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.*
A word of caution: it's quite possible that in order to do so, a president will have to oversee a VERY sizable crisis, so we may not want to have a top 3 president in our lifetime.
Obama was dealt with the Recession and two unpopular wars, and even with that recovery alongside various achievements, r/presidents rank him at #12 and historians/scholars rank him in the top 10 but not top 5. That too while being insanely charismatic and generally well-liked.
Breaking into the top 3 would not be ideal at all.
Obama is my parents age and I think he’s still in great shape? I’m not into politics, just saying he looks good. I’m 20 years younger and have grey hair, not that crazy.
Obama just doesn't dye his hair or try hair plugs or whatever. It makes him look aged now, but it'll be helpful as he actually gets older and isn't stressing to look forever youthful when he's 80.
Look at a a photo of Obama first year first term and look at one towards the end of his second term. He looks haggard.
It is without a doubt a thankless and stressful job, that ages you no matter what.
I mean... almost. At least the enemy is predictable in war.
I equate mom and daughter arguments to a hurricane. Dad's, take note, when they start fighting, do what you would do in a hurricane: go to the bathroom and ride it out. Otherwise, you risk getting caught in the middle.
Yeah. The guy was like peak Bill Cosby (minus the creep). He always had wisdom, he said things effectively and efficiently, he treated everyone well, and he knew how to handle anything thrown at him.
That's what we need to look for in any President.
Obama was very popular with people from his own party, but the opposition HATED him a lot. A Top 3 president needs to be able to be popular on both sides, and sadly yeah, that might take a very big crisis.
I can understand why they didn't though. The goal was to keep the country united and hanging all or most of the leaders that the south respected would've either led to an immediate disaster or an underground movement of some sorts to start another civil war. Reminds me of how some historians think being too harsh on Germany post World War I led to Germany doing what it did in world War 2. The decision seems soft but seems to have been the right one.
One thing I think U.S. citizens should remember is our precedent for Amnesty for fellow Americans. From the whiskey rebellion to the Civil war unless some serious crimes were committed only 3 men were tried and convicted of War crimes post civil war. Gen. Lee became a teacher.
"In war, the enemy gets a vote." -U.S. Gen Mattis.
They may have been "traitors" and while I disagree and oppose their side the war was fought to preserve and ultimately solidify the Union of states. They absolutely count and if you want a Union their vote matters too.
Tbf, the recession and war on terror pales in comparison to presidents that...
Washington: led an army to liberate the US from British control and set the standard for presidents.
Lincoln: Managed a country that split in half, led a war against fellow countrymen (from his eyes even though they considered themselves separate), and gave liberty to slaves by announcing them as full citizens.
FDR: Even though we don't want a president to serve more than 10 years at the very most now, FDR did stay with the American people through most of the Great Depression and WWII up until he passed. That was about 12 years of dedication.
I really like Obama, from a political and personal perspective. I still have the letter he wrote back to me when I was a kid. But personal bias aside I think that Obama did make some mistakes (such as not seeking justice for the companies that screwed the people over during the 2008 financial crisis).
I really think that there are some other presidents that probably deserve more credit.
I disagree. Obama couldnt have done anything about that. A port agreement was on the verge of expiring, and Russia wanted a tactically useful port in Crimea. They had spent the previous decade putting pro-Russian puppets in Ukraines government.
Lastly, Ukraines army was worthless at that time, there was absolutely nothing they could have done. After the Crimean annexation, the US and UK spent the next 8 years training and beefing up Ukraines military. Obamas response to the annexation is why Ukraine even stands a chance at taking on Russia today.
I think Obama could have been up there, very possibly by providing Universal Healthcare and much more, if only he could have gotten the cooperation of the GOP, instead of obstruction and corruption. The GOP has caused so much damage and destruction to our Democracy it's a sin. Fortunately, it appears they're on their way to ruin and I hope soon.
It was a dream realized for me when Obama became the first Black President of the United States. I will never forget that day! I really miss that feeling of being so proud of what our country had accomplished by electing him, I perceived it as a great deal of progress for everyone. Then came the absolute worst president in history. SMH No words.
I think Bush deserves more credit than Obama for providing a solution to the crisis. The key thing was getting enough Republicans to sign off on the Economic Stabilization Act, which Bush did. Stimulus was important but getting TARP passed and giving the fed enough political cover to give out loans is what kept the financial crisis from blowing up to a depression level event.
My thoughts exactly when I looked at the pictures. Despite their golden reputations, it was generally considered a turbulent and shitty time for many Americans under at least two of these presidents.
imo, we are already in the middle of the Gilded Age 2 (and then some). we are currently having a very sizable crisis. if we could bring in a president that could:
* create universal healthcare for all Americans
* reign in billionaires and return a high standard of living to the middle class with aggressive taxes on the rich/meaningful work reform for the people
* create universal higher education for all Americans
* get a handle on the creeping global lean towards authoritarianism and war
* create meaningful climate change legislation that put us on an aggressive track to preserve the environment
we would have our generation's FDR
That guy also said that if Mitch McConnell held up his legislation in the Senate, he would travel to Kentucky and convince the people (who elected Mitch to be their senator for 39 years) to vote him out of office.
Gee, can't believe no one ever tried that before.
was thinking of the New Deal, but yeah you're right, if we get another Progressive Era I guess that's Teddy.
I guess to unseat FDR you need Teddy + FDR - internment camps
FDR did that while managing a world war, even if a president did all that he wouldn’t be top three, maybe top ten.
Cause the presidents who helped end the gilded age are also still not top three, closest is Teddy.
Like yeah, our problems are bad right now, but not even close to world war or civil war level.
This is a controversial take, but I see the climate change issue reaching a severe point in our lifetimes, albeit maybe near the latter stages.
It’s not just the can that keeps getting kicked down the road, but the can that a good portion of the country denies even exists. We’re already seeing the early effects now, and it would be extremely difficult for a President to overcome an issue defined by the natural world vs an issue that can be mitigated through policy. Climate change also impacts energy, food, housing and economic sectors, and with it being a much more long lasting problem than a war or economic depression, it can eventually metastasize into something really dangerous.
Part of the problem is that it's quite a slow-rolling crisis and hard to tie to a single person. In this case, the best presidential scenario would be Al Gore taking office in 2001. It's easy to at least imagine him taking steps that would have meaningfully affected the long-term climate trajectory, and thus having had an enormous impact on world history, but slowly preventing a counterfactual doesn't get that much historical attention. Conversations on his presidency would still be dominated by 9/11 and our response to it, +/- some incremental healthcare reform.
The thing is, we are already in the midst of slow rolling crisis all the time. Things have been going downhill slowly in many ways for 55 years now in many important factors of our life. If somebody actually came in and stabilized the middle class and made housing and healthcare a human right while tampering down wealth inequality that would make them the most popular president since FDR. But yea like other people said, Jesus himself could be real, come down and make infinite food and housing for all, and 50% of the country would call him a communist and demonize him nonstop.
If you did increase welfare and add a comprehensive healthcare system for all Americans, I have a genuine question which is how would it affect the supply and demand curve. First, wouldn’t it make it difficult to get a doctors appointment since we really don’t have enough doctors and second wouldn’t it drive up inflation from drastically increasing spending and increasing the cost of food and goods due to increased demand? Its much easier to say these things then to implement them unfortunately. This is especially true when benefits are provided to non citizens (they are we call it humanitarian packages and when they have a kid they collect welfare and other benefits not complaining but point it out). So where does the money come from? We tax the middle class to death, while we should close the loopholes on the tax system for the top 1% it won’t fix every problem.
We already have over 90% healthcare coverage and the states that passed Medicaid expansion haven't really seen significant healthcare shortages. Remember that the ACA *was* universal Healthcare with the Medicaid expansion. So that doesn't really factor in
If anything, inflation would come down. Medicare would be the most likely avenue for single payer, and it has administrative costs half that of traditional health insurance. Add in giving it power to negotiate pricing and you'd see a large drop in healthcare expenditures.
Sure you'd be paying for it in taxes, but it's not like we don't already pay for our health insurance. Having something cheaper through taxes is still cheaper, so inflation would come down from it
One of the reason why there is a shortage of doctors is because there really isn’t a lot of financial aid for medical school in the US. There are scholarships for national service but, you would have to join the military or the national health service not private practice. (Single payer system could help with this) Also there are federal students loans but they are unsubsidized and have no cap so medicals schools are allowed to just increase tuition without consequences.
This is not the reason. Last year, only 37% of US applicants to medical school got a spot. There are more than enough applicants, but the number of seats are limited. Also, almost no one is flat out declining their only acceptance due to the fact they will have to take out $300,000 in federal student loans, since they know they will be able to pay it off in 3-4 years of living frugally after residency. You may have people getting multiple acceptances and then choosing the more cost effective option, however.
But there are vastly more applicants than seats, the physician shortage is due to limiting the number of schools that are opening.
There is no shortage of people who want to go into medical school, it’s not an issue.
Sincerely, someone applying to medical school.
I don't even think we should provide those to non-american citizens, really. You should pay taxes to get your piece of the pie, and immigrants working towards citizenship would be paying into our system for a set amount of time before they are allowed to access it.
Even aside, almost every other modernized country does most of these things and more. Saying it will be difficult is just a way of saying "let's not do anything because it's hard." It's not that difficult in theory. The hardest part is we've already given all the multi national corporations all the money, and therefore power, to put up such a staunch fight against it. Medicare for all costs people less than private insurance. All the money we already put into Medicare would roll into it as well. We already DO most of these things for senior citizens. It isn't hard to expand them.
>I don't even think we should provide those to non-american citizens, really. You should pay taxes to get your piece of the pie, and immigrants working towards citizenship would be paying into our system for a set amount of time before they are allowed to access it.
If you want to exclude Green Card holders and people on work visas from access to health services, you're going to make the USA a very unfriendly place for highly-skilled foreign workers.
It's a pipe dream to believe that you can deny non-citizens their human rights to medical care. Your plan will actually add to our burden, for example, if we deny them preventive care and they receive emergency care which can cost many, many times more. The ACA was intended to fix that issue for the non- and under-insured. And worse it will repel the immigrants that actually make large contributions to our country such as physicians, engineers, and other specialized trades.
It is demonstrably false to state that non-citizens as a group do not already pay their share of taxes. In most cases they overpay compared with what they receive. Immigrants are and have always been our strength. They build more businesses and commit fewer crimes than natives. I agree that we should tax wealthy citizens and corporations higher because they receive far more in benefits from the public than they pay back in taxes.
Changes in the world that will cause future major crises are best dealt with by creating a more fair and level playing field for everyone here. Top down control is "brittle" and those on top normally spend much more effort in maintaining the current status quo that gave them their head start than on helping anyone else. In short we can afford a comprehensive safety net and creating one with money the most wealthy will not ever miss is the way. We just need to overcome their well intrenched lobbyists and other cronies.
Agree with you. And I'll add it is foolish to think this can't be done just because it can't be fixed in one stroke. It took us at least 40 years to get here, it cannot be fixed by the stroke of a pen. But if we don't begin to make smaller changes now it will never be done. We can't just throw our hands up and say "It can't be done!"
If we’d had someone else in 2020 overseeing the Covid pandemic, response, and subsequent economic crisis and act to unify the country and emerge as the global leader… maybe that would crack top 3. But, alas.
Bush oversaw a large crisis in 9/11, terrorist attacks on our soil. He had an incredibly high approval rating for his handling of this, but I think because the wars tarried so long that he sullied his own reputation. There is a world in which Bush could have been a top tier president.
Speaking of which, same think for Mayor Guiliani, and he somehow went below Bush.
I hope not. Removing one of the top 3 would have to mean that a President leads the US through a crisis worse than the Great Depression/WWII, since FDR is #3 on most people’s lists.
Came here to say exactly this. Great presidents are not measured by their great accomplishments, but rather by the great troubles they had to lead the country through.
May we from now on never again live in "interesting times" as the Chinese proverb says. And in so doing, may we never see another top-three president again.
I mean, just wait until the food shortages start. A single natural disaster in the right place can cause the entire western hemisphere's food supply to crater. Russia invading Ukraine almost made Egypt starve. A single dry season in the Amazon could cause beef to disappear from American supermarkets. What you say is "tame" right now (I mean, we're witnessing the collapse of democracy in real-time) is going to seem like a sunny spring day in 5-10 years.
I mean… I could see a president doing something great for the country like getting Universal Healthcare approved and funding and achieving a cure for cancer or something along those lines. They may not be considered top 3 in our lifetime but in a hundred years looking at the lives they saved, possibly
Definitely. Yeah, it’s great to have president to steer us through difficult times. But how about one that can simply solve the problems in their time, make our lives as citizens better, while also managing to not create a crisis than won’t come to fruition till they’re long gone and don’t have to take the blame?
And literally *The* Civil War and *The* Revolutionary War.
Getting us through the most catastrophic periods of our nation’s history is what makes a top 3 president.
Definitely, and I don’t think anyone will be able to reach Washington’s legendary status or beat Lincoln’s victory over an institutional evil like slavery, while putting the Confederacy to an end.
I think the future generations will think favorably of someone like an Obama due to their cultural significance if nothing else. Main stays like Washington are legendary at this point.
Otherwise it would take a cataclysmic event to be a top 3 in the general public’s view
Yeah, no one is going to be overtaking Washington imo. His accomplishments are great, but like you said, his legendary status is just too ingrained into the country’s fabric for him to fall. Off the top of my head, he’s had the following named or shaped after him:
- Our capitol
- A state
- Universities
- The dollar
- The quarter
- Cities, towns and villages
- Memorials
- Streets and highways
Question as non-american: where does Obama rank on the list? It seems like he was generally well liked and was elected in the fallout of the financial crisis.
Someone like Bernie could have been top 5 but only with the cooperation of the other branches. But the way they stonewall each other he may not have gotten much done at all.
The United States civil war was a very unusual one because it had physical boundaries. North vs south. Almost all civil wars are pockets throughout the country which lead to a lot more violence and chaos.
Having followed the Syrian Civil War since the outbreak, holy hell was/is it near impossible to know wtf is going on between the like dozen different factions/countries all over the country. Just off the top of my head there's:
FSA
Syrian Government
ISIS
Al-Nusura
U.S
Israel
Iranian Militias
Russia
Turkey
Kurdish forces
I'm pretty sure I'm missing some. Even then the extent of their control/influence and role each country/group played in the war wasn't even consistent the past 10 years. American historians got off lucky with how clean cut the U.S Civil War was in terms of factions/territory all things considered.
I hate that. I’m not a fan of the current administration, but he’s my president. If Americans can’t respect their own president then the rest of the world sure as shit won’t.
I disagree, as someone born and raised in the south. But I disagree because I don’t think southern conservatives are that consistent or historically literate.
They like to argue that the party switch never happened, so that they can take credit for ending slavery and somehow blame the modern Democratic Party for supporting slavery. At the same time, though, they’re the most likely to defend the Confederate flag and argue that taking down Confederate monuments is “erasing history.”
WTF is everyone below you smoking
Like fr
It has to be one of the most stupid conversations I’ve ever seen on this Sub. Like utterly delusional. (Except u/Sensei_of_knowledge
The Roman Empire had peace for 200 years. We’ve only made it 80. With things like the Cold War almost breaking it. Eventually another crisis will happen.
I think W had a chance post 9/11. But we all see how that went.
The problem is it requires at least 1 massive crisis that needs to be handled with the utmost forethought and oftentimes novel interpretations of the constitution, even breaking it if you have to for the good of the country.
Personally, I’m too much of a doomer, I think the best leaders in America are long dead and we just have to deal with second rate leftovers for the next generations, but I hope I’m wrong
That 2000 election really was a turning point. I didn't hate Bush or anything. But a better president would have led us through 9/11 and Katrina into a true golden age. Coming off of a balanced budget and all the optimism of the 90s...damn.
But that’s the thing. We may not see it as top 3 at the time, and might even think it’s the bottom 3, but history paints a bigger picture. Lincoln wasn’t’ universally loved, and he’s #1 according to this sub.
Right, we’re so polarized that we wouldn’t recognize a top 3 for a generation or 2. And it helps to die in office because no one wants you loitering around meddling, unless you’re pulling a Jimmy Carter.
I wouldn’t say unlikely. America has been a country for 250 years and we have seen a Revolution, Civil War, 2 World Wars, and Vietnam (significant because of the draft). We are averaging a major, major event every 50 years
I unfortunately disagree. The country is more divided right now than anytime in the last 80 years. Add to that Russia and China’s increasing boldness and I unfortunately feel that there is likelihood in the next 10 years of a significant event.
Not rooting for it, my son is 3 so the timing is scary. Hopefully we find ways to diplomatically navigate all the rough waters ahead.
I hope not. In order for a president to crack the top three, it would require a cataclysmic event that a leader successfully navigate the country through. Revolution, the civil war, and the depression/WWII were hardships that opened up the opportunity for these three men to be great. I hope I don’t live to see an opportunity like that emerge again.
I hope we never again see the conditions required to put a president in the top 3
Unless, magically, there is a huge blue wave and the majority agrees on policies that spark the change in civil rights, the environment, and the economy for the better
Just for the hell of it . . .
The top 3 are the 1st, 16th, and 32nd presidents. Going by that trend the 48th should be another top standout.
By the way (not an American here), it seems crazy there were the same number of presidents between Washington and Lincoln as there were between Lincoln and FDR.
I can only answer personally but my lifetime will probably extend to see the 2090s, possibly even the 2100s. Given as all these Presidents are from the consecutive centuries 18th/19th/20th it’s likely we’ll see a President break into the top 3. This is especially because the U.S, like much of the world, is sliding into many crisis and whoever solves them will have a substantial legacy.
As people have already pointed out, the question really boils down to “will the U.S. face an existential crisis AND can we elect a president capable of not only navigating that crisis but leading us out of it stronger than before?”
I’m hopeful the answer to the first part is no, and sadly I think the answer to the second part would also be no.
I really hope not for our sake. Normally, a great president handles some major crises wonderfully. Really don’t want to bring upon us WWIII, a depression, or a civil war.
W 43 had an insane situation to work with after 9/11, and it could have taken him easily to the top4/5 of the list.
It’s also hard now because we have classified information that is not public information so there could be decisions make that seem horrible but we don’t have all the details about why and what was the thought process. I feel that this is why a president debate with a sitting president about foreign policy is hard because they likely have information that we can’t know. So only time will tell…
Yes. Maybe. FDR came so long after Lincoln and Washington, proving its not a requirement to be a president in the early formative years of the US to have a top three pick.
If someone can manage to get us out of World War 3 then maybe. Washington formed this country, Lincoln restored the country, FDR saved the country. So if anybody can squeeze into top 3 they’re gonna be dealing with some serious shit. Maybe a top 10
Honestly, I disagree with the notion that the president would *need* to have a big, nationwide crisis that threatens to ruin everything. There are so many small or medium-sized crises going on *right now* that if a president could solve or even mitigate half of them they’d be well up there with the best. Just off the top of my head:
Taking climate change seriously, getting a federal minimum wage that actually matches the cost of living, fixing our broken healthcare system, fixing a our antiquated or broken political/democratic systems, ending the assault on reproductive bodily autonomy, ending the assault on queer and *especially* trans rights, removing all religious exceptions to discrimination policies, fixing the problem of homelessness, ending the War on Drugs, fixing the problems with our border security *and especially* undoing the violations of civil rights that is our current attempt to solve those problems, getting money out of politics, reestablishing the Fairness Doctrine, fixing our education system, getting the Lost Cause out of the curriculum, getting creationism and abstinence-only sex Ed out of the curriculum, decriminalizing and destigmatizing sex work, making public transport more viable for more people, fixing our barbaric police training systems, decreasing the power of police unions and other ways for bad officers to avoid accountability, find and root out the *considerable* white nationalist infiltration of law enforcement and the military, stop giving the military such a bloated budget and do a much better job of holding it accountable for that money, break up and penalize companies like Facebook or Nestle for how they blatantly steal from and abuse our citizens, and fix the million little government bureaucratic inefficiencies that exist only because nobody took the time to fix them.
I think a president who accomplished like, a 6th or 7th of that list would *easily* make the top 3.
Everyone saying that to get into the top three would likely mean a big crisis - is true to some extent.
However, we’re currently IN a crisis in terms of divisiveness.
It’s not likely, but possible that someone comes along who could bring the parties closer together again, and help bring the nation back to an era of civility and truth. I don’t know who that might be, but I’m just saying we might be IN the crisis needed to elevate someone.
