• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Historians: Obama 12th best President

dudalb said:
THIS!
Click to expand...

I think that one can legitimately compare presidents to one another if done at comparable times, either at the end of their terms or by looking much later at "the verdict of history." However I have begun to wonder about the latter- how often does the passage of time truly improve our understanding of a historical event, rather than just give us the false impression of understanding due to the true complexities of the event become lost with time? I really do not know.

More specifically (and this is a legitimate request for information): what examples do we have of how the legacy of a President became radically re-interpreted with time? Lincoln died both revered and hated. Overtime he remained an icon for many, but is still reviled by many in the South. In fact he achieved tremendous things for the country, but did very dicy ones as well. Has time changed, or even provided greater insight and clarity, into Lincoln's worth as a President? As I see it, time only elevated Lincoln into a false imitation of the real man which is now sold as a patriotic meme to young children in school, rather than yield a more accurate understanding. BTW- I do highly respect Lincoln from what I do know of him, but I think I would have felt the same in 1865

What examples are there? I am truly interested because I always assumed that they must exist, yet I am unable to summon up any right now. Help me.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
I think that one can legitimately compare presidents to one another if done at comparable times, either at the end of their terms or by looking much later at "the verdict of history." However I have begun to wonder about the latter- how often does the passage of time truly improve our understanding of a historical event, rather than just give us the false impression of understanding due to the true complexities of the event become lost with time? I really do not know.

More specifically (and this is a legitimate request for information): what examples do we have of how the legacy of a President became radically re-interpreted with time? Lincoln died both revered and hated. Overtime he remained an icon for many, but is still reviled by many in the South. In fact he achieved tremendous things for the country, but did very dicy ones as well. Has time changed, or even provided greater insight and clarity, into Lincoln's worth as a President? As I see it, time only elevated Lincoln into a false imitation of the real man which is now sold as a patriotic meme to young children in school, rather than yield a more accurate understanding. BTW- I do highly respect Lincoln from what I do know of him, but I think I would have felt the same in 1865

What examples are there? I am truly interested because I always assumed that they must exist, yet I am unable to summon up any right now. Help me.
Click to expand...

Well, to gauge that accurately you probably need to see the same panel and their rankings at ten-year intervals. I think Johnson (Lyndon - Andrew was a joke) gets credit for the civil rights legislation and Nixon took over the war guilt, but he was nearly reviled when he left office.)

It's interesting to see favorites falling, too. Jefferson is usually ranked somewhere from 2 to 6. I think that "slave-owner" thing grates on some people. Andrew Jackson is also falling. I guess the response to "the guy who really was the first of the new Democratic Party" now gets a response of "And you think that's a good thing?"

I think the C-span poll weighs heavily on civil rights. Truman's pretty high - probably because of the desegregation of the armed forces. Johnson, as mentioned, Lincoln - obviously, Obama.

Here's an article that doesn't include this week's survey.

https://www.aol.com/article/2015/11...ing-of-presidents-changed-over-time/21271185/

But some of the responses would appear to be based on the need to score other presidents more negatively. At one point in one poll in that link, William Henry Harrison (Old Tippecanoe) was ranked 26th.... better than fourteen others! The guy did nothing in office. He caught pneumonia during the inauguration parade and died within eight weeks. Yet he was better than 14 other POTUS? That's not impossible... I mean, Andrew Johnson did so much damage that we would've been better leaving the office empty after Lincoln's assassination.
 
LSSBB said:
Wow, did he have a huge plantation? How did he have time to eat with all that murdering? He must have been murdering all day.
Click to expand...

I have been in the military. Enslaving me to do that job against my will would be a fate worse than death.
 
Giordano said:
More specifically (and this is a legitimate request for information): what examples do we have of how the legacy of a President became radically re-interpreted with time? Lincoln died both revered and hated. Overtime he remained an icon for many, but is still reviled by many in the South. In fact he achieved tremendous things for the country, but did very dicy ones as well. Has time changed, or even provided greater insight and clarity, into Lincoln's worth as a President? As I see it, time only elevated Lincoln into a false imitation of the real man which is now sold as a patriotic meme to young children in school, rather than yield a more accurate understanding. BTW- I do highly respect Lincoln from what I do know of him, but I think I would have felt the same in 1865

What examples are there? I am truly interested because I always assumed that they must exist, yet I am unable to summon up any right now. Help me.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, time does allow a more balanced understanding of a president's legacy. Jefferson is a good example, as his philosophy of small-farmer government is so clearly outdated (but the Louisiana Purchase alone outweighs everything else). Jackson for me is the one whose reputation cannot be rescued -- yet his legacy as the first truly democratic (small d) president is also immeasurable. Of course Lincoln has been idealized, but every great man does have flaws, and saving the union is a rather one-of-a-kind accomplishment, don't you think? (And where do you get this thing about Southerners today hating him?) Then, Andrew Johnson was actually on the right side of his impeachment battle, and his attitude toward the conquered South would likely have been more fruitful than the Radical Republicans'. Which is not to say that his faults were any less objectionable.

