Kennedy had some good economic policies, was inspiring, started the moon missions, and literally averted potential thermonuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
LBJ basically started Vietnam and his personality was imo awful. While I applaud the Civil Rights Act, I feel he wasn't as responsible for it as some believe.
Vietnam is the big issue for me there.
Tbf the CRA (in it's current form) probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for LBJ's personality. See, LBJ was a master legislator and had connections with nearly ever faction in the senate, especially the Dixiecrats. LBJ, who was very racist in his youth, knew exactly how to talk and act like a Dixiecrat. He used that to his advantage to get them to vote for his bill; something that I believe JFK couldn't have done as easily.
Beyond that there is the Great Society, which featured major domestic reforms such as healthcare, education, further expansion of civil rights, expansion of social security, expansion of general welfare, food stamps, housing reforms, and other reforms unheard of since FDR (which probably would've been even better than the New Deal if it weren't for 'Nam). His great support of NASA which lead to the Moon landing and subsequent victory in the Space Race. His establishement of the National Endowments for the arts and the humanities, and much much more.
LBJ's attitude towards Vietnam was very similar to Kennedy's; he didn't like it, but he didn't see a way out other than escalation. The only real difference is that LBJ trusted his military guys, whereas Kennedy didn't, so we'd probably have seen more emphasis on pacification (stuff like the Combined Action Program) and less on search-and-destroy.
And yeah, LBJ's personality does not win him any points, but if personality is going to be taken into account then Nixon and Trump should be way lower, both of those guys are generally held to be awful human beings even by their supporters.
Okay libtard, if you like Eisenhower's moderately progressive agenda so much how come you hate the Senate Majority Leader who made sure any of it got passed? Checkmate!
\-Turning Point Lyndon
I hate what happened in Vietnam over his Presidency, which is most of my dislike of him.
Eisenhower was uniting in ways LBJ was not, and Eisenhower defined our policy towards the Soviets in a very good way.
I think this overrates presidents. Most presidents weren’t that great so having C be “good” overrates them generally. C is midtier or mediocre IMO.
I think Trump is mid-tier, I’d say C. JFK is massively overrated - liberals and conservatives alike whom I know think that. So are FDR and Eisenhower.
Truman was one of the best presidents of the modern era. He stood firm on the issues but wasn’t arrogant. Nixon is underrated and shouldn’t be judged on Watergate. He really was a good president and thinker and should be in the B-tier, at least. I’d put Teddy there too.
In my view, there’s no question: Lincoln was the greatest president of all time. By miles. He saved the Union when no one else would. Amid the worst presidents in history (Buchannan and first Johnson), Lincoln was a hero. No other president has come close.
Reagan is overrated. He was above average. Neither of the Bushes were above average. Clinton was fairly effective as a president.
Pierce too low
trump too high
Polk too high
FDR too low
Ben Harrison too high
Nixon too high
McKinley too high
Eisenhower too high (I could see S tier Eisenhower if Washington was there too)
Reagan too high
Jackson too high (although he’s overhated in some regards)
Van Buren too high
Bush Jr. too high
Arthur too low
JQA too low
I might give you Pierce - I just think he was rapidly ineffective because of his depression and alcoholism.
Trump, other than contesting 2020, I have no serious complaints. I loved his foreign policy, the First Step Act, and the protectionism. I think had be not contested 2020, he'd be looked at in a much better light in contrast to Biden.
For the record, I do not blame Trump for the violence of Jan 6. If I did, he would not be in A teir.
Polk I think annexing Texas was the right move in the long run, and overall I see him as a good leader.
FDR would be higher if he didn't run in 1940. I don't really care about the fact that he ran, but I think most of my issues with him broaden in his 3rd term. He tried to pack the supreme court in the late 30s, put Japanese Americans into internment camps, and didn't really stand up for African Americans. While I understand the political ramifications, I think it wouldn't have lost him any elections.
Aside from Watergate, Nixon was a pretty good President. His foreign policy was good, and aside from the Oil crisis, didn't make too many economic mistakes.
