Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another one I would offer up is the first Bush (Not his son, who was a total disaster). If you think about it, Bush 41 steered the country and the world through three major international upheavals during his four-year term: 1) The collapse of the Soviet empire, 2) The attempted coup in the Soviet Union, and 3) The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait without any major hiccups, despite the increase in the price of oil. Yes, there was a mild recession at the end of his term, but some kind of economic retrenchment was almost inevitable after a decade of expansion.
One who I think is greatly overrated is Woodrow Wilson. Yes, he was president during World War I, and America's entry into the war probably prevented the Central Powers from prevailing, but he fumbled the peace at Versailles. What's more, from an economic standpoint, I would argue that his creation of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax probably were the seeds for most of the economic problems we face today because of the artificial manipulation of the money supply AND the permanent expansion of the Federal government.
I gotta disagree wth you on Bush senior being underrated. The collapse of the USSR was engineered by his predecessor, Reagan, who deliberately forced them to go broke trying to keep up with us in defense spending. And while I suppose one could calle the Soviet collapse a "major international upheaval" I think it was a positive upheaval for us and Europe, thus requiring Bush to "steer us and the world" through it. Ditto for the attempted coup by Soviet hardliners: I think Bush's part in defeating this was miniscule.
As far as the war in Iraq? It was a cakewalk for our military, but didn't Bush leave the job undone my not getting Hussein? I'ts funny you try to mention that as a feather in Bush's cap when in fact most people use it as a black mark on his career.
See, I totally disagree with this assessment. Lyndon Johnson was an old hand in Washington politics by the time he became president, so it's really unlikely that he could be 'terrified' into doing a cotton-picking thing.
While the term "Domino Theory" began with Eisenhower, the actual theory it described had its roots in the post-war Truman administration and with foreign policy theorists such as George Kennan.
Further, you forget that Eisenhower had actually kept the United States out of Indochina when the French were begging for American military intervention in 1954.
He also kept the US out of the Suez Crisis, which saved America from getting into a major mess, even if it meant opposing close allies of the US, and kept his proto-neocon Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in check.
Ike and George H.W. Bush shared the same basic flaw - both men were obsessed with foreign policy to the exclusion of domestic policy, and created some major blunders at home because of their lack of interest in domestic affairs. Those of Bush I were worse (because the early 1990s recession was worse than the 1958 recession) but Ike's total lack of interest in the civil rights movement certainly was one of the low points of his presidency.
I gotta disagree wth you on Bush senior being underrated. The collapse of the USSR was engineered by his predecessor, Reagan, who deliberately forced them to go broke trying to keep up with us in defense spending. And while I suppose one could calle the Soviet collapse a "major international upheaval" I think it was a positive upheaval for us and Europe, thus requiring Bush to "steer us and the world" through it. Ditto for the attempted coup by Soviet hardliners: I think Bush's part in defeating this was miniscule.
As far as the war in Iraq? It was a cakewalk for our military, but didn't Bush leave the job undone my not getting Hussein? I'ts funny you try to mention that as a feather in Bush's cap when in fact most people use it as a black mark on his career.
.................................................. ..................................................
Except for a speaking style that possessed a certain charisma, Ronald Reagan was one of the most overrated people to serve in the oval office. He took credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the reality is that the actions of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan were responsible for its collapse after forty years of effort. Reagan deserves no more credit than any of the other Presidents did. The USSR was well on its way to collapse by the time Reagan took office.
Where you really lose me though is at the very end. You suggest that it was a failure on Bush I's part not to pursue Saddam Hussein to Baghdad and end his regime than and there. Good Lord, haven't you learned anything this last seven years? We spent $1 trillion and lost 4,300 soldiers getting rid of Hussein and trying to "remake Iraq". Its a Pyhrric Victory in the truest sense of the phrase. Nothing we gained there was worth the cost. On the contrary, I think Bush I was able to see in the back of his mind what a fullscale occupation of Iraq might entail and sought to get out before something like this occurred. This kind of "foresight" is an enormous asset to a leader. Bush I had this quality when it came to foreign policy. His son, Bush II, did not.
I gotta disagree wth you on Bush senior being underrated. The collapse of the USSR was engineered by his predecessor, Reagan, who deliberately forced them to go broke trying to keep up with us in defense spending. And while I suppose one could calle the Soviet collapse a "major international upheaval" I think it was a positive upheaval for us and Europe, thus requiring Bush to "steer us and the world" through it. Ditto for the attempted coup by Soviet hardliners: I think Bush's part in defeating this was miniscule.
