Trump's rank among the presidents

[Malthus]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Hoover. By the metric of how poorly the country was doing at the end of his term, he is second to Buchanan.

Hoover fucked up, but he was hardly fucking up willfully like Trump (or, say Andrew Jackson, who is also in my top-five worst presidents).  Hoover tried, but was crippled by his belief that deficits were bad.

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing your list of the worst.

Something like (worst to least-worst)
Buchanan
Trump
Pierce
Jackson
Harding

I am softer on Andrew Johnson than most, because he was dealing with the most assholish Congress of all time.  Depending on the day and what I'd recently read, I might put him fourth or fifth on that list.  He was pretty vile on his own merits.

Basically agree, though my list may move around a bit depending on what I've read last. Trump definitely gets marks for screwing up after being dealt a pretty good hand - even the disasters of his term could have worked to his advantage -  it would have been so easy for him to appear presidential simply by being the calm voice of reason during the pandemic and letting the actual experts do all the work. But of course, that wasn't in his nature.

Buchanan still ranks dead last. He was dealt a shitty hand which he made even shittier. Normally I would give sone leeway to someone who was dealt a shit hand ...

[grumbler]

Basically agree, though my list may move around a bit depending on what I've read last. Trump definitely gets marks for screwing up after being dealt a pretty good hand - even the disasters of his term could have worked to his advantage -  it would have been so easy for him to appear presidential simply by being the calm voice of reason during the pandemic and letting the actual experts do all the work. But of course, that wasn't in his nature.

Buchanan still ranks dead last. He was dealt a shitty hand which he made even shittier. Normally I would give sone leeway to someone who was dealt a shit hand ...

Pierce might be worst because he allowed Jefferson Davis, his Secretary of War, to use Federal tax dollars to prepare the South for war, and because he actively pushed for full implementation of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Still, it's hard to credit him with malice in these acts (unlike Jackson) because he was just such a weak person.  Buchanan was no stronger, and that's why he was elected.  The stakes were clearly higher for Buchanan, and he, to paraphrase Lincoln, will be remembered in spite of himself.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Hoover. By the metric of how poorly the country was doing at the end of his term, he is second to Buchanan.

Some of the blame attached to Hoover belongs to Coolidge and Benjamin Strong.  Hoover was slow to respond and did not grasp the depth of the problem but did eventually come around to stronger measures.  It's not clear what he reasonably could have done given the tools at his disposal; FDR also made some bad steps and struggled to remedy the depression and until the war the broke out 8 years later.

Lousy yes but worst is a competitive category.

[Barrister]

I don't know enough of American history, so I'll vote 35-39 on account that you had dudes presiding during the lead up to an actual Civil War and then Reconstruction, some inept dudes I won't know about, and Woodrow Wilson (sorry Valmy  )

[Valmy]

I am certainly no Wilson fan I am simply suggesting a more holistic approach, not simply going along with the current reaction

Typical Wilson is how he fucked the Democrats over completely by managing to undermine the 1920 Convention despite the fact he was bedridden and barely functional. His ego was such that he still wanted to somehow use his influence to get a third term despite the fact he had had a stroke. The guy thought he was somehow the greatest genius in the universe despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

But I mean he was one of primary actors responsible for the allied victory in World War I. That is not nothing.

And his domestic agenda was wide reaching, important, and seen as very successful at the time. So there is that to. Though being the guy to establish the Federal Reserve, introduce income tax, and create the Federal Trade Commission is not going to make him too many friends among certain groups heh.

[Valmy]

So basically if you are going to say Woodrow Wilson is a hypocritical racist piece of shit with self importance bordering on delusional psychosis I am with you. If you agree with me that the principle of National Self Determination was a disastrous international principle that led to genocide and war then I am certainly with you 1000%. He sucked shit.

But there is all those big successes and profound importance both domestically and internationally. You can't just put Wilson down there with truly ineffectual bumblers, because he wasn't.

[celedhring]

So basically if you are going to say Woodrow Wilson is a hypocritical racist piece of shit with self importance bordering on delusional psychosis I am with you. If you agree with me that the principle of National Self Determination was a disastrous international principle that led to genocide and war then I am certainly with you 1000%. He sucked shit.

But there is all those big successes and profound importance both domestically and internationally. You can't just put Wilson down there with truly ineffectual bumblers, because he wasn't.

The way the world fumbled the post-WWI order (which is by no means solely attributable to him, but he helped enshrine the idea of the ethnic state as the basic block of the political order) is probably more damaging than anything those ineffectual bumblers caused, though.

Then again, I have a hard time picturing a scenario where WWII is avoided and Europe peacefully advances towards democracy, so I might be being unfair.

[alfred russel]

One of the worst mortality rates in a global pandemic with, by the end I imagine, over quarter a million dead.

