Rank the Presidents Since Kennedy From Best to Worst

[MediumTex]

Here's my scorecard:

1. Reagan

2. Clinton

3. Bush I

4. Ford

5. Obama

6. Bush II

7. Carter

8. Nixon

9. LBJ

***

One of the hard calls for me was where to put Bush I, since I think that taking your country to war unnecessarily (Iraq) and attacking another country without provocation (Iraq and Panama) should bump you down several spots.  OTOH, Bush I had a really strong supporting cast, especially James Baker and Colin Powell, and that helped him a lot.  With another person in Colin Powell's role, the U.S. could have easily spent the entire 1990s in a pointless occupation of Iraq.  Instead, we waited until 2003 to begin a long term pointless occupation of Iraq.

Ford gets a lot of credit for helping to keep things together after the Nixon scandals.  Considering that Ford was never elected President or Vice President, he filled the role of President with about as much grace and credibility as I can imagine, even though it probably didn't appear that way at the time.  He also gets points for not attacking or invading any other countries.

Carter's and Bush II's rankings are close and could be reversed.  Carter wasn't a strong leader, and that's a huge problem, but Bush II started a massive war based on either a lie or utter incompetence, and that pulls him strongly toward LBJ's position at the bottom.

[Mountaineer]

1. Reagan
2. Nixon
3. Bush 1
4. Ford
5. Bush 2

97. Clinton
98. Carter

999. Johnson
1000. Obama

This is a difficult task.  I evaluated mainly based on my perception of their leadership, ability to unite our citizens, effectiveness in foreign affairs, ethics, selection of a competent supporting staff, and how well they upheld their oath of office (a mixed bag for sure; none of them excelled in all measures - I gave most weight to how well they upheld their oath of office):

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:  Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”?

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=2056

July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds

[moda0306]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=2056

July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds

You'll probably find that any sitting president will usually get that.  They are always the lightning-rods of the opposite party, while the liberals have had time to spread their dislike of presidents between Johnson (if they're anti-Nam), Bush II, Reagan, and Nixon.

This is what annoys me about people and politics.  The world is always falling with the most recent president.  I see conservatives today no differently than uber-anti-war liberals in 2005 worrying that the world was going to end because we were in another foreign debacle... you know, in that same country that Clinton fire-bombed during his presidency, and the deaths within which we haven't even hit one battle of the Civil War?

Not to undermine the magnitude of $hit that has been our presence in the Middle East for the last decade or so, but we have to put it in context of the nature of humanity throughout history, and liberals are bad at doing that when we have a dumb-sounding Good Ol' Boy trust fund baby in the white house.

[moda0306]

1. Reagan
2. Nixon
3. Bush 1
4. Ford
5. Bush 2

97. Clinton
98. Carter

999. Johnson
1000. Obama

This is a difficult task.  I evaluated mainly based on my perception of their leadership, ability to unite our citizens, effectiveness in foreign affairs, ethics, selection of a competent supporting staff, and how well they upheld their oath of office (a mixed bag for sure; none of them excelled in all measures - I gave most weight to how well they upheld their oath of office):

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:  Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

As someone who has a strong faith in God and probably some level of certainty of what he expects from us, morally, what is your take on war, and a president's decision to lead us into one?

I'm not talking about the kind of war that Poland had to fight in 1939... I mean more like the one we fought in Vietnam or Iraq...

[Benko]

Moda,

you make an important point, but do you belive that means that it is impossible to recognise outliers when they are happening?  I don't.  We elected someone with no experience running anything (significant), and the expected happened.

[Mountaineer]

1. Reagan
2. Nixon
3. Bush 1
4. Ford
5. Bush 2

97. Clinton
98. Carter

999. Johnson
1000. Obama

This is a difficult task.  I evaluated mainly based on my perception of their leadership, ability to unite our citizens, effectiveness in foreign affairs, ethics, selection of a competent supporting staff, and how well they upheld their oath of office (a mixed bag for sure; none of them excelled in all measures - I gave most weight to how well they upheld their oath of office):

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:  Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

As someone who has a strong faith in God and probably some level of certainty of what he expects from us, morally, what is your take on war, and a president's decision to lead us into one?

I'm not talking about the kind of war that Poland had to fight in 1939... I mean more like the one we fought in Vietnam or Iraq...

