Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jed Bartlett lied to the country about his MS diagnosis and was censured. Just because he beat Florida Governor James Brolin easily for re-election, don’t assume he wasn’t controversial in his time.
Valid criticism, although he did maintain a strong approval rating throughout most of his presidency and left office with a strong legacy behind him. You gotta give some huge credit to his staff though, I don’t think we will get another set of people that talented in the west wing ever again.
Press them on it. If you get a policy argument it will probably be ending the Cold War. You might also get ending the inflation from the 70s and Iran hostages. Those can certainly be argued, but really you can make a similar list for pretty well any president. Take W for instance. United the country after 9/11. Made tremendous progress in fighting AIDS in Africa. Eliminated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then you can go back and push your Republican friends on Raegan's record with gun bans, no fault divorce, nearly tripling the national debt, offering amnesty to 3 million immigrants, and others What separated Raegan from all of the others is how good of a public speaker he was, and how he was unapologetically pro-American and pro-conservative values/positions while doing so. Even if you don't replace Raegan with a poor orator like Bush and just a decent one for a politician like Romney than Raegan would not be worshiped by Republicans today.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Mondale didn’t run a great campaign and was frankly less charismatic than Reagan. Mondale’s VP pick, Ferraro, had a bunch of issues including being rejected by folks for being both Catholic but also too pro-choice and it was not a popular choice to pick a woman as VP. Mondale promised to raise taxes. People just didn’t see a good reason to vote for him. But Dems generally at the time didn’t like Reagan’s policies. There were complaints about the deficit, anti-union policies, law enforcement changes that felt pernicious and targeted against black people, not to mention continued support for South Africa and other odious nations abroad. Just none of that was a deal breaker.
But I wouldn’t say moderate Dems liked Reagan.
There were Reagan Democrats to be sure, but that doesn’t mean the majority liked him. Growing up in the Reagan era there were lots of Dems who did not like him nor his policies.
Thoughts: I’d actually say MVB and Cleveland are controversial *if* people know who they are. MVB for actually carrying out the Trail of Tears and Cleveland for a multitude of reasons, most notably his marriage.
I don’t actually recognize who that is in between Pierce and Johnson on the second row?
Nixon in generally common consensus? Really? I feel like opinions on him are quite varied, at least on here.
It’s Jed Bartlet from the West Wing. I thought I would throw him in there for a little bit of fun.
In terms of your other comments, I defiantly see your points, although I was trying to keep personal considerations like Cleveland’s marriage out of the conversation, hence why Kennedy and Clinton are as high as they are.
>defiantly
I recognize that’s a typo but it’s a very funny typo. You threw me for a loop with that XD
And that’s fair. Even when it comes to his vetos Cleveland stops being as controversial then.
It’s no worries, just found it funny. One last thing though, when ya say “Vocal Minority” for McKinley what all do you mean by that? Is it the “if they know about the Philippines”? Or what are ya going for there?
I think most people who have a decent knowledge about that time in history would agree that his foreign policy was pretty bad, but there are defiantly some people who I have talked to who support that level of imperialism.
I was actually not even talking solely about the imperialism, I was referring to the internment camps utilized by him against the Philippine people during the occupation. It’s pretty awful but often gets forgotten about since, well, we don’t like to talk about it. But fair, if we’re looking at just the imperialism aspect I’ve seen a few folks defend that.
Yeah, I was including that as part of his poor foreign policy. But for sure, a lot of people are sadly either too willing to look over those type of atrocities or are simply unaware.
I attribute most of the horrors in the Philippines to his immediate successor, or really more accurately to the horrible military commanders in the Philippines. McKinley certainly is partly at fault since he began the occupation, but he was laying in a grave by the time Filipinos were being put in camps. I think McKinley's type of imperialism was mostly fine, just sadly developed into a bad legacy after he had died.
The goal was to aid the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii with benevolent governance, and also to aid in expanding the U.S' stance on the grand stage. The latter was successful and part of why I see McKinley as very important to America's history.
The former was also mostly successful, the obvious exception being the Philippines where the governance became anything but benevolent from the start. I don't completely absolve McKinley of blame here since he did continue the occupation despite American soldiers committing atrocities as far back as 1899. Like LBJ he should have pulled out; not even the president can stop soldiers from destroying entire villages, and the U.S clearly wasn't welcome.
But given his other achievements and the fact that a majority of the atrocities happened after he died I'm willing to rank him highly still. Granted my pardon on him is partly based on a "what-if". Would McKinley have pulled out or at least tried to stop American generals from using camps if he had lived long enough to do so? Given his nature I would think so, but it's impossible to know for fact.
The thing is, personal life scandals are a BIG deal when the person is president. Without the Monica Lewinsky scandal, almost everyone would rank Clinton higher (whether that's raising him from B tier to S tier or D tier to C tier depends on the person tho).
True, but the only difference between Bartlet’s MS and FDR’s polio is that Bartlet got caught while in office. And I don’t see a lot of people using polio as a mark against Roosevelt.
Van Buren’s actual presidency is pretty much universally considered a flop on this sub. (Outside of this sub, he’s one of the 3 least known presidents of all time, alongside Chester Arthur and Ben Harrison.) He only sparks something of a debate if you bring up his ex-presidency.
>carrying out the Trail of Tears
Hmm? This is near unanimously recognized as bad in the modern day, that is, by definition, not controversial.
Controversial means giving rise to disagreement, and disagreement means lack of consensus. There is a consensus that the Trail of Tears was bad, therefore it isn’t controversial
That is a completely fair point. I guess I was just surprised to see MVB in the “Who cares?” Territory while Jackson is in “Sparks a debate” when the major reason for Jackson sparking a debate just doesn’t really touch MVB.
But… yeah, MVB doesn’t really have the positives Jackson does to try and balance it out. So that’s a good point.
Because MVB, unlike Jackson, has a lot less to be debated for him outside of Indian removal. There’s his rather lackluster response to the Panic of 1837, the Amistad Case, and maybe the Mormons.
Jackson, on the other hand, signified the new birth of a party system with his rise to the Presidency, signified a populistic political revolution, has the Nullification Crisis, people still debate whether the Bank War was good or not, he appointed one of the most significant Justices ever (and not just regarding Dred Scott; even without that Roger Taney is probably within the top ten most influential Justices ever), Spoils System, etc.
There are still plenty of Jackson fans and haters. MVB, in contrast, has much less to talk about and is much less significant, therefore he’s faded into much irrelevancy outside of some debates and academic circles.
Where I’m from, Cleveland is actually viewed positively. I’m from Hawaii and we’re very fond of our royal past, especially amongst the native community. One of the factoids we learned in high school was that President Cleveland was friends with Queen Lili’uokalani, the queen who was overthrown. We were taught to associate Cleveland’s presidency with sovereignty, and McKinley with annexation.
Truman is a guy I would expect to see lower on the list as the man who ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb, the ethicality of which is a pretty common discussion to see. That being said, I think a good majority of people believe it the necessity of it, if not the ethics of it.
Truman is absolutely justified in his position. The US had been at war for 4 years at this point, had pivoted to a complete wartime economy and the Allies had won in Europe. The thought of reallocating hundreds of thousands of GI's to the Pacific theater and island hopping the Japanese Archipelago was something that would have cost thousands more lives and would not have been justifiable when there was the means to end it. I agree with your positioning entirely.
George W. on the other hand should be in the Ronald Reagan category. The guy forced a second war in the middle east that was entirely unjustified, and he knew it. Led the U.S. into the worst recession since the 80s. Permanently dethroned the U.S. as the moral center of the world. To cherry top it, cleared the way for the rise of Trumpism. He was an unmitigated disaster.
While I somewhat agree with the Truman take there is still a contingent of people that think the dropping wasn’t justified. Remember it’s not who’s controversial to you, but the general population.
With Bush he is disliked by both the left and a large amount of the right. Many conservatives, especially the younger ones, do not think his invasion of Iraq was justified.
Personally, I don't think the average person directly associates the atomic bomb with Truman. FDR was president for most of WW2, so I think more people automatically assume that he was responsible for the atomic bomb. I dont think many people are aware that Truman was President during the end of WW2. When people are discussing the ethics of the bomb, it's viewed as a larger macro US decision rather than the decision of a single president.
I feel TJ should be in sparks a debate if we are talking irl. People HATE when you bring up his crimes irl and modern museums have huge struggles with how to present the man.
I agree for the most part. That said, I think TJ does have a fairly common consensus—namely, that he’s hard to pin down. I think few people *today* go to bat saying he’s unqualifiedly great or terrible. He’s a man of so many contradictions. I quite liked Ellis’ *American Sphynx*, which attempted to really come to grips with Jefferson’s befuddling hypocrisies
Bill Clinton is also WAY too high here. A number of right-wing folks along with labor activists despise him for selling out jobs to China and others, plus his ethical controversies. He immediately starts a debate from stuff I've seen, and is no longer seen as a great Democrat.
