Languish.org

Now that it's (mostly) over, where do you think history will assign Trump among the 45 presidents?

Or, which ones were worse than Trump?

He'll be worst till the next one who's worse - which is a when, not if.

He's definitely down in the lowest tier with Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding.

Disasterously bad.

Though given that previous presidents have presided over the conditions leading to an actual civil war, it will be hard for him to seize the lowest place, objectively speaking.

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 09:24:17 AM
Though given that previous presidents have presided over the conditions leading to an actual civil war, it will be hard for him to seize the lowest place, objectively speaking.

I give Buchanan a pass because a) he's a fellow Pennsylvanian, and b) it must have been tough being a closeted gay man at that time. :sleep:

I really don't know enough of pre-20th century presidents to give a clear answer.
Plus how do you compare the radically different positions between now and 200 years ago.
Certainly amongst more recent presidents who are comparable he is dead last.

Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2020, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 09:24:17 AM
Though given that previous presidents have presided over the conditions leading to an actual civil war, it will be hard for him to seize the lowest place, objectively speaking.

I give Buchanan a pass because a) he's a fellow Pennsylvanian, and b) it must have been tough being a closeted gay man at that time. :sleep:

Abe did fine (though not dealing with the issues of being a Pennsylvanian) :P

One of the worst. If you judge him against what he set out to do he's a huge failure (with the exception, possibly, of China policy). If you judge him against norms and historical precedent, then he's a huge failure. I can't think of a metric where you could say he succeeded.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2020, 09:29:37 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2020, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 09:24:17 AM
Though given that previous presidents have presided over the conditions leading to an actual civil war, it will be hard for him to seize the lowest place, objectively speaking.

I give Buchanan a pass because a) he's a fellow Pennsylvanian, and b) it must have been tough being a closeted gay man at that time. :sleep:

Abe did fine (though not dealing with the issues of being a Pennsylvanian) :P

One of the worst. If you judge him against what he set out to do he's a huge failure (with the exception, possibly, of China policy). If you judge him against norms and historical precedent, then he's a huge failure. I can't think of a metric where you could say he succeeded.

Vladimir Putin would disagree with you.

Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2020, 09:20:08 AM
He's definitely down in the lowest tier with Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding.

Harding isn't nearly as bad as people think and certainly belongs nowhere near the same tier as Nixon and Buchanan.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2020, 09:29:37 AM
I can't think of a metric where you could say he succeeded.

He didn't die, I suppose.

Quote from: Maladict on November 06, 2020, 09:32:16 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2020, 09:29:37 AM
I can't think of a metric where you could say he succeeded.

He didn't die, I suppose.

Leave William Henry Harrison alone! :ultra: :weep:

I wouldn't be that surprised if history will praise him as a modern day Caesar paving the way for the Principate.

Most US presidents are bad, he's also bad so Bottom 20 I'd say.

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 09:34:54 AM
I wouldn't be that surprised if history will praise him as a modern day Caesar paving the way for the Principate.

He did enjoy the military parade in Gaul. But he looks more like a Lepidus to me.

Older, vain, meticulous coiffed barneg - he's clearly Pompey :P

He doesn't belong in the listing, because he didn't actually act as a president.

He damaged the American republic, democratic norms and the international rules-based order on top of being an obscene person. Worst president in living memory at least.

I would put him even below Buchanan, only because of the cards that were dealt.  Buchanan already got a country on the verge of the civil war, Trump didn't but may very well have ensured that Biden would.

It's a bit too early to judge, we don't know what kind of effects his presidency will have 10 years down the line.


Personally, I think the all the post cold war presidents will be viewed poorly.

Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2020, 10:15:31 AM
I would put him even below Buchanan, only because of the cards that were dealt.  Buchanan already got a country on the verge of the civil war, Trump didn't but may very well have ensured that Biden would.

Fair point.

It would have been so easy for Trump to come out pretty well historically, despite being a garbage person, simply by treating the Covid epidemic seriously and allowing the professionals to deal with it, allowing the professionals to deal with international affairs, etc. In short, by doing nothing much.

Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2020, 10:15:31 AM
I would put him even below Buchanan, only because of the cards that were dealt.  Buchanan already got a country on the verge of the civil war, Trump didn't but may very well have ensured that Biden would.

The 1850s leading to the ACW...Fillmore, Pierce, then Buchanan.

We just had Trump, and elected a 77 year old clearly past his prime and gave him a totally dysfunctional congressional arrangement. Who can complete the trifecta this time?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2020, 09:42:15 AM
Older, vain, meticulous coiffed barneg - he's clearly Pompey :P

Trump did not defeat pirates.  :contract:

Quote from: Habbaku on November 06, 2020, 09:31:39 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2020, 09:20:08 AM
He's definitely down in the lowest tier with Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding.

Harding isn't nearly as bad as people think and certainly belongs nowhere near the same tier as Nixon and Buchanan.

Nixon clearly broke the law and deserved to be impeached - but I thought that in general his presidency has been viewed as fairly successful.  He ended the war in Vietnam, recognized China, signed arms control agreements, formed the EPA.  Clearly Watergate brings down his overall ranking but he's got to be at least solidly middle of the pack.

As for Trump, he kept the US out of any disastrous wars and avoided outright genocide so he's not in the absolute worst tier, but obviously he's pretty far down the list.  I'll vote 35-39.

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2020, 11:45:14 AM
Nixon clearly broke the law and deserved to be impeached - but I thought that in general his presidency has been viewed as fairly successful.  He ended the war in Vietnam, recognized China, signed arms control agreements, formed the EPA.  Clearly Watergate brings down his overall ranking but he's got to be at least solidly middle of the pack.

Although candidate Nixon got the Vietnam war to last longer than it otherwise would have. And in the meanwhile he escalated Vietnam quite significantly which resulted in a lot more deaths of Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians (and Americans) but ultimately didn't achieve any of his strategic goals in Vietnam and it's not clear that the extra years of war ever would have achieved those goals. They were probably more or less futile.

I give you China and the EPA. I'm not sure ending Vietnam or detente are necessarily successes.

And I think breaking the law and being forced out of office, regardless of your policy successes, probably mean you fail on other relevant bits of being a President like leaving the office/American Republic at least as healthy as you found it and integrity.

QuoteAs for Trump, he kept the US out of any disastrous wars and avoided outright genocide so he's not in the absolute worst tier, but obviously he's pretty far down the list.  I'll vote 35-39.

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

We have been lucky that there haven't been many crises in the last 4 years - no 9/11 or 2008 style crash. But the single crisis Trump had to handle, he handled catastrophically.

Two surveys were performed amongst historians during Trump's presidency and he ranked 44th and 42nd, and that was before Covid. Unless there's a massive reevaluation of his presidency in the future he's bound to be a bottom 5 president for a really long time.

Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2020, 11:57:47 AM
Two surveys were performed amongst historians during Trump's presidency and he ranked 44th and 42nd, and that was before Covid. Unless there's a massive reevaluation of his presidency in the future he's bound to be a bottom 5 president for a really long time.

Historian over value every pre-civil war presidency. There's, maybe, 10 good presidency in the history of the USA.

Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2020, 11:57:47 AM
Two surveys were performed amongst historians during Trump's presidency and he ranked 44th and 42nd, and that was before Covid. Unless there's a massive reevaluation of his presidency in the future he's bound to be a bottom 5 president for a really long time.

To be fair, its pretty common in best/worst X ever lists that the latest flavour of the month performs particularly well.
That its amongst historians I guess is a bit of a saving grace though. Got a link to this?

Although historians are as guilty of that as anyone and you can see a well-argued revisionist take bumping up Presidents even (maybe especially) among historians. We've seen it with Truman, Adams and LBJ.

Edit: And, of course, Nixon.

I wonder how much his ranking would have improved if he had behaved with some degree of dignity? I suppose his crass behaviour is inseparable from his foreign policy failures though.

Here's a wiki page with a bunch of different rankings of the Presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 06, 2020, 12:07:09 PM
I wonder how much his ranking would have improved if he had behaved with some degree of dignity? I suppose his crass behaviour is inseparable from his foreign policy failures though.