The same thing continues through the twentieth century. Woodrow Wilson and both the Roosevelts actively supported racist policies. Wilson is on a short list of most overrated presidents, but the Roosevelts both did have enduring positive impacts. Nixon is having a modified rehabilitation as people realize how much more moderate he was than the current crop of Republicans. And then there's Reagan, don't even get me started on Reagan, but I predict his fall will come someday.

So yes, I think it's way too early to say what Obama's legacy will be. To me the big accomplishment was the Affordable Care Act, which if it stands will be equivalent to Johnson-era results. I'm cautiously optimistic that it will stand, but time will tell. Without that, it's hard to say what Obama left behind.

The more history I read, the more fascinating I find all the little twists and tweaks that make a person and a presidency one thing or the other. I read my first biography of George W. Bush recently, and came out of it actually respecting him slightly. We always oversimplify our politicians and our politics.
 
theprestige said:
I don't get it.
Click to expand...

"with liberty and justice for all."

An answer to Bob the C's question as to who decided that achieving equal justice was an appropriate criterion for defining the success of a President. I guess one could interpret the Pledge as only advocating "justice" and not "equal justice" if one was a hard nose about grammar.
 
Giordano said:
"with liberty and justice for all."

An answer to Bob the C's question as to who decided that achieving equal justice was an appropriate criterion for defining the success of a President. I guess one could interpret the Pledge as only advocating "justice" and not "equal justice" if one was a hard nose about grammar.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't establish why a country's internal ethics should govern a Ranking of their executives.
 
Arcade22 said:
Compared to Trump Obama comes off as very moderate and conservative indeed. Despite Republican's trying portray him as being "leftist" or even communist he's clearly on the center-right as seen from European countries.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people feel the need to remind us of this every time. In American terms, Obama is certainly left of center; otherwise he would not have gotten the support of his own party. It doesn't matter where he would fit on the left/right axis politically in Europe or Botswana. If Obama had run as a left of center politician compared to European standards he would have gotten wiped out--probably in the primaries.

As for the ranking I'm old enough to remember when historians positively glowed when they talked about Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman was considered something of a joke, certainly nowhere near the "Great or Near-Great" category he usually occupies these days. LBJ was reviled by his own party when he left office (largely over the issue of Vietnam).

Way too soon to judge. And I don't trust the judges, who are probably overwhelmingly Democrats.
 
Brainster said:
I don't know why people feel the need to remind us of this every time. In American terms, Obama is certainly left of center; otherwise he would not have gotten the support of his own party. It doesn't matter where he would fit on the left/right axis politically in Europe or Botswana. If Obama had run as a left of center politician compared to European standards he would have gotten wiped out--probably in the primaries.

As for the ranking I'm old enough to remember when historians positively glowed when they talked about Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman was considered something of a joke, certainly nowhere near the "Great or Near-Great" category he usually occupies these days. LBJ was reviled by his own party when he left office (largely over the issue of Vietnam).

Way too soon to judge. And I don't trust the judges, who are probably overwhelmingly Democrats.
Click to expand...

So you would also feel that it is way too early for you to judge Obama too? I had a different impression from your other posts, but that's great. I heartedly accept your current position.

As to your presumption that the judges were many Democrats- handy way of dismissing something you don't wish to accept, and maybe true given the general political composition of academia, but stated without any direct evidence. As I noted up thread, the high rankings of many Republicans in this poll, including Reagan as significantly better than Obama (!), are inconsistent with political party or leanings playing a dominant role in the rankings. If most judges were Democrats it seems that they were able to remove themselves from their party affiliation and generate a fairly bipartisan rating.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Folks please note this has been moved to the "History..." section.
Posted By: Darat




http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/all-time-best-president-united-states-rankings-235149

Compared to Trump Obama comes off as very moderate and conservative indeed. Despite Republican's trying portray him as being "leftist" or even communist he's clearly on the center-right as seen from European countries.
Click to expand...

No this type of rating needs to wait until he is dead and his term is looked at by people who were not alive in his presidency.
 
Too early to tell on Obama. A common criticism that I agree with, the historians are biased toward war and expansion of federal and executive authority.
 
James Buchanan has a headlock on last place because of the damage that resulted from his Presidency:his incompetence and stupidity from 1856 to 1860 was a major factor in bringing on the Civil War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom