I agree with most of the ratings, by Paul and by the other conservatives, with one exception. I don't think FDR is overrated. It can be and has been argued that FDR's policies and alphabet soup agencies didn't shorten the Great Depression, and may have lengthened it. He did, however, rally the American people, and he enacted some needed reforms, like the securities laws and the FDIC. But he was a great wartime president, better perhaps than Lincoln, though it's not fair to compare the two as war leaders, for FDR had more and better help, and Lincoln's "office of the president" was John Hay and John Nicolay. In a three volume history of FDR as commander in chief, NIgel Hamilton makes a compelling case for FDR as war leader, with a better grasp of strategy than his generals, more faith in the ability of Great Britain and the Soviet Union to withstand the German onslaught than his advisors, civil and military, and an uncanny ability to reorganize and mobilize the American economy and sent it to war.
It's a little unfair to rank Kennedy, because his was a dramatically shortened tenure. From what I read, he probably wouldn't have led us into the Vietnam War, which is a huge feather in his cap. On the negative side are the Bay of Pigs, a weak posture against the Soviets, and by some accounts even the Cuban Missile Crisis. He handled it very well, but some have argued his policies led to the crisis.
The quest for greatness can go beyond the American presidency. When Jefferson told Hamilton Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and John Locke were the greatest men of all time, Hamilton responded that "The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar." My response to Hamilton: You didn't know Abraham Lincoln. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. No one I know is more knowledgeable than you about our presidents.
I think FDR is overrated because his high rating reflects the view that he was excellent on domestic policy and as a wartime leader. I think his domestic record is mixed. Still, I wouldn't place him among the top five most overrated.
Thanks Paul. I'm sure you're right that the rating given FDR is based on both New Deal and WWII, but he is I believe rated as two or three in every one of the historian ratings since 1948, and there have been a lot of them. I realize overrated doesn't necessarily mean bad, but rating is a matter of choosing among possible candidates, and I don't think I would knock him off his perch among the top three. Jim Dueholm
I rate presidents by how well they led. And how well the country was served by their presidency. Sometimes presidents that accomplished a lot have their presidencies ruined by one thing or another. JFK is definitionally overrated since he has always been thought of as near the top of all lists because of his murder. But in my view and reading many good books about him (not liberal hagiographies) I think he was a good effective president who likely would have been reelected. What would have happened who can say. Regarding presidents since FDR, I realize conservatives hate his expansion of the federal government but I regard him as an effective leader who led the country through two deep potentially existential crises. You know else felt this way? Reagan. I once read a book which rated the presidents from FDR to Bush II solely on their emotional intelligence. FDR Truman Ike and JFK were held to have high emotional intelligence. This enabled them to lead both the nation and their administrations through challenges and crises. The next bunch? Not so good. Johnson Nixon and Carter were rated to have low emotional intelligence. This lack of EI helped destroy their presidencies. Reagan Bush and Clinton were held to have high EI. Bush II was early in his first term but the author thought he exhibited high EI. Using his criteria it is clear Obama had very low EI. Trump even lower. Biden possibly the lowest. EI (as opposed to the more generalized "character" is the best judge of presidential success in the modern era.)
Thanks for the comment, Doug. I agree that Kennedy was a fairly good president and is overrated only because of the mythology that surrounded him after he was killed.
I don't fully understand the concept of emotional intelligence -- probably a sign that I lack it -- or how it is measured. LBJ was unsurpassed in figuring out what made people tick and how to sway them. That's how he become "Master of the Senate." He was a poor president, nonetheless, in my opinion
These are the top traits associated with Emotional Intelligence. As far as LBJ goes, setting aside what a conservative would like or dislike in policy, his mismanagement of the Vietnam War is what destroyed his presidency. I dont think JFK was planning to cut South Vietnam loose but its impossible to imagine him being caught in the trap LBJ fell into.
JFK is a tricky case. His supposedly greatest success, the Cuban missile crisis, was, at best, a wash. Considering what JFK ultimately gave up (Missiles is Turkey) it could be viewed as a failure.
JFK can only be evaluated through his legacies, two of which, civil rights and the space program, are mighty historical achievements. The third, the Vietnam War, was an utter disaster.
His assassination will always be positively credited to his legacy. However fair or not, it speaks well of the compassion and horror most Americans still feel sixty years after the event.
Adding to the positive side of the ledger is the expectation of what might have been. Like his reelection prospects, it just can’t be known.
Ultimately, a presidency of just under three years is too brief a time. Probably JFK is overrated, but if it’s for sentimental, nostalgic reasons, I think that’s probably okay.
I disagree about the Cuban Missile Crisis and I'll tell you why. Virtually his entire cabinet and all his military advisers were pressing him to attack. This likely would have led to nuclear war. He refused to do it and insisted on outside the box thinking to find another solution. And one was found. What made this an achievement was he found a solution to a very dangerous situation. As for the Turkey missiles they were obsolete and slated for removal. By giving this up in exchange he allowed Kruschev to save face with the Politboro. His cool thinking and handling of the crisis may have prevented disaster. Try to imagine say Biden or Trump or Obama in that situation. I can't. It frightens me.