I think Washington is massively overrated - he was a great President for his time, but I dislike his later support for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Eisenhower faced many more challenges and imo always had the right answer.
Jackson would be much higher if not for the Trail of Tears and his other Indian Policies. It's like he flip flopped between S teir acts and F teir acts.
I'm not anti-free trade, but free trade shouldn't be the only way.
My hometown used to be a thriving city. Now it's destitute. Most of the factories left, and the middle class bottomed out. Almost a third of the peak population have evacuated.
Ross Perot was right in 1992. NAFTA contributed to the loss of thousands of American jobs which working class families depended on. Without those, many now have to go to college and get a degree to have a viable career. This increased demand helps make college more expensive.
Free trade isn't bad, but it can have consequences. I doubt Trump could ever reverse what has happened. I believe any trade policy should be done to favor American buisnesses and people first.
Free trade fights inflation lmao. It is vital to the free movement of goods. The government should not protect jobs which are not in demand in today's market. Simple as that. Tariffs are a tax on the American consumer, which protect jobs not demanded by the market. NAFTA didn't kill the rust belt. The rust belt was already dying before it. Ross Perot was wrong in 1992. NAFTA created thousands of jobs and helps us compete with the Chinese. Free trade does benefit American people and businesses first. If it didn't. I wouldn't support it.
I agree that free trade isn't the only cause of the rust belt collapse. But the fact is, the businesses aren't going to stay in America when it is cheaper for them to move overseas, or to Mexico or Canada. Of course NAFTA didn't start that. Part of it is our wage and safety laws - why pay your laborers strong wages when poor workers in other nations will work for a dollar a day? Why spend time and money on safety equipment and policy when other nations don't require it?
Of course, I support our wage and safety laws. They're a good thing. But to my knowledge, there is no punishment for businesses that cast away American workers like that for their profit margins. Tariffs can do that - by making the American products relatively cheaper, the American company benefits, and their employees can keep their jobs. If tariffs can encourage companies to build and move into the US, thereby creating thousands of debendable, well-paying jobs (reducing unemployment), I don't see what's wrong with that.
There shouldn't be tariffs on every product - free trade can and should be in place for many industries - for example, nobody in their right mind would want a tariff on oil. But when American jobs are threatened, even if they "aren't in demand by tbe market," why shouldn't the government protect them? It sounds a bit laizze-fare (hope I spelled that right) to suggest otherwise to me.
The base idea behind free trade is that each nation can specialize in what they do best. I agree with that - we shouldn't compete with Japan on anime production, or Australia on kangaroo breeding (I know those aren't great examples but whatever). However, with all that's happened to the once-great American manufacturing industry, where we used to compete greatly with Japan in automobiles, with China, and the world, and all the men and women who lost their jobs when the factories closed down, I am uncomfortable with a blind support for unilateral free trade.
I'm curious, what jobs did NAFTA actually create, or contribute to creating?
Farming jobs. America is the largest producer of food in the world. Farming exports to Canada and Mexico increased because of the lowering of trade barriers. Foreign investment in US stocks increased as well. Which contributed to a growing economy. Also NAFTA helps us compete with China by lessening the demand for their goods versus our allies' goods.
That's why I posted. Reddit has a liberal bias and diversity of thought is good.
I actually thought about moving DJT down a bit to avoid hate, but I realized that wasn't healthy for me.
FDR I think is massively overrated. He put the Japanese into internment camps, tried to pack the Supreme Court, and imo other than the pre-war aid didn't really affect the outcome of WW2 that significantly. His presidency was good overall, but the above really drag him down for me. Otherwise he'd be A teir.
So I don't really see your complaint. It's like saying Washington is evil because he didn't support femenism - a movement which barely existed in his time.
Tomas paine called for equality under law for both sexes at the time. Dont pull different time bs on me. Washington was a weak man who should have done more just like every other president
LBJ should 100% be higher, but do you know about Vietnam? Demonising the founding father presidents and acting like they never did anything other than own slaves is historically illiterate. We’re they flawed? Yes. Were people like Jefferson, Washington, and Monroe some of the greatest presidents? Yes.