I think it could go either way.  His clownish behavior was a zero-day attack on the political system, and brought him a lot of success because it was so out of the norm that there was no counter for it available.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 06, 2020, 12:07:09 PM
I wonder how much his ranking would have improved if he had behaved with some degree of dignity? I suppose his crass behaviour is inseparable from his foreign policy failures though.

His constant lying and boorishness would, if anything, make his current ranking lower, with cooler heads (or more forgetful heads) putting less weight on that in the future.

I think that a Trump just as mendacious and boorish who simply did nothing and allowed his professionals to handle the actual business of government would not rate as lowly - what future historians will find convincing is his failures in diplomacy (as you say), in dealing with the pandemic, and in damaging the democratic process.

The men to beat are Pierce and Buchanan (and AJohnson, duh).  Harrison died a month so it is silly to rank him at all much less among the worst.  Harding also died early - his cabinet was corrupt but he wasn't otherwise as awful as some of the others and not as bad as Trump who is probably more personally corrupt.  Coolidge was more honest than Harding but a worse President - I would still probably rank Trump lower.  Nixon was a crook but that doesn't differentiate him from Donald and obviously he was a far more effective President in every other way. I would also add Polk on the theory that any President who actively traded slaves in DC while President should be a solid candidate for last place, but that is not yet a commonly accepted viewpoint.  I imagine DJT would have acted similarly in that era so he gets no rung up there.

Pierce and Buchanan are tough to beat but Trump stlll has 2 months and clearly intends to explore new untapped depths of Presidential awfulness so the final verdict now is too early to call.

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 06, 2020, 12:00:23 PM

Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2020, 11:57:47 AM
Two surveys were performed amongst historians during Trump's presidency and he ranked 44th and 42nd, and that was before Covid. Unless there's a massive reevaluation of his presidency in the future he's bound to be a bottom 5 president for a really long time.

Historian over value every pre-civil war presidency. There's, maybe, 10 good presidency in the history of the USA.

The lists from wiki vastly overrate Adams and Madison.  Great men both but awful Presidents.
I forgot about Tyler  he really should be in the mix there as well

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2020, 02:33:31 PM
The men to beat are Pierce and Buchanan (and AJohnson, duh).  Harrison died a month so it is silly to rank him at all much less among the worst.  Harding also died early - his cabinet was corrupt but he wasn't otherwise as awful as some of the others and not as bad as Trump who is probably more personally corrupt.  Coolidge was more honest than Harding but a worse President - I would still probably rank Trump lower.  Nixon was a crook but that doesn't differentiate him from Donald and obviously he was a far more effective President in every other way. I would also add Polk on the theory that any President who actively traded slaves in DC while President should be a solid candidate for last place, but that is not yet a commonly accepted viewpoint.  I imagine DJT would have acted similarly in that era so he gets no rung up there.

Pierce and Buchanan are tough to beat but Trump stlll has 2 months and clearly intends to explore new untapped depths of Presidential awfulness so the final verdict now is too early to call.

Woodrow Wilson is right in there too.

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2020, 02:46:25 PM
Woodrow Wilson is right in there too.

It is funny back when I was young I was enraged that asshole was so highly rated.

But now the tide has turned so dramatically against him I spend most of my time defending him. It seems nobody can properly rate Woodrow Wilson. Sure he was a terrible racist, an arrogant hypocrite, and had a hard time distinguishing honest opposition from evil intent. But he did get a ton done and lots of what he did wasn't too terrible. He was believed to be one of our greatest Presidents in his lifetime and for decades afterwards for a reason.

He was a loathsome man with terrible ideas though.

Buchanan is hard to beat. I think Trump may fail to unseat him because, while he's done his best to ruin American institutions, it would appear (knock on wood) that he's failed in that.

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 03:06:02 PM
Buchanan is hard to beat. I think Trump may fail to unseat him because, while he's done his best to ruin American institutions, it would appear (knock on wood) that he's failed in that.

The reason I ranked Trump so "highly" was that he was too incompetent and lazy to do much lasting damage.