Your terminology indicates you have been exposed (trained?) to a "works righteous" [or self-righteousness or at least some type of cooperation with God is required] type of Christianity.  My brand is "justification by faith alone" and the source of that faith is God.  I can only respond in thanks to that incredible gift.  Thus, I do not believe God expects anything of us other than believing in Christ crucified and that He came to atone for and forgive our sins.  An expanded version of my belief on that is captured in the Apostle's Creed.  My response of thanks is indeed to try and live by God's moral law but at the same time realize my efforts, successful or not, have nothing to do with my salvation.  But, I digress. 

Here is the LC-MS position on war; I have no reason to disagree.  The Lutheran understanding of the "Two Kingdoms" that I have discussed many times in the religion thread is a great help to understand what a just war is.  I am assuming your question dealt with the "civil" kingdom and not the "God" kingdom.

Source page for the two Q&As below:  http://www.lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#war

Q: I am a member of the Lutheran Church, but I have a few questions concerning warfare. I will be leaving soon to the Middle East region and am wondering where the Lutheran Church stands on the issue of war.

A:  Members of the LCMS equally committed to Scriptural teaching may have differing views regarding justification for war. And they may present equally cogent arguments to support their views. For more information on this topic, you may wish to read an article that appeared in the January 2003 Lutheran Witness on the "just war" concept and a report from our Commission on Theology and Church Relations titled Guidelines for Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship. You also may wish to read former President Kieschnick's statement on peace.


Q:  How would you counsel someone who asks about going into military service when he feels that it violates the 5th Commandment where it says, "Thou shalt not kill," as I learned it? The current Catechism has "murder" instead of "kill."

A:  In the synodical explanation of Luther's Small Catechism it asks, "Does anyone have the authority to take another's person's life?" The answer: "Yes, lawful government, as God's servant, may execute criminals and fight just wars." The reference cited is Roman 13:4, which coincides with the fact that the 5th commandment does not forbid all "killing," but (as the Hebrew word used in Exodus 20 makes clear) sinful and unjustified killing, i.e., "murder." For more information on this topic, we encourage you to read the Commission on Theology and Church Relations report on Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship, which includes discussions of "Christians, Violence and War," "Christian Conscience," etc. You may also want to contact the Synod's Ministry to the Armed Forces for additional guidance in responding to this situation.


... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Getting back to the subject of the thread...

My rankings reflect that fact that I don't care about how "strong a leader" the president is; I feel no particular need to be led, so how good he is at making conformists want to line up behind him is irrelevant to me. Thus, my list is mostly about policy accomplishments. It is also hard to rank order them because IMHO they were all very bad; its just a matter of degree.


Ford
- Pros: lowered taxes; avoided the opportunity to re-enter the Vietnam war
- Cons: failed to control rising inflation; allowed large numbers of Vietnamese refugees to enter the country

Clinton
- Pros: lowered some taxes; reduced banking regulation; signed NAFTA; reduced immigration by passing IIRIRA
- Cons: ...raised other taxes; saddled the country with new welfare programs (SCHIP, FMLA); enacted a number of gun restrictions

Carter
- Pros: deregulated many domestic industries (oil, trucking, aviation, finance)
- Cons: ...increased federal regulation of other parts of the economy; bungled the energy crisis with price controls, leading to shortages; increased federal control over education; saddled the country with a large number of minor welfare programs

Bush I
- Pros: laid most of the groundwork for NAFTA
- Cons: started the pointless Iraq war; raised taxes; increased government regulation of the economy

Reagan
- Pros: froze or rolled back many federal programs; deregulated the oil industry; lowered some taxes
Cons: ...raised other taxes; escalated the war on drugs; expanded military spending; allowed large numbers of illegal immigrants to enter the country and offered amnesty to 3 million; passed EMTALA, paving the road for the permanent destruction of market-based healthcare in the USA

Obama
- Pros: ended the second pointless Iraq war; allowed a natural gas boom to occur; ended various federal government discrimination programs against gays
- Cons: saddled the country with a new welfare program (PPACA); raised taxes; increased government regulation of the economy; allowed large numbers of illegal immigrants to enter the country; legitimized extrajudicial killing of American citizens

Nixon
- Pros: reduced inflation; ended the pointless Vietnam war
- Cons: ...escalated it beforehand; initiated the war on drugs; implemented wage and price controls, leading to shortages; increased federal regulation of the economy; created the EPA and OSHA; began federal affirmative action programs; implemented school bussing

Johnson
- Pros: ended government discrimination against African-Americans
- Cons: saddled the country with new welfare programs (Medicare, Medicaid); dramatically escalated the pointless Vietnam war; increased federal regulation of the economy; increased federal control over education; overhauled the immigration system for the worse, allowing large numbers of large numbers of legal but fairly undesirable immigrants to enter the country; passed harsh gun control laws

Bush II
- Pros: lowered taxes
- Cons: saddled the country with a new welfare program (Medicare part D); started the pointless second Iraq war; created the TSA and DHS; bolstered the government surveillenace aparatus; legitimized government torture; increased federal control over education; dramatically increased government employment and spending; allowed large numbers of illegal immigrants to enter the country

[moda0306]

Moda,

you make an important point, but do you belive that means that it is impossible to recognise outliers when they are happening?  I don't.  We elected someone with no experience running anything (significant), and the expected happened.

