Alex is holding a contest for the most overrated and underrated presidents in history. Like Ross, I'm concentrating on 20th century presidents, since I don't think you could even call people like Franklin A. Pierce "rated", much less calculate the degree of error.
Most overrated: FDR. Every time I contemplate what the country would look like had Senator Robinson lived to shove the court packing scheme through Congress, I get the cold shivers.
Most underrated: Jimmy Carter. Yes, I said Jimmy Carter. Carter's foreign policy . . . well, 'nuff said. But Carter was actually in many ways the architect of the economic changes that Reagan got credit for. It was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, thus giving the institution the backbone to finally get serious about inflation. And it was Jimmy Carter who started the ball rolling on deregulation, despite the fact that many of the regulated industries employed a lot of the Democratic base. Carter is credited with the awful economy of the 1970s, even though he had no control over inflation or oil prices.
As a post-president, I wish he would stop trying to conduct his own foreign policy and go back to building houses for poor people. But as a president, he wasn't nearly as bad as most people believe.
Jimmy Carter? Cpme on! What kind of traitor are you?
Obviously the Greatest was Reagan possibly to be eclipsed by Dubya once we have time to reflect.
The most under rated was Nixon. He knew who the true enemies of America were. Not the Chicoms, but the American people themselves, especially hippies and democrats.
You're probably right about FDR.
I can't say I disagree about Carter overall; your points are perfectly valid. I just think that we're better off keeping these things to ourselves until he's dead. Until then, he remains history's greatest monster.
And, for all Carter's other foreign policy problems, he is the only president to make a real dent in the Mideast peace issue.
I think it depends on whom is supposed to be underrating. I have seen a fair amount of Carter support around the interweb now with the safety of years and support of his domestic charity.
How to rate FDR is a dissicult question. On the one hand, he pursued economic policies that greatly lengthened the Great Depression; on the other, he saw clearly the threat posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and did everything he reasonably could to address that threat. Personally, I think his success in World War II outweighs his failures in dealing with the Depression.
As for Carter, how anyone could think him underrated is beyond me. His foreign policy was a disaster (Iran, for example), and his economic policy was a failure. Yes he allowed some dregulation, but he generally tried the old Keynesian responses to economic troubles and they didn't work. He tried increasing government spending for stimulus and wage and price controls to contain inflation. His chief inflation fighter even tried renaming inflation "bananas" to change the national mood--so hapless was the Carter administration.
The most under rated was Nixon. He knew who the true enemies of America were. Not the Chicoms, but the American people themselves, especially hippies and democrats.
Very classy, Bill. Have any more classy pearls of wisdom?
Most overrated, at least by some folks - Reagan. As Megan pointed out, he got credit for a lot of Carter's work, and he got credit for tax reform that originated in Congress. He got credit for the fall of the Soviet empire, but that mostly goes to people like Walesa and Gorbachev (who could have propped it up with the red army, but had the decency not to). On the other hand, the massive deficits are a real Reagan problem.
The "morning in America" stuff seems like an offshoot of the pea-brain self esteem movement.
Carter's worst fault really was that he had lousy luck, taking the office just as years of of bad economic policy by the Fed, LBJ and Nixon were taking hold, along with the oil shocks. Now, his gullibility with regard to the Soviets and Afghanistan, and his poor public and private diplomacy with regard to Iran policy was his own doing, but I'd guess that if the price of gas had stayed lower he would have been considerably more popular, much like our curent President.
Overall, I'd say Grant was terribly underrated, in that his policies with regard to reconstruction, had they been followed, would have resulted in a much more pleasant United States in the 20th century. Of course, his somewhat loose management style was in part responsible for his policies not continuing, so he isn't completely off the hook. His vision about what needed to be done in the wake of the Civil War, however was better than most.
Strangely enough, I think Washington is underrated, in the sense that Lincoln's shadow sometimes obscures how great Washington was.
FDR, of course, is terribly overrated in regards to his economic policies' part in ending the Great Depression, and he was positively awful with regard to civil rights, which makes it a bit ironic to see people who worship FDR have a fit about our current President. All the same, ya' have to credit him for seeing what was coming with regard to the Nazis and Japanese Empire, and doing what he could to get the nation ready, even if his dishonesty in doing do was every bit as large, and probably more so, than our current President's dishonesty in the run-up to war.
Wilson used to be terribly overrated, but enough people have come to a better appreciation of his, uh, less than desirable qualities, to make this not nearly so much the case anymore.
A few more.....
Nixon's overreaching and awful economic policies are not discussed nearly enough. That's what he should have been impeached for.
Kennedy will be overrated until the last Baby Boomer croaks.
As for Carter, how anyone could think him underrated is beyond me. His foreign policy was a disaster (Iran, for example), and his economic policy was a failure. Yes he allowed some dregulation, but he generally tried the old Keynesian responses to economic troubles and they didn't work. He tried increasing government spending for stimulus and wage and price controls to contain inflation. His chief inflation fighter even tried renaming inflation "bananas" to change the national mood--so hapless was the Carter administration.
What about Iran? You don't give him any credit for the MidEast peace deal? Wage & price controls? You mean he did the same thing Tricky Dick did? At least Volcker was a success(which is more than I can say about Mr. Ayn Rand and "B-52" Ben).
I think what is different (and important) about FDR is that he was willing to try something different. Sometimes, when you're stuck in a rut, you just need to do something different (yes, not very empirical, but I'm just a lawyer). In that sense, you have to give FDR credit for trying to do something (I credit Hoover with trying too, but I always understood that he had tried too little and too late). In any event, it's not like anyone could have then empirically demonstrated that the more laissez-faire policies then in vogue pre-FDR were in fact better or doing more than FDR's enacted policies.
If you want to talk over-rated, my vote is for JFK. The guy made the country feel good for a few years (and inspired a bunch of people), but let's remember that he dragged us to the brink of nuclear war.
Incidentally, when Carter took office, the inflation rate was 5.75%. By the time he left, it was 13.58%. And in the 5 months leading up to the 1980 election, the money supply went up at the fastest rate since World War II.
So Megan's suggestion that Carter deserves credit as an inflation fighter is--to put it politely--at odds with the facts.
peter, read Volcker's comments with regard to Reagan. It takes real political courage for a first term President to stay mum while a Fed Chief decides to declare Total War on inflation, and that is what Reagan did. I think your view of the Cold War is as oversimplified as the Reagan worshippers. It's only been 20 years since he left office, but I suspect that in 50 years Reagan will be extremely well thought of.