I mean, he is controversial though.
There is certainly a lack of consensus. There are various prominent critics of him, but many biographers are also revisionists who sympathize with him.
In the more online history community, there are critics and defenders. Therefore he is, at least, somewhat controversial on the whole.
There are aspects of his admin that aged well
Over time. A lot that didn’t, especially given how well the 1980s played out for most citizens.
I have always said that Carter was dealt a bad hand, that he played poorly. He was even able to turn his malaise speech into a disaster, after it was well received by the public (despite what most people think).
He is D tier. Not F, and not C. D is appropriate given that he did have some wins.
>a lot that didn’t
I think most agree that the economy was shit under him. There are still plenty of people who go “Oh he was a dealt a bad hand” “There was causes outside his control,” essentially clearing him of much of the blame he deserves in my opinion (which I assume you agree with).
With the handling of Iran, there are still plenty of revisionists who make the simple argument of “muh human rights fopo we CANT back authoritarian figures.” I’m more of the Kirkpatrick view of the Cold War, and you possibly are as well,
But these are all things still debated to this day. There is still no “objective” answer to the analysis of Carter’s mishaps. There are still many revisionists who repeat the things I stated regarding the economy and Iran. However, there is still plenty of opposition to those ideas, bringing way for debate.
And current historians even, are split between revisionists and traditional Carter critics. Hence why he typically falls into the “average,” occasionally mediocre, category in presidential rankings.
Due to the lack of *objective* consensus (both of our opinions, that he was D tier, are rather subjective, given the lack of consensus), and debate that exists over Carter’s responsibilities for the issues that erupted under him, I consider him controversial.
I’ll write a longer post later. I just want to say that I’ve found the chapters on Carter and Iran in “The Twilight Wars” fascinating. I highly recommend it.
Also, the Whistlestop podcast has a few great episodes on Carter. The [one](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/whistlestop-on-carters-cabinet-purge.html) on his malaise speech, then his cabinet purge is excellent and required listening for this sub.
I think the controversy more stems from “how” bad his presidency was. I have heard a wide variety of perspectives on what the legacy of his presidency was.
I liked him back then mostly because I couldn’t stand Al Gore as a person. The sentiment hasn’t aged well but you couldn’t convince me to support his opponent back then if you paid me.
It’s crazy to me that FDR is legitimately in sparks a debate, the Milton Friedman and Ronald Regan propaganda machine really assassinated the quality of the New Deal enough for people to rethink a president that won 4 landslide elections
Internment is multiple layers of bad, and it doesn’t help that it took several decades for the government to even sort of try and make things right.
If you don’t think it was a big deal, that’s fine, but there’s no credible way to say that it’s been overblown.
Probably because FDR did the internment camps and gun control. I like most of the rest of his policies but those knock him down quite a few places in my ranking.
Eh, internment was obviously horrible but it’s not enough for me to overlook that he is one of the greatest presidents in history and one of the best leaders in modern history
It's enough to knock him down a few places though. If it wasn't for that, he'd definitely be one of the best but I'd still place Theodore Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington above him.
Ironically Reagan was a massive FDR fan, voting for him all 4 times and even campaigning for him in 1940 and 1944. Even after making his transition to conservatism Reagan would gush about Roosevelt.
Also a massive Truman fan and headlined a rally for him in LA just before the 1948 election. Reagan used one of Truman's rail cars for a rally in 1984 also. It wasn't too controversial because he had that history. On the other hand I recall Bush Sr. less successfully trying to swaggerjack Truman in 1992, and getting called out on it by Margaret Truman as there was no doubt he had been an automatic Dewey vote that year.
Literally every poll of historians and scholars since the 1940s has him in the top 3. A majority of people still consider him a great president even if a loud minority of conservatives protest that.
Hell, there are many conservatives who applaud him for his war leadership. I’d put him in either “near universal” or “generally common consensus.”
Also, Carter doesn’t belong in “sparks a debate.” Literally everyone says he was a lackluster president. Many people follow it up with “but he’s a very good man” or “he had one of the best post-presidencies ever,” but no one’s out here saying he was a great president.
Reagan liked FDR to a large degree, Friedman and his wife actually were in favour of a lot of the relief programs his criticism mostly within "A monetary history of the United States" is almost universally accepted even by those that it holds responsible for the depression (it is not a propaganda piece or political hack job). [https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm)
The new deal was already falling out of favour well before Friedman came along.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s treasury secretary and close friend in 1939 in front of the House ways and means committee.
It’s really difficult to call FDR’s economic record a success.
He did a good job stabilizing the banks. Nothing else worked until we emerged from WWII. That’s not propaganda, it’s just reality.
I have discussed this before [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/EYOIiTs1ix)
I’ve read all of the new deal criticisms, they don’t hold up well. It’s late and I don’t have the time to have the same discussion over and over again that I have had countless times, but FDR cut unemployment in half in 3 years of new deal policies. He made the GD from a nationwide catastrophe that threatened the stability of the nation into something we could weather. The ND brought utilities to countless people and countless other positives. It was the most successful piece of economic legislation in modern history
He cut UE in half, then it spiked back up.
The article that I linked to discusses the phases of the GD. I think that’s a better way to discuss a decade long period. There were some wins and some losses along the way. Ultimately, the war solved UE, and then the overall economy was able to recover once the war ended and most of Europe and Asia had been destroyed. We were the only game left on the planet and we capitalized on it immensely.
He spiked back up when he tried to rollback the new deal, they stopped rolling back and UE went back down. You’re ignoring the basics of the timeline of history while also stating the obvious that the war ended the depression
1937 was the culmination of several factors. And even if we said that a reduction in spending was the only cause, excessive government spending can only go on for so long. At some point, spending must come down and the economy needs to exist on its own without stimulus spending.
The [Fed](https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession-of-1937-38) has a good bit on insight on what happened in 1936-1937.
If WWII pulled us out of the GD, then why do people give credit to FDR, when it was the war that solved the problem?
I’d even argue that the war itself did not solve the GD. It solved UE as most military aged males went off to fight/ serve in the military. Females filled the open positions in manufacturing to feed the war machine. However, at home people were guilted into saving via war bonds, forced to ration supplies, and when the war ended everything crashed again.
If FDR gets credit for pulling us out of the GD, then why did it occur after he was already dead?
Because FDR lifted millions out of poverty, advocated for the downtrodden, and turned a nationwide catastrophe into a storm that could be weathered. It is a reductive take to say “oh well the ND didn’t end the GD so was it even worth it, or even good?” It’s a take that completely ignores the countless good things and net positives that FDR did for the country. Millions of people owe so much to the New Deal and the 20 years of legislation that followed
You expected Redditors to try and engage in meaningful conversation when given something backing a claim they disagree with up?
That's a rhetorical question btw, of course not.
It's crazy to me that court packing wanna be dictator Japanese internment FDR is not in his own tier above Reagan. The Democrat propaganda machine really carries the inferior Roosevelt
Lincoln also violated the constitution, Washington was a slave owner. No president is perfect and if you hold onto those two things as FDR’s only negatives they certainly do not outweigh his overwhelming positives. “Wannabe dictator” is also a massive stretch
FDR literally helped save the world from fucking Nazi Germany - if that is enough to make Winston Churchill a hero as he sat on his hands while Indians starved, it should be enough to outweigh Japanese internment.
The problem with FDR is three-fold. One, his treatment of minorities is controversial to say the least. The New Deal at least in a number of areas discriminated against African Americans and others, plus his Japanese internment camps will always be a hotspot of controversy. Two, a number of his programs were legally and constitutionally questionable, and some like the Agricultural Adjustment Act were struck down by the Supreme Court (stuff like gold confiscation and weakening patents also greatly angered a number of lawyers and others). Three, he violated a number of precedents and boundaries (more than two terms, trying to pack the Supreme Court in response to them striking down some of his stuff, etc.) that really do trigger debate and controversy. Add in his questionable approach to World War II with regard to Stalin and seemingly giving away central/eastern Europe, and I think a shadow will always be over him in some aspects.
FDR only sparks debate for those deep in and focused on conservative economics - any conservative who looks at presidencies as a whole I’ve seen talk about him sings his praises for leadership despite disagreeing with aspects of the New Deal.
Vocal Minority is the absolute lowest he could go and I’d put him in between near universal and general consensus.
I feel like Reagan could be the category of “depends if you ask a conservative or a liberal”, lol
Reagan is deeper than just “depends if you ask a conservative or a liberal”, it also depends on the age of the liberal that you ask. You can find many older liberals that were around when he was president that at least somewhat like him or maybe even voted for him (the Reagan Democrats); it is the young Gen Z liberals that really hate him.
I think that's probably because the older liberals remember his charisma, whereas the younger liberals only judge the monstrous impact of his presidency.
President Bartlett… the President we all wish we had rn
The columns are confusing though. Is it “universal agreement” that they’re controversial or that they’re not?
