually repairing the country, but given that Congress impeached him and basically left him powerless before his turn was even over, to me he did less active harm.
Andrew Johnson is pretty low on the list for me too, but he at least had several small achievements on his record like acquiring Alaska and having successful foreign policy achievements. He did a terrible job after Lincoln for sure with reconstruction, paving the path for the major south vs north disconnect for the better part of the next 150 years. He was also described by many to be quite the arrogant, prideful, blowhard. He got impeached, barely missed by 1 vote too.
With that kind of resume you would think he would be worst but Buchanan unironically let the civil war happen. He somehow managed to piss off the north and south at the same time by admitting Kansas as a slave state, leaked a Supreme Court decision in his INAUGURAL SPEECH on the Dred Scott case (he also interfered and got a justice to flip so they would have majority), further inflaming the divide, and then attempted to stack a cabinet that would be peaceful and instead put 4 soon to be confederates in the cabinet causing a lot of infighting. He was notoriously pro slave and wanted to make all territories decide their slave status by themselves without federal ruling (making the mason dixon line and Missouri compromise useless). He also started a war in Utah with the Mormons but I’m unfamiliar with the circumstances around that one.
Got in an argument with my boomer parents the other day, they were saying the current is the worst president ever, I merely countered with Buchanan, Johnson, Hoover, and Wilson (deliberately avoiding obvious conservative failures like W). They said they aren’t relevant because so much time has passed.
Ah yes Woodrow Wilson the guy who MADE THE FEDERAL RESERVES and defined American foreign policy for the past 100 years by focusing on spreading and defending Democracy abroad is no longer relevant in American politics.
Recency bias takes too much credence in this kind of list. I think in all honesty, they shouldn't include GWB . Maybe even Clinton, to help with the biases one way or another towards recently sitting presidents.
We still don't know the effect that some of Obama's policies will have for America in the future.
Which is doubly true for Redacted #1.
Hell, Redacted #2 is still in office, yet they think they can accurately depict where he should be in the totality of all things presidential?
Also, and I just have to point this out.
Buchanan. Tyler. Johnson. Those three not being the bottom three is absolutely asinine.
Huge cause of the civil war.
Was a literal traitor who joined the confederacy.
Tried to destroy everything the GOAT did.
I think both Clinton and Bush are pretty safe in terms of ranking at this point. I don't see very many Bush defenders arguing he's top 10. In another comment, someone said a subtle factor is who surrounded the president. Bush Sr and Jr being not the strongest presidents in terms of money surrounding Clinton's economics seriously inflated Clinton's ranking. It's hard to make an opinion on Obama yet because the people surrounding his presidency may not even be done yet. I'm pretty sure people's opinions on Bush Jr haven't changed in the last 6 years as much, so I'm kinda subscribed to the idea that historical analysis begins when a presidency isn't relevant to MOST political discussion. This is also why Reagan is probably more susceptible to bias than Bush Jr.
Recency bias is a big one, but I think objectively “upper middle” isn’t so inaccurate in general.
This isn’t praise for being great, but he was clean. He had half the country and most of government whipped into a frenzy to find anything bad about him and his family. The worst they came up with was he had a tan suit and did a fist bump with his wife.
Clean does not mean perfect. There were failures on his part, but most of those were routine. Things like the $14 muffin given to government employees at a conference were ginned up as generally breakfasts like that include other things but only process on paper as a singular item; and sometimes missions fail, like Fast and Furious.
He probably gets a bump for having been there when Osama was killed, though you could argue he was like Truman that woke up one morning with the bomb. Nonetheless, Obama got Osama and Truman won the war. Alternate histories are messy, but it’s not a hard argument to make that he kept the economy as we know it afloat despite what was necessary to do so being deeply unpopular.
But none of this compares to, say, Grant, who was creating the kind of country the United States is today.
So a squeaky clean president with one or two signature legislative accomplishments that walked into one or two major accomplishments (like killing bin Ladin) that oversaw a less homophobic country while himself being the promise of the civil rights era.
I think he’s high in this list, but he’s not far from where he will settle either.
for the record, the 16 dollar muffin was a 16 dollar continental breakfast plus tax. Hilton mislabelled it in their records and Bill O’Reilly refused to shut up about it even after it was cleared up.
Don't forget pulling the US out of a recession after the 2008 housing market crash, and he kept the economy humming along before handing it to TFG45 (and his tanking of said economy during Covid-19). Obama's signature legislation was also Obamacare, aka the ACA which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction for standardized healthcare coverage despite red states trying their best to sabotage what was essentially Romneycare because rabblerabblerabble black president bad or something.
I’m not sure Obama should be so high but the OBL killing was a high risk mission into an “ally”. The VP and others around him were against it with it being too risky but he threw the dice and won. It was a close thing however and could have easily been a disaster with one of the stealth helos going down early.
I’ll take a stab at it, but let me know if I missed anything:
Nice:
1. Recovery from the 2008 Financial Crisis
2. ACA Healthcare reform
3. Iran Nuc. Deal (personal opinion can put mixed category)
4. Cuba detente (personal opinion can put mixed category)
5. Advancement of LGBT rights
6. Dodd-Frank
7. Better environmental regulations
Bad:
1. The Destabilization of Libya
2. Unenforced Red Line for Assad
3. Weak response to 2014 Crimea Crisis (hindsight tho)
Up for debate/mixed:
1. Drone strikes
2. Heightened China tensions
3. Israel-Palestine Policy
4. No Child Left Behind (reformed version under Obama)
Personally would rank him between numbers 7-11
Did no child left behind get reformed under Obama? I know it was originally passed under Bush
I also wonder whether people are grading Obama on a curve because of the environment. It’s just not possible in the current environment to pass massive landmark legislation with broad support. Things are too partisan, so it’ll be tough for modern presidents to actually pass legislation that’s widely popular.
Yeah parts of NCLB got reformed under Obama and he tacked on incentives from his stimulus bills to get states to adhere to his education policies. Some of those policies were a good step in the right direction and produced some good outcomes like increased graduation rates, but others just caused too much chaos in the education system.
