Asymmetrical Information

Back in the late 1980s, Ben Wattenberg wrote a column entitled "Sentencing Reagan To History". He began by enumerating some famous presidents and giving pithy characterizations of them (I paraphrase):

"George Washington? Father of our country. Abraham Lincoln? He freed the slaves. Richard Nixon? Resigned the presidency.

"FDR? He served almost twice as long as anyone else, so he gets two sentences. Ended the depression. Won World War Two."

His point was that memorable presidents--good or bad--are those whose accomplishments can readily be summarized in a short sentence (he hastens to point out that the sentence is inevitably an oversimplification and generally gives the president described too much direct credit).

By this criterion, he believed (as I do) that Reagan will be remembered as the President who "Won the Cold War."

You may apply this criterion as you see fit to the presidents you have enumerated (or any others). I agree that Reagan will be remembered as Wattenberg suggested. Clinton? Well, how about "Monicagate"? With GWB it is too early to tell: the rest of them...forgotten figures bridging the memorable ones, I suspect.

P.S. In answer to your bonus question, the answer is "McKinley" (actually, the *real* answer is "Harding").

Once the generation that venerated JFK goes to his grave, he will be mercifully retired to the ranks of the has-beens and never-weres.

Carter and the first Bush will not garner much attention, being one-termers who didn't preside over cataclysmic disasters. Clinton will garner more attention (primarily for the impeachment oddity), but not a whole lot more, since he was essentially risk averse in a time in which no major crises came to the forefront (as opposed to lurking backstage), to force him to take chances. Reagan and the second Bush will be seen as large risk-takers, either by choice, or having unavoidable circumstances thrust upon them, and whether those risks are seen positively or negatively 100 years from now, both men will be memorable.

Since my time goes back further, I think the one most remembered will be Truman. Truman has the distinction, so far, of being the only President to have used a nuclear weapon. And, he has the good sense to be statesman enough to rebuild Europe and back forming the UN.

Of all the presidents since Truman, in 100 years I don't think any of them will be remembered in more than an grade school exercise of naming all the Presidents.

Limiting the field to post WW2 presidents, I would suggest Nixon will be "most memorable". Vietnam, detente, and impeachment. Followed by Reagan (I'm not at all certain he will or should get credit for a Cold War victory, but he was on watch when alot of stuff changed). Next comes JFK (killed in office, Cuban Missle Crises, dawn of Vietnam, Camelot-style, etc). Followed by Clinton (scandals will play well through the years I think). Bush41 and Carter were 1-termers. Too soon to say on Bush43.

Golly: It *is* easier when you can boil down the presidency into a one-sentance blurb....

I dunno. I suspect that in the popular mind Truman and Eisenhower will share the "came after FDR" distinction and nothing more. A lot depends of course on who the historians who are also good writers get interested in. I haven't *entirely* forgotten the one line that states "Better men than Aggamennon were forgotten for lack of a sacred poet [like Homer]."

Still, I think that Reagan is the one among them who will best be remembered since he was the President at several pivotal moments. Nixon and Clinton will always have a certain amount of common infamy for obvious reasons but I doubt anyone will be too eager to dwell much on either while Ford and Carter were pretty much too hapless to be anything more than placeholders. JFK will probably be remembered more for his assasination than for anything he did while LBJ, to the extent that he's remembered, will likely have more respect among the students of his period than he did while he was alive. I shan't make any predictions about our current President because it's too early to do so intelligently although, apart from anything else, he and his father may both draw attention for the same reason that John Adams and John Quincy Adams do.

So to sum up: I feel that Reagan's the one most likely to be remembered while JFK, Nixon and Clinton will be on the trivia lists and most of the others will be even more obscure. Now let's all try to live 100 more years so we can find out if I'm correct! ^_~

Clinton will probably be vaguely familiar to most people, but not remembered strongly. Andrew Johnson was impeached in a process that most people saw as political gamesmanship, and most people only slightly recall that. And if you think sex will make a scandal last longer, ask yourself what percent of the USA knows which president "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" refers to.

For Reagan to be remembered as having ended the Cold War, the Cold War will have to be remembered. I doubt that will happen. We don't tend to be very good at remembering events or trends that took longer than 10 years.

I could get snarky and say that in 100 years the "average guy" will have a brain with a hard drive attachment that knows more about every President than those of us do.