The question is not who was the best president, RWE; it's who is the most underrated. Carter gets more criticism than he deserves, while FDR gets more praise than he merits.
I would pick Lincoln as most overrated (although he falls outside of the 20th Century, he is well known and can be "rated"). Many people revere him higher than any other. Yet more American lives were lost to him than any other president before or since. Yes he kept the States together and abolished slavery. Yet other countries were able to abolish slavery without a civil war. And as far as keeping countries whole, would we have given King George the honors we bestow upon Lincoln had he kept the States from seceding the first time?
Tax reform most emphatically did not originate in Congress. I practiced tax law full-time at that time, and I remember every minute. Tax reform originated with "Treasury I"--Reagan's tax reform proposal published in 1985, which, after a tortuous saga, became the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
In fact, Reagan holds the distinction of being the only president in my lifetime who accomplished a major policy initiative during his second term.
The 1986 tax bill is easily the best tax law enacted in the Post WWII era, and it isn't even close. Anybody associated with it, and who spent considerable political capital getting it enacted, deserves enormous credit.
As a rule I disdain the words, "overrated," and, "underrated," as I detect a certain passive-aggressive contemptuousness in them.
I prefer the slight shift to thinking of them as presidents that I disagree with the usual assessment of, which removes the arrogance I often see implicit in the terms, "overrated," and, "underrated." In that sense then I would agree in thinking that FDR was not as great a president as he is often said to be. I find that his disappointing attitude toward race alone are cause for some unease about his legacy. I think similar things about Theodore Roosevelt and John Kennedy, especially the latter, for his legacy seems to me, not very originally, to be built more of myths and miracles than accomplishments and worth.
The president whom I regard better than many, and indeed am unusual in even recalling, is Calvin Coolidge. My fondness for him reflects my own bias for a humbler, less imposing chief magistrate.
"The question is not who was the best president, RWE; it's who is the most underrated."-MM
Megan, I understand that. And my position is that Carter is rated fairly--or perhaps even too generously. His policies were generally failures (deregulation aside), and I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with you that he deserves much of the credit Reagan gets for reviving the economy--for reasons I gave above.
FDR might be overrated, but it's hard to say how much credit is too much for seeing the threat posed by Germany and Japan and then conducting the war against them adroitly. He deserves enormous praise for what he did there.
Carter inherited the Iran mess. I'm not sure what he was supposed to do in that situation.
These remarks raise the question - is it that libertarians hold contrarian views about the world, or is it people's desire / nature to be contrarian that draws them to libertarianism, then of which posts like these are but another manifestation, and by which we can expect Ms. McArdle to naturally gravitate to the unconventional side of most issues...
If I remember correctly, The Tax Reform Act of 1982 was Reagan's baby and it was something of a disaster. The Act of 1986 was driven by Congress (and mostly not opposed by Reagan) to redress the problems with 1982.
Ronald Reagan was a moron and an international laughingstock. Easily the most overrated.
I agree with you on FDR. Not so much on Carter, but you make a good case where his economic policy is concerned.
Someone beat me to Coolidge. He definitely got ambitious expansionism in federal government under control.
In a relatively short time available, Ford did manage to keep the whole government from falling apart. We certainly could have wound up with a more parliamentary system if Ford hadn't inspired relative calm.
It's interesting how Andrew Jackson fell from the heavens during the civil rights struggle in the '60s. Any earlier US histories simply gushed about Jackson democratizing the country. He was also the one to establish the "spoils system" of executive branch appointments, ending the original tradition of each president carrying over the cabinet of his predecessor. But then there was that whole Indian Removal Act business. Nevertheless, he's my favorite on the scale of having the most entertaining life-long biography.
I vote for George H. W. Bush as most underrated for 2 reasons:
1.) No march on Baghdad. (No one realized how right he was at the time, but we sure know it now. Thanks W!)
2.) Peaceful resolution of the Cold War, in particular, the mostly non-violent breakup of the Soviet Union. Bush's management of the post Cold War period was at least as masterful as Truman's post WWII diplomacy. And he did it without the benefit of a Dean Acheson at State.
Almost forgot my favorite president who can be used as an instrument for tormenting lefties: James K. Polk!
He set out his plan, said he only wanted a single term, and when he left office the US borders were fully established, with no more squabbling to the north and south, thank you very much. Pure genius.
This is so easy, and Megan you're so wrong. Saying FDR is overrated because of things he never did (i.e., packing the court) doesn't make sense. If you think he's overrated, tell us what he actually did, not what he tried to do but failed.
Most overrated: Woodrow Wilson. He was a virulent racist and big fan of eugenics, arguably the worst ideology of teh 20th Century. He imprisoned thousands solely for their political beliefs during the onset of WW I. He was anti-union and a fomenter of racism--the Klan, previously moribund, resurfaced, with a vengeance during his term. Became incapacitated after a stroke with more than a year remaining in office without resigning, but never told his cabinet or any one else about it--instead his wife secretly ran the country to protect his image. Was opposed to women's suffrage until late in his term when he flip-flopped. Provided no support for returning veterans of WW I.
Most underrated: Harry Truman. Oversaw the Marshall Plan, rather than seek reparations, as many wanted him to do. GI Bill had an enormous positive impact by improving the lives of millions and kicking off an era of unprecedented prosperity. Refused to start a war with the USSR, even though the hawks were clamoring for it. Thankfully he adopted George Kennan's containment policy, renamed it the Truman Doctrine--which eventually worked and saved the lives of millions, perhaps billions. Desegregated the Army--that took stones.
Maybe if you "libertarians" keep spouting your revisionist history that FDR lengthened the Great Depression, someday, if you guys wish really, really hard, it might come true. Because lord knows, when people were eating sawdust and selling pencils on the street, what this country needed was more of the laissez faire capitalism that got us there.
Freddie, in your world, I suppose central banks, trade restrictions, and tax hikes has something to do with "laissez faire capitalism". I suspect unicorns prance about as well.
During the Carter years, the justice department attempted to
break up several unduely large and powerful companies including
AT&T and IBM. In the case of AT&T they succeeded. And although
at first glance they did not succeed with IBM in fact many of
IBM's patents and intangible assets were effectively made public
domain.
By inhibiting patent law enforcement in the computer sector
this helped set the stage for the microcomputer revolution,
which we all take for granted today, but in fact transformed the
world. Almost of the microcomputer invention and software
development was done by thousands of small, really tiny in fact,
american companies that ignored patents and freely copied one another.
The pace at which this market discovered and implemented new
ideas was almost unbelieveable, even and perhaps especially to
the people involved.