As much as I love Eisenhower in many ways, the reason he's often universally liked is because people have simply forgotten most of his presidency. He would go from universal to debatable in a hurry if more of his actions and ideas (foreign and domestic) came to bigger light today. I would still defend him in many areas, but a number of left-wing folks would probably dislike him much more intensely.
It's not an original idea of his, but new/fair deal policy was generally successful and the US prospered under them (well, until Reagan) and Eisenhower continued them.
Then the 3 departments of Health, Education, and Welfare were created under him; Social Security expansion, ending of segregation of education, armed forces, and transit; establishment of highways, deployment to little rock, expansion and establishment of NASA, aid for education/NDEA, Civil rights act of 1957 & 1960.
Domestic policy, he was hitting home runs. Even before his presidency, he was doing amazing stuff at the Columbia Uni as president.
His foreign policy wasn't a \*complete\* failure, as he promoted cooling the Cold War, establishing SEATO, and stopping Europe from stomping on Egypt. The countless CIA coups of developing nations leaves a stain on his legacy...
One cant deny his domestic success, though.
And yet so many people are so quick to defend him because he “was a great orator”, had “strong foreign policy”, or “shrunk inflation”. They simply forget about the crippling national debt he accrued, the extreme rise in income inequality, and his tax cuts that only benefited the top 1%. This isn’t even mentioning the war on drugs or the atrocity that was his response to AIDS.
This is sort of relevant but if you go on the 4chan /his/ board and post anything about LBJ there is a dude who will spend hours arguing and debating how LBJ was the best president of all time. He also will hijack any thread about Nixon to talk about how shitty Nixon was while trying to compare him to LBJ.
You might think you’re an LBJ fan but unless you’re willing to shit up image boards for literal days defending him against onslaughts of anonymous users I don’t think you are.
How controversial they are by today's standards, or the standards of their time? If it's the latter, Lincoln would most definitely not be where he is. There was a whole war and everything.
Most people respect his leadership in World War II for sure. However, many conservatives still oppose many aspects of the new deal. I’ve heard several people say they think it actually worsened the Great Depression, and while completely ludicrous, is a surprisingly common perspective.
I feel like the only place Reagan is really controversial in the slightest is Reddit and amongst college aged people. He’s very popular amongst the American public and frequently ranks as one of the best modern presidents.
In what way? Are you saying everyone outside of Reddit likes him or dislikes him? I have spoken to many people in actual conversation about Ronald Reagan and have never gotten anything close to a consensus regarding his presidency. If I’m being honest, I feel like Reddit is the closest I have seen to most people agreeing on Reagan, and even here it’s bot really that close.
I mean if Theodore Roosevelt were in office, he would have done the same thing. It’s less of being from Wilson and more being about it being the progressive times. Roosevelt would have likely also gotten suffrage passed
Are you so sure? TR was much less progressive than Wilson, even classifying some monopolies as "good trusts" that didn't warrant investigation. Wilson made no distinction. Also, by this logic, Taft and especially TR should also be given less credit for the reforms they implemented, as that was the general mood of the Progressive Era.
He literally bolted from the Republicans because he saw Taft as too conservative and created the bull moose party or the progressive party. You are trying to make Roosevelt seem rather conservative when he was quite literally the face of the progressive movement
Roosevelt was more progressive on Taft than some issues, but more conservative on him than others. For example, as he was preparing Taft for the 1908 election, he actually made Taft really uncomfortable by insisting he accept corporate donations.
The only reason TR is considered the face of the Progressive Era is that he was the one who started it. But that doesn't mean he was the most left-wing participant. Abraham Lincoln began Reconstruction in 1863, for example, but Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens were all much more progressive voices than he. Also, TR's reforms were generally motivated by a fear of a working-class rebellion than anything else.
Lincoln had to deal with the border states to make sure they didn’t bolt to the confederacy. If he were very progressive like the radical republicans, he would have lost like 4 states and worsen the north’s position. He also quite literally got assassinated before he could do anything for reconstruction. Roosevelt has to deal with the old guard who didn’t like most things Roosevelt did. The old guard is the reason why Fairbanks was his running mate to help with the conservatives. I really don’t see the conservativeness of Roosevelt compared to Taft. Very few things make Taft look like a huge progressive compared to Roosevelt. Taft did break more trusts so that is one thing to look at
Do you like income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve too?
How about 110,000 Americans dead in World War 1... a war he campaigned on keeping us out of?
And even Lefty "Vox" admits how racist this guy was.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist
He resegregated the Federal government, defended the KKK, a d supported eugenics sterilization of the "feebleminded."
> Do you like income tax
YES! The income tax is a useful way to reduce the tax burden on poor, middle-class, and working-class Americans by shifting some of the responsibility to people more able to handle it.
> the IRS
Do I like law enforcement? Of course I do. And besides, Wilson didn't create the IRS. Lincoln founded the IRS to ensure the Union had enough money to fight the civil war.
> the Federal Reserve too?
The Federal Reserve enforces important regulations on the banking industry. Remember, banks were primarily responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis, when we nearly faced a repeat of the Great Depression. If anything, the Federal Reserve isn't strong enough. It also helps prevent recessions and curbs inflation through interest rate adjustments.
> How about 110,000 Americans dead in World War 1
Germany was making plans to support a Mexican invasion of the US *after* the war. We had no choice but to intervene.
> a war he campaigned on keeping us out of?
The Zimmermann Telegram was written in January of 1917, delivered to Wilson by British spies that February. The 1916 election predated any potential to know about the threats forcing America to join the war. Besides, Wilson actually disliked the "he kept us out of war" slogan and encouraged his campaign staff not to adopt it, as he knew something like the Zimmermann Telegram was a distinct possibility.
> He resegregated the Federal government
Not exactly. Contrary to popular belief, Wilson never actively encouraged or even endorsed a policy of segregating government agencies. He merely allowed members of his cabinet to segregate their departments if they wanted. That's horrible - and you're right to criticize Wilson for it - but it's not as bad as actively seeking out the policy, which is how Wilson's behavior is generally portrayed.
> defended the KKK
No, he did not. The "like writing history with lightning" quote is almost certainly apocryphal, not appearing for around another 15 years after Wilson died in 1924.
> supported eugenics sterilization of the "feebleminded."
Wilson's personal views are irrelevant when probing the quality of his actual presidency. Regardless, eugenics was unfortunately widely supported in the early 20th century.
>YES! The income tax is a useful way to reduce the tax burden on poor, middle-class, and working-class...
Billionaire pay nothing, while the middle class is pillaged to pay for a spending spree of corporate welfare, military bases in 80 countries, CIA assassinations, and foreign aid to countries who hate us. Everybody wins!!!
Wilson started this reckless spending and corruption, by giving the federal government this giant trough to feed at.
>The Federal Reserve enforces important regulations on the banking industry.
WRONG. The Federal Reserve enforces nothing. It is an extra-governmental cartel of privately owned banks, who make their own rules, and are unaccountable to the American people.
Wilson transferred the power to print money from the Treasury Department to these thugs, when he signed the Federal Reserve Act. The American economy has been in their grip ever since.
>Germany was making plans to support a Mexican invasion of the US after the war. We had no choice but to intervene.
Ridiculous. Germany's navy in 1917 was so inconsequential, they only engaged the British fleet once (at Scapa Flow) in WW1. To think they could project power across the Atlantic, to be a decisive factor in a Mexico-USA conflict, is laughable.
"No choice!" 🤣
Wilson got us into WW1 to ensure Britain could pay back the money they owed JP Morgan. No other reason.
>The "like writing history with lightning" quote is almost certainly apocryphal
WRONG. It was a privately made statement which the public only heard about later, from ("Birth of a Nation" filmmaker) D.W Griffith and (KKK member) novelist Thomas Dixon, whom Wilson made rhe statement to. Their claims are credible, SINCE WILSON SCREENED "Birth of a Nation" IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND ENJOYED IT SO MUCH, HE INVITED THE FILMMAKER TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR DINNER.
>Wilson's personal views are irrelevant when probing the quality of his actual presidency.
That's a novel theory. Do you apply it to all presidents? Do you think we should disregard all sentences that begin with [president's name] wants/wanted.. ?"
> Billionaire pay nothing, while the middle class is pillaged to pay
Which is, if anything, a reason to expand the income tax dramatically, i.e. so that billionaires pay practically all of the tax burden and everyone else only has to contribute a little.
> to pay for a spending spree of corporate welfare, military bases in 80 countries, CIA assassinations, and foreign aid to countries who hate us. Everybody wins!!!
If you want to talk about imperialism, I'm all for it! Wilson set up a pathway for Filipino independence from the US with the Philippine Autonomy Act. He also promoted the self-determination of peoples in the Balkans, Middle East, and Austro-Hungarian Empire with the 14 Points, tried to reduce the size of all militaries (including America's) to as small as possible for these nations to defend themselves, and wanted colonial disputes to be solved based on the desires of the people in colonized territories.