It just seems absurd that would be a critical metric. Certainly government responses to Spanish Flu differed but I'm not aware of that being a critical factor in evaluating leaders of that era.

When the history of this era is written (assuming such things still happen), the cultural impact of covid is going to dominate the deaths. At the same time, as I've posted before, even this year deaths from smoking will far exceed covid in the US - probably by a factor of ~2. Covid is shiny and new, but with time there will be more context.

[grumbler]

The way the world fumbled the post-WWI order (which is by no means solely attributable to him, but he helped enshrine the idea of the ethnic state as the basic block of the political order) is probably more damaging than anything those ineffectual bumblers caused, though.

Wilson had little to do with the disaster that was the peace settlements after WW1.  Once the British and French decided to stab the entire idea of peace in the back for their own gain (remember that the Armistice was agreed on all sides as part of a peace process based on the Fourteen Points  - including "no winner, no loser" - that the British and French discarded once Germany was disarmed), the system was doomed and something like WW2 was made inevitable.

Then again, I have a hard time picturing a scenario where WWII is avoided and Europe peacefully advances towards democracy, so I might be being unfair.

Possibly true, but, again, not Wilson's doing.

[Sheilbh]

It just seems absurd that would be a critical metric. Certainly government responses to Spanish Flu differed but I'm not aware of that being a critical factor in evaluating leaders of that era.

But we're not 100 years ago. Our expectations of government, our knowledge of diseases, our global connections are just a lot higher.

At the time I don't think Spanish flu had a massive impact politically - but the world lived with infections disease: typhoid, polio, TB, smallpox were all diseases that impacted many countries either in 1920 or within living memory. That's a very different context for a new infectious disease to emerge than a society that has deaths of lifestyle: cancer, diabetes, old age, dementia. And other disesase did have political consequences - cholera especially because it was directly linked to the provision of clean water which was not always a state responsibility. Richard Evans has written really interesting stuff on the cholera outbreak in late 19th century Hamburg where the liberal (British-style) city fathers were found wanting in comparison with the more robust and regimented (Prussian) state - that has a political effect.

So I don't know that it's actually a relevant comparison (I'd argue AIDS and the evaluation of Reagan is a more interesting comparison).

For what it's worth I don't think covid mattered in terms of the outcome of the election, or it was more or less a wash. But it's way too soon to tell.

When the history of this era is written (assuming such things still happen), the cultural impact of covid is going to dominate the deaths. At the same time, as I've posted before, even this year deaths from smoking will far exceed covid in the US - probably by a factor of ~2. Covid is shiny and new, but with time there will be more context.

I agree, I mean one impact is that there's widespread dissatisfaction with democracy amount millenials and zoomers - that is unusual. One of the impacts of the epidemic could be that suspicion/dissatisfaction deepens because authoritarian regimes had a "better" crisis and were able to return to normal.

I think the economic impact is going to be huge because covid is accelerating trends that already existed and is going to lead to largescale disruption. Again I'm not 100% sure what bit of the covid response you'd look at and not find Trump wanting - or, uniquely, unable to deal with this crisis.

[alfred russel]

Again I'm not 100% sure what bit of the covid response you'd look at and not find Trump wanting - or, uniquely, unable to deal with this crisis.

Trump is unable/unwilling to deal with anything, he is a shit person and president.

What I'm responding to here is the idea that he will be judged harshly because of the US will be assessed to have a poor covid outcome - specifically 250k deaths or whatever it will be on his watch--and that steps should have been taken to reduce those deaths further.

With time there is going to be perspective. Something like 8 million+ Americans will have died during Trump's term. If future generations take the perspective that the president has responsibility to reduce preventable deaths to the ultimate minimum, I doubt they will be distracted by shininess and newness of covid and also consider that 1.5 million americans died from the effects of smoking, and the obesity epidemic remained unchecked.

To go to the perspective of Reagan and HIV, HIV has resulted in the deaths of about 700k americans cumulatively. if in the future, people focus much more on public health outcomes in assessing presidents, smoking deaths dramatically dwarf HIV--and people in that era were aware of the hazards of smoking.

[Maladict]

45 it is.

[The Larch]

Who voted 35-39? 

[Solmyr]

45 it is.

That number will increase by 1 on January 20th and every 4 years afterwards.

[alfred russel]

Who voted 35-39? 

Not me, but it isn't crazy. That just means 6 worse, and there are some decent arguments:

-John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts
-Andrew Jackson, obviously
-Pierce and Buchanan, leading up to the Civil War
-Andrew Johnson, arguably destroying a productive reconstruction era
-Wilson, almost no response to the Spanish Flu
-Hoover, led us into a great depression
-Nixon, got removed from office and was generally evil