But in the spirit of the question, I think that the postwar Presidents will be regarded as a downward spiral until we get to the current one. I think that Reagan's reputation may be at its height right now. My guess is that future historians will find that his part in "winning the Cold War" was not as big as it seems today. My guess is that the Soviet Union was on its own timetable for unraveling, and it probably would have unraveled if the U.S. President had been Carter or Mondale.

But George Bush really is much different from President Gore. I think that he will end up making a bigger difference than Reagan. Am I being too contrarian?

I could get snarky and say that in 100 years the "average guy" will have a brain with a hard drive attachment that knows more about every President than those of us do.

But in the spirit of the question, I think that the postwar Presidents will be regarded as a downward spiral until we get to the current one. I think that Reagan's reputation may be at its height right now. My guess is that future historians will find that his part in "winning the Cold War" was not as big as it seems today. My guess is that the Soviet Union was on its own timetable for unraveling, and it probably would have unraveled if the U.S. President had been Carter or Mondale.

But George Bush really is much different from President Gore. I think that he will end up making a bigger difference than Reagan. Am I being too contrarian?

P.S. In answer to your bonus question, the answer is "McKinley" (actually, the *real* answer is "Harding").

"Harding" is a good quip, but I would say "Garfield" comes much closer to the mark(elected by a very close disputed election; shot during his first term; replaced by a vice-president he disagreed with politically who bucked the party machine that put him in the vp slot and who was not a candidate in the next election).

JimP's remarks about Harry Truman are very interesting. I'm not old enough to remember him as president, but his stature as a leader definitely seems to be rising as more of JFK's warts are exposed. I'm willing to bet that he is who most people have in mind when they express a preference for the unnamed 'Democratic nominee'. He'd give W a real run.

In answer to the main question,
LBJ - Vietnam
Nixon - Resignation
Ford - footnote
Carter - footnote
Reagan/Bush I - Ending the Cold War
Clinton - footnote on impeachment
GWB - 9/11 (at least)

Nixon and Clinton will be remembered on the same level as Andrew Johnson, as "resigned" and "impeached", respectively.

JFK will probably go into McKinley/Garfield levels of obscurity, as a president who died in office without doing much. If space becomes significant in the next century, and the historians emphasize his Moon speech enough, he might be remebered as the American equivalent of Ferdinand and Isabella. He will not be as big as Lincoln by a long shot.

Reagan has enough modern reverence and the fact that he was around (and arguably responsible for) for the break in the Cold War that he might make TR-level, but I wouldn't bet heavily on it.

Eisenhower will not be remebered so much as a president but as the victorious commanding general in the last conventional total war involving Great Powers. (There's no way anything as big could happen without extensive use of nukes.) If it were only for his presidency, though, he'd be forgotten.

Johnson, Carter, and Bush 41 will fall into Polk and Tyler levels of obscurity.

Bush 43? Far too early to tell. In fact, we probably won't be able to tell until thirty years from now, at least; the implications of the Islamist Terrorist War and his policy responses will take a while to really be evaluated properly.

BTW, re:"Ma, ma, where's my pa?" --

Cleveland. He beat "the continental liar from the State of Maine."

Warmongering Lunatic makes a good point about JFK: If space becomes significant in the next century, and the historians emphasize his Moon speech enough....

The same could be said about Nixon and China. If, say, 50 years from now China is a major power and US-China relations are a major factor in the world, Nixon may become quite prominent. (I actually don't expect this to happen, but others do.)

I can see Arnold Kling's point about Reagan, but I disagree. I think Reagan helped the USSR to unravel in a way that Carter or Mondale would not have, though it certainly would have unravelled by now. Reagan may deserve some credit for the unravelling being (mostly) non-violent, too, tho I don't know enough about that to say for sure.

Reagan also should be credited with slowing the growth of the Federal government, which is a major turning point in the post-WWII period. Without him, the US would look a lot more like France now.

As an aside, Carter deserves credit for starting the deregulation process (in his case, the airline industry), but I doubt he'll get the more than a footnote.

If the "average guy" can't decide who's the better prez after 1 day, 1 year or 1 decade after the fact, why would they be able to come to a consensus after 1 century? The kurtosis defining the average joe may be much flatter - and the schisms between individual opinions wider - in 100 years.

Or, history revisionists may be more prevalent - the January consensus may differ greatly from the February point of view. Perhaps the president will have a Czar of History Revision, or more likely, the marketing department of Mega Cola Inc will have a History Revision VP.