Although I don't think Carter and company anticipated any of
this occurring, I think they deserve great credit for having
the belief that extraordinay concentrations of economic power
in the hands of a few companies are an obstacle to human progress.
Carter deserves some credit for appointing Paul Volcker but
Volcker simply could not have done what he did without Ronald
Reagan's support. Reagan's the one who paid the price for
Volcker's policies; he deserves the credit for them. Theoretically
the Federal Reserve is independent of the White House but in
reality that's less than the whole truth, especially when we
are talking recessions.
How does the most overrated conversation not begin with Kennedy? Considering how revered he is, you'd think that he accomplished far more than simply preventing global nuclear war.
Blake - Harry Truman is easily my favorite president for all the reasons you cited, which is why I can't think of him as being underrated. I think history has - rightly - treated him very kindly (especially considering how reviled he was when he left office).
I think Eisenhower and Coolidge are underrated, Reagan and JFK as overrated.
Yeah, Jay, and you'd think nobody knew that it was Kennedy mucking things up in Vienna and with Cuba policy generally that led us to the brink of global nuclear war.
Once at a White House party two women were talking about how Calvin Coolidge was known to be a man of few words. This eventuated in one of them going to Coolidge and saying, "I bet my friend that you would say three words to me," to which Coolidge replied, "You lose." How refeshing that a president was known for such things rather than all the improvident taxation and class warfare touted today. From what I've heard, George Washington and Calvin Coolidge are my favorites. One of the delights of blogs was to read that Washington freed all his slaves upon his death. He helped usher in a wonderful idea for a country like a reverse time traveler, a Gaius Julius Caesar, also a thoughtful and generous man, though one who managed to bring democracy out of autocracy.
One of the delights of blogs was to read that Washington freed all his slaves upon his death.
Sounds kind of lame to me. Better than nothing, I guess, but it doesn't cost anything to free slaves when you no longer have any use for them.
Most underated: LBJ war on poverty, civil rights,Medicare and would have done a lot more if it wasn't for the filibuster. Stupid on Vietnam, but did a lot of good on domestic policy.
Overated: Regan followed by JFK
agree a lot about Wilson. People gush about his idealistic foreign policy but it always seemed a bit imperialistic to me (due to his racism and didn't he launch some of the wars in Latin America that we kept having during that time period?).
You shouldn't blame Carter for Iran, like so many things it was problem waiting to happen for years ever since the fifties when the US started proping up the Shah. That was the same short-termism the US had throughout the Cold War and even today. " Lets prop up an evil regime because its anti-communist".
Coodlidge is more responsible for the Great Depression than any other man. It was during his Presidency that the seeds were sown. Hoover was only in power for a couple months before the Great Crash. He started the Tariff war that killed international trade, the bubble that burst was first inflated under him. Admittedly he a better guy than Mr. Normalcy.
You shouldn't blame Carter for Iran, like so many things it was problem waiting to happen for years ever since the fifties when the US started proping up the Shah. That was the same short-termism the US had throughout the Cold War and even today. " Lets prop up an evil regime because its anti-communist".
Coodlidge is more responsible for the Great Depression than any other man. It was during his Presidency that the seeds were sown. Hoover was only in power for a couple months before the Great Crash. He started the Tariff war that killed international trade, the bubble that burst was first inflated under him. Admittedly he a better guy than Mr. Normalcy.
Most overrated? Ronald Reagan
He's given credit for things he had nothing to do with
(the collapse of Communism) and given no blame for what he did wrong (bad economic habits - unfunded tax cuts for expedient political gain leading to astronomical deficits) The proto-Bush
Most Overrated - runner-up? John F Kennedy
Blunders (Bay of Pigs) and buck passing (civil rights / Vietnam) never seem to darken his halo
Most under-rated? Nixon
Inherited Vietnam, yet by the time Ford finished his second term for him, Vietnam was over and China was a friend - doing more for world peace than any one man in the second half of the twentieth century.
Well Brandon, in those times, it would have been like giving up all your property after you died. Frankly, people would've thought you were eccentric and queer if you just gave up your wealth like that.
There are a number of witty aphorisms that have no empirical basis. A momentary top three for me are
3. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
2. An unexamined life is not worth living
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I must be grumpy.
I think what I meant to say was The past is history, the future a mystery, but the present is a gift, which is why it's called the present ;-)
I think underrated clearly have to go to a tie with Carter and George HW Bush. Each one was a one and done President, and each one inherited a mess made by their predecessor.
Think of how much better prepared we would be if Carter's overall Energy Plan had been faithfully held up all of these years?
And quite frankly, I sometimes wish we had just outsourced all foreigh policy to George HW Bush and let the following two Bozos deal with domestic issues. Scratch that - let Clinton deal with domestic issues, and let the Drunk clear brush.
Look - Carter's biggest fault was telling Americans they needed to sacrifice for the long-term health of the Country. Reagan promised the world, and we have deficits to prove it now.
!#@$%^#$%^ Carter!!eleventy!!1!!
I spent most of my life preparing for the 1980 olympics before a certain fuckwit decided we weren't going to compete that year. Call me selfish but Carter ain't no way underrated.
LnGrrrR:
Well Brandon, in those times, it would have been like giving up all your property after you died.
Not all of it--the estate must have been worth something even without the slaves. And some people do give away most or all of their property after they die, especially if, like Washington, they leave no heirs.
Re: Nelson
"Yet other countries were able to abolish slavery without a civil war. And as far as keeping countries whole, would we have given King George the honors we bestow upon Lincoln had he kept the States from seceding the first time?"
Ummmm, you are aware that the most of the South had seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated, right? Historians (rightly) blame the presidents that preceded Lincoln for failing to stop the Civil War before it started. While his election was the proximate cause of the war, there was no way to stop it by the time he was in office.
On the one hand, he pursued economic policies that greatly lengthened the Great Depression
rwe, why on earth should normal people remain even-tempered when you write hideous nonsense of this nature? I mean honestly. At this point I should be pointing out how Ronald Reagan pursued policies that led to the victory of totalitarian islamofascism in the Mideast. Right?
Look. There is a consensus across the entire political spectrum, including the libertarian right, that what eventually pulled the US out of the Depression was the massive government stimulus of WWII. And yet somehow, the peacetime government stimulus programs of the '30s are now, in a classic Rovian big-lie campaign, alleged by fringe Friedmanites to have prolonged the Depression.
This makes no sense. Is it really the case that the only legitimate use conservatives can find for government is killing people?
As Megan says there were some FDR excesses, we shouldn't forget how dire the situation was and how appallingly almost everyone else reacted to those dreadful times. There is an argument to be made that it was because of his extraordinary leadership in such awful times that the country really achieved its greatness in the 20th century.