> WRONG. The Federal Reserve enforces nothing. It is an extra-governmental cartel of privately owned banks, who make their own rules, and are unaccountable to the American people.
Again, the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve by big banks is why such institutions need to exist and should be much more powerful. They need to be strong enough to resist regulatory capture. Wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve because banks manipulate it into serving their interests is like wanting to abolish the fire department because the current firemen don't care enough or have the resources to do their job. The solution is reform, not abolition.
> Ridiculous. Germany's navy in 1917 was so inconsequential, they only engaged the British fleet once (at Scapa Flow) in WW1. To think they could project power across the Atlantic, to be a decisive factor in a Mexico-USA conflict, is laughable.
A US-Mexico conflict would not primarily be fought in a naval fashion, especially since Germany was offering Mexico Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Two of those states are completely landlocked. Regardless, Germany was and is a very wealthy nation - rich enough to fund the world's first universal healthcare initiative - so their aid could have been completely monetary anyway. The proposed terms in the Zimmermann Telegram already included massive German financial assistance to Mexico.
> Wilson got us into WW1 to ensure Britain could pay back the money they owed JP Morgan. No other reason.
JP Morgan died a year before WW1 started. But even if you mean the actual corporation and not the person - why did Wilson wait so long? After the German invasion of Belgium and sinking of the *RMS Lusitania*, there was already intense public demands for war against the Central Powers. In the Black Tom Incident of 1916, German spies literally damaged the Statue of Liberty when detonating an explosion. If Wilson was so desperate to enter the war, why didn't he pounce at that opportunity?
> It was a privately made statement which the public only heard about later
Well, they definitely heard about it *later*, given the 15-year time gap. And that 15 years leaves a lot of room for information to be corrupted. Imagine trying to write down the details of a conversation you had almost 2 decades ago!
> SINCE WILSON SCREENED "Birth of a Nation" IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND ENJOYED IT SO MUCH, HE INVITED THE FILMMAKER TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR DINNER.
I'm not gonna try and act like Wilson should receive *zero* criticism for playing *The Birth of A Nation* in the White House. He definitely should. But that criticism should hone in more on recklessness, rather than malice. According to the Miller Center (a division of the University of Virginia that focuses on US civics and political history), Wilson played that movie in the White House unaware of his contents. He denounced the film soon after seeing it.
>Which is, if anything, a reason to expand the income tax dramatically. .
Thank you for playing! As a consolation prise, please accept the home version of this game...
>Again, the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve by big banks is why such institutions need to exist
It wasn't captured; it was a hollowed out sham institute from its inception... an inception which can be laid at the feet of Woodrow Wilson.
>If you want to talk about imperialism, I'm all for it!
Dislike him though I do, I *will* credit him for the Philippines. All the other stuff loses its shine, considering the Austro-Hungarian empire was on its deathbed anyhow, and the bit about reducing militaries was little more than naivete, of the flavor later seen in the effete League of Nations.
>A US-Mexico conflict would not primarily be fought in a naval fashion...
Any German participation other than monetary would require naval strength, which is why Zimmerman represented no credible threat. It certainly didn't force the US into WW1!
>Germany was offering Mexico Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona...
Germany was in no position to offer anything! Zimmerman was so absurd!
>- why did Wilson wait so long?
To get reelected. Keeping us out of the war was the basis of his (dishonest) campaign.
>Imagine trying to write down the details of a conversation you had almost 2 decades ago!
If I was invited to the White House to dine with the President, because he liked my movie so well... and then he told me how my movie totally got everything right. Yeah, I think I'd remember that.
> Thank you for playing! As a consolation prise, please accept the home version of this game...
...
What?
> It wasn't captured; it was a hollowed out sham institute from its inception... an inception which can be laid at the feet of Woodrow Wilson.
This narrative really doesn't make a lot of sense considering how much Wilson resisted the interests of large corporations as president, from increasing their taxes to restricting child labor to requiring railroad companies to institute an 8-hour workday. These aren't policies reflective of a person who was that vulnerable to manipulation by the business class.
> All the other stuff loses its shine, considering the Austro-Hungarian empire was on its deathbed anyhow
Especially because Entente leaders like Wilson were defeating it in WW1.
> and the bit about reducing militaries was little more than naivete
Naive, sure, but still admirable.
> of the flavor later seen in the effete League of Nations.
The League of Nations was a failure, sure, but not because of Wilson. If anything, people like Henry Cabot Lodge, Warren G. Harding, Theodore Roosevelt, and other Republicans who opposed the League of Nations are responsible for its failures. The fact that America, the founder of the League of Nations, was not a member of the League of Nations greatly discredited that organization.
A lot of the league's failures can also be attributed to the League of Nations itself. When Soviet Russia attacked coastal Iran, the League of Nations humiliated itself through its own inaction, an incident repeated when Italy invaded Greece a few years later.
> Any German participation other than monetary would require naval strength, which is why Zimmerman represented no credible threat. It certainly didn't force the US into WW1!
Then German aid would have been monetary. And again, Germany was an extremely wealthy nation, capable of financing an invasion of the US.
> To get reelected.
But tons of people already wanted to get involved in the war, especially after the *Lusitania* sinking. Getting involved in WW1 really wouldn't have jeopardized Wilson's reelection odds. Additionally, Wilson actively downplayed the Black Tom Incident to avoid provoking tensions. If he really wanted to get involved in the war but was just waiting until his second term started, wouldn't he have still avoided downplaying the Black Tom Incident specifically to promote more pro-war sentiment?
> If I was invited to the White House to dine with the President, because he liked my movie so well... and then he told me how my movie totally got everything right. Yeah, I think I'd remember that.
And is there any incentive someone might have to *lie* about the president expressing approval of their work? Wilson was still seen in a very positive light at the time, often being ranked alongside Washington and Lincoln.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I noticed a picture of him.(the actor) lol.
Jed Bartlett lied to the country about his MS diagnosis and was censured. Just because he beat Florida Governor James Brolin easily for re-election, don’t assume he wasn’t controversial in his time.
Valid criticism, although he did maintain a strong approval rating throughout most of his presidency and left office with a strong legacy behind him. You gotta give some huge credit to his staff though, I don’t think we will get another set of people that talented in the west wing ever again.
Agreed, and it speaks to his popularity and mandate that his party was able to maintain the presidency after his two terms.
Wise decision to put Reagan in his own teir. He's kinda like Obama for the Republicans, you love him or hate him, but respect his speaking abilities.
I disagree so much with Reagan, but every time he speaks, I can’t help but go “yes sir, Mr President.” The man put all of his points into charisma
He was an actor, after all
Who was his vice president and first lady?
an actress and bush 1 lol
You pass good hooman, carry on my wayward son.
the fuck 😭
Live long and prosper bruv.
All that cocaine he was smuggling out of Nicaragua with the Sandinistas gave him super powers
He was having a little too much fun with the “welfare” he was giving to low income neighborhoods
The "War with Drugs" to give it a more accurate name.
Even most Republicans don’t really like Raegan the president. They like Raegan the orator.
I have never met a Republican that doesn’t worship Reagan.
Press them on it. If you get a policy argument it will probably be ending the Cold War. You might also get ending the inflation from the 70s and Iran hostages. Those can certainly be argued, but really you can make a similar list for pretty well any president. Take W for instance. United the country after 9/11. Made tremendous progress in fighting AIDS in Africa. Eliminated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then you can go back and push your Republican friends on Raegan's record with gun bans, no fault divorce, nearly tripling the national debt, offering amnesty to 3 million immigrants, and others What separated Raegan from all of the others is how good of a public speaker he was, and how he was unapologetically pro-American and pro-conservative values/positions while doing so. Even if you don't replace Raegan with a poor orator like Bush and just a decent one for a politician like Romney than Raegan would not be worshiped by Republicans today.
The Actor?
I see you, Back To The Future reference.
I despise the man with more fury than any of my exes, and yet I love to hit someone with the “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Except Ragan came 4000 votes from winning all 50 states in reelection. Even moderate democrats liked him
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Mondale didn’t run a great campaign and was frankly less charismatic than Reagan. Mondale’s VP pick, Ferraro, had a bunch of issues including being rejected by folks for being both Catholic but also too pro-choice and it was not a popular choice to pick a woman as VP. Mondale promised to raise taxes. People just didn’t see a good reason to vote for him. But Dems generally at the time didn’t like Reagan’s policies. There were complaints about the deficit, anti-union policies, law enforcement changes that felt pernicious and targeted against black people, not to mention continued support for South Africa and other odious nations abroad. Just none of that was a deal breaker. But I wouldn’t say moderate Dems liked Reagan.
>But I wouldn’t say moderate Dems liked Reagan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat
There were Reagan Democrats to be sure, but that doesn’t mean the majority liked him. Growing up in the Reagan era there were lots of Dems who did not like him nor his policies.
“Moderate dem” =/= ignorant centrist
In other nees, these were moderate Democrats.
I only really agree with one of his least popular views.