Benko,

We probably disagree with some of the problems that exist and a lot of the reasons.  If Obama's ineffective leadership has caused problems, IMO, it is in the area of inadequate "stimulus." (in quotes because I believe a payroll tax holiday tied to unemployment & inflation would have been a huge part of "moda-king-for-a-day-stimulus."  Not just spending money on putting single moms through Victimhood Reeducation.


I think it is only somewhat telling.  I think the social drums that are being pounded by some members because our president isn't of southern cultural descent is huge, and a lot of people that would be ho-hum on Obama if he was more like Bill Clinton are all of a sudden talking about the world ending, Antichrist, Kenyan birth certificates, etc.  It just simply wouldn't be this bad if James Carvill were doing the EXACT same things Obama was doing.

Just like anti-war lefties wouldn't have freaked out nearly as bad if Obama had invaded Iraq in 2003.

So what this is "telling" me is far more interesting and actually opposite from what it is telling you.  It's more about team mentality and groupthink than it is incompetence, IMO.  But that's just where we differ.


To flip this around a bit, in the face of a financial crisis, a Rand Paul probably would have (tried to) slashed spending and let banks implode.  While there are aspects to the latter I can agree with, we would have been sitting at a disaster at the end of his first term similar to the one Herbert Hoover had (actually like the guy as a guy.... should've stayed in the private sector IMO).  I don't think a lot of "competent" people actually understand macroeconomics.  They're competent at running very, very open systems.  Not relatively closed systems like the U.S. economy.  The economics of the machine change, but their approach doesn't.

But, once again, this is just simply where we disagree.  I'm not trying to convert you... just to clarify my position on all of this.

[moda0306]

PS,

I like your list... not cuz I agree 100%, but it's well-organized.

And while I certainly agree with certain hawkish aspects of the immigration debate, if we are looking at things through a relatively libertarian lense (which your positions seem to indicate on your list), a government doesn't "allow" people in the country... it can only "disallow" people into the country.

Now, the actual act of "amnesty" is an actual government act that gives people a status of citizenship, but the true action is limiting the freedom to travel of human beings.

This is fine, but this is in the context not of libertarianism, but of "we need immigration laws to offset welfare laws" type of logic, which is a more realist/pragmatist lense to look at things through (though I'd argue so is amnesty of people who have been here for a decade, but that's another thread).

When do you decide to remove your libertarian hat and put your pragmatist hat on?  War is some times a "pragmatic" response to an economic or foreign policy event to keep our economy running, no more  than border laws.  Iraq I protected oil reserves for our cheap purchase.  I don't think many people would argue that Saddam wouldn't have one that fight without our involvement.  I'm not saying it is right, but it supported a more free-market oil flow system, so technically one could say it was the PRAGMATIC response to maximize capitalism and freedom overall.

Why do you just hit on immigration with that pragmatist hat?

[Pointedstick]

And while I certainly agree with certain hawkish aspects of the immigration debate, if we are looking at things through a relatively libertarian lense (which your positions seem to indicate on your list), a government doesn't "allow" people in the country... it can only "disallow" people into the country.

The distinction is sort of academic when 100% of the land is the government's de facto property. It allows all of us to live in the country, for example. It can disallow us by arresting us for a crime, convicting us, and murdering us. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, I say.

Now, the actual act of "amnesty" is an actual government act that gives people a status of citizenship, but the true action is limiting the freedom to travel of human beings.

[...]

When do you decide to remove your libertarian hat and put your pragmatist hat on? 

[...]

Why do you just hit on immigration with that pragmatist hat?

That's a good question, and I'll admit I don't yet have a good answer. I guess because I have an engineer's mind, and I feel like I see how complicated systems interact, I only support changes to the system (i.e. government and society) that I believe will actually have intended positive effects. For example, the wage and price controls implemented by Carter and Nixon has the opposite effects from what were intended. They didn't even work. EMTALA had the intended effect, but introduced side effects that are, in my book, more severe.

