Presidential rankings
This is the annual C-span list of presidential rankings. It ranks all previous presidents. I think in the future, FDR will be moved down the list as it is starting to become popular opinion that his policies prolonged the depression. I also think that Reagan will move up the list as soon as politics is removed from it and the voters realize he pulled us out of the mess Carter put us in.Carter's double digit inflation, price controls which caused gas lines and his bungling of the Iran affair should have him near the bottom.
I also think that JFK will move down if you really take an objective look at him. JFK is responsible for the Bay of pigs, his initial handling of the USSR lead to the Cuban missle crisis ( which he did handle well) and he got us into Vietnam.
The thing I don't get, is why R.B. Hayes is so low on the list. He ended the reconstruction, was instrumental in black/womens' rights and totally rocked the beard.
Am I wrong on this? I would also like to know who you think got dissed or is getting to many props. Please try and refrain from the GW/slick Willie bashing, as that is old and tired.
I also think that JFK will move down if you really take an objective look at him. JFK is responsible for the Bay of pigs, his initial handling of the USSR lead to the Cuban missle crisis ( which he did handle well) and he got us into Vietnam.
The thing I don't get, is why R.B. Hayes is so low on the list. He ended the reconstruction, was instrumental in black/womens' rights and totally rocked the beard.
Am I wrong on this? I would also like to know who you think got dissed or is getting to many props. Please try and refrain from the GW/slick Willie bashing, as that is old and tired.
posted by davis14633 at 06:09
2 Comments:
Lincoln. Highly overrated.
He turned a blind eye to the depredations of northern Republicans, who were in the pockets of textiles magnates, while they systematically fleeced the southern farmers. When the Southern Democrats had finally had enough and rebelled against the treatment, Lincoln accused them of trying to break apart the "great nation."
Subsequently, "Honest" Abe courted the abolitionist movement -- in large part staffed by the rich wives of the aformentioned Northern magnates -- when the war chest started running dry. It also provided a handy stamp of legitimacy to disguise the real motivations behind the most destructive and costly war in American history.
There are people in this country who haven't forgotten the real reasons behind the war, and contrary to popular belief, we don't want "the South to rise again." We want a fair and unbiased historical treatment of the affair, in order to prevent a repeat. Of course, the victors write the history books in their own favor, so that's not likely to happen. At least not while America is still a going concern.
Lincoln was a moderately effective political creature, but his motives weren't the pure ones he is often credited with. His handling of Congress was ham-fisted at best -- at worst, it was purely incompetent.
I think, in this country, and probably others, we assume that someone with good oratory skills will have good leadership/decision making skills as well. Style can win over substance almost every time. It makes elections nothing more than a popularity contest, and sometimes it isn't the popularity of that person, but the party, or person higher on the ticket.
Choosing someone by a show of hands can be a bad way to choose leaders, but it sure beats picking someone because of whose womb they came out of, or who has the biggest/most guns. I think there is a quote by Winston Churchill that goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
Post a Comment
<< Home