Thoughts: I’d actually say MVB and Cleveland are controversial *if* people know who they are. MVB for actually carrying out the Trail of Tears and Cleveland for a multitude of reasons, most notably his marriage. I don’t actually recognize who that is in between Pierce and Johnson on the second row? Nixon in generally common consensus? Really? I feel like opinions on him are quite varied, at least on here.
>I don’t actually recognize who that is in between Pierce and Johnson on the second row? Martin Sheen as Jed Bartlet in *The West Wing.*
Welp I feel a lot better for not recognizing ‘em now. Never actually seen it.
You REALLY outta give it a try. It’s a fine Television show.
It’s Jed Bartlet from the West Wing. I thought I would throw him in there for a little bit of fun. In terms of your other comments, I defiantly see your points, although I was trying to keep personal considerations like Cleveland’s marriage out of the conversation, hence why Kennedy and Clinton are as high as they are.
>defiantly I recognize that’s a typo but it’s a very funny typo. You threw me for a loop with that XD And that’s fair. Even when it comes to his vetos Cleveland stops being as controversial then.
Not sure how I didn’t notice that typo lol
It’s no worries, just found it funny. One last thing though, when ya say “Vocal Minority” for McKinley what all do you mean by that? Is it the “if they know about the Philippines”? Or what are ya going for there?
I think most people who have a decent knowledge about that time in history would agree that his foreign policy was pretty bad, but there are defiantly some people who I have talked to who support that level of imperialism.
I was actually not even talking solely about the imperialism, I was referring to the internment camps utilized by him against the Philippine people during the occupation. It’s pretty awful but often gets forgotten about since, well, we don’t like to talk about it. But fair, if we’re looking at just the imperialism aspect I’ve seen a few folks defend that.
Yeah, I was including that as part of his poor foreign policy. But for sure, a lot of people are sadly either too willing to look over those type of atrocities or are simply unaware.
I also think some people might outweigh his domestic economic oversight over his foreign policy.
I attribute most of the horrors in the Philippines to his immediate successor, or really more accurately to the horrible military commanders in the Philippines. McKinley certainly is partly at fault since he began the occupation, but he was laying in a grave by the time Filipinos were being put in camps. I think McKinley's type of imperialism was mostly fine, just sadly developed into a bad legacy after he had died. The goal was to aid the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii with benevolent governance, and also to aid in expanding the U.S' stance on the grand stage. The latter was successful and part of why I see McKinley as very important to America's history. The former was also mostly successful, the obvious exception being the Philippines where the governance became anything but benevolent from the start. I don't completely absolve McKinley of blame here since he did continue the occupation despite American soldiers committing atrocities as far back as 1899. Like LBJ he should have pulled out; not even the president can stop soldiers from destroying entire villages, and the U.S clearly wasn't welcome. But given his other achievements and the fact that a majority of the atrocities happened after he died I'm willing to rank him highly still. Granted my pardon on him is partly based on a "what-if". Would McKinley have pulled out or at least tried to stop American generals from using camps if he had lived long enough to do so? Given his nature I would think so, but it's impossible to know for fact.
The thing is, personal life scandals are a BIG deal when the person is president. Without the Monica Lewinsky scandal, almost everyone would rank Clinton higher (whether that's raising him from B tier to S tier or D tier to C tier depends on the person tho).
True, but the only difference between Bartlet’s MS and FDR’s polio is that Bartlet got caught while in office. And I don’t see a lot of people using polio as a mark against Roosevelt.
Van Buren’s actual presidency is pretty much universally considered a flop on this sub. (Outside of this sub, he’s one of the 3 least known presidents of all time, alongside Chester Arthur and Ben Harrison.) He only sparks something of a debate if you bring up his ex-presidency.
>carrying out the Trail of Tears Hmm? This is near unanimously recognized as bad in the modern day, that is, by definition, not controversial. Controversial means giving rise to disagreement, and disagreement means lack of consensus. There is a consensus that the Trail of Tears was bad, therefore it isn’t controversial
That is a completely fair point. I guess I was just surprised to see MVB in the “Who cares?” Territory while Jackson is in “Sparks a debate” when the major reason for Jackson sparking a debate just doesn’t really touch MVB. But… yeah, MVB doesn’t really have the positives Jackson does to try and balance it out. So that’s a good point.
Because MVB, unlike Jackson, has a lot less to be debated for him outside of Indian removal. There’s his rather lackluster response to the Panic of 1837, the Amistad Case, and maybe the Mormons. Jackson, on the other hand, signified the new birth of a party system with his rise to the Presidency, signified a populistic political revolution, has the Nullification Crisis, people still debate whether the Bank War was good or not, he appointed one of the most significant Justices ever (and not just regarding Dred Scott; even without that Roger Taney is probably within the top ten most influential Justices ever), Spoils System, etc. There are still plenty of Jackson fans and haters. MVB, in contrast, has much less to talk about and is much less significant, therefore he’s faded into much irrelevancy outside of some debates and academic circles.
Where I’m from, Cleveland is actually viewed positively. I’m from Hawaii and we’re very fond of our royal past, especially amongst the native community. One of the factoids we learned in high school was that President Cleveland was friends with Queen Lili’uokalani, the queen who was overthrown. We were taught to associate Cleveland’s presidency with sovereignty, and McKinley with annexation.
I love how reagan is in his own category
Until about seven years ago.
Nah, he'll still be in his own category. He just loses his top spot/top tier
Truman is a guy I would expect to see lower on the list as the man who ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb, the ethicality of which is a pretty common discussion to see. That being said, I think a good majority of people believe it the necessity of it, if not the ethics of it.
Agreed, that’s why I put him higher up, but not at the top.
Truman is absolutely justified in his position. The US had been at war for 4 years at this point, had pivoted to a complete wartime economy and the Allies had won in Europe. The thought of reallocating hundreds of thousands of GI's to the Pacific theater and island hopping the Japanese Archipelago was something that would have cost thousands more lives and would not have been justifiable when there was the means to end it. I agree with your positioning entirely. George W. on the other hand should be in the Ronald Reagan category. The guy forced a second war in the middle east that was entirely unjustified, and he knew it. Led the U.S. into the worst recession since the 80s. Permanently dethroned the U.S. as the moral center of the world. To cherry top it, cleared the way for the rise of Trumpism. He was an unmitigated disaster.
While I somewhat agree with the Truman take there is still a contingent of people that think the dropping wasn’t justified. Remember it’s not who’s controversial to you, but the general population. With Bush he is disliked by both the left and a large amount of the right. Many conservatives, especially the younger ones, do not think his invasion of Iraq was justified.
Personally, I don't think the average person directly associates the atomic bomb with Truman. FDR was president for most of WW2, so I think more people automatically assume that he was responsible for the atomic bomb. I dont think many people are aware that Truman was President during the end of WW2. When people are discussing the ethics of the bomb, it's viewed as a larger macro US decision rather than the decision of a single president.
I feel TJ should be in sparks a debate if we are talking irl. People HATE when you bring up his crimes irl and modern museums have huge struggles with how to present the man.
I agree for the most part. That said, I think TJ does have a fairly common consensus—namely, that he’s hard to pin down. I think few people *today* go to bat saying he’s unqualifiedly great or terrible. He’s a man of so many contradictions. I quite liked Ellis’ *American Sphynx*, which attempted to really come to grips with Jefferson’s befuddling hypocrisies
Bill Clinton is also WAY too high here. A number of right-wing folks along with labor activists despise him for selling out jobs to China and others, plus his ethical controversies. He immediately starts a debate from stuff I've seen, and is no longer seen as a great Democrat.
I wasn’t even a huge fan when he WAS in office
Carter shouldn’t be controversial, he was not good as president.
Historians almost universally agree he was a bad President. There really isn’t much of a debate outside of Reddit.
I mean, he is controversial though. There is certainly a lack of consensus. There are various prominent critics of him, but many biographers are also revisionists who sympathize with him. In the more online history community, there are critics and defenders. Therefore he is, at least, somewhat controversial on the whole.
There are aspects of his admin that aged well Over time. A lot that didn’t, especially given how well the 1980s played out for most citizens. I have always said that Carter was dealt a bad hand, that he played poorly. He was even able to turn his malaise speech into a disaster, after it was well received by the public (despite what most people think). He is D tier. Not F, and not C. D is appropriate given that he did have some wins.
>a lot that didn’t I think most agree that the economy was shit under him. There are still plenty of people who go “Oh he was a dealt a bad hand” “There was causes outside his control,” essentially clearing him of much of the blame he deserves in my opinion (which I assume you agree with). With the handling of Iran, there are still plenty of revisionists who make the simple argument of “muh human rights fopo we CANT back authoritarian figures.” I’m more of the Kirkpatrick view of the Cold War, and you possibly are as well, But these are all things still debated to this day. There is still no “objective” answer to the analysis of Carter’s mishaps. There are still many revisionists who repeat the things I stated regarding the economy and Iran. However, there is still plenty of opposition to those ideas, bringing way for debate. And current historians even, are split between revisionists and traditional Carter critics. Hence why he typically falls into the “average,” occasionally mediocre, category in presidential rankings. Due to the lack of *objective* consensus (both of our opinions, that he was D tier, are rather subjective, given the lack of consensus), and debate that exists over Carter’s responsibilities for the issues that erupted under him, I consider him controversial.