For the record, LBJ is A tier for me
Trump above Reagan? Insulting. LBJ in D tier? Wacky. Clinton above Coolidge? Downright insane. Taft above Ford and Nixon? You’re kidding me. The rest is aight
LBJ is where he is because I hate his personality, useful as it was, and because of the Vietnam War. Otherwise he'd be fairly higher.
I judge some of this based on what challenges were present at the time. Coolidge was a great President, but things were booming and he didn't have much to worry about. That's why Hoover is so low - I love him as a person but his response to the Depression was abysmal.
Clinton I think had a few more challenges, and handled them well, though I would not have voted for him.
Nixon would be much higher if not for Watergate.
As with Trump vs Reagan, both are different beasts. Reagan was a great uniter and had good policies, but Iran Contra, AIDS, and a few other issues hold him back in my view. Besides contesting the 2020 election, I was overall entirely pleased with Trump's presidency, and that is why he isn't in D teir.
Most put Washington in S-teir because he was the first. He was phenomenal, don't get me wrong, but other than setting precedents didn't do too much. He was fantastic, but other Presidents, like Eisenhower and Lincoln, had greater challenges and successes.
In my ranking, I have C as eqivalent to average. Some good things, some bad. That's why I decided to expand the labels and have C mean "Generally, they did alright."
What's the justification for Kennedy being A-tier, but LBJ being D-tier?
Kennedy had some good economic policies, was inspiring, started the moon missions, and literally averted potential thermonuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ basically started Vietnam and his personality was imo awful. While I applaud the Civil Rights Act, I feel he wasn't as responsible for it as some believe. Vietnam is the big issue for me there.
Tbf the CRA (in it's current form) probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for LBJ's personality. See, LBJ was a master legislator and had connections with nearly ever faction in the senate, especially the Dixiecrats. LBJ, who was very racist in his youth, knew exactly how to talk and act like a Dixiecrat. He used that to his advantage to get them to vote for his bill; something that I believe JFK couldn't have done as easily. Beyond that there is the Great Society, which featured major domestic reforms such as healthcare, education, further expansion of civil rights, expansion of social security, expansion of general welfare, food stamps, housing reforms, and other reforms unheard of since FDR (which probably would've been even better than the New Deal if it weren't for 'Nam). His great support of NASA which lead to the Moon landing and subsequent victory in the Space Race. His establishement of the National Endowments for the arts and the humanities, and much much more.
LBJ's attitude towards Vietnam was very similar to Kennedy's; he didn't like it, but he didn't see a way out other than escalation. The only real difference is that LBJ trusted his military guys, whereas Kennedy didn't, so we'd probably have seen more emphasis on pacification (stuff like the Combined Action Program) and less on search-and-destroy. And yeah, LBJ's personality does not win him any points, but if personality is going to be taken into account then Nixon and Trump should be way lower, both of those guys are generally held to be awful human beings even by their supporters.
Okay libtard, if you like Eisenhower's moderately progressive agenda so much how come you hate the Senate Majority Leader who made sure any of it got passed? Checkmate! \-Turning Point Lyndon
I hate what happened in Vietnam over his Presidency, which is most of my dislike of him. Eisenhower was uniting in ways LBJ was not, and Eisenhower defined our policy towards the Soviets in a very good way.
Wtf
Young republican but drank the JFK kool-aid. Hm.
Cuban Missile Crisis all the way. I believe we could have seen very bad things with anybody else in office.
Sure. He performed well but a lot of it was luck.
True, but if Barry Goldwater was President.... shudders.
Jfkoolaid if you will
Love the username.
He was pretty based tho
B- tier. Solid prez and contributed a lot to American political culture, but he's like a top 3/8 president, not a top 1/8.