Lastly, history probably be more dependent on the multiverse that we’re born into --- the events that unfold between now and then may play a bigger role in shaping our opinions than anything directly impacted by any of those guys. My guess is that in 100 years they’ll all be considered equally insignificant.

If Reagan apologists continue to put forth the myth that he somehow had anything to do with ending the cold war, perhaps he will be remembered for that. Otherwise, he may be remembered for the huge deficits incurred during his presidency (even though blame can be shared to some degree with the Democratic house), as we probably will not have paid the debt down by then.

David Hecht, I like the "one sentence" rule. That's exactly the thing my post was about. What will stand out about each president to the average, non-historian of the future.

david: I think Clinton's scandal will be remembered longer than Cleveland's because of the naughtiness of it happening in the Oval Office.

Wallster, does anyone remember the fiscal policies of the 19th century? No one will hear "Reagan" and think "deficits" other than economic historians. I think there will be disagreement on Reagan's role in the Cold War, but the Cold War will be what everyone remembers about him.

I think Clinton will be remembered like Eisenhower, a period of good times but only moderate political interest. The scandal will be a footnote and little more.

I agree that Reagan deserves credit for taking a strong stand against the Soviet Union but coming apart was its destiny. For those that are skeptics, I suggest looking at the question backwards. Forget about imagining a President Carter or Mondale in the 80's, imagine the US actually *wanted* the USSR to keep going! Would any policy have significantly prolonged its life? I don't think so, look at how the IMF has tried and failed to sustain overvalued currencies in some developing nations. Even if the US had decided to give the Soviet Union hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, I'm skeptical that it would have prolonged the USSR's life for any significant period of tiem.

I think the best observation is that who will be remembered tomorrow will have as much to do with what is important tomorrow than it is with what happened today. Kennedy may get high marks for space....maybe Clinton will be remembered for the start of the great computer/information revolution...if the Middle East is highly relevant (in either a good or bad way) then Bush may merit a bigger mention.

Arnold, can't I go anywhere without hearing you talk about people with hard drives in their heads?

I suspect that, in a hundred years, the only post-WW2 Presidents most people remember will be Nixon and George W. Bush.

Nixon has become synonymous with political corruption and dirty tricks, even among people who weren't even born when he resigned. That's a good sign that he'll be remembered for a long time. He won't be remembered for Vietnam, though. In 2103 nobody's going to give a rat's ass about Vietnam. How many Americans remember who was President during the Mexican-American or Spanish-American wars? Vietnam is "important" solely because it traumatized the Baby Boomers, who will be long dead by then.

As for Bush -- he was President on 9/11, which would have been more than enough to make him memorable by itself. The war on terrorism and the various sub-wars involved in it will probably add to that. The scale of the war may not compare to WW2, or even to Vietnam (in terms of money spent and lives lost), but the triggering event -- the 9/11 attacks -- is the worst attack we've ever suffered. It will be remembered a century from now, unless something much worse, like the nuking of an American city, happens very soon.

Someone who doesn't understand the appropriations process: "even though blame can be shared to some degree with the Democratic house". You mean the House that absolutely definitely has to agree to spending or it doesn't happen? Unless of course by 'some degree' you mean a huge degree?

As for Reagan and the Cold War, Havel, Walesa and Solzhenitsyn all agree that Reagan had a lot to do with the fall of the USSR and freedom coming to its former clients. (And this time when I make the statement we won't get bogged down in whether or not his nuclear strategy was part of what they were praising because that isn't at issue here.)

Clinton will be remembered as the last Democrat to be elected President of the United States.

Clearly, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush will be the only ones remembered from this era. Perhaps George P. Bush as well, although he is destined only rise to become the governor of the 51st state of Cuba.

Call it the Adams effect. I don't have any idea what John Adams and John Quincy Adams did during their terms, but it is truly an American story that a kid could grow up to be President just like his Dad.

Do you Quincy's friends and supporters called him "Q"? I don't think that would work too well today.

-Brad

P.S. If you all agreed with me, sh*t wouldn't happen.

In my view, 100 years from now:

Carter will be remembered for having introduced concern for human rights into American foreign policy.

Reagan will be remembered for his dialogue with Gorbachev ending the Cold War. Bush I will be remembered for not having f*cked up the US's reaction to the fall of the Warsaw pact.

JFK: for the Cuban missile crisis, and for having bonked Marilyn Monroe.

Clinton, Nixon: footnotes.

It is simple: Everything from this time period (and before) will be seen through the lens of the Simpsons, running in its 115th season.

