Presidential Approval Ratings

[Guest Paragon]

A poll cited in today's NY Times gives the results for people's approval of former presidents.

Kennedy was first, with 90%

Next is Reagan, at 78%. Apparently they didn't survey AIDS survivors.

Clinton is next at 74% Ford is at 67% G.H.W. Bush at 62%

Jimmy Carter comes in at 60%

Lyndon Johnson, the subject of the article, at 55%

George Bush gets 42%

Richard Nixon gets 30%

Needless to say, I disagree. For me, Kennedy in retrospect was almost a disgrace to the Presidency, now that we have learned of his extensive sexual misbehavior, flagrant drug use, and consortation with the Mob.

Reagan supposedly brought down the Soviets, but I think they were self-destructing, although Star Wars may have egged it on. In his later years he was clearly not all there. Iran-Contra should have caused his impeachment.

Clinton also had a notorious sex life, but ran the biggest government surpluses seen in my lifetime. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. Carter blew the Iranian hostage rescue.

So my poll results come in differently.

I, too, put Jack Kennedy first, despite his behavior. He inspired a nation, saved us from nuclear war, and gave his life. And let's not forget the Peace Corps.

Clinton is next despite Monica. He was a good president, there was that budget surplus, and I think a general approach to the presidency that favored my causes.

Richard Nixon, who opened the road to China, comes in third. The man was a good president, the last real Republican, just unhappily paranoid and much too enamored of Henry Kissinger.

Lyndon Johnson was an accomplished politician, and, but for his blindness on Vietnam, would have been a great president.

The rest of them, excluding Reagan, who I think was a terrible president but did have causes, are throw-away presidents. Carter was a joke, Ford a nincompoop, and George.H.W. Bush so patrician that he had no connection to the people and was easily manipulated by his cronies. His son was blatantly incompetent, and led us into needless and expensive wars.

What do you think?

[ihpguy]

Hey. And Tricky Dick did save Israel back in '73.

Put 43 in last place among this above list and one of the worst, if not the absolute worst president ever. Can someone tell me even now, over ten years after-the-fact, why he and his group of neocons actually chose to invade Iraq.

[TampaYankee]

As I reflect on this in my later years I have decided that of this group LBJ belongs second from the top. Shocking I know, for me too.

Kennedy, hated widely in the South and West and doubtful for reelection as I recall it, goes at the top for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. His leadership and actions saved us and the world from a terrible destruction that would be felt for a century if not centuries and very well could have ended the Union as we know it.

LBJ deserves second place by a mile. A flawed man and President, he nevertheless was the second most consequential domestic policy president behind Roosevelt. He personally, through the force of sheer will, moved the most important social legislation of our time:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - outlawing most forms of racial segregation

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - outlawing discrimination in voting

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 - which provided for equal housing opportunities regardless of race, creed, or national origin

Medicare

Medicaid

The War on Poverty - Head Start, Food Stamps & Work Study

The Higher Education Act of 1965 - funding for lower income students

and much much more.

It can be argued that most of these things would happen eventually, as of course the end of slavery did some 90 years after the founding of the country and The Civil War.

There is no reasonable argument that under one President so much wide-ranging precedent-shattering social changes could have or would have taken place, even by the end of the 20th Century as witnessed by the Affordable Health Care struggle. It took the confluence of the transference of sympathy for an assassinated Kennedy through a landslide election, a President with intimate knowledge of the Congress and how to work his will with that Congress, a ruthless politician, one willing to forsake his cultural heritage and home community to move the entire country to a more socially egalitarian standing. Could anyone else have done that at that time or any other time? I'm sure the answer is no.

Some view his record as a zero sum game. The Viet Nam War detracts from his record which diminishes his contributions below that of lesser accomplished presidents. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash. All one has to do to is to compare state of the nation if that President had not held office. Based on that Kennedy is the sure winner for the reason stated and LBJ is an exalted second for the same reason.

Yes, Viet Nam was a mistake, one he was persistently committed to. It might never have continued if he had not been elected President. Doubtful though as George McGovern and Gene McCarthy could attest to.

I put Reagan at third. He was a mixed bag with significant failures but deserves third for two reasons. He broke the back of the Soviet Union by spending them into oblivion. I firmly believe this. This alone secures hims a solid third.

Second he broke the back of stagflation with the runaway inflation and interest rates of the late 70's. Those were miserable times with grocery store can goods carrying six or seven layers of price tags stuck on each other reflecting rampant inflation on weekly and often daily basis. Mortgage interest rates of 17% - 19%.

Again, the test is simple. How would the country have faired if he had not been the President. On these two counts very much poorer. For those too young to remember The Cold War and the toll it took on our resources, attentions and lives, brush up on that history. Korea and Viet Nam were Cold War proxies to name just two.

Moving to the bottom:

The Worst: George Bush. IRAQ and Katrina just two of a long list. Again, how would the country have faired had he never been President. For the very very very much better IMO.

Second Worst: Jimmy Carter, ineffective. Iran, Middle East Oil Crisis, Stagflation come to mind immediately.

A Special Case: Nixon. I'm undecided exactly where to place Nixon. Aside from his paranoia and bigotry he was a very effective President -- the tall pole in the tent being the Opening to China. He was very good in foreign policy excepting Viet Nam and not too bad in domestic policy as exemplified by offering a GOP plan for Universal Health Care which Ted Kennedy turned down and regretted for the next 40 years. Certainly he would be viewed by his party as a RHINO today.

Watergate was a dark blot on the man and his view of Presidential power, yet I'm not sure we aren't better off for him having held office. For those who view Viet Nam as the alpha and omega of concerns I'm sure they disagree.

As for the others, they all have secure places in the middle of the pack. That is not a bad thing.

[TampaYankee]

Next is Reagan, at 78%. Apparently they didn't survey AIDS survivors.

If that were the only criterion then George Bush would be first. No other President as done as much to fight HIV/AIDS.

[Guest EXPAT]

I think Presidential ratings are so skewed now due to the Fox Noise channel and other biased information channels. So in the last 10 years I don't put much credibility in them at all since people seem to be so easily swayed with incorrect information.

[RA1]

I think this is correct for all general media, not just Fox. Who provides correct and unbiased information? I have no idea but I continue to search high and low to find "whatever".

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest Paragon]

If that were the only criterion then George Bush would be first. No other President as done as much to fight HIV/AIDS.

Did anyone say it was the only criterion?