I agree with most of the ratings, by Paul and by the other conservatives, with one exception. I don't think FDR is overrated. It can be and has been argued that FDR's policies and alphabet soup agencies didn't shorten the Great Depression, and may have lengthened it. He did, however, rally the American people, and he enacted some needed reforms, like the securities laws and the FDIC. But he was a great wartime president, better perhaps than Lincoln, though it's not fair to compare the two as war leaders, for FDR had more and better help, and Lincoln's "office of the president" was John Hay and John Nicolay. In a three volume history of FDR as commander in chief, NIgel Hamilton makes a compelling case for FDR as war leader, with a better grasp of strategy than his generals, more faith in the ability of Great Britain and the Soviet Union to withstand the German onslaught than his advisors, civil and military, and an uncanny ability to reorganize and mobilize the American economy and sent it to war.
It's a little unfair to rank Kennedy, because his was a dramatically shortened tenure. From what I read, he probably wouldn't have led us into the Vietnam War, which is a huge feather in his cap. On the negative side are the Bay of Pigs, a weak posture against the Soviets, and by some accounts even the Cuban Missile Crisis. He handled it very well, but some have argued his policies led to the crisis.
The quest for greatness can go beyond the American presidency. When Jefferson told Hamilton Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and John Locke were the greatest men of all time, Hamilton responded that "The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar." My response to Hamilton: You didn't know Abraham Lincoln. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. No one I know is more knowledgeable than you about our presidents.
I think FDR is overrated because his high rating reflects the view that he was excellent on domestic policy and as a wartime leader. I think his domestic record is mixed. Still, I wouldn't place him among the top five most overrated.
Thanks Paul. I'm sure you're right that the rating given FDR is based on both New Deal and WWII, but he is I believe rated as two or three in every one of the historian ratings since 1948, and there have been a lot of them. I realize overrated doesn't necessarily mean bad, but rating is a matter of choosing among possible candidates, and I don't think I would knock him off his perch among the top three. Jim Dueholm
I rate presidents by how well they led. And how well the country was served by their presidency. Sometimes presidents that accomplished a lot have their presidencies ruined by one thing or another. JFK is definitionally overrated since he has always been thought of as near the top of all lists because of his murder. But in my view and reading many good books about him (not liberal hagiographies) I think he was a good effective president who likely would have been reelected. What would have happened who can say. Regarding presidents since FDR, I realize conservatives hate his expansion of the federal government but I regard him as an effective leader who led the country through two deep potentially existential crises. You know else felt this way? Reagan. I once read a book which rated the presidents from FDR to Bush II solely on their emotional intelligence. FDR Truman Ike and JFK were held to have high emotional intelligence. This enabled them to lead both the nation and their administrations through challenges and crises. The next bunch? Not so good. Johnson Nixon and Carter were rated to have low emotional intelligence. This lack of EI helped destroy their presidencies. Reagan Bush and Clinton were held to have high EI. Bush II was early in his first term but the author thought he exhibited high EI. Using his criteria it is clear Obama had very low EI. Trump even lower. Biden possibly the lowest. EI (as opposed to the more generalized "character" is the best judge of presidential success in the modern era.)
Thanks for the comment, Doug. I agree that Kennedy was a fairly good president and is overrated only because of the mythology that surrounded him after he was killed.
I don't fully understand the concept of emotional intelligence -- probably a sign that I lack it -- or how it is measured. LBJ was unsurpassed in figuring out what made people tick and how to sway them. That's how he become "Master of the Senate." He was a poor president, nonetheless, in my opinion
Self-awareness.
Self-regulation.
Motivation.
Empathy.
Social skills.
These are the top traits associated with Emotional Intelligence. As far as LBJ goes, setting aside what a conservative would like or dislike in policy, his mismanagement of the Vietnam War is what destroyed his presidency. I dont think JFK was planning to cut South Vietnam loose but its impossible to imagine him being caught in the trap LBJ fell into.
JFK is a tricky case. His supposedly greatest success, the Cuban missile crisis, was, at best, a wash. Considering what JFK ultimately gave up (Missiles is Turkey) it could be viewed as a failure.
JFK can only be evaluated through his legacies, two of which, civil rights and the space program, are mighty historical achievements. The third, the Vietnam War, was an utter disaster.
His assassination will always be positively credited to his legacy. However fair or not, it speaks well of the compassion and horror most Americans still feel sixty years after the event.
Adding to the positive side of the ledger is the expectation of what might have been. Like his reelection prospects, it just can’t be known.
Ultimately, a presidency of just under three years is too brief a time. Probably JFK is overrated, but if it’s for sentimental, nostalgic reasons, I think that’s probably okay.
I disagree about the Cuban Missile Crisis and I'll tell you why. Virtually his entire cabinet and all his military advisers were pressing him to attack. This likely would have led to nuclear war. He refused to do it and insisted on outside the box thinking to find another solution. And one was found. What made this an achievement was he found a solution to a very dangerous situation. As for the Turkey missiles they were obsolete and slated for removal. By giving this up in exchange he allowed Kruschev to save face with the Politboro. His cool thinking and handling of the crisis may have prevented disaster. Try to imagine say Biden or Trump or Obama in that situation. I can't. It frightens me.