Something will have to go very very wrong for there to be another S tier president. I for one hope for a long line of prudent but forgettable stewards.
I hope not because that means we have to deal with something terrible.
Also even if it does they wouldn't be recognized for years afterwards, if not decades
No. The top three are foundational leaders that define entire eras of our country's history in times of crisis. The best place to be is the uneventful tenure of a President somewhere in the top 15.
Each of the top three presidents each had a major crisis that they were able to deal with. I'd rather not experience a crisis that would require a top tier president.
"Top Three" status seems pretty strongly tied to fighting an existential war such as the Revolution, Civil War, or a World War.
Given the existence of nukes and the fact that we would curbstomp any western hemisphere rivals in a hot war, that'd pretty solidly have to be a second civil war which is depressingly possible, although I suspect we'll manage to avoid it.
Top Ten presidents though? I think there's a strong possibility within at least the next 3 decades, simply because populist dissatisfaction isn't going anywhere and I'd like to hope that we have to win the coinflip and get a Roosevelt-type president eventually if we work to make it happen.
Let’s hope not as each of these presidents is remembered as great mostly because they led the country through a period of great crisis, and in two cases, horrible wars.
Were these presidents (other than washington i guess) viewed as unanimous top 3 in their time? I think even if we do see another, it might take another several decades of their legacy playing out before we recognize the fact.
TR > FDR
Very unlikely we have a better president than GW, Abe, and TR in the next century.
You basically, whether you pick FDR or TR, have the best President from three different CD centuries.
That is tough... Can I say I hope not....
The reason would be what is needed to break into the top 3. Mine go pretty similarly to most... In order of when they were in office.
George Washington. Truly established a strong federal government while in office, set the examples of the office and the ideal that the position wouldn't be one held for life.
Abraham Lincoln. Successfully defeated the largest internal struggle the US has faced, and gave rise at the federal level to an anti-slavery power that truly put the US on a path to all people being free and that ideal.
FDR. Took on the 2nd largest internal struggle (the depression) and the largest external struggle (WWII) and the US came out financially stronger and as a world power.
Usually behind you get some combination of Jefferson, Teddy, and Truman... (Wilson and Jackson might be in people who don't look at race relations)... But I think those top 3 really separate themselves.
**I am saying I REALLY hope not, because to get on that list, by far the most likely way is to successfully deal with some major internal or external crisis. I don't want to see a President making the top 3 for bringing the US through WWIII in my lifetime, or solving the 2nd great depression, or winning the next Civil War, or re-established the government after a period of anarchy. In a perfect world we'd get a bunch of 10-25 range guys. Guys that kept the ship moving forwards and never had a super crisis to manage.**
Unlikely, not due to the talents/abilities of an individual but more ascribed to the lack of a crisis of that magnitude. I think TR could have been ranked even higher if he had a large crisis, it just never presented itself.
Naw, that would require some sort of consensus and the moment you start liking a sitting executive, all the nihilists and centrists come out of the woodwork.
If they do, it’ll most likely be long after they’re president and even more likely after they’ve died. We look at the past much more fondly than the present.
I feel like a coming president may have to deal with a world war, civil war, depression AND disaster. All of which will probably lead to a revolution. 😩
Probably not . As others have said it would require some “great” to occur for them to rise to the occasion of.
Also I think the majority of history the “great people” are only labeled such after the fact. For example in Lincoln’s prime half the country desisted him (duh)
Most the time people are considered great in hind sight
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.*
A word of caution: it's quite possible that in order to do so, a president will have to oversee a VERY sizable crisis, so we may not want to have a top 3 president in our lifetime.
Agreed. I hope we don’t see one. Since it be a major disaster. Even if they lead us through it.
Obama was dealt with the Recession and two unpopular wars, and even with that recovery alongside various achievements, r/presidents rank him at #12 and historians/scholars rank him in the top 10 but not top 5. That too while being insanely charismatic and generally well-liked. Breaking into the top 3 would not be ideal at all.
I honestly wouldn't wish that on any president. To get into the top 3, it would probably absolutely break you
This. Especially considering two of the current top three died in office. Those aren’t great odds.
Plus Washington died like a two years after he left office.
True, but I mostly blame that on the horror show that was early 18th century medicine. Oh and love your flair.
You don’t miss the extremely scientific days of phrenology and bloodletting?
God, no.
I'd totally be up for another Obama. I didn't agree with everything he did, but he always did it in a presidential manner. I miss that.
And he wasn’t old af
What are you talking about? He aged 30 years in office
Happens to every president hence the saying “Aging like a president” it should be like a 2 term president but that’s a mouth full.
Obama is my parents age and I think he’s still in great shape? I’m not into politics, just saying he looks good. I’m 20 years younger and have grey hair, not that crazy.
Obama just doesn't dye his hair or try hair plugs or whatever. It makes him look aged now, but it'll be helpful as he actually gets older and isn't stressing to look forever youthful when he's 80.
tbf, he doesn’t need to look youthful anymore
Look at a a photo of Obama first year first term and look at one towards the end of his second term. He looks haggard. It is without a doubt a thankless and stressful job, that ages you no matter what.
Bush aged too. Having daughters will do that to you. Those teenage years are heart attack alley.
I think having *kids* will do that to you.
Fun fact, daughters are kids!
But sons are not daughters :)
no. Having daughters specifically will do that to you. Source: I have 2 boys and 1 girl.
People have different experiences.
*Heard this in ‘War was easier than daughters’.*
I mean... almost. At least the enemy is predictable in war. I equate mom and daughter arguments to a hurricane. Dad's, take note, when they start fighting, do what you would do in a hurricane: go to the bathroom and ride it out. Otherwise, you risk getting caught in the middle.
Same dude. I’m somewhat libertarian leaning and didn’t like his politics too much, but the man respected the office and behaved with dignity.
For the time being, Obama is easily the best president of the 21st century.
Under the circumstances, I think the current guy is on track to be even better. But definitely see the reasoning
Current guy? If you consult the subreddit rules you'll find that Obama is our current president.
Holy low bar, Batman!
Yeah. The guy was like peak Bill Cosby (minus the creep). He always had wisdom, he said things effectively and efficiently, he treated everyone well, and he knew how to handle anything thrown at him. That's what we need to look for in any President.
I did not like his foreign policy decisions at all but he was stable at least.
Obama was very popular with people from his own party, but the opposition HATED him a lot. A Top 3 president needs to be able to be popular on both sides, and sadly yeah, that might take a very big crisis.
I don't think that any president was hated by the opposition more than Lincoln was.
Yeah but we don't count them because they were traitors.
A lot of people who hated Obama also proved themselves to be traitors on a particular winter's day 3 years ago....
One person's "traitor" is another person's "patriot."
Well they definitely were traitors and were treated far better than they deserved.
This. The confederate leadership should have been hanged.
I can understand why they didn't though. The goal was to keep the country united and hanging all or most of the leaders that the south respected would've either led to an immediate disaster or an underground movement of some sorts to start another civil war. Reminds me of how some historians think being too harsh on Germany post World War I led to Germany doing what it did in world War 2. The decision seems soft but seems to have been the right one.
One thing I think U.S. citizens should remember is our precedent for Amnesty for fellow Americans. From the whiskey rebellion to the Civil war unless some serious crimes were committed only 3 men were tried and convicted of War crimes post civil war. Gen. Lee became a teacher. "In war, the enemy gets a vote." -U.S. Gen Mattis. They may have been "traitors" and while I disagree and oppose their side the war was fought to preserve and ultimately solidify the Union of states. They absolutely count and if you want a Union their vote matters too.
The opposition HATED FDR too.
Tbf (And thankfully it hasn't happened twice) but Lincoln was probably hated more by the opposition.
Tbf, the recession and war on terror pales in comparison to presidents that... Washington: led an army to liberate the US from British control and set the standard for presidents. Lincoln: Managed a country that split in half, led a war against fellow countrymen (from his eyes even though they considered themselves separate), and gave liberty to slaves by announcing them as full citizens. FDR: Even though we don't want a president to serve more than 10 years at the very most now, FDR did stay with the American people through most of the Great Depression and WWII up until he passed. That was about 12 years of dedication. I really like Obama, from a political and personal perspective. I still have the letter he wrote back to me when I was a kid. But personal bias aside I think that Obama did make some mistakes (such as not seeking justice for the companies that screwed the people over during the 2008 financial crisis). I really think that there are some other presidents that probably deserve more credit.
Not defending Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea was a great big boondoggle.
Agreed.
I disagree. Obama couldnt have done anything about that. A port agreement was on the verge of expiring, and Russia wanted a tactically useful port in Crimea. They had spent the previous decade putting pro-Russian puppets in Ukraines government. Lastly, Ukraines army was worthless at that time, there was absolutely nothing they could have done. After the Crimean annexation, the US and UK spent the next 8 years training and beefing up Ukraines military. Obamas response to the annexation is why Ukraine even stands a chance at taking on Russia today.
I think Obama could have been up there, very possibly by providing Universal Healthcare and much more, if only he could have gotten the cooperation of the GOP, instead of obstruction and corruption. The GOP has caused so much damage and destruction to our Democracy it's a sin. Fortunately, it appears they're on their way to ruin and I hope soon. It was a dream realized for me when Obama became the first Black President of the United States. I will never forget that day! I really miss that feeling of being so proud of what our country had accomplished by electing him, I perceived it as a great deal of progress for everyone. Then came the absolute worst president in history. SMH No words.
I would argue he kicked the can down the road with those wars
The unpopular wars are not considered merits of his administration.
I think Bush deserves more credit than Obama for providing a solution to the crisis. The key thing was getting enough Republicans to sign off on the Economic Stabilization Act, which Bush did. Stimulus was important but getting TARP passed and giving the fed enough political cover to give out loans is what kept the financial crisis from blowing up to a depression level event.
My thoughts exactly when I looked at the pictures. Despite their golden reputations, it was generally considered a turbulent and shitty time for many Americans under at least two of these presidents.
All three, no doubt. The Revolution would have sucked
imo, we are already in the middle of the Gilded Age 2 (and then some). we are currently having a very sizable crisis. if we could bring in a president that could: * create universal healthcare for all Americans * reign in billionaires and return a high standard of living to the middle class with aggressive taxes on the rich/meaningful work reform for the people * create universal higher education for all Americans * get a handle on the creeping global lean towards authoritarianism and war * create meaningful climate change legislation that put us on an aggressive track to preserve the environment we would have our generation's FDR
We passed on that guy a couple times already.
Haha yep, took the words from my mouth
That guy also said that if Mitch McConnell held up his legislation in the Senate, he would travel to Kentucky and convince the people (who elected Mitch to be their senator for 39 years) to vote him out of office. Gee, can't believe no one ever tried that before.
“We” meaning the DNC didn’t give a progressive candidate a fair chance
There'd also be less salt if half the party wasn't in complete denial over the whole thing.
I think if you end a Gilded Age, that makes you the other Roosevelt.
was thinking of the New Deal, but yeah you're right, if we get another Progressive Era I guess that's Teddy. I guess to unseat FDR you need Teddy + FDR - internment camps
man half of the country doesn’t even follow these values. they say they do but their vote doesn’t
FDR did that while managing a world war, even if a president did all that he wouldn’t be top three, maybe top ten. Cause the presidents who helped end the gilded age are also still not top three, closest is Teddy. Like yeah, our problems are bad right now, but not even close to world war or civil war level.
This is a controversial take, but I see the climate change issue reaching a severe point in our lifetimes, albeit maybe near the latter stages. It’s not just the can that keeps getting kicked down the road, but the can that a good portion of the country denies even exists. We’re already seeing the early effects now, and it would be extremely difficult for a President to overcome an issue defined by the natural world vs an issue that can be mitigated through policy. Climate change also impacts energy, food, housing and economic sectors, and with it being a much more long lasting problem than a war or economic depression, it can eventually metastasize into something really dangerous.
Part of the problem is that it's quite a slow-rolling crisis and hard to tie to a single person. In this case, the best presidential scenario would be Al Gore taking office in 2001. It's easy to at least imagine him taking steps that would have meaningfully affected the long-term climate trajectory, and thus having had an enormous impact on world history, but slowly preventing a counterfactual doesn't get that much historical attention. Conversations on his presidency would still be dominated by 9/11 and our response to it, +/- some incremental healthcare reform.
I really doubt that President Gore is as committed to fighting climate change as citizen Gore…though he is certainly better than Bush.
The thing is, we are already in the midst of slow rolling crisis all the time. Things have been going downhill slowly in many ways for 55 years now in many important factors of our life. If somebody actually came in and stabilized the middle class and made housing and healthcare a human right while tampering down wealth inequality that would make them the most popular president since FDR. But yea like other people said, Jesus himself could be real, come down and make infinite food and housing for all, and 50% of the country would call him a communist and demonize him nonstop.
If you did increase welfare and add a comprehensive healthcare system for all Americans, I have a genuine question which is how would it affect the supply and demand curve. First, wouldn’t it make it difficult to get a doctors appointment since we really don’t have enough doctors and second wouldn’t it drive up inflation from drastically increasing spending and increasing the cost of food and goods due to increased demand? Its much easier to say these things then to implement them unfortunately. This is especially true when benefits are provided to non citizens (they are we call it humanitarian packages and when they have a kid they collect welfare and other benefits not complaining but point it out). So where does the money come from? We tax the middle class to death, while we should close the loopholes on the tax system for the top 1% it won’t fix every problem.
