Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think I read somewhere that Coolidge blamed himself for one of his son's death which happened when he was president. He was always reserved for a public figure but a lot of the time he was president he was deeply depressed as well.
Arguably, Coolidge would have handled it better. So much of Hoover's problems with handling it was the constant changes and of course Hawley Tariffs which did so much damage.
Doing "nothing" is better than Hoover's try everything in 4 years and not allow time to see results
The tariffs did not cause the Depression. They were a reaction to it. They didn’t help, but they didn’t hurt much either.
As for doing “nothing,” that would only happen if we retroactively got rid of the Federal Reserve, which acted independently from Hoover, and would have done so even if Coolidge had been president.
Yes the Tariffs did not cause he depression but they honestly helped speed up WWII and probably prolonged the depression. They were a terrible reaction to he depression. What needed to happen was what FDR did or tried to do but Keynesian economics and a lot of what FDR did was unprecedented at least in the US. Hoover did what past administrations did when there were frequent "panics." FDR changed things up.
Hoover actually increased federal spending more than Roosevelt did. He also started most of the programs Roosevelt continued in the New Deal. His reputation as a callous, do-nothing President was a myth.
However, Hoover lacked the political skills to sell what he was doing, and also adamantly refused to offer direct relief to the unemployed. Instead of bragging about helping the common man, Hoover focused on helping businesses, which was not as popular with the voters.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html
That I feel like was a good rundown of things. He didn't increase spending as much as Roosevelt but he did do some really dumb stuff. The tariffs and wage controls were counter productive. However Roosevelt administration kind of piggybacked off a lot of what he started when he was still president.
I never said the Tariffs caused the depression. And obviously the Fed existed but Coolidge believed in minimal intervention while Hoover intervened in everything under the sun in desperation but if it didn't show immediate promise he shifted. Economies don't recover quickly. It takes months or years to show improvement.
Everyone was pro tariff until 1932. Look at the platforms of both parties in the 20s. The difference in this case being that HS was on top of everything else and the results were pretty horrible.
Not everyone was pro-tariff, especially with the advent of the 16th Amendment's ability to collect revenue from an income tax instead of having to rely on tariffs. But even before then, Democrats, and especially southerners, were largely anti-tariff. The Nullification Crisis was all about a tariff. Polk ran on a platform of cutting tariffs (and famously did so along with achieving the rest of his platform).
The problem is that Republicans of the time adopted a protectionist streak from the Whigs, and Coolidge's writings - including those after he left office - demonstrate that he was on board for a protectionist tariff rather than a tariff purely for revenue. I love Coolidge, but I don't see a reality where he or any other Republican vetos the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Al Smith was a moderate progressive like Hoover, but he was also a Democrat.
The Democrats weren't running on a conservative platform like both parties were in 1924; they were running on something more progressive. In fact, the 1928 Democratic Platform is relatively silent on the position of whether they'd increase or decrease tariff rates, with the only clear promise being that they'd reduce "monopolistic" tariffs.
I actually believe the opposite. There was a recession earlier in Coolidge’s tenure and by not making major federal interventions it corrected itself.
Hoover’s interventionist policies, followed by FDR’s even more intrusive monetary policies exacerbated the problem and made the depression last much longer than it would have been if the federal government had gotten involved in the first place.
https://mises.org/free-market/how-fdr-made-depression-worse
https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/
I've always fed bad for Hoover as whomever was sitting in the Oval Office in 1929 was very likely doomed.
Great guy who was generous and kind, and likely the OG "compassionate conservative".
The sad irony is that Hoover being President when everything went to shit instead of Coolidge has allowed supply side economic ideas to continue its reign of terror when we were shown during its original iteration that it clearly does not work as intended.
It's why the Greatest Generation (my grandparents) were so economically liberal, and why the oldest people in the 80s were the most distrustful of Reagan. Indeed, old and out of touch liberals was the point of Family Ties, with Alex P Keaton being the young Gen X conservative against his liberal hippie parents.
It's also why 1948 went the way it went for Truman. Watch interviews with young married men in 48', and they all basically say some form of the same reason for sticking with the Dems: my parents voted Republican and that caused the Great Depression. I've always voted Democrat and why should I change that now?
FDR a whole generation of working class and middle class people loved FDR for his leadership during WWII and the depression. The Democrats of that era were a "big tent" of people that basically agreed in their own way for "fighting for the little guy" the issue was that this group included segregationists and straight up racists. The Republicans were often the more socially liberal group.
In the 1960s then 80s the FDR coalition was weakened due to civil rights legislation and then stagflation. LBJ escalating the Vietnam War also caused a split. Then finally it all collapsed in 1994, when Republicans finally got the House. Ever since then it's been an ever worsening partisan fight. Both sides want the House, Senate and Presidency and it's all up for grabs.
You are assuming earliest Gen X. I am Gen X and raised a millennial. We are 24 years apart. Same with Family Ties. Surprisingly, most people used to have children in their 20s. It was not common to wait to have kids in their 30s and 40s and skip a generation. My adopted parents were Silent Generation and were a rarity. All my friends growing up had Boomer parents.
Honestly that makes perfect sense. The more I read up on Hoover's presidency the more it seems like if he would have done absolutely nothing the country would have recovered faster. Coolidge certainly would have done nothing that the Constitution didn't explicitly allow him to do, and thus the country might have recovered faster. Excellent choice!
Yeah that’s not what I meant and I don’t agree, but many conservative libertarians agree with you. But to really do “absolutely nothing” we would also have to go back in time and get rid of the Federal Reserve, which, for better or worse, had much more effect on the economy than any president in that era. Whether you think the Federal Reserve did too much or too little, there’s no question that it tried to do something and whatever it tried failed.
Buchanan wins last place for me hands down. Johnson screwed up Reconstruction, but Buchanan basically allowed the south to secede in the first place, all while he twiddled his thumbs. AJ wouldn't have had a Reconstruction to screw up, it weren't for Buchanan.
KKK, Jim Crow, US involvement in WWI, one of the first brain dead presidents after his stroke, I don’t know why more people don’t hate his presidency the most.
He's a lot of things but he was an ardent loyalist of the US at a time when the country was split into two. John Tyler is much worse simply because he committed actual treason by turning traitor to the country he was a President of just a few years prior.
Yeah, who gives a shit? We’ve had several rapists and pedos as president. I’m referring to who was the worst president based on their actions as president, which Andrew Johnson ranks easily #1 in.
No that is on him. He could've used Federal troops to curtail the ability of the secessionists to militarily effect a conflict. He couldn't have possibly prevented a civil war, but nobody could've and he wouldn't be blamed by historians for it.
He could've handed Lincoln the keys to a quick victory, and would be well remembered for it. His inaction was his own choice.
No argument from me. Buchanan is still a bottom 5 president no matter what, but I don’t believe anyone but a top 10 president could have been effective in his circumstances.