Nixon: Friend of Springfield A&M
Ford: Nice guy, likes football, beer, and nachos
Carter: History's greatest monster.
Reagan: Rapper. "Well..."
Bush I: Bad neighbor.
Clinton: Played Sax, ended up as mail man.

-Donut

Clinton's economic good times? How many people know which presidents presided over booms in the 19th Century? The only thing even slightly noteworthy about his presidency in a hundred years will be that he got impeached. If that's forgotten, so will he.

Same for just about everything Tom mentioned. That's all minutae from a hundred years to the postulated average guy. Hell, the average HS student today couldn't tell you about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that's the only item there that has any historical resonance down a hundred years.

Even if Clinton is the last Democrat ever, nobody'll remember that, any more than they remember President Whoever-He-Was, the last Whig president.

Brad has a good point -- Bush & Bush will be remembered merely because they're a father and son pair.

So, Bush & Bush because a father & son pair will be noted. Nixon for resigning, probably. Clinton maybe for being impeached. Reagan and JFK less probable, it depends on how the historians wind up evaluating the fall of the USSR/Moon race. Nobody else even a shot.

JFK will be remembered because of the assassination if nothing else.

Nixon will be remembered for resigning.

Reagan possibly, if the 'won the Cold War' meme sticks.

Too early to tell with GWB.
(I'm sticking to post WWII presidents.)

Ford, Carter, Johnson, Clinton and Bush 41 will all be memorized names at best.

JFK will be remembered in the same way the Archduke Ferdinand is remembered -- for being the victim of an assassination that marked the end of one era and the beginning of the next era. I think the effect of the counterculture movement and its illiberal effect on liberalism will be seen as important for the effect it had on the last quarter of the 20th Century. The "liberalism" created by the counterculture is not true liberalism, as we are seeing today, but is at its core utopian with totalitarian tendencies.

Reagan will be seen as important, not just for ending the Cold War, but for been the first step to reassert traditional liberalism (in the 19th century sense of the term) over the counterculture liberalism. George W. Bush will be seen as a continuation of this effort.

Clinton, will be viewed as a more scandalous version of Calvin Coolidge.

Nixon, like Harding.

Carter, Ford and George H.W. Bush will be footnotes.

While George W. Bush will be seen as a part of the trend started by Reagan, his fate ultimately rests with the outcome of the War on Terror. Too early to call, but with a lot of potential upside if sucessful.

"Ma Ma, Where's my Pa?"

"Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"

I agree with Atlanta that Clinton will be viewed like Coolidge (who had to deal with the fallout from the Teapot Dome scandal on his watch - even though he was only VP when it occurred)... that is, a boom-time President who didn't have anything real important happen on his watch. I would say that he will be slightly less known than Ike, who had to deal with the Cold War and who, of course, will also be known for what he did in WWII.

I also agree with Atlanta re Reagan.

I don't think we can tell yet how important 9/11 and the War on Terror will be in historical terms. The analogy between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 only hold up if the War on Terror is an important war, historically. Who knows... 9/11 could be like the sinking of the Maine and the War on Terror like the Spanish-American War (actually, it probably has already surpassed the Spanish-American War in importance... maybe it will be as important as the War of 1812...)

To answer the question, I though about what the chapters from the late 20th century will be in the high school US history text of 2100. My first guesses:

Certain:
End of World War II / Atomic Bomb
Cold War
Women's Liberation
Civil Rights
Information Age

Possible:
Vietnam
Rise of Asia
Space
Continuation of New Deal (War on Poverty)
60's culture
Hispanization of US

Which presidents are key figures in any of these?

The only certain mentions for the major stories are Truman for WWII and Truman and Reagan for Cold War (deservedly or not, they framed the story.) Ike will be remembered as a famous general who also was president, like US Grant.

JFK might make it if the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations get linked as part of the civil rights story. He also has a shot, as mentioned by others for starting the space race.

LBJ and Nixon might get mid-level billing (say at the TR or Madison level) for Vietnam, the 60s' culture wars, Great Society, and/or China.

Carter, Ford, GHW Bush, Clinton are footnotes. They each have some intersting story, but that will be in a sidebar, not as part of the main text.

What is interesting is how many of the key stories are not about presidents.

Too early to have any perspective on GW Bush, but I would guess that 9/11 and the war on Islamic terrorism will put him at least into the mid-range. If he is re-elected and the war moves to another major campaign (win or loose) he will likely be a major figure.