I also agree with that assessment. I read his autobiography and he said he spent almost all of his political capital and goodwill to get the stimulus packages through Congress to possible stave off a depression. After that, filibusters and midterm reversals halted any significant legislative victory. The ACA is really watered down from what he wanted to accomplish.
Tbh it’s often the circumstances that make the president. Chaotic events, a cooperative congress, and a competent president can really elevate a president from pedestrian to great. In my comment above I listed the things I thought were pertinent to judge him and his administration, but the one thing that I didn’t mention was that after reading his autobiography I never doubted his earnestness for doing what is right for our country to the best of his abilities even if the decision would be extremely difficult to justify morally or look bad in hindsight.
In comparison to his adjacent administrations it’s like night and day haha
Idk just my 2 cents
Inherited the worst financial crisis since the Depression and two foreign wars. Prevented the Recession from spiraling out of control, passed the ACA, and got the JCPOA, all in the face of abhorrent political obstructionism.
I think it's important to remember that this is in hindsight. In 2014, the country was thoroughly anti-war and support for any sort of direct action to counter russia's offensive would have been looked on disfavorably back home. In hindsight, yes, we could have done more but Obama was largely working within the popular framework at the time.
Wilson needs to keep dropping in stature. Yes, I know, League of Nations, Women’s Suffrage, WWI, but he pursued racist policies with the vengeance of a Confederate sympathizer, and should be recognized for his racist policies. Fired Black gov’t workers, and the ones he couldn’t fire, he made work in cages.
Other than rating recent presidents, I don't have a problem with this list.
Some of the selections are polarizing as evidenced in the details in voting.
I find the top three fascinating. I can see arguments for each of them as #1. I think Washington is top because he set a standard all but FDR followed. He also limited the presidency in a sustainable way. He could so easily have turned it into a virtual dictatorship.
We often blur the line between a good/bad president, vs good/bad timing to be president. Washington is always #1 on my list because he was among the best presidents and came at the single most important moment in US history: The start.
Then there's Buchanan, a bad president who couldn't have had worse timing unless he was somehow the first president.
I'm not a huge fan of the ratings game. It's more of a commentary on how these academics and authors perceive our current time vs the past, than a fair ranking.
The job of the president is so different now vs. the 19th century it's just unfair. A good example in my mind are John Adams and James Monroe. Both pretty good presidents in my view, relative to what their powers actually were and the political context. Sometimes the context makes the president.
E.g. - FDR is ranked #2 but without the *political effects* of his time, he could never have been great. FDR had 75 senators and 335 house reps at the start of his 2nd term! He damn well SHOULD have been able to pass social security! Imagine what Obama, or any president really, could have done with 75% of both houses of congress!
Theodore Roosevelt had some of the more insightful commentary on this issue. He had written several books about history, and was very aware that the times of his own presidency were not presented with anything momentous for him to respond to.
As others have stated here, Obama is highly overrated at 7. You can't really be a top 10 president on good oratory skills and a third-payer healthcare plan alone. His foreign policy was not good and he was far too naive re: working with Congress.
I'm glad to see Reagan drop and Grant rise. I like Grant a lot more than these historians and I would rank him closer to 10 than 20. I am also not shy in saying that Reagan is criminally overrated and, as such, should be lower than he currently is.
Carter should not be in the middle of the pack. He was dealt a shit hand and did shit with it. Love him as a person, not as a president.
FDR overtaking Washington seems like blasphemy to every American growing up learning how Washington and Lincoln were the two greatest presidents ever. Not sure how I feel about his ranking.
The bottom selection is interesting and that's all I will say about it, lest I be struck down by the Rule 3 gods. #14 on the list is also interesting; not sure I would make such a placement at the moment but we'll see with time I suppose.
Yeah, I take any rank list that doesn’t have Johnson and Buchanan last with a massive grain of salt. I think we need to see how things shake out in the next decade or so before we have the discussion of whether there’s a presidency that belongs below those two. They were just god awful.
Recency bias, surely.
Someone might argue about how inept that fellow was, but, I mean, Buchanan was even more inept, despite having a lot of experience in Congress. Like, if the goal was to do everything wrong, he just about hit it.
Lots of people popping in to say these historians know more than any of us, which I would assume is probably true... but I really wonder what led to some of these decisions. Smart and well-informed people are still capable of making strange choices.
The first three are very well selected, but the rest seems like they're not serious about what they believe in. What a nonsense list. Obama seventh hahahahaha.
I give academics credit for knowledge of their fields, but they certainly have axes to grind, and are as subject to group-think as anyone else. The survey had a return rate of less than 30%, so self selection is also an issue.
I’m curious as to where you’d place him. Personally #7 is probably too high for me, but I’d put Obama somewhere in the top 15.
I think having James Madison at #11 is just as egregious. Ahead of Clinton and Reagan, really?
I seriously don’t get why Madison would be that high, even moreso than Obama. He led the US into an unnecessary war and he was far worse than his predecessor and successor as a whole. Sure, he wrote the constitution, but what they did before taking offive should in no way be taken into account when evaluating presidents.
I don't think the War of 1812 is some massive mistake. Unnecessary, maybe, but I do think it confirmed the results of the American Revolution. The British were still messing around in territory they were supposed to withdraw from in the old north west. There was also a desire to roll back all the territorial changes Napoleon made, and that would have included taking Louisiana from Spain. The American victory at New Orleans unequivocally decided that the Louisiana territory would be totally American. US/UK relations were much better after the war. The UK moved to a policy of making the US long term friends for the rest of the century and beyond.
Agreed. Not to shoulder the blame of the War of 1812 solely on him, but the White House burned down on his watch and British troops marched through our capital. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but surely that counts for something…
I dunno, fending off various threats from the two great global superpowers at the time (Britain and France) while maintaining a cohesive government would be kind of a huge achievement all on its own.
I feel people are also not appreciative (probably just unaware) of how Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion before it spiraled into a larger insurrection without having the government resort to tyranny. Huge win for Washington
Exactly, Washington in terms of setting the standards for the Presidency was an amazing President, but its not the same as leaders like Lincoln and FDR who lead our country thru tough moments in our country as President. If Washingtons leadership as Commander of the Continental Army was taken in consideration for Presidential legacy then yes I would argue he deserves number 1 spot but the Presidency is a completely different period from him leading in the war for our Independence thereby he isn't as high up on the list. He naturally deserves within the top 5 as President though.