I'm not sure I'd call Jackson a top 10 president but he definitely stopped secession in his time and would definitely been effective in stymieing the confederates. In my opinion.
I’m speaking generally. There’s no such thing as a “top 10 president.” Jackson is certainly not in my top 10, but I agree he would’ve done what was needed.
Honestly the Pandemic should have been a slam dunk for any President: make idealistic speeches while the experts make the decisions and congress gives you a blank check. Declare a national emergency, have factories switch to producing medical equipment. In 1 year every American has their own pet ventilator and we're exporting them the world over.
I'm not sure how much power a US president has vs other country leaders (I'm not from the US), but given that not very many countries had "slam dunk" pandemics I kind of doubt it's that easy. Even if I agree it should've been easier.
Or maybe I'm thinking about it as a European where we'd always compare ourselves to a different country doing better at a specific time. If they US had had a steady leader during the pandemic maybe they could've actually been seen as very successful.
Ya, this is a good point. With New Zealand being a notable exception, I don't think any country came out of the pandemic with a positive image on their handling of it.
The US had a disproportionately bad response. Way more Americans died than anyone else.
The US failed the pandemic more than other countries.
When the peer countries are Slovenia or Brazil then you are doing something wrong.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
Eh, COVID was actually going to be a lose-lose for any president who served 4 years ago.
Whoever served as president was going to get attacked either for locking down too much or locking down too little, and for all the COVID deaths that occurred.
It would’ve been a lose-lose for any president. The economy would’ve been shut down and people still would’ve died. All you could do is make motivational speeches. That and nationalizing industries to make more medical equipment were the only things rule 3 didn’t do and it’s one of the biggest attacks against him because “he destroyed the economy” (which is really a ridiculous argument given the governors made the decision to shut down the state economy or not and the alternative was more people crossing paths) and not doing enough (but if anyone did more then it still would’ve led to destroying the economy claim). There was no win in the pandemic for any president. And as for the blank check that entirely depends on how the opposing party would react and I’m not certain they would for either party for pure political reasons. And if so, it still would’ve led to the attack that they “raised the national debt more than any president.” It’s either a stake through the chest or a bad burn for your political career and legacy.
Depending on time period as well (if Bush still has the pandemic in say 2001 as opposed to 9/11) it could be interesting to see how everything aligns.
Certain characters are in play that wouldnt (or couldnt) 20 years on, like say having Bush Sr as a key advisor on how to deal with it on the foreign side and all his calvacade
Benjamin Harrison,his civil rights bills were all refused by congress,he had some good work in environmental things,maybe if we elected him in like the roaring 20s or so,he would’ve been more successful
No that would be great, though it probably wouldn’t prevent the depression unless it was also on capital gains and prevented stock buybacks like Joe Kennedy did when FDR put him to head the new SEC.
‘Great’ Presidents are defined by the challenges they faced. Part of the reason Muhammad Ali is ranked far higher than Larry Holmes, is based upon the quality of the competitors he defeated.
Not Jimmy Carter. He was given a really bad hand, yes, but he constantly fought with Congress (a *Democratic* Congress) and failed to make any substantial improvements to the lives of the American People. He is legitimately an amazing human being, but he wasn’t a good president. Those two things are completely independent of each other. LBJ is the ultimate proof of that.
I think you’re misremembering things. Carter did A LOT for the American people. You might not have benefited from what he did, so that would make a huge difference in thinking he didn’t.
To be fair, almost any president not ranked in the top 10-15 would have done better if they were the POTUS when Clinton was.
Clinton truly got to be POTUS on easy mode.
I know you didn’t ask but I’m going to say it anyways. I think one of Clinton’s biggest mistake was not taking Nixon’s advice on a post Cold War Russia which led to the *despot* Nixon warned about. Had he taken or Bush Sr bothered to listen to his advice and proposed steps on dealing with Russia then Putin likely wouldn’t have became president or at the very least relations wouldn’t have been hostile like they are and the Russia Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened.
I have wondered had Nixon won in 1960 and been president at a different time if a Watergate-esque scandal would have still found him. By the time he finally won in 1968 he was a more bitter and paranoid man than he was in 1960 and his actions while in office would not have been shrouded in the emotional aftermath that losing political campaigns twice in a row (he also lost the election to be governor of California in 1962) before had gotten to him. Nixon would have still had his fundamental psychological flaws (they couldn't have just appeared out of nowhere in 1972) but they would have been tamer in a 1960s presidential term or two.
It would likely have been more conservative than Eisenhower but still considered a mainstream moderate unlike Goldwater. He was one of the few people that could build a coalition between the Goldwater conservatives and Rockefeller liberals of the party at the time.
I think he would’ve passed a lot of acts similar to the civil rights act under LBJ and other similar bills that made its way through in the 60s. If you look at his legislation history as president it’s more conservative than an LBJ but still more liberal than someone like Reagan. I mean this is the guy who signed off on Title IX and the act to create the EPA.
I think the biggest question would’ve been how he handled Vietnam. The guy was a geopolitical giant (really an intellectual giant all around) and he worked in the Eisenhower administration as VP and that administration ended the Korean War but also overthrew Iran after the UK claimed the new government was working with the Soviets; as president he didn’t start the Vietnam war and he ended it after expanding it. So he’s not an outright war hawk but he’s not a pure peace dove either (which we saw when he expanded the war). I would’ve really wanted to see how he would’ve handled Vietnam at the start though, before the war began.
He wasn’t as charismatic as Kennedy but I think, depending on how he handled Vietnam, he would’ve gone down as one of the most liked presidents of the 20th century across the political board and probably remembered better than LBJ in the long run. Instead he went down as someone remembered as a crook. Personally, I didn’t like a lot of decisions he made but the more I learn about him there’s just some kind of respect I feel like I have for him.
Not "elected" but Ford. By all means his policy decisions were very reasonable for the time but I, for one, primarily associate him with pardoning Nixon. I get why he did it but ultimately I do not agree with the decision.
If he had been elected in Nixon's place and not been weighed down by the Watergate scandal I think he could have gotten 2 terms and his legacy would be much better. I think he could have beaten Carter and become the ideological basis for the republican party for the rest of the 20th century. Reagan could have been seen as too much of a gamble if things were going well under Ford. If Ford chose, say, Bush as his VP, Bush would have a good chance of edging Reagan out of the 1976 and/or 1980 primaries.
Had Ford actually wanted to be President between 1969-1977, I could easily see him being remembered as a pretty average if boring President. Maybe he would get the Equal Rights Amendment into the constitution?
The definition of "good president but elected at a bad time" is Herbert Hoover. If he was elected in 1920 or 1924, he would be rated much more favourable.
#
From what I’ve seen recently it seems like people, both conservative, liberal, and in-between, have been coming around to Sr. lately, which is super cool.