(Churchill likewise had a real shadow side: I don't think of him in anything like so positive a light.)
Carter's success in getting the Soviets out of Egypt and into a treaty with Israel and suckering the Soviets into Afghanistan doesn't look like such a glorious failure (though Iran was).
Actually Brandon, you are wrong--it did cost Washington something to free his slaves. Virginia, like other southern states, had a law saying that slaves could not be freed unless their (former) master ensured they could support themselves by providing a significant sum of money to them. One of the reasons Jefferson didn't free his slaves upon his death (although he wanted to) was that he was deeply in debt and couldn't afford to. Washington believed slavery was wrong and he put his money where his mouth was.
I think it strange to give FDR much credit for foreign affairs pre-WW2. The US was almost completely disengaged from European diplomacy and unwilling to act in the 1930s, and although he managed some aid to Britain in September 1940 (by which time the Battle of Britain was over) his Presidency essentially sat and watched as Hitler overran Europe. You can blame an isolationist Congress if you like but a President is supposed to be judged on what they actually accomplish - i.e. what they actually manage to get through Congress, etc.
As for Nixon, you can praise his foreign policy all you like - and I agree he did a huge amount of good there (although not with the 1973 Arab-Israeli War). But what about domestically? The economy was a mess, and the government resorted to wage and price controls - disastrous. Nixon also did a lot of things that would annoy libertarians/conservatives - a lot of regulation, affirmative action, and his health insurance plan. And that's without even getting into Watergate and the constitutionality of his Presidency. So it's easy why he might be regarded as a failed President.
There is a consensus across the entire political spectrum, including the libertarian right, that what eventually pulled the US out of the Depression was the massive government stimulus of WWII.
Nope. It's a consensus among the left and, to some extent, the center, and it's what's taught in high schools, but you'll find no such agreement on the right. A common right-wing view is that post-World War II growth was to a large extent enabled by the end of the tariffs set in place by the Smoot-Hawley Act.
Zeke-
Yes. However it was Lincoln that declared secession legally void and decided not to enter negotiations with the Confederates on the grounds that doing so would be a recognition of their sovereignty. He did kill more Americans than any other president, yet we're supposed to believe that's a good thing.
Carter's main problem was his style. Leaders should have a winning style, and his was whiny, droning and pompous. I suspect you'd have had to have lived through his Presidency to truly get it. His preachy Southern holier than thou shtick really grated. His voice instantly made me feel Munchian. The sweater was silly.
It also didn't help that his aides were lightweights from Georgia.
"There is a consensus across the entire political spectrum, including the libertarian right, that what eventually pulled the US out of the Depression was the massive government stimulus of WWII... And yet somehow, the peacetime government stimulus programs of the '30s are now, in a classic Rovian big-lie campaign, alleged by fringe Friedmanites to have prolonged the Depression"-brooksfoe
Brooksfoe, I don't know how much economics you've studied, but what you wrote just isn't correct. Most economists believe that the major contributing factor to the depression was a severe monetary contraction. The money supply fell by one-third as the Fed failed to provide the necessary liquidity and even sound banks failed. Meanwhile the monetary contraction caused a general deflation which (because wages are "sticky") caused massive unemployment.
Sadly, Roosevelt himself knew very little about economics and did not understand the nature of the problem. So he did some silly things in response to the crisis. For instance, the monetary contraction had led to falling crop prices, and to prop up prices, FDR paid farmers to destroy crops. At a time when some people were having trouble getting food to eat, he was destroying crops.
And to prop up wages he imposed minimum wage laws. But this too only worsened the problems, since the minimum wage made it impossible for wages to adjust to the monetary contraction and high unemployment persisted.
So yes, his policies--destroying crops when people are hungry and imposing high minimum wages when people can't find work--did a lot of harm.
You seem to think that only a handful of "Friedmanites" believes these things. You obviously haven't followed the changes in the economics profession over the last thirty or fourty years. As one prominent Democratic economist wrote:
brooksfoe - Look. There is a consensus across the entire political spectrum, including the libertarian right, that what eventually pulled the US out of the Depression was the massive government stimulus of WWII.
To second Floyd, the 'argument from consensus' is simply not true. Hoover raised taxes on the wealthy to 90%. He can't honestly be called a conservative or lassie faire economist. FDR had taxes higher than they are now.
Kenysians and monetarists agree that allowing a contraction of the money supply caused at least some of the problems of the depression. FDR did well by restoring faith in the banks, which was vital. He lowered tax rates from where Hoover set them (to about 40% for the wealthy, IIRC) which helped with investment.
If my dollar is worth 20% more just because I held onto it for a year, why would I invest it or put it in a bank where someone else might borrow it? I wouldn't. And that's what happened. And the result is an economic standstill.
In modern times, with banks up and running, the money supply can be expanded directly. There isn't any need to take the terribly less efficient route of paying people to perform dramas that noone watches or otherwise buy useless or suboptimal purchases as FDR did.
Greenspan has argued (and I don't know yet whether he's right) that if the banks are working and people are confident in them that there's no need for a fed since interest rates will rise naturally if people have their money in investments rather than banks the money supply will contract accordingly.
Ryan W.:
So why didn't Greenspan resign? His reign as Fed Chair is turning out to have been a real disaster.
rwe,
You state that "the monetary contraction had led to falling crop prices, and to prop up prices, FDR paid farmer to destroy crops" was a bad thing. But in reality falling crop prices was not due to monetary policy, but supply and demand. Following World War I farmers had an oversupply of agricultural output, and tarriffs in the 20s caused US food exports to dry up, leaving more food than could be consumed. In many ways the depression of the 30s was foreshadowed by the farm failures of the 20s. It is untrue that there wasn't enough food to eat. There was plenty of food, but some people simply couldn't afford it. FDR certainly had many misguided policies. Soil conservation and propping up prices for farmers by supply destruction was not one of them.
Ryan W.,
You state that "Hoover raised taxes on the wealthy to 90%. He can't honestly be called a conservative or lassie faire economist". You forget that he also cut spending, and ran budget surpluses during his tenure. Hardly the Keynsian model. Given his proclivity to "tighten belts" during an economic downturn, his policies look far more conservative than anything else.
freddiemac, I doubt whether you could find a single economist of any repute who thinks that destroying crops was a good idea. The appropriate way to deal with an oversupply is to allow prices to fall and let the markets clear.
If farmers needed some assistance, FDR could just have sent them cash disbursements. Destroying supply is just monumentally stupid.
And it crucial to observe that there was a general deflation going on. So propping up food prices made non-farmers poorer. If a man is seeing his own wages fall--or worse yet if he has lost his job--it will be harder fro himto pay for food if food prices are rising.
Rising food prices hurt the poor, as we are seeing now with the food riots that are starting to happen in some developing countries.
I can agree with the point about Carter- he inherited an economy being eaten by inflation, and he did take the initial steps that Reagan followed through on with regards to deregulation. Whether or not he knew what Volcker was going to do when he appointed him, one can still credit him with the choice.
And, yes, FDR is the most overrated. He and Hoover managed to turn a recession into Depression that did not end until WWII was over.
And, to combine this topic with the discussion about plagerism:
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - FDR
"The only thing we have to fear is fear" - Herbert Hoover, a couple of years earlier.
The difference, i suppose, is that FDR was a more gifted orator. Which, I suspect, is what a great deal of his reputation is based on.
CARTER to blame for Iran?!
Lemme see... Carter let the deposed Shah come to the U.S. for medical help? How embarassingly humanitarian of him. Carter okayed a hostage rescue attempt, but the helicopters broke down? Oooooh, he's the worst pilot ever.
Yeah, i can see how Carter wrecked Iran for us and how it's not unreasonable for people to make blanket statements without any facts.
Don't believe the hype.
Right. None of this stuff is hard to find out. In fact, there is a broad consensus about the historical rankings of the presidents; F.D.R is consistently ranked in the top tier by both liberal and conservative historians. Even a poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal puts him at number three.
Yeah, there are all sorts of idiots who say otherwise - look at those who post here - but that's one way you can tell they're idiots.
Btw, on the death of Friedman's monetarism, and a rather harsh - if accurate - portrayal of Friedman personally you might want to read this.
Interesting observations about Nixon (I agree. A complex man. And a classic case of what happens to someone when they are eaten by their own resentment - however legitimate it may be) and Jackson, btw. Jackson had a quote I've used a few times in discussions - "I, sir, am the natural enemy of scoundrels."
rwe,
Are you arguing that letting farms fail and increasing unemployment was a good policy? Because I seem to recall that very policy being responsible for a loss of topsoil that, when combined with a drought, caused a dust bowl.
Rising prices of anything hurts the poor. In the long run destroying supply or reducing suppliers will have the same effect on food prices, so how does that really change the scenario for the poor?
I should also add that the current situation with food riots isn't analogous to the 30s. The problem today is exactly the opposite. Instead of too much food, we have too little, as croplands are being used to grow fuel instead of food. Perhaps now farmers can finally get off welfare?
Carter WAS in many ways to blame for Iran. After the Shah's fall and the interim pro-Western government was in place, he refused to support it in putting down the pro-Khomeni riots which led to the mullahs taking over. Read Brzezinski's writings on it. The Iranian army brass wanted assurances from the US that if they supported the government and put down the riots, they would get public support from the US. Carter dithered and agonized, egged on by Vance to do nothing, and by the time he decided to support the generals in Iran, they had switched over to supporting Khomeni as they felt the US had abandoned them.
So, yeah, I blame Carter for the Iranian mess.
It's also interesting that Barack Obama's foreign policy team is packed with Carterites.......
freddiemac, as I wrote above, cash payments would have been a much more efficient way to help poor farmers than destroying supplies. Making food prices higher when people are already struggling only makes things worse. It just distorts the allocation of resources and punishes poor people for whom food is a large part of the family budget. I assure you that these would not be controversial statements among economists.
A general reflation by the Federal Reserve would have aleviated most of the trouble in the Great Depression. Some temporary increase in government spending might have been helpful, but the monetary problem was the most important one (read Ben Bernanke's book on the Great Depression). Or read this speech, in which Bernanke recognizes the truth of the Friedman/Schwartz analysis of the Depression:
Incidentally, just for clarity, I got into this topic because someone objected the one line of my first post above, not because I wanted to take shots at Roosevelt.
Actually, I was disagreeing with Megan's contention that he is greatly overrated. Whatever the effect of his economic policies, FDR deserves tremendous credit for his prescience and resolve in dealing with fascism. I think his success there dwarves other considerations and justifies his place in the Pantheon of great Presidents.
How much praise is too much for defeating Adolf Hitler?
Carter I think is the most underrated and Reagan is the most overrated.
I don't think giving the Iranian government carte blanche would have helped in the long run. The only way possible would have been a crack down to calm things temporarily followed by a period of intense economic growth.
I don't think Carter gets enough credit for the Helsinki Accords which gave the United States the undisputed moral high ground throughout the remainder of the cold war, even including our continued support of some very nasty regimes. Additionally he is the only President to really achieve something in the mid-east. As a result Israel has not really had to worry about a full scale war on two fronts for nearly thirty years.
Domestically, he does not get enough credit for his early efforts towards increasing the energy efficiency of the nation. Many of his ideas were great, but he didn't present them in the proper manner to get Americans behind them enthusiastically. Americans will only sacrifice to help fellow Americans in some tangible way, not driving to ensure that our soldiers have enough gasoline and rubber during World War II. He needed to present energy conservation as efficiency. Focus not on turning down the thermostat and wearing a sweater, but installing more insulation in your home. Combining the four errands you have to make in the next three days into one big trip. ETC.
Reagan: I haven't seen one mention of his ignoring AIDS until years into the epidemic.
That is my biggest negative against him.
To defend FDR, responsible people on both sides were convinced a fascist or communist dictatorship was on the verge of occurring in the United States to end the unrest in the country. There were massive sit down strikes in the auto plants of Detroit, millions of hard working responsible Americans suddenly found themselves living in shacks, and bankers in the midwest found farmers preventing them from foreclosing on farms. The banks were failing, largely from a want of confidence. People felt revolution was in the air. This was the time of Huey Long and Father Coughlin.
He may be overrated, but it would be the difference between him being in the top three to being somewhere in the top ten all time. Most likely I think he would drop into the 5th spot or so.
These underrated/overrated arguments always deteriorate in the same way. Too many of you are confusing deviation from "correct" ranking with the absolute ranking. The only way to be overrated is to be rated high. The only way to be underrated is to be rated low. You are probably underrating the President you think is worst and overrating the President you think is best. FDR had a sunny disposition and won WWII. Who deserves to be overrated more? Good for him. Jimmy Carter was (and is) a vain, self righteous scold who thought he could do everything (other than accept blame) better than anyone else and screwed up almost everything he touched. I will proudly underrate him for the rest of my life.