I also have a strong respect for simplicity, so when I see a system that has had a change made to it, and that change had certain positive effects and certain negative effects, I almost never feel like it's a good idea to simply keep adding things onto it to counteract the negative effects, because that leads to more complexity. I want to try to go back and examine whether it's possible to re-engineer the original change to not produce the negative consequences, or produce different consequences that are actually positive, or something like that.

I see this all the time in my day job and the solution eventually becomes to rip it up and start over--a decidedly undesirable option where societies are concerned. Hence, I place a strong premium on societal and governmental simplicity.

[Mountaineer]

PS,

I like your list... not cuz I agree 100%, but it's well-organized.

I agree.  Well presented list.  Do you guys think they ALL upheld their oaths of office fairly well?  (not to get into the personal views of policy etc. that you may have)

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I like your list... not cuz I agree 100%, but it's well-organized.

I agree.  Well presented list.  Do you guys think they ALL upheld their oaths of office fairly well?  (not to get into the personal views of policy etc. that you may have)

... Mountaineer

I don't put much stock in the oath, since by taking it, they're promising to avoid being evil and make a good effort, not actually produce good results. IMHO, effort is meaningless compared to results.

That said, most of them have clearly acted in bad faith at various times and actively tried to destroy elements of U.S. culture that they did not like, or blatantly abused the process for their own gain.

I view oaths like I do constitutions: they're things people only follow if they already wanted to. In and of themselves, they have no power at all.

[Mountaineer]

PS,

I like your list... not cuz I agree 100%, but it's well-organized.

I agree.  Well presented list.  Do you guys think they ALL upheld their oaths of office fairly well?  (not to get into the personal views of policy etc. that you may have)

... Mountaineer

I don't put much stock in the oath, since by taking it, they're promising to avoid being evil and make a good effort, not actually produce good results. IMHO, effort is meaningless compared to results.

Are you saying the end justifies the means?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

PS,

I'm not an engineer, but I see things the same way a lot... I am not smart enough to detangle complex things with ease, so I always want to boil them down to their more simple parts.

The problem is (this isn't me lecturing you, but me lecturing myself), humans don't usually do this... they feeeeel their way through a lot of things... so if you want something to work in the context of humanity, you've got to add one more (perhaps the most important) simple fundamental truth...

People. Have. To. Like. It.

Then you have to understand the basic drives of human motivation and apply them to the task at hand.

It's fun when you (start to) get the hang of it.

[Pointedstick]

Are you saying the end justifies the means?

... Mountaineer

How could they not? If not the ends, what else could justify the means?

However I suspect you are using the phrasing more colloquially, to inquire whether or not I approve of people doing bad things for ostensibly good reasons. And of course the answer is no, on a theoretical level. I think bad means will tend to taint even good ends, and that more importantly, one who would resort to bad means probably doesn't actually have good ends in mind (at least not for you, maybe for himself!).

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I'm not an engineer, but I see things the same way a lot... I am not smart enough to detangle complex things with ease, so I always want to boil them down to their more simple parts.

The problem is (this isn't me lecturing you, but me lecturing myself), humans don't usually do this... they feeeeel their way through a lot of things... so if you want something to work in the context of humanity, you've got to add one more (perhaps the most important) simple fundamental truth...

People. Have. To. Like. It.

Then you have to understand the basic drives of human motivation and apply them to the task at hand.

It's fun when you (start to) get the hang of it.

Oh yes, absolutely. This is why so many well-engineered products nonetheless cause people to hate them. I totally agree with your premise. But the fact that most people don't think like engineers doesn't mean that engineering thought is inapplicable. It simply calls for good marketing and product design. The most successful companies combine both.

The problem with representative politics, I feel, is that it's all marketing and product design and almost no engineering. In this case, we get the opposite of a clunky but functional product: a lot of grandiose promises and flashy presentations, but the end result is almost universally disappointing.

[Kshartle]

Are you saying the end justifies the means?

... Mountaineer

How could they not? If not the ends, what else could justify the means?

  PS....say it isn't so.........

[Pointedstick]

Are you saying the end justifies the means?

... Mountaineer

How could they not? If not the ends, what else could justify the means?

  PS....say it isn't so.........

I actually got that line from an anarcho-capitalist author, FYI. Can't remember who though.

[moda0306]

PS,

I'm not an engineer, but I see things the same way a lot... I am not smart enough to detangle complex things with ease, so I always want to boil them down to their more simple parts.