We already have over 90% healthcare coverage and the states that passed Medicaid expansion haven't really seen significant healthcare shortages. Remember that the ACA *was* universal Healthcare with the Medicaid expansion. So that doesn't really factor in If anything, inflation would come down. Medicare would be the most likely avenue for single payer, and it has administrative costs half that of traditional health insurance. Add in giving it power to negotiate pricing and you'd see a large drop in healthcare expenditures. Sure you'd be paying for it in taxes, but it's not like we don't already pay for our health insurance. Having something cheaper through taxes is still cheaper, so inflation would come down from it
One of the reason why there is a shortage of doctors is because there really isn’t a lot of financial aid for medical school in the US. There are scholarships for national service but, you would have to join the military or the national health service not private practice. (Single payer system could help with this) Also there are federal students loans but they are unsubsidized and have no cap so medicals schools are allowed to just increase tuition without consequences.
This is not the reason. Last year, only 37% of US applicants to medical school got a spot. There are more than enough applicants, but the number of seats are limited. Also, almost no one is flat out declining their only acceptance due to the fact they will have to take out $300,000 in federal student loans, since they know they will be able to pay it off in 3-4 years of living frugally after residency. You may have people getting multiple acceptances and then choosing the more cost effective option, however. But there are vastly more applicants than seats, the physician shortage is due to limiting the number of schools that are opening. There is no shortage of people who want to go into medical school, it’s not an issue. Sincerely, someone applying to medical school.
I don't even think we should provide those to non-american citizens, really. You should pay taxes to get your piece of the pie, and immigrants working towards citizenship would be paying into our system for a set amount of time before they are allowed to access it. Even aside, almost every other modernized country does most of these things and more. Saying it will be difficult is just a way of saying "let's not do anything because it's hard." It's not that difficult in theory. The hardest part is we've already given all the multi national corporations all the money, and therefore power, to put up such a staunch fight against it. Medicare for all costs people less than private insurance. All the money we already put into Medicare would roll into it as well. We already DO most of these things for senior citizens. It isn't hard to expand them.
>I don't even think we should provide those to non-american citizens, really. You should pay taxes to get your piece of the pie, and immigrants working towards citizenship would be paying into our system for a set amount of time before they are allowed to access it. If you want to exclude Green Card holders and people on work visas from access to health services, you're going to make the USA a very unfriendly place for highly-skilled foreign workers.
It's a pipe dream to believe that you can deny non-citizens their human rights to medical care. Your plan will actually add to our burden, for example, if we deny them preventive care and they receive emergency care which can cost many, many times more. The ACA was intended to fix that issue for the non- and under-insured. And worse it will repel the immigrants that actually make large contributions to our country such as physicians, engineers, and other specialized trades. It is demonstrably false to state that non-citizens as a group do not already pay their share of taxes. In most cases they overpay compared with what they receive. Immigrants are and have always been our strength. They build more businesses and commit fewer crimes than natives. I agree that we should tax wealthy citizens and corporations higher because they receive far more in benefits from the public than they pay back in taxes. Changes in the world that will cause future major crises are best dealt with by creating a more fair and level playing field for everyone here. Top down control is "brittle" and those on top normally spend much more effort in maintaining the current status quo that gave them their head start than on helping anyone else. In short we can afford a comprehensive safety net and creating one with money the most wealthy will not ever miss is the way. We just need to overcome their well intrenched lobbyists and other cronies.
Agree with you. And I'll add it is foolish to think this can't be done just because it can't be fixed in one stroke. It took us at least 40 years to get here, it cannot be fixed by the stroke of a pen. But if we don't begin to make smaller changes now it will never be done. We can't just throw our hands up and say "It can't be done!"
If we’d had someone else in 2020 overseeing the Covid pandemic, response, and subsequent economic crisis and act to unify the country and emerge as the global leader… maybe that would crack top 3. But, alas.
Covid wasn't nearly catastrophic enough to warrant more respect for a leader than FDR, no matter who was in charge or how well they did.
Bush oversaw a large crisis in 9/11, terrorist attacks on our soil. He had an incredibly high approval rating for his handling of this, but I think because the wars tarried so long that he sullied his own reputation. There is a world in which Bush could have been a top tier president. Speaking of which, same think for Mayor Guiliani, and he somehow went below Bush.
His invasion of Iraq is what pulls him down. Afghanistan was fine but not getting Bin Laden on his watch hurt.
We saw Bush JR gain significant power after 9-11. Reagan was elected with a huge landslide victory, twice
I hope not. Removing one of the top 3 would have to mean that a President leads the US through a crisis worse than the Great Depression/WWII, since FDR is #3 on most people’s lists.
Came here to say exactly this. Great presidents are not measured by their great accomplishments, but rather by the great troubles they had to lead the country through. May we from now on never again live in "interesting times" as the Chinese proverb says. And in so doing, may we never see another top-three president again.
Bro, it's "interesting times" from here on out.
To quote my favorite fb post “after all this bs, we better be in the next bible”
Interesting times are right now ;-;
We're already living in interesting times.
It's interesting in that the paradigms have shifted, but events are pretty tame
I mean, just wait until the food shortages start. A single natural disaster in the right place can cause the entire western hemisphere's food supply to crater. Russia invading Ukraine almost made Egypt starve. A single dry season in the Amazon could cause beef to disappear from American supermarkets. What you say is "tame" right now (I mean, we're witnessing the collapse of democracy in real-time) is going to seem like a sunny spring day in 5-10 years.
I mean… I could see a president doing something great for the country like getting Universal Healthcare approved and funding and achieving a cure for cancer or something along those lines. They may not be considered top 3 in our lifetime but in a hundred years looking at the lives they saved, possibly
Definitely. Yeah, it’s great to have president to steer us through difficult times. But how about one that can simply solve the problems in their time, make our lives as citizens better, while also managing to not create a crisis than won’t come to fruition till they’re long gone and don’t have to take the blame?
And literally *The* Civil War and *The* Revolutionary War. Getting us through the most catastrophic periods of our nation’s history is what makes a top 3 president.
Definitely, and I don’t think anyone will be able to reach Washington’s legendary status or beat Lincoln’s victory over an institutional evil like slavery, while putting the Confederacy to an end.
I think the future generations will think favorably of someone like an Obama due to their cultural significance if nothing else. Main stays like Washington are legendary at this point. Otherwise it would take a cataclysmic event to be a top 3 in the general public’s view
Yeah, no one is going to be overtaking Washington imo. His accomplishments are great, but like you said, his legendary status is just too ingrained into the country’s fabric for him to fall. Off the top of my head, he’s had the following named or shaped after him: - Our capitol - A state - Universities - The dollar - The quarter - Cities, towns and villages - Memorials - Streets and highways
Question as non-american: where does Obama rank on the list? It seems like he was generally well liked and was elected in the fallout of the financial crisis.
What about housing and health and personal debt? Those are a kind of crises.
Unless y’all wanna fight in WW3 or something
Someone like Bernie could have been top 5 but only with the cooperation of the other branches. But the way they stonewall each other he may not have gotten much done at all.
This is a lot of ifs.
Even if it happens, half the country will deny it and say “he’s not my president!”
That literally happened with Lincoln
Funny how we can compare today’s society to that of the god damn civil war. What a time to be alive.