As far as the war in Iraq? It was a cakewalk for our military, but didn't Bush leave the job undone my not getting Hussein? I'ts funny you try to mention that as a feather in Bush's cap when in fact most people use it as a black mark on his career.
.................................................. ..................................................
Except for a speaking style that possessed a certain charisma, Ronald Reagan was one of the most overrated people to serve in the oval office. He took credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the reality is that the actions of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan were responsible for its collapse after forty years of effort. Reagan deserves no more credit than any of the other Presidents did. The USSR was well on its way to collapse by the time Reagan took office.
Where you really lose me though is at the very end. You suggest that it was a failure on Bush I's part not to pursue Saddam Hussein to Baghdad and end his regime than and there. Good Lord, haven't you learned anything this last seven years? We spent $1 trillion and lost 4,300 soldiers getting rid of Hussein and trying to "remake Iraq". Its a Pyhrric Victory in the truest sense of the phrase. Nothing we gained there was worth the cost. On the contrary, I think Bush I was able to see in the back of his mind what a fullscale occupation of Iraq might entail and sought to get out before something like this occurred. This kind of "foresight" is an enormous asset to a leader. Bush I had this quality when it came to foreign policy. His son, Bush II, did not.
You misunderstand my point--and that of many political scientists and military advisors: had Bush senior knocked-out Hussein back during Desert Storm, his lamebrain son would not have had cause to mislead the nation and act like a cowboy and get us into the Iraqi war, thus saving us the $1 trillion and the 4,400 lives. All senior needed to do at the time was whack Hussein--maybe with a SEAL team or whatnot. Nobody said anything about trying to nation-build at that time.
Pay attention next time before berating me, genius.
........... had Bush senior knocked-out Hussein back during Desert Storm, his lamebrain son would not have had cause to mislead the nation and act like a cowboy and get us into the Iraqi war, thus saving us the $1 trillion and the 4,400 lives. All senior needed to do at the time was whack Hussein--maybe with a SEAL team or whatnot. Nobody said anything about trying to nation-build at that time.
Bush 1 left Saddam in power for a reason.....it kept Iran in check.
Bush 2, with a complete lack of understanding decided to finish what his dad didn't and completely messed it up.
I'll offer some observations about some selections of "underrated presidents".
1. Bush 1. I tend to agree he was underrated. He did a much better job with the first Iraq War than his son has done. He knew when to quit.
2. He did his part to make sure dictators like Manuel Noriega (Panama) and Ferdinand Marcos (Phillipines) ended their reign. Most of all he did it without involving the USA in any civil wars.
I give him high marks for the way he handled foreign policy.
My problem with Bush 1 is that he failed to grasp that the end of the Cold War marked an entirely new era for the country. He did little about the recession the USA fell into in 1991-1992. The public reacted angrily and he was voted out of office.
Nixon, also an underrated President. His initiatives with the Soviet Union and China enhanced the position of the USA considerably. I felt he took too long to do it. However, he also ended the war in Vietnam. He may have been a conservative, but he was not rigid or doctrinaire. He used wage and price controls when necessary to deal with inflation. He was quoted saying the famous lines "We are all Keynesians now".
Unfortunately, few men in public office have ever had the paranoid and malicious nature that Richard Nixon had. He truly believed everyone was out to get him. He may not have been aware of the Watergate break in, but he certainly was aware of many illegal dirty tricks being done by his cohorts. He created an "enemies list" to keep track of and attempt to punish those who opposed him. His misuse of executive power was legendary. The White House tapes prove he conspired to commit the crime of obstruction of justice. He resigned to avoid certain impeachment and conviction.
Nixon presents a split portrait of both accomplishment and criminal wrongdoing that is hard to reconcile.
Someone mentioned Herbert Hoover. I do agree that Hoover unfairly bore the blame for most of the Great Depression. He was in office all of one year when the Depression began. He actually did some things which presaged the New Deal. He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to loan money to sound businesses which were crippled by the Depression. Unfortunately, he did not move very quickly and he was quick to seize on any positive economic news (there was little) as proof that the Depression was ending. Also, he had very little gift for communicating with people and seemed to regard addressing the masses of the US population as an act that was beneath him.