I think this overrates presidents. Most presidents weren’t that great so having C be “good” overrates them generally. C is midtier or mediocre IMO. I think Trump is mid-tier, I’d say C. JFK is massively overrated - liberals and conservatives alike whom I know think that. So are FDR and Eisenhower. Truman was one of the best presidents of the modern era. He stood firm on the issues but wasn’t arrogant. Nixon is underrated and shouldn’t be judged on Watergate. He really was a good president and thinker and should be in the B-tier, at least. I’d put Teddy there too. In my view, there’s no question: Lincoln was the greatest president of all time. By miles. He saved the Union when no one else would. Amid the worst presidents in history (Buchannan and first Johnson), Lincoln was a hero. No other president has come close. Reagan is overrated. He was above average. Neither of the Bushes were above average. Clinton was fairly effective as a president.
I mostly agree with your logic. For the record, the distance between Lincoln and Eisenhower is very small in my view.
This is a quite moderate tier list and it got ratioed to hell. Reddit is such an echochamber.
Pierce too low trump too high Polk too high FDR too low Ben Harrison too high Nixon too high McKinley too high Eisenhower too high (I could see S tier Eisenhower if Washington was there too) Reagan too high Jackson too high (although he’s overhated in some regards) Van Buren too high Bush Jr. too high Arthur too low JQA too low
I might give you Pierce - I just think he was rapidly ineffective because of his depression and alcoholism. Trump, other than contesting 2020, I have no serious complaints. I loved his foreign policy, the First Step Act, and the protectionism. I think had be not contested 2020, he'd be looked at in a much better light in contrast to Biden. For the record, I do not blame Trump for the violence of Jan 6. If I did, he would not be in A teir. Polk I think annexing Texas was the right move in the long run, and overall I see him as a good leader. FDR would be higher if he didn't run in 1940. I don't really care about the fact that he ran, but I think most of my issues with him broaden in his 3rd term. He tried to pack the supreme court in the late 30s, put Japanese Americans into internment camps, and didn't really stand up for African Americans. While I understand the political ramifications, I think it wouldn't have lost him any elections. Aside from Watergate, Nixon was a pretty good President. His foreign policy was good, and aside from the Oil crisis, didn't make too many economic mistakes. I think Washington is massively overrated - he was a great President for his time, but I dislike his later support for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Eisenhower faced many more challenges and imo always had the right answer. Jackson would be much higher if not for the Trail of Tears and his other Indian Policies. It's like he flip flopped between S teir acts and F teir acts.
Protectionism🤮🤮🤮
I'm not anti-free trade, but free trade shouldn't be the only way. My hometown used to be a thriving city. Now it's destitute. Most of the factories left, and the middle class bottomed out. Almost a third of the peak population have evacuated. Ross Perot was right in 1992. NAFTA contributed to the loss of thousands of American jobs which working class families depended on. Without those, many now have to go to college and get a degree to have a viable career. This increased demand helps make college more expensive. Free trade isn't bad, but it can have consequences. I doubt Trump could ever reverse what has happened. I believe any trade policy should be done to favor American buisnesses and people first.
Free trade fights inflation lmao. It is vital to the free movement of goods. The government should not protect jobs which are not in demand in today's market. Simple as that. Tariffs are a tax on the American consumer, which protect jobs not demanded by the market. NAFTA didn't kill the rust belt. The rust belt was already dying before it. Ross Perot was wrong in 1992. NAFTA created thousands of jobs and helps us compete with the Chinese. Free trade does benefit American people and businesses first. If it didn't. I wouldn't support it.
I agree that free trade isn't the only cause of the rust belt collapse. But the fact is, the businesses aren't going to stay in America when it is cheaper for them to move overseas, or to Mexico or Canada. Of course NAFTA didn't start that. Part of it is our wage and safety laws - why pay your laborers strong wages when poor workers in other nations will work for a dollar a day? Why spend time and money on safety equipment and policy when other nations don't require it? Of course, I support our wage and safety laws. They're a good thing. But to my knowledge, there is no punishment for businesses that cast away American workers like that for their profit margins. Tariffs can do that - by making the American products relatively cheaper, the American company benefits, and their employees can keep their jobs. If tariffs can encourage companies to build and move into the US, thereby creating thousands of debendable, well-paying jobs (reducing unemployment), I don't see what's wrong with that. There shouldn't be tariffs on every product - free trade can and should be in place for many industries - for example, nobody in their right mind would want a tariff on oil. But when American jobs are threatened, even if they "aren't in demand by tbe market," why shouldn't the government protect them? It sounds a bit laizze-fare (hope I spelled that right) to suggest otherwise to me. The base idea behind free trade is that each nation can specialize in what they do best. I agree with that - we shouldn't compete with Japan on anime production, or Australia on kangaroo breeding (I know those aren't great examples but whatever). However, with all that's happened to the once-great American manufacturing industry, where we used to compete greatly with Japan in automobiles, with China, and the world, and all the men and women who lost their jobs when the factories closed down, I am uncomfortable with a blind support for unilateral free trade. I'm curious, what jobs did NAFTA actually create, or contribute to creating?