On the value of FDR in the face of various revolutionary solutions, The W. Bagehot Lombardy Lane, cf. recent WSJ, solution to panic having somehow escaped the scholars of capitalism, what Voltaire said of physicians applies, 'They (he) amuse the patient while nature gets him well. This was better than revolutionary solutions. Carter did come up with the phrase, and simplified idea, of 'human rights' as an objective.
Megan,
I agree with you on Carter's two signal accomplishments: the appointment of Volker and the beginning of deregulation. Ironically, those are the two accomplishments that most liberal Democrats want to run away from (just like they want to run away from President Clinton's accomplishments on welfare reform and NAFTA).
That said, I believe Carter was by far the worst president of the past 100 years because he failed in the single most important job of the president, namely, to protect the United States against its foreign enemies. He turned the other cheek to an Iranian act of war, when he should have responded with cruise missiles and aircraft carriers. That failure led to thirty years of ever increasing Islamic violence against the US, culminating in 9/11. What other president's failures had such long-reaching and disasterous effect?
The decision to fight Hitler is rather simplified when Hitler declares war on you.
Why should FDR be blamed for the Europeans starting another civil war. In return for some very indifferent gun boats got all the British gold reserves and future income (that only stopped recently) and pretty much ever since the US has controlled Western Europe. I would have said he played a masterful hand.
As for Carter and Iran: all I can say is that the revolution was an absolute disaster for the US (and we may be yet to see the worst of it) and it all happened on Carter's watch. Why didn't he see the Shah was long gone and position the US accordingly? Trying to rescue the hostages was a hair-brained idea which could go wrong a thousand different ways. There was nothing even remotely as egregiously incompetent as the current disaster, and very unfortunate to be sure, but the outcome was horrible.
Why are all those who claim that FDR is 'overrated' uniformly on the right, actually, far right?
What makes them think their unsupported opinions are of more import than a general consensus of all historians and multiple polls?
Well, we know why, of course.
Ideology. Ideology and nothing more.
I'll say it again: there's a reason why 'conservatives' are underrepresented in academia. And it has a lot less to do with their theorizing, and a lot more to do with the way they conduct their investigations of said theories.
What makes them think their unsupported opinions are of more import than a general consensus of all historians and multiple polls?
If your opinion isn't going against the general consensus, then you can't possibly be making a judgment about somebody being over or underrated. So anybody, regardless of ideology, who engages in the over/under exercise is by definition going to be committing the sin of disagreeing with the consensus.
That said, the opinions of those here who dislike FDR have in fact supported their opinions as much as is reasonable in blog comments by arguing that his economic policies were much worse than historians (most of whom are macroeconomists) appreciate. That's at least as much support as you offered for your assertion that the FDR critics are "uniformly " on the far right, and that conservatives generally are disinclined to support their theories with evidence.
I express no opinion on FDR himself, his economic policies, his decision to respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking North Africa, which had nothing to do with Imperial Japan, or the absurd practice giving one's child three last names.
That's pretty whack, Rob. Immediately after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the U.S. (Tripartite pact and all that.)
Attacking Morocco took the Vichy French Navy and ground forces out of the war, a good first step. Rolling up the Germans and Italians in North Africa secured the Suez canal and made possible attacks agains the Axis in Souther Europe.
Max, I said I was expressing no opinion.
Sigh. No. Read the link. The more the variation in consensus, especially across ideological lines, the more room there is for having a sensible opinion on whether or not someone is over/under-rated. Iow, your conclusion would be true only if there was always a firm consensus. Since there's not, you're conclusion is wrong. now, if you had actually _read_the_table_, you would see that Andrew Johnson is ranked as high as 19 and as low as 42 (second-to-worst!) by various polls. If you had actually _read_the_table_ you would see that F.D.R. receives a ranking of 1, 2, or 3.
So again, no. Having reasonable disagreements about A.J. is one thing, having reasonable disagreements about F.D.R. being in the top five vs barely making into the top half(if that) is quite another.
No, 'arguing' is not synonymous with flatly stating an opinion, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. And these wights have not supported their opinion at all. You know, actually citing some publication, or providing links is not that hard to do. I do it all the time. Usually it takes me less than a minute to find something and link to it.
As to whether the critics are uniformly on the far right, I'm saying that the ones here doing so are far-right wingers - you know, rwe, Allen, McCardle, et. al. (I'm speaking, of course, of economics. I think even the right-wing would find it hard to downplay his handling of WWII.) That's not theory, that's observation. If you like, I will quite happily rephrase, and say the only people I've seen trying to downplay the 32nd president are of the far-right persuasion.
Something similar goes with with the conservatives in academia - why don't you show me some conservatives here who regularly post facts, citations, links, etc, as well as a few of those well-researched conservative theories backed by reams of observations? To think that I would have to show you the ones who don't is exactly backwards.
But, uh, consider it done: I've just completed a daemonic search for those conservatives who did generally support their theories with evidence, and couldn't find any. That good enough for you? If not, tell me what else I would have to do to satisfy your requirements.
I assume SoV will be along shortly with a massive slew of citations to defend all those bald-faced, uh, assertions. S/he is pretty good that way, and wouldn't want this comment section to degenerate into a festival of unsupported claims or mere opinions about the state of things that are otherwise so readily verifiable.
Or so I've been told by the party in question. I can't remember if the telling was accompanied by adequate reference material.
Chuckle. I've already supported my claims, Mousey. If you're not happy, tell me which ones I've made that I haven't supported, and what evidence would I need to convince you.
I'd be _fascinated_ to hear your _specific_ requirements. As opposed to your usual.
The more the variation in consensus, especially across ideological lines, the more room there is for having a sensible opinion on whether or not someone is over/under-rated.
I had always understood consensus to be a unitary thing: there is a consensus that FDR is a great president, there is not a consensus on AJ. That is, the notion of "variation in consensus" makes no sense to me at all. If the experts can't agree on how to rate someone, then he can't be over/under rated overall, because he can't be said to be rated overall. At most, you could say that individual historian X overrates someone by putting him at 19 rather than 42.
I will quite happily rephrase, and say the only people I've seen trying to downplay the 32nd president are of the far-right persuasion.
That works for me.
why don't you show me some conservatives here who regularly post facts, citations, links, etc,
I don't know if there are any. Blog commenters in general are often allergic to that sort of thing, as anyone who attempts to discuss the law on the web could tell you. But if you're taking this particular comment section as your model of the world, then your stats students may have reason to question whatever it is you tell them about sampling methods.
If not, tell me what else I would have to do to satisfy your requirements.