Eisenhower built the interstate system, that makes him a near demi-god in my book!

I just thought of Clinton's likely legacy. He will be the subject of the best selling biography of 2103, blurbed as "the fascinating story of someone you probably only remember as the sex scandal who was president between Bush and his father."

I suppose a related question is how will 9/11 be remembered 100 years from now? I have a feeling it will be more of a footnote than a chapter. Like the Titanic it will be remembered for its drama but on the scale of 100 years I don't think it will be a major change. By comparison, Pearl Harbour marked the shift of the US from an isolationist power to taking over the UK's role as world superpower.

There is no war going on between Islamic civilizations and the West except on a very small scale. 9/11, I predict and hope, will be Al Qaeda's 'one hit wonder', like the nameless person from ancient Greek history who burned down a huge temple so 'his name would be remembered'. Remembered yes, in a footnote.

just a thought...maybe the best criterion for a memorable president is if they have any memorable dialog. just think about it:

reagan: tear down this wall!
clinton: i did not have sexual relations...
lincoln: four score and seven years ago...
fdr: december 7 is a day that shall live in infamy...

discuss....

A good way to think about the question, which Presidents from 1945-2003 will be rememebered by the "average person" 100 years from now, is to think which presidents from 1845-1903 are remembered by the average person today.

There would be two: Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Mostly because they are on Mt. Rushmore, and Lincoln is on the penny and the $5 bill.

The "average person" knows next to nothing about history.

A different question - What will historians remember and write about?

Well, for most professional historians the ninteenth century is a story of processes - the origins of the Civil War and then Reconstruction and the rise of industrial and finance capitalism.

Aside from Lincoln, presidents are minor players in this story.

The story of the origins of the Civil War focuses on other players - senators like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, abolitonists like William Llyod Garrison and Frederick Douglass, etc.

In the late 19th century, industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, etc. and labor leaders like Terrence Powederly and John L. Lewis, etc. are far more important than Garfield and Hayes.

The Cold War, the rise of the information/electronic economy are the big stories. The radical Islamism vs. the West conflict is still playing out, so it remains to be seen whether it is epochal or ephemeral.

But, I doubt whether any of the recent presidents will be remembered by the average person - depends on if the carve a few more heads into Mt. Rushmore or start putting them on large-circulation denominations of the money.

Writing from another country I may already be viewing things from further away than an American.

Teddy Roosevelt is famous for one thing really, having a toy named after him. So if any presidents REALLY want to get immortal, they know where to start...

I think Clinton will go down in history as the worst president ever, worse that Bucannan, Nixon, or Grant. The constant drumbeat of scandal after scandal, his unwillingness to act after the first WTC bombing in 1993, withdrawal from Somalia after Black Hawk Down, which in turn enboldened bin Ladan into 9-11. I am hard pressed to come up with anything that Clinton did that was positive and not force upon him, such as welfare reform.

And Clinton has been bad for his party. I note that almost every candidate Clinton campaigns for, with very few exceptions, fails to win their elections. His most recent victim of the reverse midas touch has been Gray Davis. (But to be fair, Davis had a lot of problems without Clinton.) Since he took office, the Democratic party has lost both houses of Congress, a majority of statehouses and state governorships, and has seen their political power shrinking more and more.

While 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, Clinton, like Bucannan before him, will be seen as the guy who got us there. And Bush, like Lincoln, will be seen as the guy who got us out, and did some additional good along the way.

With the current trend of party affiliation trending to the Republicans and the death of the counterculture babyboomers I see the writers of history changing within 20 years. History will no longer be written to aggrandize the Liberalism of the counterculture. It will be once again written as what it is, history and not revisionist history.

Lincoln = Civil War - Free Slaves

FDR = WWII

Reagan = End of Cold War - (Gorby has given Reagan the credit in a documentary on the History Channel)

GW Bush = War on Terror

Ike, LBJ, JFK, Clinton, Carter, GHW Bush, will be footnotes. The scandals of Clinton and the assination of JFK are currently seen thru eyes that lived thru them but will be only footnotes.

One should note that the majority of Presidents that are remembered are remembered for the wars they brought our country thru.

With the current trend of party affiliation trending to the Republicans and the death of the counterculture babyboomers I see the writers of history changing within 20 years. History will no longer be written to aggrandize the Liberalism of the counterculture. It will be once again written as what it is, history and not revisionist history.