I'm not the person you're referring to, but I agree top 10 is a little too generous. I'd say he's definitely a top-halfer, but top ten just feels like recency bias. He's better than average but not great, I'd say.
Apparently President Obama is shielded from all valid criticism, and any critic is just racist or a far right Republican. He's not a Top 10 President, MAYBE Top 15.
It's because of who followed. It's natural to compare contemporaries and if you do that you can't help but rate Obama much higher compared to what the now "average" presidents of his time. Look at his before and after and he shines like no one else.
I do not know by what metric they could use to put him that high. It is still too recent to say how effective he was, but I doubt he ends up being that high.
They also love them some Carter. He was a terrible president and not even close to average. The bias is strong with this list
Obama, JFK and Madison‘s placements are definitely too high, and I don’t even think Obama or those who shan‘t be named should even be ranked at all yet, it’s much too early.
I think that his use of drones in the Global War on Terror provided a valuable insight into the fact that you can wage war and attack enemies without risking lifes.
It’s always fun to see who’s below WH Harrison (who I assume is the lower one, weird that they didn’t distinguish the two) since it’s hard to do worse than “literally nothing”
I applaud the partial transparency in breaking down rankings by party/ideology. But I do not applaud the lack of transparency (from what I've seen) of not disclosing the number of professors in each category.
By way of example, Reagan is ranked #5 by both Republicans and Conservatives, and 18 by both Democrats and Liberals. His composite ranking is 16.
Simple math suggests that the group of 154 contained a lot more Democrats/Liberals than it did Republicans/Conservatives. And, as a result, the rankings say a lot more about the political views of a group of 154 history professors than they do about how great a particular president was.
So looking at Reagan - Republicans ranked him 5 Democrats 18 and independents 14
Final ranking was 16
Someone run the math on that. That means there were more Democrats than Republicans and independents combined and a decent amount more for the math to work like that.
Probably the same demographics as Reddit overall.
As a republican, what do republicans have against my man Quincy? Without him, the US and our neighbors would be subject to Europeans for a lot longer than we were.
Funny. If this was something we could tangibly create then no historic president would ever go up or down. It's not like Washington is doing new things to deserve going up or down
It's criminal that Nixon is that low. He had some major foreign policy successes like starting the pull out of Vietnam and normalizing relations with China, but people just seem to ignore that and only remember Watergate.
The lack of progress made in his term with a working class continuing to increasingly struggle to get by set the stage for the populism on both the Democratic and Republican sides in 2016, I'd say.
They didn’t even compile the list, it’s the averages of all 143 of their personal lists. Which further validates it. It’s not like they all sat together to create this *one* list. Obama being in the top ten is an average across 143 credited historians.
Great study. OP should bring this over to the people at r/dataisbeautiful to see if anyone would like to create some data visualizations with this material!
[We're looking for new moderators to join our team!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1asqu76/rpresidents_moderator_applications/) Make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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.*
Which Harrison is which? I NEED TO KNOW!!!
WHH is lower
It is interesting to note how perception changes over time. A president may be viewed as great or terrible in their own time, but decades or even centuries later, the option could completely change.
Oh yeah, there was a great article in the Atlantic about Wilson's perception: "In 1948, and again in 1962, surveys of American historians rated Wilson fourth among American presidents, lagging behind only Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt."
To be fair to Wilson, a good percentage of presidents ahead of him on the list were president after 1962. Not counting them he’d be up in the top ten.
Nixon is only tenth worst. I’m sure he’d feel pretty good about that.
Yeah sometimes it doesn't take centuries...like Ronald fucking Reagan is just gonna keep falling down this list and we're all here for it
Oh, THIS is what he meant by trickle down!
I agree... whoever decided to buy the Alaska territory and Louisiana purchase.. should keep going up...
r/fuckronaldreagan
[удалено]
Trickle down Reaganomics at work.
Good old Ray-gun. We're still suffering the results of his governorship here in Cali.
And some of them seemingly change without reason. Grant going up 9 spots in 10 years is absurd.
That’s largely because his administration has been reevaluated by some historians especially in regards to his efforts in Reconstruction and the characterization of him being a drunk who had no control over his corrupt cabinet is now seen as a big exaggeration.
The Ron Chernow book about Grant greatly helped his reputation, much like David McCullough's books enhanced Adams' and Truman's reputations. Plus with more emphasis on racial issues in recent years, his actions involving reconstruction and the KKK have gained him a lot of respect.
His intervention with the KKK can't be overstated. They were killing free blacks in droves, actively antagonizing and bullying voters at the polls, and basically doing everything they could to make the South a terror state for black citizens.
Chernow’s biography was so great. I didn’t think he could outdo his “Washington” or “Hamilton” bios, but seriously, he writes biographies with the emotion of a novelist. If you haven’t read “Grant”, read it.
>Plus with more emphasis on racial issues in recent years, I think this is also rising Obama on the list. People thought racial issues where in the past, but recent years made people rethink that it's still a very alive issue.
Grant has reason. His climb in the rankings is in the context of his advocacy and action for civil rights and the strength of his actions. Today we deem that more important and impactful than people did in the past in comparison to the rest of his presidency
Plus the dude got arrested for speeding three times in a chariot on the streets of DC. Which is arguably pretty fuckin' boss.
In order to make the Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative work, Grant had to be a foil for Lee. When you reevaluate Lee and the southern "cause," Grant looks a lot better. Note: I have absolutely no interest in hearing anyone's defense of the Lost Cause. I'm simply noting that historians' views have changed.
I imagine that you’re right and that Grant’s reputation goes up or down in an inverse relationship to how credible the Lost Cause narrative is deemed at the time.
I can't believe you have to say that about something that is a complete lie. There can be no defense of the "Lost Cause" because it is, in its entirety a falsehood.
Maybe re-evaluating his presidency like his generalship is causing this. How long did we live with the “fact” that Grant was a drunken butcher of men?
Confederates anyway :3
Grant is an underrated Chad who gets bashed on by souther history revisionists. The the opinions of confederate wannabes should be ignored.