I’ll write a longer post later. I just want to say that I’ve found the chapters on Carter and Iran in “The Twilight Wars” fascinating. I highly recommend it. Also, the Whistlestop podcast has a few great episodes on Carter. The [one](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/whistlestop-on-carters-cabinet-purge.html) on his malaise speech, then his cabinet purge is excellent and required listening for this sub.
I think the controversy more stems from “how” bad his presidency was. I have heard a wide variety of perspectives on what the legacy of his presidency was.
C-Span Survey ranks him 26th.
Carter is a great person. Skilled in many things. One of the best humans of presidents. But his shit job as president is still felt today.
That's just your opinion man. Historians partially disagree. That's why he's right at controversial imo.
I feel like you could swap Carter and Ford
I think you have the bushes swapped
I wouldn't call Dubya controversial, he's pretty universally reviled.
[удалено]
An example https://www.reddit.com/r/MURICA/s/VfFA7dkZxG
I liked him back then mostly because I couldn’t stand Al Gore as a person. The sentiment hasn’t aged well but you couldn’t convince me to support his opponent back then if you paid me.
My two favorite things about lists on this sub are surprise appearances of Bartlett and Regan getting his own, well deserved, tier.
It’s crazy to me that FDR is legitimately in sparks a debate, the Milton Friedman and Ronald Regan propaganda machine really assassinated the quality of the New Deal enough for people to rethink a president that won 4 landslide elections
I dont know that it’s “is the New Deal bad, actually” so much as “but also: Japanese internment”.
Internment of anyone is bad but if that’s the only criticism made against him I don’t think he’s that controversial
Internment is multiple layers of bad, and it doesn’t help that it took several decades for the government to even sort of try and make things right. If you don’t think it was a big deal, that’s fine, but there’s no credible way to say that it’s been overblown.
I’ve seen so much New Deal bad because we all agree internment camps bad
Probably because FDR did the internment camps and gun control. I like most of the rest of his policies but those knock him down quite a few places in my ranking.
Eh, internment was obviously horrible but it’s not enough for me to overlook that he is one of the greatest presidents in history and one of the best leaders in modern history
It's enough to knock him down a few places though. If it wasn't for that, he'd definitely be one of the best but I'd still place Theodore Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington above him.
Ironically Reagan was a massive FDR fan, voting for him all 4 times and even campaigning for him in 1940 and 1944. Even after making his transition to conservatism Reagan would gush about Roosevelt.
Rare Reagan W
Also a massive Truman fan and headlined a rally for him in LA just before the 1948 election. Reagan used one of Truman's rail cars for a rally in 1984 also. It wasn't too controversial because he had that history. On the other hand I recall Bush Sr. less successfully trying to swaggerjack Truman in 1992, and getting called out on it by Margaret Truman as there was no doubt he had been an automatic Dewey vote that year.
Yeah, it felt bad to put him there, but it sadly is the case at this point.
Literally every poll of historians and scholars since the 1940s has him in the top 3. A majority of people still consider him a great president even if a loud minority of conservatives protest that. Hell, there are many conservatives who applaud him for his war leadership. I’d put him in either “near universal” or “generally common consensus.” Also, Carter doesn’t belong in “sparks a debate.” Literally everyone says he was a lackluster president. Many people follow it up with “but he’s a very good man” or “he had one of the best post-presidencies ever,” but no one’s out here saying he was a great president.
[удалено]
I met one guy at a bar once, he also thought Obama was born in Kenya…
Reagan liked FDR to a large degree, Friedman and his wife actually were in favour of a lot of the relief programs his criticism mostly within "A monetary history of the United States" is almost universally accepted even by those that it holds responsible for the depression (it is not a propaganda piece or political hack job). [https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm) The new deal was already falling out of favour well before Friedman came along. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s treasury secretary and close friend in 1939 in front of the House ways and means committee.
It’s really difficult to call FDR’s economic record a success. He did a good job stabilizing the banks. Nothing else worked until we emerged from WWII. That’s not propaganda, it’s just reality. I have discussed this before [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/EYOIiTs1ix)
I’ve read all of the new deal criticisms, they don’t hold up well. It’s late and I don’t have the time to have the same discussion over and over again that I have had countless times, but FDR cut unemployment in half in 3 years of new deal policies. He made the GD from a nationwide catastrophe that threatened the stability of the nation into something we could weather. The ND brought utilities to countless people and countless other positives. It was the most successful piece of economic legislation in modern history
He cut UE in half, then it spiked back up. The article that I linked to discusses the phases of the GD. I think that’s a better way to discuss a decade long period. There were some wins and some losses along the way. Ultimately, the war solved UE, and then the overall economy was able to recover once the war ended and most of Europe and Asia had been destroyed. We were the only game left on the planet and we capitalized on it immensely.
He spiked back up when he tried to rollback the new deal, they stopped rolling back and UE went back down. You’re ignoring the basics of the timeline of history while also stating the obvious that the war ended the depression
1937 was the culmination of several factors. And even if we said that a reduction in spending was the only cause, excessive government spending can only go on for so long. At some point, spending must come down and the economy needs to exist on its own without stimulus spending. The [Fed](https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession-of-1937-38) has a good bit on insight on what happened in 1936-1937. If WWII pulled us out of the GD, then why do people give credit to FDR, when it was the war that solved the problem? I’d even argue that the war itself did not solve the GD. It solved UE as most military aged males went off to fight/ serve in the military. Females filled the open positions in manufacturing to feed the war machine. However, at home people were guilted into saving via war bonds, forced to ration supplies, and when the war ended everything crashed again. If FDR gets credit for pulling us out of the GD, then why did it occur after he was already dead?
Because FDR lifted millions out of poverty, advocated for the downtrodden, and turned a nationwide catastrophe into a storm that could be weathered. It is a reductive take to say “oh well the ND didn’t end the GD so was it even worth it, or even good?” It’s a take that completely ignores the countless good things and net positives that FDR did for the country. Millions of people owe so much to the New Deal and the 20 years of legislation that followed
Have you seen the unemployment charts and other stuff like that? Most stuff was almost recovered before Japan attacked.
*links to a comment with a source in it and other information below* Reddit: *downvotes without replying* Classic
You expected Redditors to try and engage in meaningful conversation when given something backing a claim they disagree with up? That's a rhetorical question btw, of course not.
It's crazy to me that court packing wanna be dictator Japanese internment FDR is not in his own tier above Reagan. The Democrat propaganda machine really carries the inferior Roosevelt
Lincoln also violated the constitution, Washington was a slave owner. No president is perfect and if you hold onto those two things as FDR’s only negatives they certainly do not outweigh his overwhelming positives. “Wannabe dictator” is also a massive stretch
Yeah especially because he only did the third and fourth term because he knew war was going to happen
FDR literally helped save the world from fucking Nazi Germany - if that is enough to make Winston Churchill a hero as he sat on his hands while Indians starved, it should be enough to outweigh Japanese internment.
The problem with FDR is three-fold. One, his treatment of minorities is controversial to say the least. The New Deal at least in a number of areas discriminated against African Americans and others, plus his Japanese internment camps will always be a hotspot of controversy. Two, a number of his programs were legally and constitutionally questionable, and some like the Agricultural Adjustment Act were struck down by the Supreme Court (stuff like gold confiscation and weakening patents also greatly angered a number of lawyers and others). Three, he violated a number of precedents and boundaries (more than two terms, trying to pack the Supreme Court in response to them striking down some of his stuff, etc.) that really do trigger debate and controversy. Add in his questionable approach to World War II with regard to Stalin and seemingly giving away central/eastern Europe, and I think a shadow will always be over him in some aspects.
FDR only sparks debate for those deep in and focused on conservative economics - any conservative who looks at presidencies as a whole I’ve seen talk about him sings his praises for leadership despite disagreeing with aspects of the New Deal. Vocal Minority is the absolute lowest he could go and I’d put him in between near universal and general consensus. I feel like Reagan could be the category of “depends if you ask a conservative or a liberal”, lol
Reagan is deeper than just “depends if you ask a conservative or a liberal”, it also depends on the age of the liberal that you ask. You can find many older liberals that were around when he was president that at least somewhat like him or maybe even voted for him (the Reagan Democrats); it is the young Gen Z liberals that really hate him.
I almost made the category “Did you live under the Reagan presidency?” so I can’t necessarily disagree with what you said, lol
? is this an alt account?
Judging from their previous post, just seems like they're spitballing their own categories.
ah, I misread Reddit's awful UI, I thought they were replying to their own comment.