Lincoln = Civil War - Free Slaves

FDR = WWII

Reagan = End of Cold War - (Gorby has given Reagan the credit in a documentary on the History Channel)

GW Bush = War on Terror

Ike, LBJ, JFK, Clinton, Carter, GHW Bush, will be footnotes. The scandals of Clinton and the assination of JFK are currently seen thru eyes that lived thru them but will be only footnotes.

One should note that the majority of Presidents that are remembered are remembered for the wars they brought our country thru.

Ordi - what was the special on the History Channel on which Gorby "gave credit" to Reagan. I'd love to hear it in its context.

Boonton is absolutely right, the USSR was on it's way out anyway. This "Reagan ended the cold war" theory put forth by his apologists is bunk that will not last the test of time.

I've posted my answers here. I was a little surprised to see that no one else considered Hillary's future in Bill's memorability factor.

As far as Clinton goes, I think there are three possibilities for him, depending on whether the Democrats continue to march off into the fever-swamps of the "Angry Left":

1. The Dems come around to the notion that--as the only Democrat elected to two terms as President since FDR, and only one of three such Democratic presidents in the entire 20th century (the third being Woodrow Wilson, whom he resembles in many ways)--Clinton was on to something. In this scenario, the Dems come back to the center--possibly as early as 2008, under Hillary, repackaged as a moderate--and Bill goes down as a Democratic version of Eisenhower: someone who came in as a two-termer after a long period of dominance by the other party, and who forced his party to adapt to the substantial changes in the political landscape, thus making it relevant again.

2A. The Dems spend considerable time experimenting with interesting ways to lose at the national level, and Clinton comes to be seen as a 20th-century version of Grover Cleveland--a man out of step with the activists in his party, who was twice elected to the Presidency, but only as a kind of parenthesis in what was otherwise a very long period of Republican dominance.

2B. It's also possible that Clinton may be seen as another Woodrow Wilson: a near-accidental president, elected by a plurality in an era of Republican dominance when the majority party split; re-elected in part because of ongoing splits in the majority party, and thus elected twice to the Presidency without ever receiving the votes of a majority. Why is this germane? Because--like Wilson--Clinton had some big ideas he wanted to implement, but they foundered on the shoals of his lack of a majority consensus backing them.

We don't tend to be very good at remembering events or trends that took longer than 10 years.

Yeah, like the Crusades, and the 30 Years' War, or the Hundred Years' War, and the Great Depression...we have no memory of stuff like that. The Roman Empire has fallen clean out of our heads. Likewise the Third Reich.

Wallster,

I am sorry I do not recall the name of the documentary. I got to thinking it was actually on the Biography channel. It was in their Bio on Reagan. You can probably order it off the web from them. I do recall it was about 30 to 40 minutes into the program. It made me sit up real quick because I know what a contested issue this is in some peoples minds. I can not believe the animus some people have for Reagan. Don't take me as an apologist for him. If these animus people see and hear Gorby in his own words it is unlikely they would not believe it due to their obdurate predilection.

Shell,

I considered Hillary in Bill's legacy but I don't think she is electable nation wide as even most feminists dislike her. Susan Saradon recently stated in a magizine interview she hated Hillary because all Hillary did was stand by her man.

While I generally agree with the comments on the placement of the various Presidents (especially the Clinton as Coolidge [but with less good jokes] comment), I think there is a serious possibility of the current president's standing that people are missing: he could be viewed as the President under whom the crisis started, but who led the country in the wrong direction and is therefore viewed as a failure, like Buchanan or Hoover.

The slavery/states' rights crisis started under Buchanan (Dred Scott, John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, etc.), but he responded by trying to keep all sides compromising when the time to compromise had ended. As a result, the Republicans arose and dominated the next 2 generations of politics.

The depression crisis started under Hoover (stock market crash, Bonus Army, "Hoovervilles", etc.) but he responded by keeping the lid on the Federal budget instead of "priming the pump" of the economy. As a result, the Democrats shed its agrarian history, became an urban-dominated party and dominated the next 2 generations of politics.

I believe that GWBush has responded in the wrong way to the events of 9/11 by making the US more unilateralist and by pursuing the wrong targets in the War on Terror by invading Iraq. As a result, it is possible that the country will realign towards the Democrats and Bush will be viewed as a failure.