The problem is (this isn't me lecturing you, but me lecturing myself), humans don't usually do this... they feeeeel their way through a lot of things... so if you want something to work in the context of humanity, you've got to add one more (perhaps the most important) simple fundamental truth...

People. Have. To. Like. It.

Then you have to understand the basic drives of human motivation and apply them to the task at hand.

It's fun when you (start to) get the hang of it.

Oh yes, absolutely. This is why so many well-engineered products nonetheless cause people to hate them. I totally agree with your premise. But the fact that most people don't think like engineers doesn't mean that engineering thought is inapplicable. It simply calls for good marketing and product design. The most successful companies combine both.

The problem with representative politics, I feel, is that it's all marketing and product design and almost no engineering. In this case, we get the opposite of a clunky but functional product: a lot of grandiose promises and flashy presentations, but the end result is almost universally disappointing.

If there was a hierarchy of engineering, the base of it all would probably consist of how to make something useful to humans in the real world.

So in the end, if the tool isn't more useful to someone in the context of how people actually think and behave, it is, by definition, not engineered well, IMO.  It might perform well on other levels, but in the end, it is all going to come back to whether it actually serves people better than some imperfect alternative.

So it is kind of funny that in the end, an engineer, quite possibly the most impersonal people out there , have a huge role in deciding how things should interact with real people.

JK.




Kinda.

[Mountaineer]

Are you saying the end justifies the means?

... Mountaineer

How could they not? If not the ends, what else could justify the means?

However I suspect you are using the phrasing more colloquially, to inquire whether or not I approve of people doing bad things for ostensibly good reasons. And of course the answer is no, on a theoretical level. I think bad means will tend to taint even good ends, and that more importantly, one who would resort to bad means probably doesn't actually have good ends in mind (at least not for you, maybe for himself!).

Well said, grasshopper! 

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

When evaluating where to place Obama on the "stupid war starter" list, consider the following Afghanistan data:





If we assume that in retrospect Afghanistan will be viewed as a complete waste of time, lives and money, then I think that a big part of that will be on Obama.  Under Bush, Afghanistan seemed like mostly an effort intended to harass the Taliban and prop up a weak and illegitimate government, while under Obama it appears that the U.S. was actually trying to "win" a real war, even though I don't think anyone ever knew who the enemy was, what the military objectives were, and what "winning" might even look like.

In a sense, Afghanistan almost looks like Vietnam, with Bush in the role of Kennedy and Obama in the role of Johnson.

[Pointedstick]

If we assume that in retrospect Afghanistan will be viewed as a complete waste of time, lives and money, then I think that a big part of that will be on Obama.  Under Bush, Afghanistan seemed like mostly an effort intended to harass the Taliban and prop up a weak and illegitimate government, while under Obama it appears that the U.S. was actually trying to "win" a real war, even though I don't think anyone ever knew who the enemy was, what the military objectives were, and what "winning" might even look like.

In a sense, Afghanistan almost looks like Vietnam, with Bush in the role of Kennedy and Obama in the role of Johnson.

That's a pretty good analogy. I like it. Because, yeah, Bush never really seemed to have his heart in the Afghanistan conflict. It was fought half-heartedly, and we lost bin Laden when he was right there, waiting for somebody to nab him. It's obvious that the country that he really stayed awake thinking about invading was Iraq.

What is it with us and these awkward, open-ended, objective-less military conflicts? I mean, if you're going to go blow other people's shit up, shouldn't you at least have a sensible goal in mind? Sheesh. To me, the only thing worse than fighting a war for stupid reasons is fighting a war for no reason at all.

[Reub]

When evaluating where to place Obama on the "stupid war starter" list, consider the following Afghanistan data:





If we assume that in retrospect Afghanistan will be viewed as a complete waste of time, lives and money, then I think that a big part of that will be on Obama.  Under Bush, Afghanistan seemed like mostly an effort intended to harass the Taliban and prop up a weak and illegitimate government, while under Obama it appears that the U.S. was actually trying to "win" a real war, even though I don't think anyone ever knew who the enemy was, what the military objectives were, and what "winning" might even look like.

In a sense, Afghanistan almost looks like Vietnam, with Bush in the role of Kennedy and Obama in the role of Johnson.

Yes, M.T. But now the funds are being spent to support Obama's army made up mostly of former Acorn employees.

[Pointedstick]

In retrospect, I'm going to reverse Obama and Nixon's positions on the list. MT is absolutely right that he's basically transformed the war in Afghanistan from a minor if ill-thought out deployment into a full-blown pointless war along with hundreds of billions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted lives. What an enormous blunder.