This is an ignorant comment, the reason for this is that it's been widely known for a long time that his reputation was in part down by former conference sympathyzing historians who not only framed Grant as a corrupt drunk President but also created the myth of the lost cause among other fraudulent southern mythology. It's not so much that he "improved" it's just that he was never most of those things that were claimed about him by those people.
If you downgrade presidential impact of many, some will go “up” seemingly for no reason. Perception of Grant is likely static, but many more modern presidents are viewed worse and worse as we spend more time with their impact. Reagan is the perfect example of this. There was a 20 year period where critique of Reagan made you sound like a fringe radical…but now, long after he’s gone - we can point to his administration as a key inflection point for decline. His status has gone way down, not that other presidents status went up.
That's why it's too early to rank Presidents from the last 20 years. You need to see long-term effects to properly judge them. A good example is Reagan. Very well-liked in his time but steadily going down in popularity as the negative effects of his policies becomes more apparent over time. His ranking will likely only get lower.
Right. It’s a grim reminder that just because a policy is popular today, doesn’t mean it will be 20 or 40 years from now. When prompts the question - should a modern President support policy that is popular with the people today? Or should the prioritize policies that they think will be looked on fondly 50 years from now?
>should a modern President support policy that is popular with the people today? Or should the prioritize policies that they think will be looked on fondly 50 years from now? The former is what Congress and reelection are selecting for, the latter is what LBJ did.
Sometimes you dont find out that they were a shit person after they died and the secrets come out. Or the horrible long term things they did while in office. Also what we consider good or bad changes with time.
Perfect example here would be calling Lincoln the least polarizing president hahaha.
All this bickering over Obama I’m just happy to see Grant going up in the rankings
Makes me so happy to see Grant get the recognition he deserves. Hope he makes it to the top 15 next time one of these are done.
It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in those meetings to hear the discussions of how this came about. 
The second image in the OP mentions that they were all individually asked to rate each president from 0-100 and then it was averaged basically.
Lincoln as one of the least polarizing presidents....pretty sure half the country threw a hissy fit and left just because he was elected.
Honestly this is one of the most interesting points made on this post so far. It just goes to show how far off half the country can be on an issue. Especially when viewed from the future. It also makes me think about how every thing that is considered a step forward had to be fought for. Over and over again you see one half of the country dragging the other half into modernity, kicking and screaming. It's not always the same party or ideology either. Bias and only having 2 major sides to choose from have always been such a problem I guess.
Obama better than Eisenhower. Jeez!
Obama and Eisenhower both are pretty similar in their history, while Obama was dealing with greater economic challenges. Eisenhower gets viewed with rose colored glasses these days because of the myth of the lost ideal of the 50s but he had just as many missteps as Obama and was dealing with a far better economic and political landscape.
Remember the decision to overthrow the Iran government? That was something Truman opposed but Eisenhower backed.
Definitely, Eisenhower let the CIA run wild, he let the military industrial complex balloon during peace time. He wasn’t strong enough on civil rights. He had a lot of failings. I think he was a decent President but like Clinton I think it’s more due to living during decent times, at least economically. No one can take away what he did in WWII but as President Obama dealt with larger challenges and a much more difficult political and media landscape.
I always want us here to talk more about the difference between a good president, and a good time to be president.
Both of them in their own way put huge amounts of faith in others for things that ended up getting completely tagged to them. Eisenhower treated his team the way he wanted to be treated - hands off and with trust. That was kind of a constant problem, because many acted without the same north star as Eisenhower had.
Oh, he’s absolutely better than Eisenhower, at least for now. 1) Ike was the first president who was systemically homophobic. 2) He was the one who turned the CIA so tyrannical that Harry Truman called it one of the two mistakes of his presidency. He contributed greatly to so many foreign countries hating us. 3) Eisenhower forced religion into American tradition. 4) He was *not* an ally to the Civil Rights movement, and he showed poor leadership during the crisis. He was far too tame compared to the president that preceded and succeeded him. 5) He has the Missiles placed in Turkey, and planed the Bay of Pigs. I don’t think he ever really understood that a president has to act. He looks exceptionally bad when you compare him with the leadership of Harry Truman.
Is flying the 101st Airborne troops to Little Rock, to enforce de-segregation evidence of his hostility to Civil Rights? Or is it evidence that he didn't understand action?
Take Eisenhower back to the Civil War, and he would be been a Southern Unionist. He didn't really care about the fact that Little Rock was being integrated, he cared that they were not enforcing a SCOTUS decision and thus undermining federal authority. It is arguable, and ironic, that Andrew Jackson might have done the same thing, based on the nullification crisis.
he reacted to AR gov calling out his national guard to block the SCOTUS decision. thus moving this from a states-rights vs. civil-rights argument which he really didn't want to get involved in, to a Mutiny which the old general was not going to put up with for a second.
Actually, Truman and LBJ IIRC also wanted to get rid of homosexuals, and I imagine a number of earlier presidents did as well. Religion had been a significant part of American culture since the colonial era, Ike merely put it in the motto and stuff (I think it was Lincoln that started putting "In God We Trust" on coinage). With regard to civil rights, Eisenhower certainly wasn't perfect and could have done better in a couple aspects, but he DID care from everything I've researched and was a lot more progressive than people think on the issue (he desegregated a TON of Washington DC and the federal government, completed the military's integration, passed the first two civil rights acts since Reconstruction, enforced Brown by military force at Little Rock, and established a full Civil Rights Commission to study the full extent of the discrimination toward minorities). I STRONGLY recommend people read Eisenhower's 1953 State of the Union Address (an audio recording of it is also on YouTube), he actually laid out his civil rights strategy in it, and painted segregation as a violation of America's founding principles (he even condemned racism itself as "fear and distrust in the hearts of men" and said it was a moral issue every American had to work against). The big problem with Ike's strategy is that it was too dependent on state and local government cooperation in many cases, so while it produced significant results outside the South, it didn't work well in many of the "Jim Crow" states, unfortunately (he believed it should be handled as a federal-state hybrid system, a solution that sadly wasn't going to work in the situation). Truman actually was pretty vague on civil rights, at least in terms of how far they would go and what they would fully entail, at least from all the speeches I have read from him. I admire him for advancing the issue, but I'm not sure he would have pushed for segregation to be torn down entirely. You have some valid criticisms of some of Ike's foreign policy though, but a number of countries already hated us dating back to the early 20th Century for meddling by earlier administrations (and there was no good solution with Cuba, TBH, though perhaps we could have handled that mess better).
I think it is safe to say that 46 is probably the first president to be an unequivocal supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. Even Clinton and Obama's stated positions when they were in office come off as pretty yikes-y today.
Truman had to deal with a much more overtly segregationist coalition than Eisenhower, which is no excuse whatsoever but does explain why he didn't do more than he did.
>Ike was the first president who was systemically homophobic. The *first* president? What? I can already tell you're judging presidents from the 20th century using 2024 standards. Name a president before Eisenhower who wasn't homophobic. I guess Buchanon, but that's probably because he was incredibly gay. Tell me, what was Ike's stance on transgender rights? ***(/s)*** >Eisenhower forced religion into American tradition. He wasn't even religious. He had to find a denomination to join before running for the presidency to give the illusion of having a religious faith. Also, huh? Forced religion? You're saying that the US was fairly secular before Eisenhower?
Everyone talking about how high Obama is, but look at LBJ!
His domestic policy was pretty good. Vietnam should put him lower tho, but still he wasn’t all bad
Top ten for LBJ is insane. I think maybe he is undervalued by most people nowadays, but no way should he be that high.
If he is going up in the last few years it is for a reason. Domestically i firmly believe he was a top 5 president.
I know Nixons presidency ended in disgrace but I have a hard time ranking W Bush over him.
Don't worry, he'll go up the ranks after rhe 3001 election.
Come, Agnew, howl at the moon with me!
Arooooooo!
Once he gets his new robot body
Bush is fortunate that another worse president came after him. Make him look like a dime in comparison
People seem to really only focus on nixon’s impeachment/watergate but it doesn’t seem like many aren’t too familiar or care about his actual career lol. I am far from a Nixon fan, (mostly because of how I believe the Vietnam war could have been a Win in our book if it wasn’t for watergate. Watergate resulted in Nixon leaving office overnight, and pissing off congress. When Ford would plead with them to continue our aid to South Vietnam, who was winning considerably, many left the room and our promise to them was broken. This would increase Chinese/soviet aid to north Vietnam where they bulldozed the south who couldn’t fight back in most situations, resulting in the war ending. But prior to that? I already said they were winning, and winning by fighting for themselves a WHOLE TWO YEARS after we quit, so yeah they were doing amazing for themselves…considering Afghanistan who didn’t last two days before Taliban took over lol….) but I do acknowledge his pro’s. As another ww2 vet and former 2nd string president under Eisenhower, he had many accomplishments to be proud of, did many good things. Began the environmental protection agency, lowered the voting age, would lay down the foundation for a huge economy boost for us decades later by visiting China and opening them up to the world (for better or worse) it’s just he had a few VERY ENABLING MEMBERS OF CABINET that allowed for his obsession of knowledge about the other side (democrats) thrive. He is listed a bit way too low on this list. I’m assuming the professors in this study had just WATERGATE as the only bulletin point under his name when considering his place lol
don’t forget that Nixon gave land and water rights to Native Americans, hell he’s one of the reasons the whole “tribal police” system is setup
r/Amtrak thinks you forgot something Nixon did
[удалено]
I still think unless an actual civil war happens again, no one can be worse than Buchanan
Yea I don’t think a lot of modern day people understand the damage that Buchanan did to this country. The repercussions of the civil war still echo to this day
Whenever my students ask who I think the worst president is I always say Buchanan and their response is always Who?
I agree Buchanan is easily in the top 3 or even 2 worst presidents ever, but for sake of argument and so I can learn more, why Buchanan worse than Andrew Johnson, out of curiosity?
In my own opinion I would say it was Buchanan’s failure to do anything to stop the Civil War. The Southern states began to secede before Lincoln was sworn in during his lame duck period. They raided several armories before Fort Sumter. So even if you want to say oh the Civil War was inevitable, you can make that argument. But Buchanan definitely gave them a head start by allowing them time to organize and gather supplies. Johnson sucked to, I think he was more interested in getting back at his fellow southerners than actually repairing the country, but given that Congress impeached him and basically left him powerless before his turn was even over, to me he did less active harm.
Andrew Johnson is pretty low on the list for me too, but he at least had several small achievements on his record like acquiring Alaska and having successful foreign policy achievements. He did a terrible job after Lincoln for sure with reconstruction, paving the path for the major south vs north disconnect for the better part of the next 150 years. He was also described by many to be quite the arrogant, prideful, blowhard. He got impeached, barely missed by 1 vote too. With that kind of resume you would think he would be worst but Buchanan unironically let the civil war happen. He somehow managed to piss off the north and south at the same time by admitting Kansas as a slave state, leaked a Supreme Court decision in his INAUGURAL SPEECH on the Dred Scott case (he also interfered and got a justice to flip so they would have majority), further inflaming the divide, and then attempted to stack a cabinet that would be peaceful and instead put 4 soon to be confederates in the cabinet causing a lot of infighting. He was notoriously pro slave and wanted to make all territories decide their slave status by themselves without federal ruling (making the mason dixon line and Missouri compromise useless). He also started a war in Utah with the Mormons but I’m unfamiliar with the circumstances around that one.
Got in an argument with my boomer parents the other day, they were saying the current is the worst president ever, I merely countered with Buchanan, Johnson, Hoover, and Wilson (deliberately avoiding obvious conservative failures like W). They said they aren’t relevant because so much time has passed.
They used the old, “who’s the worst president ever starting in 2021” routine on you.
Ah yes Woodrow Wilson the guy who MADE THE FEDERAL RESERVES and defined American foreign policy for the past 100 years by focusing on spreading and defending Democracy abroad is no longer relevant in American politics.
Turns out that trying to end the 200+ years of peaceful transition of power is bad, actually. Go figure
I like how \[redacted\] is both the worst president and still makes the list of "overrated"
Silent Cal down 6 yeesh
Let’s go lower
Recency bias takes too much credence in this kind of list. I think in all honesty, they shouldn't include GWB . Maybe even Clinton, to help with the biases one way or another towards recently sitting presidents. We still don't know the effect that some of Obama's policies will have for America in the future. Which is doubly true for Redacted #1. Hell, Redacted #2 is still in office, yet they think they can accurately depict where he should be in the totality of all things presidential? Also, and I just have to point this out. Buchanan. Tyler. Johnson. Those three not being the bottom three is absolutely asinine. Huge cause of the civil war. Was a literal traitor who joined the confederacy. Tried to destroy everything the GOAT did.
I bet if Lincoln was not a vampire hunter he would rank lower.
Recent bias on Obama is going hard in this ranking. If we return to a presidential normalcy, I wonder what they'd ACTUALLY rank Obama.
[удалено]
I think both Clinton and Bush are pretty safe in terms of ranking at this point. I don't see very many Bush defenders arguing he's top 10. In another comment, someone said a subtle factor is who surrounded the president. Bush Sr and Jr being not the strongest presidents in terms of money surrounding Clinton's economics seriously inflated Clinton's ranking. It's hard to make an opinion on Obama yet because the people surrounding his presidency may not even be done yet. I'm pretty sure people's opinions on Bush Jr haven't changed in the last 6 years as much, so I'm kinda subscribed to the idea that historical analysis begins when a presidency isn't relevant to MOST political discussion. This is also why Reagan is probably more susceptible to bias than Bush Jr.
13th-15th probably.
Why is Obama so high?
Recency bias is a big one, but I think objectively “upper middle” isn’t so inaccurate in general. This isn’t praise for being great, but he was clean. He had half the country and most of government whipped into a frenzy to find anything bad about him and his family. The worst they came up with was he had a tan suit and did a fist bump with his wife. Clean does not mean perfect. There were failures on his part, but most of those were routine. Things like the $14 muffin given to government employees at a conference were ginned up as generally breakfasts like that include other things but only process on paper as a singular item; and sometimes missions fail, like Fast and Furious. He probably gets a bump for having been there when Osama was killed, though you could argue he was like Truman that woke up one morning with the bomb. Nonetheless, Obama got Osama and Truman won the war. Alternate histories are messy, but it’s not a hard argument to make that he kept the economy as we know it afloat despite what was necessary to do so being deeply unpopular. But none of this compares to, say, Grant, who was creating the kind of country the United States is today. So a squeaky clean president with one or two signature legislative accomplishments that walked into one or two major accomplishments (like killing bin Ladin) that oversaw a less homophobic country while himself being the promise of the civil rights era. I think he’s high in this list, but he’s not far from where he will settle either.
for the record, the 16 dollar muffin was a 16 dollar continental breakfast plus tax. Hilton mislabelled it in their records and Bill O’Reilly refused to shut up about it even after it was cleared up.
Don't forget pulling the US out of a recession after the 2008 housing market crash, and he kept the economy humming along before handing it to TFG45 (and his tanking of said economy during Covid-19). Obama's signature legislation was also Obamacare, aka the ACA which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction for standardized healthcare coverage despite red states trying their best to sabotage what was essentially Romneycare because rabblerabblerabble black president bad or something.
I think if we ever manage to get universal healthcare his legacy will be even more positive, because Obamacare was the first step in that direction.
I’m not sure Obama should be so high but the OBL killing was a high risk mission into an “ally”. The VP and others around him were against it with it being too risky but he threw the dice and won. It was a close thing however and could have easily been a disaster with one of the stealth helos going down early.
Absolutely. But, as you said, he won the gamble.
> This isn’t praise for being great, but he was clean. I dunno, that tan suit was a disaster for America. /s
I’ll take a stab at it, but let me know if I missed anything: Nice: 1. Recovery from the 2008 Financial Crisis 2. ACA Healthcare reform 3. Iran Nuc. Deal (personal opinion can put mixed category) 4. Cuba detente (personal opinion can put mixed category) 5. Advancement of LGBT rights 6. Dodd-Frank 7. Better environmental regulations Bad: 1. The Destabilization of Libya 2. Unenforced Red Line for Assad 3. Weak response to 2014 Crimea Crisis (hindsight tho) Up for debate/mixed: 1. Drone strikes 2. Heightened China tensions 3. Israel-Palestine Policy 4. No Child Left Behind (reformed version under Obama) Personally would rank him between numbers 7-11
Did no child left behind get reformed under Obama? I know it was originally passed under Bush I also wonder whether people are grading Obama on a curve because of the environment. It’s just not possible in the current environment to pass massive landmark legislation with broad support. Things are too partisan, so it’ll be tough for modern presidents to actually pass legislation that’s widely popular.
Yeah parts of NCLB got reformed under Obama and he tacked on incentives from his stimulus bills to get states to adhere to his education policies. Some of those policies were a good step in the right direction and produced some good outcomes like increased graduation rates, but others just caused too much chaos in the education system. I also agree with that assessment. I read his autobiography and he said he spent almost all of his political capital and goodwill to get the stimulus packages through Congress to possible stave off a depression. After that, filibusters and midterm reversals halted any significant legislative victory. The ACA is really watered down from what he wanted to accomplish. Tbh it’s often the circumstances that make the president. Chaotic events, a cooperative congress, and a competent president can really elevate a president from pedestrian to great. In my comment above I listed the things I thought were pertinent to judge him and his administration, but the one thing that I didn’t mention was that after reading his autobiography I never doubted his earnestness for doing what is right for our country to the best of his abilities even if the decision would be extremely difficult to justify morally or look bad in hindsight. In comparison to his adjacent administrations it’s like night and day haha Idk just my 2 cents
Inherited the worst financial crisis since the Depression and two foreign wars. Prevented the Recession from spiraling out of control, passed the ACA, and got the JCPOA, all in the face of abhorrent political obstructionism.
virtue signaling probably. i personally think he’s a solid t20 but he’s way too high here
The foreign policy blunders, specifically 2014, are a little too significant to be 7th
I think it's important to remember that this is in hindsight. In 2014, the country was thoroughly anti-war and support for any sort of direct action to counter russia's offensive would have been looked on disfavorably back home. In hindsight, yes, we could have done more but Obama was largely working within the popular framework at the time.
Good president.
Seven is high for Obama but it’s not as egregious as some say. I’d have him in the 10-13 range
Yeah, I like Obama, just 7 is too high, for sure. He has some legit strengths, but that's too high.
Wilson needs to keep dropping in stature. Yes, I know, League of Nations, Women’s Suffrage, WWI, but he pursued racist policies with the vengeance of a Confederate sympathizer, and should be recognized for his racist policies. Fired Black gov’t workers, and the ones he couldn’t fire, he made work in cages.
Other than rating recent presidents, I don't have a problem with this list. Some of the selections are polarizing as evidenced in the details in voting. I find the top three fascinating. I can see arguments for each of them as #1. I think Washington is top because he set a standard all but FDR followed. He also limited the presidency in a sustainable way. He could so easily have turned it into a virtual dictatorship.
We often blur the line between a good/bad president, vs good/bad timing to be president. Washington is always #1 on my list because he was among the best presidents and came at the single most important moment in US history: The start. Then there's Buchanan, a bad president who couldn't have had worse timing unless he was somehow the first president.
Obama probably benefited from being sandwiched between the two most disastrous post-WWII administrations.
The first picture goes so hard
Right? And how has nobody pointed out that Chester A Arthur’s coat is cool as hell?
I'm not a huge fan of the ratings game. It's more of a commentary on how these academics and authors perceive our current time vs the past, than a fair ranking. The job of the president is so different now vs. the 19th century it's just unfair. A good example in my mind are John Adams and James Monroe. Both pretty good presidents in my view, relative to what their powers actually were and the political context. Sometimes the context makes the president. E.g. - FDR is ranked #2 but without the *political effects* of his time, he could never have been great. FDR had 75 senators and 335 house reps at the start of his 2nd term! He damn well SHOULD have been able to pass social security! Imagine what Obama, or any president really, could have done with 75% of both houses of congress! Theodore Roosevelt had some of the more insightful commentary on this issue. He had written several books about history, and was very aware that the times of his own presidency were not presented with anything momentous for him to respond to.
As others have stated here, Obama is highly overrated at 7. You can't really be a top 10 president on good oratory skills and a third-payer healthcare plan alone. His foreign policy was not good and he was far too naive re: working with Congress. I'm glad to see Reagan drop and Grant rise. I like Grant a lot more than these historians and I would rank him closer to 10 than 20. I am also not shy in saying that Reagan is criminally overrated and, as such, should be lower than he currently is. Carter should not be in the middle of the pack. He was dealt a shit hand and did shit with it. Love him as a person, not as a president. FDR overtaking Washington seems like blasphemy to every American growing up learning how Washington and Lincoln were the two greatest presidents ever. Not sure how I feel about his ranking. The bottom selection is interesting and that's all I will say about it, lest I be struck down by the Rule 3 gods. #14 on the list is also interesting; not sure I would make such a placement at the moment but we'll see with time I suppose.
Yeah, I take any rank list that doesn’t have Johnson and Buchanan last with a massive grain of salt. I think we need to see how things shake out in the next decade or so before we have the discussion of whether there’s a presidency that belongs below those two. They were just god awful.
46 at 14 is something, that's for sure.
Lol Wilson 15th
The fellow in last place is incorrect. I hate the guy but Buchanan let the Civil War happen
This did it for me. Any list that doesn't have Buchanan or Johnson in last place is flawed.
Recency bias, surely. Someone might argue about how inept that fellow was, but, I mean, Buchanan was even more inept, despite having a lot of experience in Congress. Like, if the goal was to do everything wrong, he just about hit it. Lots of people popping in to say these historians know more than any of us, which I would assume is probably true... but I really wonder what led to some of these decisions. Smart and well-informed people are still capable of making strange choices.
The Eisenhower disrespect is atrocious.
Real I guess they don’t like Ike
The first three are very well selected, but the rest seems like they're not serious about what they believe in. What a nonsense list. Obama seventh hahahahaha.
I give academics credit for knowledge of their fields, but they certainly have axes to grind, and are as subject to group-think as anyone else. The survey had a return rate of less than 30%, so self selection is also an issue.
In statiscical terms 30% is a pretty darn good return rate. You almost NEVER see anything above 50 and most will range between 10-20
I’m curious as to where you’d place him. Personally #7 is probably too high for me, but I’d put Obama somewhere in the top 15. I think having James Madison at #11 is just as egregious. Ahead of Clinton and Reagan, really?
I seriously don’t get why Madison would be that high, even moreso than Obama. He led the US into an unnecessary war and he was far worse than his predecessor and successor as a whole. Sure, he wrote the constitution, but what they did before taking offive should in no way be taken into account when evaluating presidents.
I don't think the War of 1812 is some massive mistake. Unnecessary, maybe, but I do think it confirmed the results of the American Revolution. The British were still messing around in territory they were supposed to withdraw from in the old north west. There was also a desire to roll back all the territorial changes Napoleon made, and that would have included taking Louisiana from Spain. The American victory at New Orleans unequivocally decided that the Louisiana territory would be totally American. US/UK relations were much better after the war. The UK moved to a policy of making the US long term friends for the rest of the century and beyond.
Agreed. Not to shoulder the blame of the War of 1812 solely on him, but the White House burned down on his watch and British troops marched through our capital. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but surely that counts for something…
I can’t take any poll that has Washington outside of the Top 2 seriously.
That's nonsense. Lincoln and FDR accomplished much more as President. Washington's main achievement came before 1789.
I dunno, fending off various threats from the two great global superpowers at the time (Britain and France) while maintaining a cohesive government would be kind of a huge achievement all on its own.
I feel people are also not appreciative (probably just unaware) of how Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion before it spiraled into a larger insurrection without having the government resort to tyranny. Huge win for Washington
Exactly, Washington in terms of setting the standards for the Presidency was an amazing President, but its not the same as leaders like Lincoln and FDR who lead our country thru tough moments in our country as President. If Washingtons leadership as Commander of the Continental Army was taken in consideration for Presidential legacy then yes I would argue he deserves number 1 spot but the Presidency is a completely different period from him leading in the war for our Independence thereby he isn't as high up on the list. He naturally deserves within the top 5 as President though.
Obama in top 10 is absolutely stunning and just simply incorrect.
Where would you place him, out of curiosity? Madison at #11 is more egregious to me.
He would probably place him lower, not because of any objective evidence, but because he doesn’t like him.
I'm not the person you're referring to, but I agree top 10 is a little too generous. I'd say he's definitely a top-halfer, but top ten just feels like recency bias. He's better than average but not great, I'd say.
But under what pretense? This is the combined rating of a 154 people. This isn’t like the group came together to create the list.
Apparently President Obama is shielded from all valid criticism, and any critic is just racist or a far right Republican. He's not a Top 10 President, MAYBE Top 15.
I have him at #20 in my personal list. He’s done a lot of good and bad, so towards the bottom of the upper half seems fitting
It's because of who followed. It's natural to compare contemporaries and if you do that you can't help but rate Obama much higher compared to what the now "average" presidents of his time. Look at his before and after and he shines like no one else.
The ACA and the recovery from the Great Recession are both pretty notable achievements during his presidency.
I do not know by what metric they could use to put him that high. It is still too recent to say how effective he was, but I doubt he ends up being that high. They also love them some Carter. He was a terrible president and not even close to average. The bias is strong with this list
Obama, JFK and Madison‘s placements are definitely too high, and I don’t even think Obama or those who shan‘t be named should even be ranked at all yet, it’s much too early.
Madison that high and Monroe that low is insane. What is the rationale? I would legitimately be interested in hearing that one.
Kudos to whoever decided to dress Chester A Arthur up as some sort of dungeons & dragons character.
Not far off tbf https://preview.redd.it/ualjpzo0aljc1.jpeg?width=759&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7262b10c049113cf18378f7701e056a4753c64b7
Always interested in how they rate William Henry Harrison who served less than 30 days & how poor an administration has to be to be below that
What kinda bullshit is this? Obama ain't fucking top ten.
Apparently he’s also one of the most commonly under AND over rated presidents so… yeah this is study is wild
I agree. Obama is 17th. But it helps your ranking to have a non-disastrous Presidency in between two Jack asses in recent memory.
Not even the Republicans said he was as low as 17 in this survey- they put him at 15
He is.
Could you enlighten me why?
I think that his use of drones in the Global War on Terror provided a valuable insight into the fact that you can wage war and attack enemies without risking lifes.
This is funny
Why is Jackson so high on the list? Wasn't he a murderer that almost bankrupted the entire country?
It’s always fun to see who’s below WH Harrison (who I assume is the lower one, weird that they didn’t distinguish the two) since it’s hard to do worse than “literally nothing”
I'm pretty left leaning, but Obama at 7 is insane.
I applaud the partial transparency in breaking down rankings by party/ideology. But I do not applaud the lack of transparency (from what I've seen) of not disclosing the number of professors in each category. By way of example, Reagan is ranked #5 by both Republicans and Conservatives, and 18 by both Democrats and Liberals. His composite ranking is 16. Simple math suggests that the group of 154 contained a lot more Democrats/Liberals than it did Republicans/Conservatives. And, as a result, the rankings say a lot more about the political views of a group of 154 history professors than they do about how great a particular president was.
Whys Taylor below Tyler? Do they strive for the expansion of slavery?
Who put Bush Jr. over Coolidge?
Jackson and van Buren being that high is disturbing.
Buchanan getting draxed in those polls
So looking at Reagan - Republicans ranked him 5 Democrats 18 and independents 14 Final ranking was 16 Someone run the math on that. That means there were more Democrats than Republicans and independents combined and a decent amount more for the math to work like that. Probably the same demographics as Reddit overall.
I mean if we're being honest, all of these "scholars" are probably Democrats
Had to be at least one Republican in the group. Maybe 2...
That’s a pretty fair final ranking for Reagan even though reddit says he should be number -5000
You can't put Jimmy Carter in the top half of President's and expect your list to be taken seriously.
How tf was andrew jackson in the top 10 at any point lmao
Yeah defying the Supreme Court to do ethnic cleansing/genocide should probably put him near the bottom.
The fact that he’s still nowhere near the bottom is baffling to me. Was literally an inspiration to for Hitler.
Obama overrated. Grant underrated. For me the top 3 is the right top 3 and any order among them is reasonable.
The formal dress is awesome
Truman’s in the top 10! Let’s go!
At least my boy Grant is rising up the ranks and is being recognized as an underrated president.
Grant redeption 🫡
I had no idea the First Doctor was President! And sitting in the foreground!
As a republican, what do republicans have against my man Quincy? Without him, the US and our neighbors would be subject to Europeans for a lot longer than we were.
These guys need to follow our rule #3
Funny. If this was something we could tangibly create then no historic president would ever go up or down. It's not like Washington is doing new things to deserve going up or down
It's criminal that Nixon is that low. He had some major foreign policy successes like starting the pull out of Vietnam and normalizing relations with China, but people just seem to ignore that and only remember Watergate.
This is greatness. Thanks for posting this.
Clinton being ranked higher by republicans than democrats is interesting
Interesting, it has the recent presidents ranked. Good list, and looks about right.
My favorite Nixon quote: > [Expletive deleted]
Was this cleared with his holiness, the emperor of grift? He'd be flaming them from his toilet any minute now.
Obama at 7 is crazy. The dude barely got anything done in 8 years.
The lack of progress made in his term with a working class continuing to increasingly struggle to get by set the stage for the populism on both the Democratic and Republican sides in 2016, I'd say.
this is laughable
This entire thread: A bunch of actual historians did research and compiled a list but I think I know better cause I'm an armchair reddit enthusiast!
Hey, how do you know there aren't any actual historians in here?
They didn’t even compile the list, it’s the averages of all 143 of their personal lists. Which further validates it. It’s not like they all sat together to create this *one* list. Obama being in the top ten is an average across 143 credited historians.
I mean, Woodrow Wilson was a History Professor
This list is ass
Great study. OP should bring this over to the people at r/dataisbeautiful to see if anyone would like to create some data visualizations with this material!
This list is honestly pretty bad.
this is about the most unserious list i’ve seen from actual historians