(And yes, I realize that some of the Republican commentators may view this as 180 degrees wrong, and that Clinton was the one who responded wrongly to the initial battles of the War on Terror, leading to a realignment in favor of the Republicans. Time will tell.)

ordi, I also think it's unlikely that Hillary will win. Like Bush, she's very polarizing, and donors would come out of the woodwork to donate to the Anybody But Her campaign. Unlike Bush, she doesn't have any real accomplishments to stand on or a natural constituency. But she does have a powerful political machine, so I do consider it a possibility.

Dan-man, nice comparison of GW Bush and Hoover. I would point out that Hoover's policies weren't very different from Roosevelt's, it was mostly the rhetoric that was different in the 1932 election. (And, of course, FDR's "priming the pump" didn't get us out of the Depression, but he gets credit for it, or at least for feeling our pain, or maybe our fear...)

I'm no expert on Buchanan, but I don't think that comparison is nearly as apt. The slavery issue had been hanging fire since 1820 at least, and the evenly divided Senate didn't help. (Saying it started under Buchanan is way off base; maybe you could argue it moved from slow simmer to full boil.) Buchanan made a number of wrong moves, but by the late 1850s I doubt there were any right moves. It's not as though Taylor or Fillmore or Pierce would have handled things much better; their main accomplishments were also delaying and compromising, after all.

I suppose there might be a comparison between Clinton and Buchanan, if history decides that he should have responded more forcefully to Al Qaeda and that failing to do so led to the attacks of September 11. But that's also a major stretch, and comparing GW Bush to Lincoln seems pretty pointless.

If it was so obvious that Clinton was falling down on Al Qaeda, why did Bush do nothing about it until 9/11?

Henry Kissinger meet with Chou En-lai, Mao Tse-tung’s long time right hand man in 1972 in preparation for Nixon’s trip to China. During a social moment in their schedule, Kissinger asked Chou what he thought about the French Revolution. Chou replied: "Too soon"

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." G.W.F. Hegel
http://www.bartleby.com/66/78/27678.html

That being said Kennedy will be a trivia question: "Name the US presidents who were assasinated in office. Like Garfield, he will be remembered for little else.

PJ/Maryland,
"Hoover's policies weren't that different than Roosevelt's"?!?!? What are you snoking? Hoover believed the government had no role in creating a safety net for those harmed by the Depression, while Roosevelt's first 2 terms were consumed with creating one, starting from the first Hundred Days. While our host may not care for the safety net, I do not think anyone would seriously argue with statements that FDR's Presidency is the time the safety net was largely created, and Hoover would never have done so.

As to the Buchanan points, you are generally right that the issue went from simmer to boil during Buchanan's Presidency (that's why I used the word "crisis") and that the preceding Presidents did not and would not have acted differently (although I am less sure about Taylor than you are). However, the compromise in the Constitution and the 1820 Compromise lasted over a generation each. The 1850 and 1854 Compromises were thrown out very quickly, but at least papered over the problems for a few years. Buchanan did not seem able to forge a new compromise and did not propose anything new. Whether any national politican could have found a compromise is questionable (although I think a Cass, a Douglas or a Seward may have been more successful than Buchanan was). However, Buchanan did not, as Lincoln did to his credit, draw a line in the sand and stop compromising (and yes, Lincoln had it easier because the Southern states started to rebel prior to his taking office, making line-drawing more palatable).

Boonton,
If your comment was directed at me, please re-read my post. I am on your side here.

Carter will be remembered the way Millard Fillmore is now - as the ultimate placeholder.

DantheMan,
I'd say that the Democrats were already very much an urban party even before Roosevelt. Were it otherwise Al Smith would not have been the Democratic candidate in 1928 (Roosevelt got the nod in 1932 by the VP candidate on Smith's run). The Chicago Machine as we know it today was just coming into its own under "Tough Tony" Cermak and both New York and Boston had long been Democratic strongholds.

For that matter if the Democratic Party had been all that urban dominated under Roosevelt then the agricultural subsidies that Roosevelt had introduced would hardly have come into play since food that was both abundent and cheap was very much to the benefit of the citydweller rather than to the farmer.
- S.P.M.

Small Pink Mouse,
The Democrats were not historically an urban party. Al Smith was the first Democratic candidate to carry most of the major cities in Democratic history, and many cities continued to have Republican machines (including my native Philadelphia where the Democrats did not start to win city offices until the power of the Republican machine was broken by a new City Charter in the early 1950's).