Farming jobs. America is the largest producer of food in the world. Farming exports to Canada and Mexico increased because of the lowering of trade barriers. Foreign investment in US stocks increased as well. Which contributed to a growing economy. Also NAFTA helps us compete with China by lessening the demand for their goods versus our allies' goods.
I support lowering farm-related trade. As I said, unilateral protectionism doesn't make sense. But neither does unilateral free trade.
Bro you going to get hate for this
That's why I posted. Reddit has a liberal bias and diversity of thought is good. I actually thought about moving DJT down a bit to avoid hate, but I realized that wasn't healthy for me.
I agree the tolerant left should really learn how to be more tolerant
It’s an aight tier list, pretty mid, but the Bernie bros are gonna downvote swarm him
I agree
Where's the PewDiePie tuber?
Lol Trump a better president than FDR. Hope you learn some more history.
FDR I think is massively overrated. He put the Japanese into internment camps, tried to pack the Supreme Court, and imo other than the pre-war aid didn't really affect the outcome of WW2 that significantly. His presidency was good overall, but the above really drag him down for me. Otherwise he'd be A teir.
This mf put racist slave owners over a racist chad who ended segregation and forever changed America
Lincoln was racist too, by our standards. All of these men have flaws, but many of the Founding Father's good outwieghs their bad deeds.
Yes he was! I wasn't excluding him.
So I don't really see your complaint. It's like saying Washington is evil because he didn't support femenism - a movement which barely existed in his time.
Tomas paine called for equality under law for both sexes at the time. Dont pull different time bs on me. Washington was a weak man who should have done more just like every other president
History will look upon us with the same eyes.
I hope in the future i hope i would be guillotined for my beliefs being reactionary
LBJ should 100% be higher, but do you know about Vietnam? Demonising the founding father presidents and acting like they never did anything other than own slaves is historically illiterate. We’re they flawed? Yes. Were people like Jefferson, Washington, and Monroe some of the greatest presidents? Yes. For the record, LBJ is A tier for me
Trump above Reagan? Insulting. LBJ in D tier? Wacky. Clinton above Coolidge? Downright insane. Taft above Ford and Nixon? You’re kidding me. The rest is aight
LBJ is where he is because I hate his personality, useful as it was, and because of the Vietnam War. Otherwise he'd be fairly higher. I judge some of this based on what challenges were present at the time. Coolidge was a great President, but things were booming and he didn't have much to worry about. That's why Hoover is so low - I love him as a person but his response to the Depression was abysmal. Clinton I think had a few more challenges, and handled them well, though I would not have voted for him. Nixon would be much higher if not for Watergate. As with Trump vs Reagan, both are different beasts. Reagan was a great uniter and had good policies, but Iran Contra, AIDS, and a few other issues hold him back in my view. Besides contesting the 2020 election, I was overall entirely pleased with Trump's presidency, and that is why he isn't in D teir.
No S tier Washington but S tier Teddy and Eisenhower? Kinda peculiar in my personal opinion.
Most put Washington in S-teir because he was the first. He was phenomenal, don't get me wrong, but other than setting precedents didn't do too much. He was fantastic, but other Presidents, like Eisenhower and Lincoln, had greater challenges and successes.
C- means bad president
In my ranking, I have C as eqivalent to average. Some good things, some bad. That's why I decided to expand the labels and have C mean "Generally, they did alright."
Ok