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2020, 03:12:24 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 03:06:02 PM
Buchanan is hard to beat. I think Trump may fail to unseat him because, while he's done his best to ruin American institutions, it would appear (knock on wood) that he's failed in that.

The reason I ranked Trump so "highly" was that he was too incompetent and lazy to do much lasting damage.

Yeah he could have been so much worse.

A President so bad that incompetence is a redeeming quality.

Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2020, 03:15:30 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2020, 03:12:24 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2020, 03:06:02 PM
Buchanan is hard to beat. I think Trump may fail to unseat him because, while he's done his best to ruin American institutions, it would appear (knock on wood) that he's failed in that.

The reason I ranked Trump so "highly" was that he was too incompetent and lazy to do much lasting damage.

Yeah he could have been so much worse.

A President so bad that incompetence is a redeeming quality.

like Hitler.

Except Hitler's incompetence was middling, so he did a lot of damage before ultimately failing.

I'd say Trump is definitely near the bottom, though it's too early to make specific comparisons.

Trump has done a lot of damage before, knock on wood, failing.

Easily the worst in living memory and in my opinion the worst I've read about, but since I've only done 20th century US Politics/History there's a fair few I know nothing about.

I'm like mongers.  Buchanan who?  War of Independence, 1812, Trail of Tears, Civil War, that's it.

Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Well just about everyone everywhere before 1800 was leading a slave state, or at least a slave-trading state pretty much, so that's not saying much.

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Posterity won't look kindly on some of your beliefs either.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2020, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Posterity won't look kindly on some of your beliefs either.

Because there was nobody currently living pre-Civil War who was letting anybody know slavery was wrong? :hmm:

Quote from: PJL on November 06, 2020, 06:45:31 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Well just about everyone everywhere before 1800 was leading a slave state, or at least a slave-trading state pretty much, so that's not saying much.

Yeah, but not everyone before 1860.

Voted 43.

Buchanan is obviously worse. Andrew Johnson was awful and is responsible for a lot of the mess we're still dealing with. 

Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2020, 09:24:16 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2020, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Posterity won't look kindly on some of your beliefs either.

Because there was nobody currently living pre-Civil War who was letting anybody know slavery was wrong? :hmm:

It was hardly universal, nor did the US President have the power to end slavery if he wanted to.

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.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2020, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2020, 06:40:13 PM
Every president pre-Civil War was leading a slave state, so there's that.

Posterity won't look kindly on some of your beliefs either.

I cannot tell a lie, I love big posterity.

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  :P)

Quote from: Threviel on November 07, 2020, 12:54:09 AM
Yeah, but not everyone before 1860.

England/Britain practiced slavery in the new world for longer than the US did.  The Spanish and Portuguese for far longer.  The Dutch, Swedish, etc for a little less than the English/British.  Slavery in Europe and the Middle East, of course, goes way back.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:46:25 AM
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.

Hoover also ended up unfortunately American First-y. But his career's really interesting because I can't think of a President who had achieved more before he entered office. And then things go sour.

He's down at bottom of the barrel territory

Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 04:07:57 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:46:25 AM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2020, 04:36:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 04:07:57 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:46:25 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 05:54:20 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2020, 04:36:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 04:07:57 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:46:25 AM
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 ...

Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2020, 06:58:27 PM

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.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:46:25 AM
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.

Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2020, 03:33:43 AM
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  :P)

:hug:

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2020, 12:21:48 AM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2020, 11:51:47 AM

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.

Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2020, 04:41:49 AM

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.

QuoteThen 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.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
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.

QuoteWhen 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2020, 08:06:00 AM
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.

45 it is.

Who voted 35-39?  :lmfao:

Quote from: Maladict on January 06, 2021, 06:54:06 PM
45 it is.

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

Quote from: The Larch on January 06, 2021, 06:55:17 PM
Who voted 35-39?  :lmfao:

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

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2021, 07:12:24 PM

Quote from: The Larch on January 06, 2021, 06:55:17 PM
Who voted 35-39?  :lmfao:

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

And Trump is like all of those put together.

Ok I think Donald Trump just earned his place at the bottom today. James Buchanon is appalled.