FDR did not abandon the party's rural roots entirely (and it would be politically foolish of him to do so), and so he felt the need to create farm price supports, it is not the same thing as saying he did not change the Democrats' focus into an urban party with most of his programs aimed at urban manufacturing workers, both employed (minimum wage, Social Security, labor law, etc.) and unemployed (make-work programs like WPA, unemployment insurance, etc.).

Dan-man, this is not the best place to argue the differences and similarities between FDR and Hoover. I would point out that in 1932, FDR campaigned in part on Hoover's failure to balance the budget. Certainly FDR was much fonder of direct government programs than Hoover (who favored working through the states and limiting the federal government's direct role to public works projects), but then he was fonder of them than any previous president. As FDR's programs evolved (and failed or were struck down), his policies changed; whether Hoover's policies would have changed in similar ways (in the unlikely event of his re-election) is impossible to tell, but it's not out of the question. (Interesting trivia: Hoover won the 1928 election by about the margin he lost to FDR in 1932 [7 to 5 margin in popular vote].)

And, of course, Hoover's and FDR's policies both were similar in their extremely limited results.

My main problem with your Buchanan comparison was your statement that "The slavery/states' rights crisis started under Buchanan."

I don't see Lincoln's actions as drawing a line in the sand so much as being thrown in the deep end of the pool. (Why are we talking about swimming and beaches in November?) I'll have to read more, but I think most of Buchanan's problems came to a head with Lincoln's election, which is what finally drove Southern states to secede. Maybe if Douglas had been elected in 1860, Buchanan could have held the country together, and then Douglas would get the blame for the Civil War of 1864-1869?

PJ/Maryland,
I disagree with both of your sets of comments.

Hoover had opportunities to take action in the roughly 3 years between the Crash of 1929 and the election of 1932. With unemployment and what we now call homelessness rising rapidly and groups like the Bonus Army petitioning for relief, he chose to do little to nothing. I think there is little reason to believe that he would have proposed policies anything like FDR's no matter how long he remained in office.

Similarly, I disagree with your interpretation of the level of crisis under Buchanan. During most of his administration, open warfare raged through Kansas between pro- and anti-slavery forces, each trying to control the territory's government by killing or driving the other side out of the state, and people from each side flooded into the state to help their side. Buchanan never ordered the Army to restore order, nor tried to create a new compromise on the larger issues.

I will agree that Douglas (and Bell, too) was explicitly campaigning in 1860 to hold the country together, and may have been able to patch something together had he been elected. Lincoln and Breckenridge were both seen as more extreme in their views (though both were far less so than others in their parties), and the Civil War was likely inevitable if either were elected.

I think that both Hoover and Buchanan are essentially seen as having taken no action, and instead waited for the crisis to blow over. When it did not, Lincoln and FDR took their place, and took action which has been viewed historically as both popular and necessary, leading to their places at the top of the list of greatest presidents (along with Washington).

Dan-man, I know that your interpretation of Hoover (and Buchanan) as a do-nothing is the accepted one; I think if you look a little deeper, tho, you'll find this ignores a lot of facts.

On your Bleeding Kansas point, note that the Kansas-Nebraska Act took effect at the end of May 1854. The last deaths from the "open warfare" seem to have been in May of 1858. So almost three of the four years were before Buchanan took office in March 1857. He really just followed in President Pierce's footsteps in not sending the army. (And, considering he was mostly elected by the South, who knows what he would have had the army do if he had sent it.) WGBH seems to think that the new territorial governor's arrival marked the turning point; that was in September 1856, before Buchanan was elected.

On Hoover, I haven't been able to find Federal budget and unemployment stats from the 1930 period, and don't have time for a more thorough search. I expect that Federal spending rose sharply under Hoover, despite his rhetoric about private charities and that states and localities should handle relief. The revenue side probably dropped despite higher under Hoover and FDR, because of the economic collapse. My recollection is that even with all his spending, FDR didn't get the unemployment rate below 15% until the war.

Your suggestion that Lincoln and FDR were similar in taking "popular and necessary" action matches my understanding, though I would add "unconstitutional" to your adjectives. Buchanan was saddled with Dred Scott (and Chief Justice Taney, a blight on Maryland's history IMO), and Hoover also was timid in using government resources to end the Depression.

Of course, Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions were not as long lasting as FDR's; also, Lincoln was successful in winning the Civil War and ending slavery, while FDR needed Hitler's help to end the Depression.

i think none of them will be as obscure as most 19th century presidents, mainly because we've got this century all on tape.

Comments are Closed.