You know what’s even better? The people that would probably secede aren’t all in the same place! That’ll make for such a nice, clean break. /s
The United States civil war was a very unusual one because it had physical boundaries. North vs south. Almost all civil wars are pockets throughout the country which lead to a lot more violence and chaos.
Having followed the Syrian Civil War since the outbreak, holy hell was/is it near impossible to know wtf is going on between the like dozen different factions/countries all over the country. Just off the top of my head there's: FSA Syrian Government ISIS Al-Nusura U.S Israel Iranian Militias Russia Turkey Kurdish forces I'm pretty sure I'm missing some. Even then the extent of their control/influence and role each country/group played in the war wasn't even consistent the past 10 years. American historians got off lucky with how clean cut the U.S Civil War was in terms of factions/territory all things considered.
One of the better uses of the word "literally" on the Internet. Well done.
True, I never said that didn’t happen.
It’s worse now, but starting with Hoover there’s generally been two types of presidents—- the ones half the country hates, and Eisenhower.
I hate that. I’m not a fan of the current administration, but he’s my president. If Americans can’t respect their own president then the rest of the world sure as shit won’t.
Yeah but same thing happened in the civil war and we all like Lincoln today
Go down south with a I love ❤️ Lincoln bumper sticker and get back to me about your starement.
I disagree, as someone born and raised in the south. But I disagree because I don’t think southern conservatives are that consistent or historically literate. They like to argue that the party switch never happened, so that they can take credit for ending slavery and somehow blame the modern Democratic Party for supporting slavery. At the same time, though, they’re the most likely to defend the Confederate flag and argue that taking down Confederate monuments is “erasing history.”
Yup, they’ve been calling themselves the party of Lincoln for as long as I can remember, yet they have very little in common with Lincoln himself.
Yeah that sounds about right lol
Just tried it and got driven off the road by a King Ranch edition Ford F150 while being shot at.
and just imagine how much worse it would have been if you'd remembered to put the bumper sticker on!
Sounds very Dukes of Hazzard-y
I don't think we'll see a president break into the top three for the next three or four lifetimes, or ever again if I'm honest.
We have so much history ahead of us, we’re only about 241 years old. Saying never again is a huge stretch
WTF is everyone below you smoking Like fr It has to be one of the most stupid conversations I’ve ever seen on this Sub. Like utterly delusional. (Except u/Sensei_of_knowledge
The Roman Empire had peace for 200 years. We’ve only made it 80. With things like the Cold War almost breaking it. Eventually another crisis will happen.
The great presidents seem to result from wars and catastrophes, so I hope not.
I think W had a chance post 9/11. But we all see how that went. The problem is it requires at least 1 massive crisis that needs to be handled with the utmost forethought and oftentimes novel interpretations of the constitution, even breaking it if you have to for the good of the country. Personally, I’m too much of a doomer, I think the best leaders in America are long dead and we just have to deal with second rate leftovers for the next generations, but I hope I’m wrong
That 2000 election really was a turning point. I didn't hate Bush or anything. But a better president would have led us through 9/11 and Katrina into a true golden age. Coming off of a balanced budget and all the optimism of the 90s...damn.
Why did Gore have to choose Lieberman…
Lieberman was his Palin
But that’s the thing. We may not see it as top 3 at the time, and might even think it’s the bottom 3, but history paints a bigger picture. Lincoln wasn’t’ universally loved, and he’s #1 according to this sub.
Right, we’re so polarized that we wouldn’t recognize a top 3 for a generation or 2. And it helps to die in office because no one wants you loitering around meddling, unless you’re pulling a Jimmy Carter.
Unlikely. Mostly because we very likely won’t have an event like the Civil war, world war 2 or revolution in our lifetime…
I wouldn’t say unlikely. America has been a country for 250 years and we have seen a Revolution, Civil War, 2 World Wars, and Vietnam (significant because of the draft). We are averaging a major, major event every 50 years
Here's hoping Covid was us punching our card for the next half-century!
*cue the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia theme* "The Gang Lives Through a Major Historical Event"
I unfortunately disagree. The country is more divided right now than anytime in the last 80 years. Add to that Russia and China’s increasing boldness and I unfortunately feel that there is likelihood in the next 10 years of a significant event. Not rooting for it, my son is 3 so the timing is scary. Hopefully we find ways to diplomatically navigate all the rough waters ahead.
Oh man we are so close to civil war and WW3 it’s stupid scary. I like your optimism though
Meh. That really depends on what people would consider WW3. And Civil war. It’s less optimism and more my job. But people have been wrong.
[удалено]
I hope not. In order for a president to crack the top three, it would require a cataclysmic event that a leader successfully navigate the country through. Revolution, the civil war, and the depression/WWII were hardships that opened up the opportunity for these three men to be great. I hope I don’t live to see an opportunity like that emerge again.
I hope we never again see the conditions required to put a president in the top 3 Unless, magically, there is a huge blue wave and the majority agrees on policies that spark the change in civil rights, the environment, and the economy for the better
Just for the hell of it . . . The top 3 are the 1st, 16th, and 32nd presidents. Going by that trend the 48th should be another top standout. By the way (not an American here), it seems crazy there were the same number of presidents between Washington and Lincoln as there were between Lincoln and FDR.
I can only answer personally but my lifetime will probably extend to see the 2090s, possibly even the 2100s. Given as all these Presidents are from the consecutive centuries 18th/19th/20th it’s likely we’ll see a President break into the top 3. This is especially because the U.S, like much of the world, is sliding into many crisis and whoever solves them will have a substantial legacy.
As people have already pointed out, the question really boils down to “will the U.S. face an existential crisis AND can we elect a president capable of not only navigating that crisis but leading us out of it stronger than before?” I’m hopeful the answer to the first part is no, and sadly I think the answer to the second part would also be no.
We kind of are dealing with an existential threat right now…
I really hope not for our sake. Normally, a great president handles some major crises wonderfully. Really don’t want to bring upon us WWIII, a depression, or a civil war.
W 43 had an insane situation to work with after 9/11, and it could have taken him easily to the top4/5 of the list. It’s also hard now because we have classified information that is not public information so there could be decisions make that seem horrible but we don’t have all the details about why and what was the thought process. I feel that this is why a president debate with a sitting president about foreign policy is hard because they likely have information that we can’t know. So only time will tell…
 We only have one shot
Partisan divide has only gotten worse, making it extremely difficult for POTUS to accomplish anything of magnitude, unfortunately.
God I hope not. Those guys are the big 3 because they e steered us through our hardest Moments as a nation. I’d rather not need one
Yes one who give us public option.
I hope not. These men’s reputations were forged in fire. I’d rather have an A- president that passed universal health care or something.
Yes. Maybe. FDR came so long after Lincoln and Washington, proving its not a requirement to be a president in the early formative years of the US to have a top three pick.