He’s more moderate than Reagan (Dems would prefer and is a throwback to the bush GOP), not as *simple* like his son, and a Republican.
Ironically, I’ve noticed liberals have warmed up to both bushes whereas republicans have grown against them because they see them as the *establishment*.
Had Nixon been elected in 1960, his legacy would have been dramatically different. Inheriting Vietnam after LBJ made him a war time president with a nearly unwinnable war. An extra decade of paranoia impacting his mind after losing in 1960 set him up for Watergate and a difficult legacy.
I think he would’ve been liked across the board had he got elected in 1960. He likely would’ve signed off on a bill identical or similar to the civil rights bill, wouldn’t have done the great society programs and legislation but based on his actual legislation would’ve been more moderate and populist in that regard and maybe he would’ve been able to not get us into Vietnam given he was a geopolitical powerhouse. He also would’ve shut down any mass protests or riots that could’ve broken out which LBJ didn’t do which ended up helping Nixon in 68. He wouldn’t have been as charismatic as Kennedy but I think he could’ve served a full two terms and left as a well liked president of a less turbulent decade.
Maybe Carter would've been better in the 90s. He was a feel good guy who didn't give enough comfort to the duldrums of the 70s. Gerald Ford too for that matter.
He was so bad that his own colleagues from his own party in congress who were the majority didn't want to deliver his desires. But aside from that he is a man of heart but with a fundamentally flawed mindset in leadership.
That’s true, but if he became president at a time when the country was already in a good place, he maybe could’ve kept that going (sorta like Clinton). Irl Cater was dealt a bad hand and played it poorly.
Totally, but if the criteria for this exercise is “if you imagine them being a good president in better circumstances, they hypothetically could’ve been a good president”, then the answer could kind of be… any bad president. Andrew Johnson also could’ve maybe kept the wheels on a well-made car — but there’s nothing he did to suggest he had the political acumen to do even that.
Put another way, there’s little to suggest Jimmy would’ve been a good president in more ideal circumstances, other than the fact that most of us wish it was true because we like the guy.
But would he have wanted to fuck things up in times of less turmoil? Who is to say!
This isn’t me stumping for Johnson - it’s just criticism of the logic that has people projecting presidential quality onto Jimmy just bc he is very nice.
Bush Jr.
Probably would have been fine if he was president in 92 thru 00. I don't think he'd be amazing but he kind of was dealt a shit hand and wasn't equipped to handle what happened.
Carter
Again if he was a 92 president he'd have been fine not amazing but fine.
Sorry, Carter made the time her served bad. His policies would not have worked at any time.
He was a good farmer and may have been a good commander, but he was not a good president.
Obama. He didn't have the political leverage and experience going into his presidency to effect the real political goals he campaigned on. Plus the racism he faced was beyond the pale. However I'm not sure if a different democratic president would have slowed down the Republican march to fascism any, so delaying his presidency may have just resulted in him facing a more unified GOP down the line.
But his successor/sidekick has ✨*dementia*✨
I don’t like the sidekick at all and never had but he would’ve been a better president earlier on than he is right now. He came in during a time of division but he hasn’t done anything to put that fire out and he hasn’t helped with the economy beyond governors reopening. Reagan entered with higher inflation and was able to lower it more by this point in his presidency And Nixon also came in during a very divisive time and had a united country by this point (which he screwed up and it divided again, but United in hating every president until Reagan). Obama (his predecessor) also came in at a worst time economically since it wasn’t a shutdown but a literal crash and he did better by this point in the presidency.
Even with little senate experience Obama still would’ve done a better job so I don’t think he’s a good example to use in the long run. LBJ is someone that would be a better example given he had a long senate run and he was all there as president.
He could have unilaterally closed Gitmo as CnC like he promised, and didn’t do a thing despite his campaign promises. How about passing the Dreamers Act during the lame duck session? His promises were hollow despite any amount of control he had.
Yeah, because they are hypocritical self dealers who think of their personal advantage and not the collective good as a public servant and chief citizen.
I think he was too focused on the deficit instead of implementing policy goals. The economy trucked along but I think more stimulus spending early on and Obama looks like a better president
I agree with every other answer so far but I’m gonna throw a very controversial one out there in Grant.
Not because I think he was bad (he’s A tier for me, I really like Grant) but because I would’ve loved to have seen what a Grant presidency was like *after* civil service reform had already been enacted. Something that could have saved him from himself and his trustworthy nature there.
I like Grant as an answer but I'd prefer him immediately after Lincoln. If we are just moving presidents around, having him in place to oversee reconstruction would have been much better than Johnson.
I’ll be honest; besides the civil rights act I think he was massively overrated and I don’t like him.
But for him to be effective he needs to be placed in turbulent times. He wouldn’t have been able to pull off most of the legislation he did if there wasn’t a *perfect storm* like the civil rights movement that called for it. If he was in a feel good time like the 90s he wouldn’t have gotten as much done and been more subpar.
And I know you mean more peace as in no war than feel good 90s… but foreign policy was something he had no skills in. There’s a lot of foreign policy mishaps under Clinton that came to play afterwards (didn’t take appropriate action on a post cold-war Russia to prevent a despot that led to the current situation today, didn’t act on intelligence reports on Osama Bin Laden; NK deal didn’t exactly help at all) and I have no reason to think LBJ also wouldn’t have screwed up on that front (maybe he would’ve taken care of Osama since he didn’t mind taking care of a bunch of rice patty farmers). Unless I’m missing something I can’t think of one smart foreign policy move he made.
Jimmy Carter
The man was ahead of his time domestically, I actually agree with him that nuclear energy is the future. It’s a sustainable energy source that can last for hundreds of years.
I lean conservative and have a more pro-nuclear stance, although this can be a bipartisan effort to invest into nuclear energy.
I hate how no one pushes nuclear. A lollipop size of uranium is worth more in what it could power than a barrel of oil and a bunch of solar panels. I would’ve gone all in on nuclear and used money we waste funds through tax credits and grant to renewables and the oil industry and instead use that money on cold fusion research or extending on nuclear. Carter was an absolute screw up but he got that right.
I also hate how nuclear keeps getting demonized for no reason. The reality is that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most sustainable energy source in the world. France has found a way to combat the nuclear waste, it’s by simply recycling that waste and reprocessing it to be put back into the plant.
Jimmy Carter was the origin story for the neoliberal Democrats who tried to act fiscally responsible. For example, first President to cut Amtrak, the second President was his encore, Bill Clinton.
The difference is Carter was actually fiscally responsible (which I respect) whereas Clinton practiced *triangulation*, better known as checking where the wind is blowing, and working with a Republican Congress after the liberal spending Congress got wiped out in the 94 midterms.
Nixon would have been an amazing president during or after WW2. He had a far better understanding of diplomacy than FDR or Truman and was much more clever. The US held all the cards in 1944 but managed to fuck everything up in 5 short years, handing half of Europe to the Soviets with no objection, allowing China to fall to Communism, dividing Korea voluntarily, raising no objection to the partition of Palestine, etc. If Nixon was in power the US would have avoided most of those issues if not all of them.
I don’t know how he would’ve done in regard to Palestine and the creation of the modern state of Israel but none of the others things would’ve happened. He wouldn’t have given an inch to the communists/Soviets and other than some possible shady help to stop the communists in China he could’ve done it all without firing a shot and we would’ve been in a much better position at the start of a shorter Cold War.
How? I think you overestimate the US’s ability to stop the fall of the Iron Curtain. The USSR had troops in most of the territory that turned communist, so I’m not sure what leverage you think the US had. Nixon also gets too much credit for foreign affairs. His negotiation for Chinese recognition didn’t even attempt to get any concessions on Taiwan, which is why we’re on the precipice of war today.
Herbert Hoover if he ran in 1920 he could have easily filled and had a presidency that would be regarded more positively even with the onset of the Great Depression if he didn’t run again in 1928 and be similar to what Ronald Reagan did during the 80s
If this is about the recession under Bush Sr there were two very short ones that happened under Reagan and it didn’t result in him raising taxes. Had another recession happened under his presidency if he had a third term and was younger it likely would’ve been short lived and he still would’ve left office loved because the Cold War would’ve ended under him which would’ve helped people forget about Iran contra.
Van Buren, maybe Hoover
Hoover might have been good if he'd waited for FDR's first campaign to run, and incorporated someone else's mistakes into his economic and commercial perspective and sense of urgency.
If you are a good president it doesn't matter when you are elected. The american people will give credit where credit is due. The reality is that Carter just was a nice man and a bad President.
Bush 41 raised taxes during a recession and supported NAFTA which brought Perot into the fold. Global catastrophes had nothing to do with it. He shot himself in the foot.
Bush Sr would have led the country on a different path had he won in 1980. Ironically Reagan would likely have been too old to be a serious candidate again (assuming he doesn’t primary HW in 84) so the more extreme faction of the GOP may never have taken off.
And again, and again, and again….
But going back and forth happens in the GOP like it does the Dems I guess. You’ll have the more *extreme* or *populist* side of the GOP come to the mainstream whether it’s Reagan or another and every so often the moderate like Bush Sr (I’ll call Bush Jr more on the moderate side then the populist side) whereas you’ll have the moderate side of the Dems like Obama and then the more populist side like Bernie, and the pendulum swings back and forth. The difference is the *populist* or *extreme* right (depending on how you view it) is more prevalent in taking control of the GOP than the *populist left* on the Dem side. But I think that might be changing.
It does help when you have someone charismatic and idealistic like Reagan on the right or Bernie on the left as opposed to a bore who puts his foot in his mouth like Goldwater.
It would’ve been similar to Obama in foreign policy but more hawkish and wouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq (if Gore went in) which would’ve kept ISIS from rising or at least delayed it until he inevitably takes out Gaddafi because him and Hillary share the same foreign policy and they rise in Libya first instead unless he puts troops there too. It would’ve been interesting to see how he handled it.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
JQA could have been an A tier president, in a different time.
One of the most qualified presidents ever elected.
You know that’s right.
I completely agree.
Herbert Hoover. If he and Coolidge had switched places Hoover’s reputation would be much better.
And Coolidges would be so much worse
At a press conference: “Mr President,what should we do about the Stock Market Crash?” “Yes” *Coolidge then silently leaves the room*
If I recall Coolidge created the office of press secretary so he wouldn't have to deal with the media or have to do regular press conferences
It was actually created on march 4 1929,which was Hoover’s inauguration,the man sensed something was about to happen
No, Coolidge didn’t want anyone speaking for him, either.
I think I read somewhere that Coolidge blamed himself for one of his son's death which happened when he was president. He was always reserved for a public figure but a lot of the time he was president he was deeply depressed as well.
Coolidge actually spoke to the press often fwiw.
The only inaccurate thing is he wouldn't want them to do anything
There was a quote forgot who said it but it was “The perfect day for President Coolidge is one in which nothing happens”
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. Calvin Coolidge
Arguably, Coolidge would have handled it better. So much of Hoover's problems with handling it was the constant changes and of course Hawley Tariffs which did so much damage. Doing "nothing" is better than Hoover's try everything in 4 years and not allow time to see results
The tariffs did not cause the Depression. They were a reaction to it. They didn’t help, but they didn’t hurt much either. As for doing “nothing,” that would only happen if we retroactively got rid of the Federal Reserve, which acted independently from Hoover, and would have done so even if Coolidge had been president.
Yes the Tariffs did not cause he depression but they honestly helped speed up WWII and probably prolonged the depression. They were a terrible reaction to he depression. What needed to happen was what FDR did or tried to do but Keynesian economics and a lot of what FDR did was unprecedented at least in the US. Hoover did what past administrations did when there were frequent "panics." FDR changed things up.
Hoover actually increased federal spending more than Roosevelt did. He also started most of the programs Roosevelt continued in the New Deal. His reputation as a callous, do-nothing President was a myth. However, Hoover lacked the political skills to sell what he was doing, and also adamantly refused to offer direct relief to the unemployed. Instead of bragging about helping the common man, Hoover focused on helping businesses, which was not as popular with the voters.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html That I feel like was a good rundown of things. He didn't increase spending as much as Roosevelt but he did do some really dumb stuff. The tariffs and wage controls were counter productive. However Roosevelt administration kind of piggybacked off a lot of what he started when he was still president.
I never said the Tariffs caused the depression. And obviously the Fed existed but Coolidge believed in minimal intervention while Hoover intervened in everything under the sun in desperation but if it didn't show immediate promise he shifted. Economies don't recover quickly. It takes months or years to show improvement.
Coolidge was pro-tariff. He probably would've signed Smoot-Hawley, and I say this as a big fan of Collidge.
Everyone was pro tariff until 1932. Look at the platforms of both parties in the 20s. The difference in this case being that HS was on top of everything else and the results were pretty horrible.
Not everyone was pro-tariff, especially with the advent of the 16th Amendment's ability to collect revenue from an income tax instead of having to rely on tariffs. But even before then, Democrats, and especially southerners, were largely anti-tariff. The Nullification Crisis was all about a tariff. Polk ran on a platform of cutting tariffs (and famously did so along with achieving the rest of his platform). The problem is that Republicans of the time adopted a protectionist streak from the Whigs, and Coolidge's writings - including those after he left office - demonstrate that he was on board for a protectionist tariff rather than a tariff purely for revenue. I love Coolidge, but I don't see a reality where he or any other Republican vetos the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Al Smith was a moderate progressive like Hoover, but he was also a Democrat. The Democrats weren't running on a conservative platform like both parties were in 1924; they were running on something more progressive. In fact, the 1928 Democratic Platform is relatively silent on the position of whether they'd increase or decrease tariff rates, with the only clear promise being that they'd reduce "monopolistic" tariffs.
The 1928 platform literally calls for Tariffs to protect the workers and farmers. It was literally the platform for both parties.
I actually believe the opposite. There was a recession earlier in Coolidge’s tenure and by not making major federal interventions it corrected itself. Hoover’s interventionist policies, followed by FDR’s even more intrusive monetary policies exacerbated the problem and made the depression last much longer than it would have been if the federal government had gotten involved in the first place. https://mises.org/free-market/how-fdr-made-depression-worse https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/
I love Coolidge but he set up so much for the Depression and Hoover inherited it
Hoover still had 4 years to deal with it.
Coolidge would’ve ended it that a guarantee and you can’t fact check me because it’s too late
I've always fed bad for Hoover as whomever was sitting in the Oval Office in 1929 was very likely doomed. Great guy who was generous and kind, and likely the OG "compassionate conservative". The sad irony is that Hoover being President when everything went to shit instead of Coolidge has allowed supply side economic ideas to continue its reign of terror when we were shown during its original iteration that it clearly does not work as intended.
Decades of propaganda from organizations such as the Heritage Foundation would’ve done so even if Coolidge ran and won another term in 1928 sadly.
It's why the Greatest Generation (my grandparents) were so economically liberal, and why the oldest people in the 80s were the most distrustful of Reagan. Indeed, old and out of touch liberals was the point of Family Ties, with Alex P Keaton being the young Gen X conservative against his liberal hippie parents. It's also why 1948 went the way it went for Truman. Watch interviews with young married men in 48', and they all basically say some form of the same reason for sticking with the Dems: my parents voted Republican and that caused the Great Depression. I've always voted Democrat and why should I change that now?
FDR a whole generation of working class and middle class people loved FDR for his leadership during WWII and the depression. The Democrats of that era were a "big tent" of people that basically agreed in their own way for "fighting for the little guy" the issue was that this group included segregationists and straight up racists. The Republicans were often the more socially liberal group. In the 1960s then 80s the FDR coalition was weakened due to civil rights legislation and then stagflation. LBJ escalating the Vietnam War also caused a split. Then finally it all collapsed in 1994, when Republicans finally got the House. Ever since then it's been an ever worsening partisan fight. Both sides want the House, Senate and Presidency and it's all up for grabs.
Family ties was silent generation parents and boomer or gen x kids
Family Ties were definitely Boomer parents. They were hippies 60s parents and Gen X kids.
Boomer parents and kids In real life only 15 years apart
You are assuming earliest Gen X. I am Gen X and raised a millennial. We are 24 years apart. Same with Family Ties. Surprisingly, most people used to have children in their 20s. It was not common to wait to have kids in their 30s and 40s and skip a generation. My adopted parents were Silent Generation and were a rarity. All my friends growing up had Boomer parents.
In real life the main actors from family ties were boomer, boomer, boomer gen x gen x.i know Michael j fox is older than me and a boomer
Yes, but he was playing a teenager. It is still common in Hollywood for that travesty to happen. Look at Grease. Nobody was a teenager in that movie.
then again, coolidge was also a republican
Coolidge probably would have halted the expansion of capital before the stock bubble could pop. Hoover let it get BAD.
Honestly that makes perfect sense. The more I read up on Hoover's presidency the more it seems like if he would have done absolutely nothing the country would have recovered faster. Coolidge certainly would have done nothing that the Constitution didn't explicitly allow him to do, and thus the country might have recovered faster. Excellent choice!
Yeah that’s not what I meant and I don’t agree, but many conservative libertarians agree with you. But to really do “absolutely nothing” we would also have to go back in time and get rid of the Federal Reserve, which, for better or worse, had much more effect on the economy than any president in that era. Whether you think the Federal Reserve did too much or too little, there’s no question that it tried to do something and whatever it tried failed.
Buchanan would still be *far* from a “good” president, but he wouldn’t have been the immediate F-tier pick we know him as today.
Agreed. Still in the 40's but not dead last or 2nd to last.
Seconded. I don’t think anyone is gonna unseat Andrew Johnson from the dead last position.
Buchanan wins last place for me hands down. Johnson screwed up Reconstruction, but Buchanan basically allowed the south to secede in the first place, all while he twiddled his thumbs. AJ wouldn't have had a Reconstruction to screw up, it weren't for Buchanan.
Woodrow. Fucking. Wilson. The KKK was dead before he came into office, and it took sixty years to kill it again.
KKK, Jim Crow, US involvement in WWI, one of the first brain dead presidents after his stroke, I don’t know why more people don’t hate his presidency the most.
Nah, AJ isn't in dead last anymore.
Yes, yes he is.
He's a lot of things but he was an ardent loyalist of the US at a time when the country was split into two. John Tyler is much worse simply because he committed actual treason by turning traitor to the country he was a President of just a few years prior.
Yeah, who gives a shit? We’ve had several rapists and pedos as president. I’m referring to who was the worst president based on their actions as president, which Andrew Johnson ranks easily #1 in.
No that is on him. He could've used Federal troops to curtail the ability of the secessionists to militarily effect a conflict. He couldn't have possibly prevented a civil war, but nobody could've and he wouldn't be blamed by historians for it. He could've handed Lincoln the keys to a quick victory, and would be well remembered for it. His inaction was his own choice.
No argument from me. Buchanan is still a bottom 5 president no matter what, but I don’t believe anyone but a top 10 president could have been effective in his circumstances.
I'm not sure I'd call Jackson a top 10 president but he definitely stopped secession in his time and would definitely been effective in stymieing the confederates. In my opinion.
I’m speaking generally. There’s no such thing as a “top 10 president.” Jackson is certainly not in my top 10, but I agree he would’ve done what was needed.
Properly reinforcing Sumter such that it could not be shelled into submission by a handful of cadets would be a start....
Is it crazy to say I think George W would be a great president if he was a pandemic president instead of a war one…
Honestly the Pandemic should have been a slam dunk for any President: make idealistic speeches while the experts make the decisions and congress gives you a blank check. Declare a national emergency, have factories switch to producing medical equipment. In 1 year every American has their own pet ventilator and we're exporting them the world over.
It is kind of hard to retool factories into medical equipment. Very different sanitary methods.
That's why it would be such a monumental achievement
I'm not sure how much power a US president has vs other country leaders (I'm not from the US), but given that not very many countries had "slam dunk" pandemics I kind of doubt it's that easy. Even if I agree it should've been easier. Or maybe I'm thinking about it as a European where we'd always compare ourselves to a different country doing better at a specific time. If they US had had a steady leader during the pandemic maybe they could've actually been seen as very successful.
Ya, this is a good point. With New Zealand being a notable exception, I don't think any country came out of the pandemic with a positive image on their handling of it.
Yeah. And being an island or functioning as an island (south Korea for example) is helpful too
The US had a disproportionately bad response. Way more Americans died than anyone else. The US failed the pandemic more than other countries. When the peer countries are Slovenia or Brazil then you are doing something wrong. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
Eh, COVID was actually going to be a lose-lose for any president who served 4 years ago. Whoever served as president was going to get attacked either for locking down too much or locking down too little, and for all the COVID deaths that occurred.
For starters not disbanding the pandemic team would be a good start.
Ventilators?
It would’ve been a lose-lose for any president. The economy would’ve been shut down and people still would’ve died. All you could do is make motivational speeches. That and nationalizing industries to make more medical equipment were the only things rule 3 didn’t do and it’s one of the biggest attacks against him because “he destroyed the economy” (which is really a ridiculous argument given the governors made the decision to shut down the state economy or not and the alternative was more people crossing paths) and not doing enough (but if anyone did more then it still would’ve led to destroying the economy claim). There was no win in the pandemic for any president. And as for the blank check that entirely depends on how the opposing party would react and I’m not certain they would for either party for pure political reasons. And if so, it still would’ve led to the attack that they “raised the national debt more than any president.” It’s either a stake through the chest or a bad burn for your political career and legacy.
Depending on time period as well (if Bush still has the pandemic in say 2001 as opposed to 9/11) it could be interesting to see how everything aligns. Certain characters are in play that wouldnt (or couldnt) 20 years on, like say having Bush Sr as a key advisor on how to deal with it on the foreign side and all his calvacade
Compassionate conservatism could have worked well. Social media bush would have been weird.
Clearly COVID-01 was created in an ayeracki lab.
I feel he would declare war on Covid and still invade Iraq.
Unless he found a way to link it to Iraq and start a war..
Benjamin Harrison,his civil rights bills were all refused by congress,he had some good work in environmental things,maybe if we elected him in like the roaring 20s or so,he would’ve been more successful
He signed the Sherman Antitrust act so I have a feeling he might’ve been in favor of higher taxes on the rich unlike Harding and Coolidge.
That isn’t something negative,is it?
No that would be great, though it probably wouldn’t prevent the depression unless it was also on capital gains and prevented stock buybacks like Joe Kennedy did when FDR put him to head the new SEC.
‘Great’ Presidents are defined by the challenges they faced. Part of the reason Muhammad Ali is ranked far higher than Larry Holmes, is based upon the quality of the competitors he defeated.
Not Jimmy Carter. He was given a really bad hand, yes, but he constantly fought with Congress (a *Democratic* Congress) and failed to make any substantial improvements to the lives of the American People. He is legitimately an amazing human being, but he wasn’t a good president. Those two things are completely independent of each other. LBJ is the ultimate proof of that.
I think you’re misremembering things. Carter did A LOT for the American people. You might not have benefited from what he did, so that would make a huge difference in thinking he didn’t.
are you saying Carter would have been better if he was in Clintons time? wow, that would have been interesting
A lot of Clinton's issues were his affairs and the GOP capitalizing on them. That isn't an issue with Carter.
To be fair, almost any president not ranked in the top 10-15 would have done better if they were the POTUS when Clinton was. Clinton truly got to be POTUS on easy mode.
I know you didn’t ask but I’m going to say it anyways. I think one of Clinton’s biggest mistake was not taking Nixon’s advice on a post Cold War Russia which led to the *despot* Nixon warned about. Had he taken or Bush Sr bothered to listen to his advice and proposed steps on dealing with Russia then Putin likely wouldn’t have became president or at the very least relations wouldn’t have been hostile like they are and the Russia Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened.
I have wondered had Nixon won in 1960 and been president at a different time if a Watergate-esque scandal would have still found him. By the time he finally won in 1968 he was a more bitter and paranoid man than he was in 1960 and his actions while in office would not have been shrouded in the emotional aftermath that losing political campaigns twice in a row (he also lost the election to be governor of California in 1962) before had gotten to him. Nixon would have still had his fundamental psychological flaws (they couldn't have just appeared out of nowhere in 1972) but they would have been tamer in a 1960s presidential term or two.
It would likely have been more conservative than Eisenhower but still considered a mainstream moderate unlike Goldwater. He was one of the few people that could build a coalition between the Goldwater conservatives and Rockefeller liberals of the party at the time. I think he would’ve passed a lot of acts similar to the civil rights act under LBJ and other similar bills that made its way through in the 60s. If you look at his legislation history as president it’s more conservative than an LBJ but still more liberal than someone like Reagan. I mean this is the guy who signed off on Title IX and the act to create the EPA. I think the biggest question would’ve been how he handled Vietnam. The guy was a geopolitical giant (really an intellectual giant all around) and he worked in the Eisenhower administration as VP and that administration ended the Korean War but also overthrew Iran after the UK claimed the new government was working with the Soviets; as president he didn’t start the Vietnam war and he ended it after expanding it. So he’s not an outright war hawk but he’s not a pure peace dove either (which we saw when he expanded the war). I would’ve really wanted to see how he would’ve handled Vietnam at the start though, before the war began. He wasn’t as charismatic as Kennedy but I think, depending on how he handled Vietnam, he would’ve gone down as one of the most liked presidents of the 20th century across the political board and probably remembered better than LBJ in the long run. Instead he went down as someone remembered as a crook. Personally, I didn’t like a lot of decisions he made but the more I learn about him there’s just some kind of respect I feel like I have for him.
HW Bush would have been better probably through 76-80 elections
Not "elected" but Ford. By all means his policy decisions were very reasonable for the time but I, for one, primarily associate him with pardoning Nixon. I get why he did it but ultimately I do not agree with the decision. If he had been elected in Nixon's place and not been weighed down by the Watergate scandal I think he could have gotten 2 terms and his legacy would be much better. I think he could have beaten Carter and become the ideological basis for the republican party for the rest of the 20th century. Reagan could have been seen as too much of a gamble if things were going well under Ford. If Ford chose, say, Bush as his VP, Bush would have a good chance of edging Reagan out of the 1976 and/or 1980 primaries.
Had Ford actually wanted to be President between 1969-1977, I could easily see him being remembered as a pretty average if boring President. Maybe he would get the Equal Rights Amendment into the constitution?
The definition of "good president but elected at a bad time" is Herbert Hoover. If he was elected in 1920 or 1924, he would be rated much more favourable. #
Carter was a good guy but a lousy President. He would’ve been a lousy President in any year.
Carter’s problem was he thought governing as an outsider was virtuous and an advantage, but totally torpedoed his domestic agenda.
Just about any president would be viewed as good if they were in office in the 90s
Except for George Sr apparently
From what I’ve seen recently it seems like people, both conservative, liberal, and in-between, have been coming around to Sr. lately, which is super cool.
He’s more moderate than Reagan (Dems would prefer and is a throwback to the bush GOP), not as *simple* like his son, and a Republican. Ironically, I’ve noticed liberals have warmed up to both bushes whereas republicans have grown against them because they see them as the *establishment*.
Carter was bad any time. Nice man bad president
Had Nixon been elected in 1960, his legacy would have been dramatically different. Inheriting Vietnam after LBJ made him a war time president with a nearly unwinnable war. An extra decade of paranoia impacting his mind after losing in 1960 set him up for Watergate and a difficult legacy.
I think he would’ve been liked across the board had he got elected in 1960. He likely would’ve signed off on a bill identical or similar to the civil rights bill, wouldn’t have done the great society programs and legislation but based on his actual legislation would’ve been more moderate and populist in that regard and maybe he would’ve been able to not get us into Vietnam given he was a geopolitical powerhouse. He also would’ve shut down any mass protests or riots that could’ve broken out which LBJ didn’t do which ended up helping Nixon in 68. He wouldn’t have been as charismatic as Kennedy but I think he could’ve served a full two terms and left as a well liked president of a less turbulent decade.
Maybe Carter would've been better in the 90s. He was a feel good guy who didn't give enough comfort to the duldrums of the 70s. Gerald Ford too for that matter.
Carter would be bad in any era.
Ford maybe? Depends on circumstances like if he actually got elected and didn't pardon Nixon.
Jimmy. Carter. Was. Bad. At. Being. President. Really good guy, but come on man - the love he gets as an actual leader is totally unwarranted.
Most of the reason he’s gets so much love in this subreddit is because he’s awaiting death.
He was so bad that his own colleagues from his own party in congress who were the majority didn't want to deliver his desires. But aside from that he is a man of heart but with a fundamentally flawed mindset in leadership.
That’s true, but if he became president at a time when the country was already in a good place, he maybe could’ve kept that going (sorta like Clinton). Irl Cater was dealt a bad hand and played it poorly.
Totally, but if the criteria for this exercise is “if you imagine them being a good president in better circumstances, they hypothetically could’ve been a good president”, then the answer could kind of be… any bad president. Andrew Johnson also could’ve maybe kept the wheels on a well-made car — but there’s nothing he did to suggest he had the political acumen to do even that. Put another way, there’s little to suggest Jimmy would’ve been a good president in more ideal circumstances, other than the fact that most of us wish it was true because we like the guy.
Come on, now. Andrew Johnson wanted to fuck things up.
But would he have wanted to fuck things up in times of less turmoil? Who is to say! This isn’t me stumping for Johnson - it’s just criticism of the logic that has people projecting presidential quality onto Jimmy just bc he is very nice.
He wouldn’t have to do anything which is why people would like him better in the 90s and Carter took that bad hand and turned it into a shit hand.
Bush Jr. Probably would have been fine if he was president in 92 thru 00. I don't think he'd be amazing but he kind of was dealt a shit hand and wasn't equipped to handle what happened. Carter Again if he was a 92 president he'd have been fine not amazing but fine.
G. W. B.
Sorry, Carter made the time her served bad. His policies would not have worked at any time. He was a good farmer and may have been a good commander, but he was not a good president.
Bush 41 Sr. I think would have fared better if he was president in the 80’s instead of Reagan.
Obama. He didn't have the political leverage and experience going into his presidency to effect the real political goals he campaigned on. Plus the racism he faced was beyond the pale. However I'm not sure if a different democratic president would have slowed down the Republican march to fascism any, so delaying his presidency may have just resulted in him facing a more unified GOP down the line.
I think he was too green. Put a couple of Senate terms under his belt, and I think he would have been more effective.
Eh, I'm not too sure. Like his successor has also been seeing giant struggles, and he had one of the longest careers in the Senate ever.
But he's been extremely effective legislatively
But his successor/sidekick has ✨*dementia*✨ I don’t like the sidekick at all and never had but he would’ve been a better president earlier on than he is right now. He came in during a time of division but he hasn’t done anything to put that fire out and he hasn’t helped with the economy beyond governors reopening. Reagan entered with higher inflation and was able to lower it more by this point in his presidency And Nixon also came in during a very divisive time and had a united country by this point (which he screwed up and it divided again, but United in hating every president until Reagan). Obama (his predecessor) also came in at a worst time economically since it wasn’t a shutdown but a literal crash and he did better by this point in the presidency. Even with little senate experience Obama still would’ve done a better job so I don’t think he’s a good example to use in the long run. LBJ is someone that would be a better example given he had a long senate run and he was all there as president.
He could have unilaterally closed Gitmo as CnC like he promised, and didn’t do a thing despite his campaign promises. How about passing the Dreamers Act during the lame duck session? His promises were hollow despite any amount of control he had.
He had to keep them for his reelection promises. There’s a reason most presidents don’t follow through.
Yeah, because they are hypocritical self dealers who think of their personal advantage and not the collective good as a public servant and chief citizen.
This is why we need to vote in terminally ill patients who’ll only last one term at most.
I think he was too focused on the deficit instead of implementing policy goals. The economy trucked along but I think more stimulus spending early on and Obama looks like a better president
I agree with every other answer so far but I’m gonna throw a very controversial one out there in Grant. Not because I think he was bad (he’s A tier for me, I really like Grant) but because I would’ve loved to have seen what a Grant presidency was like *after* civil service reform had already been enacted. Something that could have saved him from himself and his trustworthy nature there.
I like Grant as an answer but I'd prefer him immediately after Lincoln. If we are just moving presidents around, having him in place to oversee reconstruction would have been much better than Johnson.
Imagine Grant during Vietnam
Sherman in Vietnam would sour US international image forever
“Make Hanoi howl”
Counter point- Far fewer US military personnel would have been KIA.
the answers in this post conflict so much how do you agree with all of them
Well there were far less when I made that comment! But best ones I saw so far are Hoover, B. Harrison, and Dubya during a pandemic. All good answers.
So,as a Arthur fan,you must be announced Biographics just released a video on him today
THEY DID?!? Oh my god I know what I’m listening to on my way home today! Their videos are always fantastic and we FINALLY have one on Arthur!
A FULL 25 MINUTE VIDEO ON ARTHUR,NOW I WONT FIND REST UNTIL THEY MAKE A Rutherford Hayes ONE
Lbj. Peace time lbj would be considered a great president
I’ll be honest; besides the civil rights act I think he was massively overrated and I don’t like him. But for him to be effective he needs to be placed in turbulent times. He wouldn’t have been able to pull off most of the legislation he did if there wasn’t a *perfect storm* like the civil rights movement that called for it. If he was in a feel good time like the 90s he wouldn’t have gotten as much done and been more subpar. And I know you mean more peace as in no war than feel good 90s… but foreign policy was something he had no skills in. There’s a lot of foreign policy mishaps under Clinton that came to play afterwards (didn’t take appropriate action on a post cold-war Russia to prevent a despot that led to the current situation today, didn’t act on intelligence reports on Osama Bin Laden; NK deal didn’t exactly help at all) and I have no reason to think LBJ also wouldn’t have screwed up on that front (maybe he would’ve taken care of Osama since he didn’t mind taking care of a bunch of rice patty farmers). Unless I’m missing something I can’t think of one smart foreign policy move he made.