My only requirement is that you be amusing. You're the one who obsesses about evidence. And surely somebody has done a study on whether conservatives are more likely than non-conservatives to resist disconfirming evidence? I'm sure that pretty much all liberals have abandoned their belief that, say, shall-issue laws lead to blood running in rivers in the streets now that 40 states have adopted them, right?
"As to whether the critics are uniformly on the far right, I'm saying that the ones here doing so are far-right wingers - you know, rwe, Allen, McCardle, et. al."-SoV
I've already said that I believe FDR deserves his reputation as one of our greatest Presidents and explained why at some length. I don't know how much clearer I could be than this:
Actually I did click on the link SoV provided and I think the ratings there are pretty well correct (I looked closely at the 2005 survey). Presidents seem generally to get the reputations they deserve.
Chuckle. I've already supported my claims, Mousey. If you're not happy, tell me which ones I've made that I haven't supported, and what evidence would I need to convince you.
I'm not sure what my happiness has to do with this, since one party's emotional disposition should have relatively little to do with the verifiable factual basis of a second party's claims. However, in regards to the latter, I take you up in good faith. Start with this, please:
Why are all those who claim that FDR is 'overrated' uniformly on the right, actually, far right?
This is apparently expressed in the form of a rhetorical question, but if that is reading too much, it is nonetheless expressed in the form of a question that assumes certain confirmed facts. I can, uh, happily work from the Merriam-Webster definition of 'uniformly', i.e. consistent in conduct or having essentially no variation [i], therefore, the facts to be proven are:
1. Those who claim that FDR is 'overrated' are consistently on the right.
2. And more so, on the far-right.
That's quite a job, considering that the only way to defend a claim that broad is to try and dredge up every expression of such statement ever made, leaving your opponent little or no room to find countervailing exmaples, but given the high standards under which you issue such statements, I assume you are up to the task.
Next offender:
What makes them think their unsupported opinions are of more import than a general consensus of all historians and multiple polls?
Setting aside the reams of psychological research that would be needed to conclusively establish the first seven words of this statement, the latter half is an ideal setup for an Appeal to Belief[ii] and/or Common Practice, a common logical fallacy. In order to avoid it, I presume you will immediately conjure up a comprehensive bibliography of the entity or entities ecompassed by "all historians" and "multiple polls".
Well, we know why, of course.
Unless you are Sybilesque character, in which case an obligatory reference to your therapist's business contact information is in order, this "we" will need to be verified by the few or many parties represented. First, specificity: you and other person(s) on this blog? Which one(s) are they, and can you confirm they are not sock puppet(s)? Or, you and other person(s) elsewhere? Who are these person(s) and can you verify their existence somehow? Second, citation: how does this group of "we" happen to "know"? Did it involve mind reading, necromancy, or other access to the paranormal? Or is their some citeable survey that shows this claimed fact with scientific methodology?
Ideology. Ideology and nothing more.
On second thought, I don't think that we[iii] can set aside all of that psychological research after all. It will be necessary, whether as a poll, study, survey, or some other form, to establish the above claim.
I'll say it again:
Please cite a reference where you delivered the subsequent statement at least one previous time.
there's a reason why 'conservatives' are underrepresented in academia. And it has a lot less to do with their theorizing, and a lot more to do with the way they conduct their investigations of said theories.
Facts to be proven:
1. Conservatives are underrepresented in academia.
2. Having established (1), said underrerprentation is not due to basic flaws in conservative theorizing.
3. Having established (2), provide a broad and well-referenced survey of what conservative theorizing might look like.
4. Outline what academic methods and/or principles might look like, and support with evidence.
5. Having established (3) and (4), provide a broad and well-referenced survey showing that the conduct of investigation of conservative theorizing is inconsistent with academic methods and/or principles.
6. Having established (5), clarify the applicability to all that preceded.
In my opinion, that is a lot of work for one evening's contribution to a blog comment section, but since you did offer[iv], I will leave off there and let you get started.
Alternately, we[v] can abandon this farce once and for all, and limit the total volume of demands for evidence to circumstances where they are warranted.
[i] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uniformly
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
[iii] You and I, of course.
[iv] See previous post, this thread, by "ScentOfViolets", April 29, 2008, 6:09PM. Ref: "I'd be _fascinated_ to hear your _specific_ requirements."
[v] You, I, and any other interested parties.
Well, there's your problem - you're treating 'consensus' as an atomistic object. It's not. For example, when you say 'great' let's assume that means the top four. In that sense, then, people could agree on who is great and who isn't, while at the same time having idiosyncratic rankings. Further 'consensus' doesn't mean, 'unanimous', it merely means 'general agreement', with lesser or greater emphasis on general. The consensus among atmospheric scientists is that global warming is happening, and probably due to anthropogenic effects. That doesn't mean there is universal agreement, now, does it?
Sigh. Just in case I wasn't absolutely, perfectly clear, I'm talking about the people here, on this particular forum. And yes, a lot of them seem to be not just allergic to facts, but offended that they are asked to provide them. But in general, at least on the blogs I read - science, math, etc, most of the contributors have _zero_ problem with coming up with evidence for their statements when asked to do so, assuming they didn't provide it in their initial posting.
"You 'liberals' and your obsession with . . . evidence." I don't know about being 'obsessed', but most of the people I deal with are similarly 'obsessed'. Must be that academia thing :-)
But the fact remains, Rob, that you're busily trying to foist something off on me that's your responsibility. You want to see that 'conservatives' do so care about evidence, research, scholarship, all that boring stuff, that as scientists and researchers they are no more prone to believe something in the absence of facts than any other slice of the population, well, that's up to you to provide the evidence. I've merely noted specific instances where that is definitely not the case and the fact that I couldn't find anything that went the other way.
Your "consensus" discussion just keeps getting weirder. Your original post derided conservatives for going against the consensus of historians re: FDR. My point, simply stated, is that anyone who wants to make a statement about over/underrated must be going against a consensus of some sort. If no consensus exists, then you can't make an over/under statement.
This means that, if going against the consensus is objectionable (and you seem to think it is) you should properly be deriding anyone who makes an over/under statement.
You will find nothing in my posts to suggest that I regard fine differences (as between 1 and 3, say) as precluding a consensus, or requiring unanimous agreement. All of that is freight you have imported yourself.
"You 'liberals' and your obsession with . . . evidence."
I'd be delighted if you could link to a single post where I've called you liberal. It may exist, but I don't believe it does. It certainly doesn't exist in this thread. And from the Yoo discussion, it's clear to me that "obsession with evidence" is not exactly a universal liberal fault.
Again, you're coming to this weighed down with rather more baggage than seems healthy.