Eisenhower was a good President. I think he was really a democrat (a conservative one) in disguise. He continued virtually every federal program established by the New Deal. He nominated Earl Warren to the Supreme Court (a very liberal chief justice). He signed the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 which provided massive federal funding to create the huge network of interstate highways that we have. He warned the public of the power of the "military industrial complex" in his farewell speech as he left office. Finally, he began negotiations with Russian Premier Nikita Khruschev which lead to a major thaw in the Cold War. I think anyone who was President during this era would have been considered a great or near great President though.
I don't think Eisenhower expected Warren to be such a liberal. In retrospect, he was appalled by what Warren did. When people asked him to name his biggest mistake as president, he said, "my biggest mistake is sitting on the Supreme Court."
He also kept the US out of the Suez Crisis, which saved America from getting into a major mess, even if it meant opposing close allies of the US, and kept his proto-neocon Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in check.
Ike and George H.W. Bush shared the same basic flaw - both men were obsessed with foreign policy to the exclusion of domestic policy, and created some major blunders at home because of their lack of interest in domestic affairs. Those of Bush I were worse (because the early 1990s recession was worse than the 1958 recession) but Ike's total lack of interest in the civil rights movement certainly was one of the low points of his presidency.
Eisenhower came to regard his handling of the Suez Crisis as a major mistake. He cut down the British and French, and he lamented that that was the last time they ever attempted to do anything with respect to defense/foreign policy on their own. After that, it was up to the US to handle everything.
had Bush senior knocked-out Hussein back during Desert Storm, his lamebrain son would not have had cause to mislead the nation and act like a cowboy and get us into the Iraqi war, thus saving us the $1 trillion and the 4,400 lives. All senior needed to do at the time was whack Hussein--maybe with a SEAL team or whatnot. Nobody said anything about trying to nation-build at that time.
Pay attention next time before berating me, genius.
I think the result of removing Hussein in 1991 would have yielded the same responsibilities on the part of the US. Still would have had to occupy and foster a democratic government, can't just hit and run when a country has oil and leave it for whomever to grab.
Even in 1991 it would have been very difficult to nationbuild Iraq. I'm sure plenty of resistance would still have been brought into Iraq from neighboring regimes hostile to the US. Bush Sr was very wise to avoid that awesome and difficult task. Instead he managed to get a number of the western nations to chip in on the bill for Kuwait and got us the heck outta there. Even with that, it killed his second term because the costs of desert storm was the greatest factor in why he had to go against his pledge of "NO NEW TAXES"
His economic policy proved to be quite sound, even with the extra taxes. It helped lay the goundwork for the great economic expansion that was just around the corner.
Bush 1 left Saddam in power for a reason.....it kept Iran in check.
Bush 2, with a complete lack of understanding decided to finish what his dad didn't and completely messed it up.
You might want to consider that Iran was stirring the pot in southern Iraq, as well as sending IEDs in. Iran obviously had a hand in destabilizing the region. I submit they are still doing so, though possibly to a lessor degree, lately.
Plus, there were significant oil fields that were not going to be producing unless Iraq was stable.
President Bush promised he wouldn't do any nation building unless it affected our national security. I submit he did the right thing. Though his reasons for getting in may have been a little underhanded, I don't blame him for that.
I thought I would start this thread about American Presidents.
Everyone pretty much agrees that the top Presidents in our nation's history were Lincoln, Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman. Who are we overlooking though? Alot of men with enormous talent have sat in the Oval Office (or whatever office was there before that).
Here's a President that I think is very overlooked: James K. Polk.
Polk who was from Tennessee was elected in 1844. He ultimately only served one term in office because he was in poor health by 1848. However, his administration is noteworthy because of the Mexican War of 1846-1847 which was ended by the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo. The Mexican War added huge territory to the USA including what later would become California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado to the union. This set us down the path for future settlement and economic development. The Louisiana Purchase was a "great land grab too". However, the Mexican Cession was the biggest one of all.
Polk did much to instigate the war with Mexico, purposefully deploying American soldiers between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers in Texas. Polk likely anticipated Mexican soldiers would attack the troops and this would serve as a pretext for the Mexican War. Some might call this land-grabbing or even the beginning of a "fascist presidency" However, Polk's actions enormously benefitted the USA.
What say you? Who are some other Presidents who are underrated by historians and why?
As a side note, I wonder how much a poll would be skewed, given that almost all historians lean to the left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