I wasn’t around, but my whole family voted for him except my grandma. They all hate him now, so it’s more than just young liberals hate him
I think that's probably because the older liberals remember his charisma, whereas the younger liberals only judge the monstrous impact of his presidency.
Wow, you managed to be redundantly redundant with the phrase "generally common consensus."
Yeah, I only realized how weird that sounded after I posted it
https://preview.redd.it/luw47itmn88d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=355611dd325d7c2ac7537015913cf5190b7abcae
Woodrow Wilson should be with Reagan
Surprisingly I still see Wilson supporters on here
https://preview.redd.it/x9u6l7c3bb8d1.jpeg?width=204&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=048828d17f17538c69db0d565837500cf913b66f I too, universally agree
Woodrow Wilson should be most controversial
People are finally waking up to the anti-Wilson brainwashing I feel like, though I'm probably just too sheltered in this subreddit.
Carter is debate?
Did JQA so dirty w that pic
People always do JQA dirty ngl Even when he was alive 😔
President Bartlett… the President we all wish we had rn The columns are confusing though. Is it “universal agreement” that they’re controversial or that they’re not?
Higher tiers are less controversial, hence people agree on how good of presidents they were.
Now you're making me wanna watch West Wing. Been meaning to watch but keep finding other shows instead.
Loved Eisenhower, though his foreign policy was TERRIBLE so I wouldn't say "universal agreement"...
As much as I love Eisenhower in many ways, the reason he's often universally liked is because people have simply forgotten most of his presidency. He would go from universal to debatable in a hurry if more of his actions and ideas (foreign and domestic) came to bigger light today. I would still defend him in many areas, but a number of left-wing folks would probably dislike him much more intensely.
It's not an original idea of his, but new/fair deal policy was generally successful and the US prospered under them (well, until Reagan) and Eisenhower continued them. Then the 3 departments of Health, Education, and Welfare were created under him; Social Security expansion, ending of segregation of education, armed forces, and transit; establishment of highways, deployment to little rock, expansion and establishment of NASA, aid for education/NDEA, Civil rights act of 1957 & 1960. Domestic policy, he was hitting home runs. Even before his presidency, he was doing amazing stuff at the Columbia Uni as president. His foreign policy wasn't a \*complete\* failure, as he promoted cooling the Cold War, establishing SEATO, and stopping Europe from stomping on Egypt. The countless CIA coups of developing nations leaves a stain on his legacy... One cant deny his domestic success, though.
Erm actually Richard Nixon was an okay president
Reagan is the scumbag responsible for destroying the American economy.
And yet so many people are so quick to defend him because he “was a great orator”, had “strong foreign policy”, or “shrunk inflation”. They simply forget about the crippling national debt he accrued, the extreme rise in income inequality, and his tax cuts that only benefited the top 1%. This isn’t even mentioning the war on drugs or the atrocity that was his response to AIDS.
Reagan lost the war on drugs, so he declared war on industry.
Where does Thomas J. Whitmore fit in this?
More universal acclaim than James Marshall
Fair but when it comes to MVB and McKinley they could be in sparks a debate Or hey I could just be that vocal minority
If anyone mentions Rutherford. I'm like ummm corruption?
They didn’t call it the gilded age for nothing.
The Ronald Reagan category at the bottom sent me
Sneaky Jed...
Shhhhhh…
who is that guy between andrew johnson and ranklin pierce
Hell yeah dude
Found the democrat in the room
Bruh 😂🤣😂 Got me.
Martin Sheen should have been President. Stockard Channing would have been a great First Lady too.
JFK is far more universally liked among common people than Washington, Eisenhower, and TR
This is sort of relevant but if you go on the 4chan /his/ board and post anything about LBJ there is a dude who will spend hours arguing and debating how LBJ was the best president of all time. He also will hijack any thread about Nixon to talk about how shitty Nixon was while trying to compare him to LBJ. You might think you’re an LBJ fan but unless you’re willing to shit up image boards for literal days defending him against onslaughts of anonymous users I don’t think you are.
2 guys are so controversial you can’t even put them on here 😳
carter should be put in near universal agreement. truman in vocal minority
How controversial they are by today's standards, or the standards of their time? If it's the latter, Lincoln would most definitely not be where he is. There was a whole war and everything.
This list is focused on current opinion, although presidents ranked by controversy during their time could be an interesting list as well.
Let Bartlett, Be Bartlett
Well said
Wait, does FDR really spark debate. As a non-American, I always believed there was universal agreement he is one of the greats.
Most people respect his leadership in World War II for sure. However, many conservatives still oppose many aspects of the new deal. I’ve heard several people say they think it actually worsened the Great Depression, and while completely ludicrous, is a surprisingly common perspective.
Damn near every negative trend that's culminating today kicked off in his term
I feel like the only place Reagan is really controversial in the slightest is Reddit and amongst college aged people. He’s very popular amongst the American public and frequently ranks as one of the best modern presidents.
I see your point, but college aged kids are very much a part of the American public. Generational disagreement is a breeding ground for controversy.
JED BARTLET WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA
Reagan isn’t controversial outside of Reddit
In what way? Are you saying everyone outside of Reddit likes him or dislikes him? I have spoken to many people in actual conversation about Ronald Reagan and have never gotten anything close to a consensus regarding his presidency. If I’m being honest, I feel like Reddit is the closest I have seen to most people agreeing on Reagan, and even here it’s bot really that close.
One guy is missing…
I honestly can’t think of any description that would put Nixon, Kennedy, and Bush Jr in the same tier.
Two of mine in general consensus but I’m likely of the minority opinion even then with at least one of them. Jackson in the debate section of course.
I would've put an orange and a raisin for the bottom most tier, below Ronnie.
Reagan isn't that controversial, most people like him. It's just that those who don't absolutely despise the guy.
So we all agree Woodrow Wilson was the worst?
Ikr I hate the 8-hour workday
I mean if Theodore Roosevelt were in office, he would have done the same thing. It’s less of being from Wilson and more being about it being the progressive times. Roosevelt would have likely also gotten suffrage passed
Are you so sure? TR was much less progressive than Wilson, even classifying some monopolies as "good trusts" that didn't warrant investigation. Wilson made no distinction. Also, by this logic, Taft and especially TR should also be given less credit for the reforms they implemented, as that was the general mood of the Progressive Era.
He literally bolted from the Republicans because he saw Taft as too conservative and created the bull moose party or the progressive party. You are trying to make Roosevelt seem rather conservative when he was quite literally the face of the progressive movement
Roosevelt was more progressive on Taft than some issues, but more conservative on him than others. For example, as he was preparing Taft for the 1908 election, he actually made Taft really uncomfortable by insisting he accept corporate donations. The only reason TR is considered the face of the Progressive Era is that he was the one who started it. But that doesn't mean he was the most left-wing participant. Abraham Lincoln began Reconstruction in 1863, for example, but Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens were all much more progressive voices than he. Also, TR's reforms were generally motivated by a fear of a working-class rebellion than anything else.
True, most people don't know the fear many politicians had of mobs/uprisings during that time.
Lincoln had to deal with the border states to make sure they didn’t bolt to the confederacy. If he were very progressive like the radical republicans, he would have lost like 4 states and worsen the north’s position. He also quite literally got assassinated before he could do anything for reconstruction. Roosevelt has to deal with the old guard who didn’t like most things Roosevelt did. The old guard is the reason why Fairbanks was his running mate to help with the conservatives. I really don’t see the conservativeness of Roosevelt compared to Taft. Very few things make Taft look like a huge progressive compared to Roosevelt. Taft did break more trusts so that is one thing to look at
Do you like income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve too? How about 110,000 Americans dead in World War 1... a war he campaigned on keeping us out of? And even Lefty "Vox" admits how racist this guy was. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist He resegregated the Federal government, defended the KKK, a d supported eugenics sterilization of the "feebleminded."
> Do you like income tax YES! The income tax is a useful way to reduce the tax burden on poor, middle-class, and working-class Americans by shifting some of the responsibility to people more able to handle it. > the IRS Do I like law enforcement? Of course I do. And besides, Wilson didn't create the IRS. Lincoln founded the IRS to ensure the Union had enough money to fight the civil war. > the Federal Reserve too? The Federal Reserve enforces important regulations on the banking industry. Remember, banks were primarily responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis, when we nearly faced a repeat of the Great Depression. If anything, the Federal Reserve isn't strong enough. It also helps prevent recessions and curbs inflation through interest rate adjustments. > How about 110,000 Americans dead in World War 1 Germany was making plans to support a Mexican invasion of the US *after* the war. We had no choice but to intervene. > a war he campaigned on keeping us out of? The Zimmermann Telegram was written in January of 1917, delivered to Wilson by British spies that February. The 1916 election predated any potential to know about the threats forcing America to join the war. Besides, Wilson actually disliked the "he kept us out of war" slogan and encouraged his campaign staff not to adopt it, as he knew something like the Zimmermann Telegram was a distinct possibility. > He resegregated the Federal government Not exactly. Contrary to popular belief, Wilson never actively encouraged or even endorsed a policy of segregating government agencies. He merely allowed members of his cabinet to segregate their departments if they wanted. That's horrible - and you're right to criticize Wilson for it - but it's not as bad as actively seeking out the policy, which is how Wilson's behavior is generally portrayed. > defended the KKK No, he did not. The "like writing history with lightning" quote is almost certainly apocryphal, not appearing for around another 15 years after Wilson died in 1924. > supported eugenics sterilization of the "feebleminded." Wilson's personal views are irrelevant when probing the quality of his actual presidency. Regardless, eugenics was unfortunately widely supported in the early 20th century.