I've merely noted specific instances where that is definitely not the case and the fact that I couldn't find anything that went the other way.
If that were all you'd done, I never would have commented. But you went on to draw a broad conclusion about conservatives in academia based, apparently, on a bunch of random guys in their pajamas posting right here. As I said, your stats students may have reason to wonder about your knowledge of proper sampling.
to protect the United States against its foreign enemies. He turned the other cheek to an Iranian act of war, when he should have responded with cruise missiles and aircraft carriers.
How many Americans died because Carter didn't respond to the taking of hostages at the US Embassy with massive military force? None. The hostages returned home alive. Had Carter responded with force, they would be dead. Instead, the only Americans who died in the Iranian hostage crisis died because of an attempted rescue by force, which the US armed forces -- specifically, that patriotic conservative and religious bigot Col. William "My God is Bigger" Boykin -- blew, due to failure to observe that helicopters don't do so great in sandstorms.
Is it really the case that the only legitimate use conservatives can find for government is killing people?
No. It is one of the two legitimate uses, the other being sending people to prison.
What makes them think their unsupported opinions are of more import than a general consensus of all historians and multiple polls?
It's not like we're attacking the atomic weight of sodium which is confirmed every day by chemical recipes that call for molar amounts of molecules containg sodium. This is a parlor game which takes a question as a way to solicit discusion of presidents and the methods of analysis that have been applied to them and their policies. Our evolving perpsectives are an important part of the discourse. The concept that newspapers 'are the first draft of history' for instance suggest that it is allowed for opinions to change and such change is only possible if views can compete.
brooksfoe - How many people died as a result of Carter's cowardice? Let's say all those who died in the embassay bombings in Africe, who died in the Cole bombing, who died in the two World Trade Center attacks - need I go on?
Most overrated: W. Wilson. Liberals love him because he was an Ivy League academic and university president. But he got us into an unnecessary and bloody war by his blundering, and he completely failed to negotiate a decent peace treaty. The result was World War Two. His League of Nations failed. He gave us the income tax (high taxes) and the Federal Reserve (inflation). His record on civil liberties was appalling; the worse ever. He put Socialist leader Eugene Debbs in jail for opposing the war (imagine Bush putting Obama in jail). He was a segregationist.
Most underrated: Harding. The populace rejected the Democrats after Wilson and put Harding in. The scandals of his administration cause him to be dismissed. But he restored civil liberties and cut taxes and pursued peace.
From a review of a new history of the WPA by Chris Hayes, lifted from Ezra's blog:
On the afternoon of Wednesday, September 21, 1937, a vicious hurricane swept through the Northeast, bringing with it a tidal surge that smashed the Long Island coast, flooded the Connecticut River, and left nearly 700 dead. Within a day, employees of the Works Progress Administration, the New Deal office charged with employing those on relief, were filling sandbags, rescuing survivors, and sorting through the wreckage. By Friday morning, 100,000 WPA'ers had been deployed to the afflicted region. As Nick Taylor chronicles in American-Made, his ambitious but uneven history of the WPA, their mobilization was remarkably comprehensive. "Through the region, WPA sewing rooms put aside their other work to produce clothing for flood victims. WPA nurses and nutritionists staffed refugee centers at schools and infirmaries, and kindergarten teachers set up children's playrooms." By November, the region had been almost entirely rebuilt, leaving the Red Cross chairman to observe that the WPA's response to the storm was "one of the most amazing disaster recoveries this organization has ever known."
More anecdotally, I've been hiking through the Berkshires for the past 15 years, formerly on weekends, now every summer when I get back to the States. It took me until about 2 years ago to realize that pretty much every single trail I'd hiked, pond I'd swum in, campground I'd camped at, Park Service visitors center I'd gotten nature info at, etc. was built during the course of about 5 years in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Hell, I got lost on the top of a mountain in northern Connecticut for half a day with my sister, and when we finally found something to orient us, it was a metal survey marker left in 1937 by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
I don't think FDR is overrated.
How many people died as a result of Carter's cowardice? Let's say all those who died in the embassay bombings in Africe, - DBL
Raving nonsense. Ronald Reagan retreated from Lebanon in 1983 after the bombing of the Marine barracks there. So it would be more logical to ascribe the Embassy bombings to Reagan's cowardice than to Carter's. In fact, neither was responsible; the Israelis have never shown "cowardice" for a moment in their history, and have been the victims of bombing after bombing.
Most underrated President was Lyndon Baines Johnson.
One foreign policy debacle (Vietnam) offset against the largest drop in US poverty rates ever recorded (outside FDR's first term) and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Almost nothing LBJ did has been decisively rolled back since: not by Reagan, not by either Bush (Clinton did a fair job on welfare).
LBJ simply suffers because of the JFK/ RFK aura, but:
- Vietnam was an institutional problem, not just a presidential one (any plausible US president would have sucked the US in, even Eisenhower involved the US in Vietnam). You have to remember how much of the Congress and the public were screaming for decisive action-- as Nixon showed, much later.
- JFK's domestic policy record, particularly on Civil Rights legislation, was modest.
Most overrated president of 20th century?
My guess would be JFK. His domestic achievements were modest, and his foreign policy in essence consisted of pushing to the edge of nuclear war.
By publicly refusing to trade Jupiter missiles in Turkey with Russian missiles in Cuba (but doing so privately) he preserved American 'prestige' but risked nuclear war.
He also involved the US to a terrible extent in Vietnam eg the events leading to the assassination of Ngo Diem.
If JFK had lived, Vietnam might have been his millstone as much as it was for LBJ.
Woodrow Wilson also comes across as pretty overrated: I (gather) something of a personal bigot (is that fair?) and a foreign policy disaster.
Harry Truman was a domestic disaster, and much reviled at the time, but history has rehabilitated him. Desegregating the US Army (against advice from his generals) was probably the single thing he did that has had the most enduring impact on the US-- in the flick of the pen, the US Army became a channel for social advancement for blacks.
Ronald Reagan I think it's fair to say neither liberals nor conservatives have come to grips with his legacy. The former re ending the Cold War (reaching out to Gorbachev) and the latter re various tax rises and his deficit spending.
I suspect WJ Clinton's reputation will decay over time.
Essentially domestic stall, whilst the crisis in the Middle East brewed. Domestic regulatory laisser faire leading to a stock market bubble and bust and financial problems which then rolled on into the housing bubble.
And personal behaviour making it impossible for Al Gore to be elected as the president who finally tackled global warming.
It's only because GWB has been so bad, that Clinton is starting to look so good in retrospect.