If someone can manage to get us out of World War 3 then maybe. Washington formed this country, Lincoln restored the country, FDR saved the country. So if anybody can squeeze into top 3 they’re gonna be dealing with some serious shit. Maybe a top 10
Honestly, I disagree with the notion that the president would *need* to have a big, nationwide crisis that threatens to ruin everything. There are so many small or medium-sized crises going on *right now* that if a president could solve or even mitigate half of them they’d be well up there with the best. Just off the top of my head: Taking climate change seriously, getting a federal minimum wage that actually matches the cost of living, fixing our broken healthcare system, fixing a our antiquated or broken political/democratic systems, ending the assault on reproductive bodily autonomy, ending the assault on queer and *especially* trans rights, removing all religious exceptions to discrimination policies, fixing the problem of homelessness, ending the War on Drugs, fixing the problems with our border security *and especially* undoing the violations of civil rights that is our current attempt to solve those problems, getting money out of politics, reestablishing the Fairness Doctrine, fixing our education system, getting the Lost Cause out of the curriculum, getting creationism and abstinence-only sex Ed out of the curriculum, decriminalizing and destigmatizing sex work, making public transport more viable for more people, fixing our barbaric police training systems, decreasing the power of police unions and other ways for bad officers to avoid accountability, find and root out the *considerable* white nationalist infiltration of law enforcement and the military, stop giving the military such a bloated budget and do a much better job of holding it accountable for that money, break up and penalize companies like Facebook or Nestle for how they blatantly steal from and abuse our citizens, and fix the million little government bureaucratic inefficiencies that exist only because nobody took the time to fix them. I think a president who accomplished like, a 6th or 7th of that list would *easily* make the top 3.
Overcoming great adversity makes a great president.
Everyone saying that to get into the top three would likely mean a big crisis - is true to some extent. However, we’re currently IN a crisis in terms of divisiveness. It’s not likely, but possible that someone comes along who could bring the parties closer together again, and help bring the nation back to an era of civility and truth. I don’t know who that might be, but I’m just saying we might be IN the crisis needed to elevate someone.
If COVID is any example, no we won’t.
Something will have to go very very wrong for there to be another S tier president. I for one hope for a long line of prudent but forgettable stewards.
I don‘t think so!
I sure hope not. That would mean something really bad would have to happen more than likely
Each one of these men faced extreme conflict, so I kinda hope not.
I doubt we see a president break the top 10 lol
If it happens in our lifetime, future lifetimes will be the ones who know about it.
I hope not because that means we have to deal with something terrible. Also even if it does they wouldn't be recognized for years afterwards, if not decades
No. The top three are foundational leaders that define entire eras of our country's history in times of crisis. The best place to be is the uneventful tenure of a President somewhere in the top 15.
Only if there’s something like an alien invasion or WW3 and we win.
Each of the top three presidents each had a major crisis that they were able to deal with. I'd rather not experience a crisis that would require a top tier president.
They are the top 3 in retrospect. A lot of them weren’t popular in their time besides Washington
Not with these political parties
"Top Three" status seems pretty strongly tied to fighting an existential war such as the Revolution, Civil War, or a World War. Given the existence of nukes and the fact that we would curbstomp any western hemisphere rivals in a hot war, that'd pretty solidly have to be a second civil war which is depressingly possible, although I suspect we'll manage to avoid it. Top Ten presidents though? I think there's a strong possibility within at least the next 3 decades, simply because populist dissatisfaction isn't going anywhere and I'd like to hope that we have to win the coinflip and get a Roosevelt-type president eventually if we work to make it happen.
Let’s hope not as each of these presidents is remembered as great mostly because they led the country through a period of great crisis, and in two cases, horrible wars.
Were these presidents (other than washington i guess) viewed as unanimous top 3 in their time? I think even if we do see another, it might take another several decades of their legacy playing out before we recognize the fact.
TR > FDR Very unlikely we have a better president than GW, Abe, and TR in the next century. You basically, whether you pick FDR or TR, have the best President from three different CD centuries.
Reagan ended the Cold War without bombs. Granted, there was that trickle-down economics nonsense.
The president that gets universal healthcare passed will come close
I think passing single payer healthcare would do it for me. Or maybe free college tuition.
It's very likely. One of the great things about the US is that historically, the right person has always come along when the country is in crisis.
This sounds like Norm Mcdonald - “It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?”
We be lucky to get one to be above 40 at this rate.
Idk But I should be in the bottom three if I win
That is tough... Can I say I hope not.... The reason would be what is needed to break into the top 3. Mine go pretty similarly to most... In order of when they were in office. George Washington. Truly established a strong federal government while in office, set the examples of the office and the ideal that the position wouldn't be one held for life. Abraham Lincoln. Successfully defeated the largest internal struggle the US has faced, and gave rise at the federal level to an anti-slavery power that truly put the US on a path to all people being free and that ideal. FDR. Took on the 2nd largest internal struggle (the depression) and the largest external struggle (WWII) and the US came out financially stronger and as a world power. Usually behind you get some combination of Jefferson, Teddy, and Truman... (Wilson and Jackson might be in people who don't look at race relations)... But I think those top 3 really separate themselves. **I am saying I REALLY hope not, because to get on that list, by far the most likely way is to successfully deal with some major internal or external crisis. I don't want to see a President making the top 3 for bringing the US through WWIII in my lifetime, or solving the 2nd great depression, or winning the next Civil War, or re-established the government after a period of anarchy. In a perfect world we'd get a bunch of 10-25 range guys. Guys that kept the ship moving forwards and never had a super crisis to manage.**
Is Jackson really in anyone’s top 7
If WWIII breaks out and we have another FDR, maybe, but I think it's very unlikely
I would love to say yes but I don’t see it happening. But hey, Lincoln was a surprise too. But I’m not holding my breath right now.
Not without a major crisis
If someone can fight a world war, reunify the union or win our independence in my life time probably not
Unlikely, not due to the talents/abilities of an individual but more ascribed to the lack of a crisis of that magnitude. I think TR could have been ranked even higher if he had a large crisis, it just never presented itself.
In my opinion, Teddy is #3, not FDR. Beating Teddy is a very, very tall order. Unlikely to happen in the next 100 years.
Naw, that would require some sort of consensus and the moment you start liking a sitting executive, all the nihilists and centrists come out of the woodwork.
Hopefully not!
Unless we have a ww3 probably not
If they do, it’ll most likely be long after they’re president and even more likely after they’ve died. We look at the past much more fondly than the present.
depends on who's lifetime out of this audience BUT I would say we won't be able to survive without one pretty soon
I feel like a coming president may have to deal with a world war, civil war, depression AND disaster. All of which will probably lead to a revolution. 😩
Not any time soon, that’s for sure
Probably not . As others have said it would require some “great” to occur for them to rise to the occasion of. Also I think the majority of history the “great people” are only labeled such after the fact. For example in Lincoln’s prime half the country desisted him (duh) Most the time people are considered great in hind sight
I think there's a real possibility of it in the next few years, but a president needs a cooperative congress to make positive change.