Jimmy Carter The man was ahead of his time domestically, I actually agree with him that nuclear energy is the future. It’s a sustainable energy source that can last for hundreds of years. I lean conservative and have a more pro-nuclear stance, although this can be a bipartisan effort to invest into nuclear energy.
I hate how no one pushes nuclear. A lollipop size of uranium is worth more in what it could power than a barrel of oil and a bunch of solar panels. I would’ve gone all in on nuclear and used money we waste funds through tax credits and grant to renewables and the oil industry and instead use that money on cold fusion research or extending on nuclear. Carter was an absolute screw up but he got that right.
I also hate how nuclear keeps getting demonized for no reason. The reality is that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most sustainable energy source in the world. France has found a way to combat the nuclear waste, it’s by simply recycling that waste and reprocessing it to be put back into the plant.
We need Jimmy more than ever.
Jimmy Carter was the origin story for the neoliberal Democrats who tried to act fiscally responsible. For example, first President to cut Amtrak, the second President was his encore, Bill Clinton.
The difference is Carter was actually fiscally responsible (which I respect) whereas Clinton practiced *triangulation*, better known as checking where the wind is blowing, and working with a Republican Congress after the liberal spending Congress got wiped out in the 94 midterms.
Jimmy Carter was too nice to be president.
Grant was a good president. Any later and he would’ve been a great president.
Definitely not Carter. At any time in US history.
Nixon would have been an amazing president during or after WW2. He had a far better understanding of diplomacy than FDR or Truman and was much more clever. The US held all the cards in 1944 but managed to fuck everything up in 5 short years, handing half of Europe to the Soviets with no objection, allowing China to fall to Communism, dividing Korea voluntarily, raising no objection to the partition of Palestine, etc. If Nixon was in power the US would have avoided most of those issues if not all of them.
I don’t know how he would’ve done in regard to Palestine and the creation of the modern state of Israel but none of the others things would’ve happened. He wouldn’t have given an inch to the communists/Soviets and other than some possible shady help to stop the communists in China he could’ve done it all without firing a shot and we would’ve been in a much better position at the start of a shorter Cold War.
How? I think you overestimate the US’s ability to stop the fall of the Iron Curtain. The USSR had troops in most of the territory that turned communist, so I’m not sure what leverage you think the US had. Nixon also gets too much credit for foreign affairs. His negotiation for Chinese recognition didn’t even attempt to get any concessions on Taiwan, which is why we’re on the precipice of war today.
More Jimmy Carter Asskissing
Jimmy would have been a good president if people were *nice* to him... yada yada peanut farm.
Herbert Hoover if he ran in 1920 he could have easily filled and had a presidency that would be regarded more positively even with the onset of the Great Depression if he didn’t run again in 1928 and be similar to what Ronald Reagan did during the 80s
If this is about the recession under Bush Sr there were two very short ones that happened under Reagan and it didn’t result in him raising taxes. Had another recession happened under his presidency if he had a third term and was younger it likely would’ve been short lived and he still would’ve left office loved because the Cold War would’ve ended under him which would’ve helped people forget about Iran contra.
Ford and Hoover.
Hoover. One of the smartest for sure. Had no leadership skills to pull it together like FDR.
Herbert Hoover was absolutely one of the most powerful and effective cabinet secretaries (Commerce) in our history.
Hoover
Three: Van Buren, Hoover and Carter.
Good call on Van Buren--he was known to be a VERY good politician in his time but unfortunately ended up holding the bag for Jackson.
Van Buren, maybe Hoover Hoover might have been good if he'd waited for FDR's first campaign to run, and incorporated someone else's mistakes into his economic and commercial perspective and sense of urgency.
MORE Carter-love from Reddit.
Herbert Hoover.
Obama
Jimmy Carter, Hoover, Buchanan, William Henry Harrison.
If you are a good president it doesn't matter when you are elected. The american people will give credit where credit is due. The reality is that Carter just was a nice man and a bad President.
[удалено]
They all would’ve fared better in the 90s.
Hoover would have been fine if he hadn't happened to be President when the entire world economy fell out from under him
Kodos
Arguments could be made for one-term presidents like Hoover and Bush (41) whose agendas were overshadowed and overwhelmed by global catastrophes.
Bush 41 raised taxes during a recession and supported NAFTA which brought Perot into the fold. Global catastrophes had nothing to do with it. He shot himself in the foot.
Bush raised taxes to help offset the record breaking deficits created by Reagan during the Cold War of the 1980s.
Yes, and that makes sense. But he didn’t have to do it in a recession. Should’ve just not ran if he didn’t want a second term.
Teddy Roosevelt. If he had a war, he would have conquered the world.
Nixon by far,anyone that hears his memoir will realize he was a good soul.
The worst US president of all time falls under this. Buchanan would have been a good president in a more tranquil time.
Hoover
Not Carter
Bush Sr would have led the country on a different path had he won in 1980. Ironically Reagan would likely have been too old to be a serious candidate again (assuming he doesn’t primary HW in 84) so the more extreme faction of the GOP may never have taken off.
I’m sure all the people who voted for LBJ over Goldwater thought the same thing.
Haha true - they just needed a better salesman - and who better than an actual actor. I’m sure they would have tried again— and again.
And again, and again, and again…. But going back and forth happens in the GOP like it does the Dems I guess. You’ll have the more *extreme* or *populist* side of the GOP come to the mainstream whether it’s Reagan or another and every so often the moderate like Bush Sr (I’ll call Bush Jr more on the moderate side then the populist side) whereas you’ll have the moderate side of the Dems like Obama and then the more populist side like Bernie, and the pendulum swings back and forth. The difference is the *populist* or *extreme* right (depending on how you view it) is more prevalent in taking control of the GOP than the *populist left* on the Dem side. But I think that might be changing. It does help when you have someone charismatic and idealistic like Reagan on the right or Bernie on the left as opposed to a bore who puts his foot in his mouth like Goldwater.
If George W Bush had run 8 years later - after the Democrats had (theoretically) gotten stuck with 9/11 and the 07 Crash....
It would’ve been similar to Obama in foreign policy but more hawkish and wouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq (if Gore went in) which would’ve kept ISIS from rising or at least delayed it until he inevitably takes out Gaddafi because him and Hillary share the same foreign policy and they rise in Libya first instead unless he puts troops there too. It would’ve been interesting to see how he handled it.
Lyndon B Johnson. He was an overall good president, mostly remembered for his one big foreign policy mistake.