>YES! The income tax is a useful way to reduce the tax burden on poor, middle-class, and working-class... Billionaire pay nothing, while the middle class is pillaged to pay for a spending spree of corporate welfare, military bases in 80 countries, CIA assassinations, and foreign aid to countries who hate us. Everybody wins!!! Wilson started this reckless spending and corruption, by giving the federal government this giant trough to feed at. >The Federal Reserve enforces important regulations on the banking industry. WRONG. The Federal Reserve enforces nothing. It is an extra-governmental cartel of privately owned banks, who make their own rules, and are unaccountable to the American people. Wilson transferred the power to print money from the Treasury Department to these thugs, when he signed the Federal Reserve Act. The American economy has been in their grip ever since. >Germany was making plans to support a Mexican invasion of the US after the war. We had no choice but to intervene. Ridiculous. Germany's navy in 1917 was so inconsequential, they only engaged the British fleet once (at Scapa Flow) in WW1. To think they could project power across the Atlantic, to be a decisive factor in a Mexico-USA conflict, is laughable. "No choice!" 🤣 Wilson got us into WW1 to ensure Britain could pay back the money they owed JP Morgan. No other reason. >The "like writing history with lightning" quote is almost certainly apocryphal WRONG. It was a privately made statement which the public only heard about later, from ("Birth of a Nation" filmmaker) D.W Griffith and (KKK member) novelist Thomas Dixon, whom Wilson made rhe statement to. Their claims are credible, SINCE WILSON SCREENED "Birth of a Nation" IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND ENJOYED IT SO MUCH, HE INVITED THE FILMMAKER TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR DINNER. >Wilson's personal views are irrelevant when probing the quality of his actual presidency. That's a novel theory. Do you apply it to all presidents? Do you think we should disregard all sentences that begin with [president's name] wants/wanted.. ?"
> Billionaire pay nothing, while the middle class is pillaged to pay Which is, if anything, a reason to expand the income tax dramatically, i.e. so that billionaires pay practically all of the tax burden and everyone else only has to contribute a little. > to pay for a spending spree of corporate welfare, military bases in 80 countries, CIA assassinations, and foreign aid to countries who hate us. Everybody wins!!! If you want to talk about imperialism, I'm all for it! Wilson set up a pathway for Filipino independence from the US with the Philippine Autonomy Act. He also promoted the self-determination of peoples in the Balkans, Middle East, and Austro-Hungarian Empire with the 14 Points, tried to reduce the size of all militaries (including America's) to as small as possible for these nations to defend themselves, and wanted colonial disputes to be solved based on the desires of the people in colonized territories. > WRONG. The Federal Reserve enforces nothing. It is an extra-governmental cartel of privately owned banks, who make their own rules, and are unaccountable to the American people. Again, the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve by big banks is why such institutions need to exist and should be much more powerful. They need to be strong enough to resist regulatory capture. Wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve because banks manipulate it into serving their interests is like wanting to abolish the fire department because the current firemen don't care enough or have the resources to do their job. The solution is reform, not abolition. > Ridiculous. Germany's navy in 1917 was so inconsequential, they only engaged the British fleet once (at Scapa Flow) in WW1. To think they could project power across the Atlantic, to be a decisive factor in a Mexico-USA conflict, is laughable. A US-Mexico conflict would not primarily be fought in a naval fashion, especially since Germany was offering Mexico Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Two of those states are completely landlocked. Regardless, Germany was and is a very wealthy nation - rich enough to fund the world's first universal healthcare initiative - so their aid could have been completely monetary anyway. The proposed terms in the Zimmermann Telegram already included massive German financial assistance to Mexico. > Wilson got us into WW1 to ensure Britain could pay back the money they owed JP Morgan. No other reason. JP Morgan died a year before WW1 started. But even if you mean the actual corporation and not the person - why did Wilson wait so long? After the German invasion of Belgium and sinking of the *RMS Lusitania*, there was already intense public demands for war against the Central Powers. In the Black Tom Incident of 1916, German spies literally damaged the Statue of Liberty when detonating an explosion. If Wilson was so desperate to enter the war, why didn't he pounce at that opportunity? > It was a privately made statement which the public only heard about later Well, they definitely heard about it *later*, given the 15-year time gap. And that 15 years leaves a lot of room for information to be corrupted. Imagine trying to write down the details of a conversation you had almost 2 decades ago! > SINCE WILSON SCREENED "Birth of a Nation" IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND ENJOYED IT SO MUCH, HE INVITED THE FILMMAKER TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR DINNER. I'm not gonna try and act like Wilson should receive *zero* criticism for playing *The Birth of A Nation* in the White House. He definitely should. But that criticism should hone in more on recklessness, rather than malice. According to the Miller Center (a division of the University of Virginia that focuses on US civics and political history), Wilson played that movie in the White House unaware of his contents. He denounced the film soon after seeing it.
>Which is, if anything, a reason to expand the income tax dramatically. . Thank you for playing! As a consolation prise, please accept the home version of this game... >Again, the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve by big banks is why such institutions need to exist It wasn't captured; it was a hollowed out sham institute from its inception... an inception which can be laid at the feet of Woodrow Wilson. >If you want to talk about imperialism, I'm all for it! Dislike him though I do, I *will* credit him for the Philippines. All the other stuff loses its shine, considering the Austro-Hungarian empire was on its deathbed anyhow, and the bit about reducing militaries was little more than naivete, of the flavor later seen in the effete League of Nations. >A US-Mexico conflict would not primarily be fought in a naval fashion... Any German participation other than monetary would require naval strength, which is why Zimmerman represented no credible threat. It certainly didn't force the US into WW1! >Germany was offering Mexico Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona... Germany was in no position to offer anything! Zimmerman was so absurd! >- why did Wilson wait so long? To get reelected. Keeping us out of the war was the basis of his (dishonest) campaign. >Imagine trying to write down the details of a conversation you had almost 2 decades ago! If I was invited to the White House to dine with the President, because he liked my movie so well... and then he told me how my movie totally got everything right. Yeah, I think I'd remember that.
> Thank you for playing! As a consolation prise, please accept the home version of this game... ... What? > It wasn't captured; it was a hollowed out sham institute from its inception... an inception which can be laid at the feet of Woodrow Wilson. This narrative really doesn't make a lot of sense considering how much Wilson resisted the interests of large corporations as president, from increasing their taxes to restricting child labor to requiring railroad companies to institute an 8-hour workday. These aren't policies reflective of a person who was that vulnerable to manipulation by the business class. > All the other stuff loses its shine, considering the Austro-Hungarian empire was on its deathbed anyhow Especially because Entente leaders like Wilson were defeating it in WW1. > and the bit about reducing militaries was little more than naivete Naive, sure, but still admirable. > of the flavor later seen in the effete League of Nations. The League of Nations was a failure, sure, but not because of Wilson. If anything, people like Henry Cabot Lodge, Warren G. Harding, Theodore Roosevelt, and other Republicans who opposed the League of Nations are responsible for its failures. The fact that America, the founder of the League of Nations, was not a member of the League of Nations greatly discredited that organization. A lot of the league's failures can also be attributed to the League of Nations itself. When Soviet Russia attacked coastal Iran, the League of Nations humiliated itself through its own inaction, an incident repeated when Italy invaded Greece a few years later. > Any German participation other than monetary would require naval strength, which is why Zimmerman represented no credible threat. It certainly didn't force the US into WW1! Then German aid would have been monetary. And again, Germany was an extremely wealthy nation, capable of financing an invasion of the US. > To get reelected. But tons of people already wanted to get involved in the war, especially after the *Lusitania* sinking. Getting involved in WW1 really wouldn't have jeopardized Wilson's reelection odds. Additionally, Wilson actively downplayed the Black Tom Incident to avoid provoking tensions. If he really wanted to get involved in the war but was just waiting until his second term started, wouldn't he have still avoided downplaying the Black Tom Incident specifically to promote more pro-war sentiment? > If I was invited to the White House to dine with the President, because he liked my movie so well... and then he told me how my movie totally got everything right. Yeah, I think I'd remember that. And is there any incentive someone might have to *lie* about the president expressing approval of their work? Wilson was still seen in a very positive light at the time, often being ranked alongside Washington and Lincoln.
Wilson is directly responsible for WWII and Hitler’s rise.