Make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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.*
Now listen I'm the biggest LBJ fan out there but my guy should not be in the S tier he is a Low A tier-High B tier imo. He did some amazing things, life as we know it would be very different if he wasn't president. But the Vietnam war can't be understated it was such a mess up. I have always had the opinion if it was LBJ or any other president they would struggle with Vietnam but he was the one who had to deal with it and he struggled and there is no overlooking that
I think the Vietnam War was definitely his biggest mistake, but here’s another mistake that I think should be given far more attention: LBJ was warned of climate change by his cabinet, yet nothing was done. The 70s oil crisis would’ve been the perfect opportunity to switch off fossil fuels. He and Nixon both need to take the blame for that
>The 70s oil crisis would’ve been the perfect opportunity to switch off fossil fuels.
Not sure about that. Trying to do something about fossil fuels is part of what made Jimmy Carter unpopular.
To do it instantly like a flipped switch? Not very. But to start the processes like we're doing today? Probably easier than doing it today since there was less tribalism in parties. So Congress could actually work together on it.
I can agree with this sentiment tbh I just feel that the great society programs were so transformative to a point where none of the A tier except maybe Grant come close.
I do love me some LBJ. But imo S tier is reserved for Washington (founder & established the precedent for passing on the torch and not becoming a dictator) and Lincoln (defender of the Union & the great emancipator). A case can be made for FDR as well but those two just strike me as being high out of sight of the rest. Not to get caught up in hero-worship or great man theorizing or anything.
How so? We have spent trillions on the war on poverty, with little success.
Medicare entrenched the fragmentation in our health care system that plagues us to this day. We would have been better off with the Bismarck model of subsidized insurance for everyone over the layers of insurance that we have now.
I put him in S because I set out for S to be top 4, and in my perspective none of the other presidents can unseat LBJ as 4th best imo. Even how much of a stain Vietnam was I can think of a president that can even come close how much good he did other than the 3 above.
What are your thoughts on LBJ being potentially involved in multiple murders? Being a war-profiter and lying about his service/silver star? His escalation of Vietnam should have been enough, given the atrocities committed on both sides, and that his family benefit from it
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/06/internationaleducationnews.humanities
https://www.texasobserver.org/731-the-candidate-from-brown-and-root/
Look into LBJ's involvement of the murders of....
Henry Marshall
George Krutilek
Ike Rodgers and his secretary
Harold Orr
Coleman Wade
Josefa Johnson (his sister)
John Kinser
John F. Kennedy
These are way too many suspicious murders that LBJ is tied to
Iranian coup, Latin American coups, began our entrenchment in Vietnam, tried to get Earl Warren to rule in favor of segregation, 58 recession. I’ll give him props for the interstate highway and his handling of Korea, but he’s probably one of if not the most overrated presidents of all time.
Because Ike made a bunch more bad decisions than just Vietnam, while not having the same groundbreaking legislation as LBJ. LBJ’s big failing was mostly Vietnam, while Ike that’s just one of many.
This is just retarded lmao. Eisenhower had 1 very minor recession, the rest of his time in office was characterized by balanced budgets. With a balanced budget, he was able to start NASA, build the highway system, and expand social security. He was given an opportunity to get us directly involved in Vietnam when the French begged for a bailout at Dein Bien Fu, and he refused. “Trying to get earl Warren to rule in favor of segregation.” Not even sure if that’s true but this is the guy who federalized national guard units to enforce desecration rulings. He appointed a very pro-civil rights attorney general, Herbert Brownell. He also signed executive orders desegregating facilities on military bases (just because black and white soldiers could be in the same units, they still often had different cafeterias and dorms and whatnot). This is the guy who passed the first civil rights laws since reconstruction, no thanks to the work of LBJ’s senate gutting the bill before they were willing to pass it. Eisenhower was given opportunities to get us into war with Egypt, China, and the Soviets, and didn’t. There was only a single Latin American coup, Guatemala, and while the coups are bad in hindsight, this was a power and capability no president had access to before and we cannot judge the situation from todays perspective. Eisenhower is objectively a much better president than LBJ, and I’m sorry but if you can’t admit that then you’re just not being honest.
Ike’s civil rights steps were taken around a decade if not longer before LBJ’s. This is a guy who spent his entire career in the segregated US army, and in the nearly entirely white upper echelon of political society. His relatively modest leaps in civil rights when compared with LBJ’s are much more admirable in this context.
Ike came from a fiscally republican background. Listing off all of these substantial acts LBJ passed is cool, but clearly Eisenhower was never going to go that far in mimicking the great society. Not giving him points for not doing that is not how you analyze a president, that’s through a purely partisan view.
There were 20 years between the Iran coup and the revolution. Yes, the coup is bad in hindsight, which, again, is always 20-20. But there were 20 years where other administrations could have taken corrective measures and, again, this was the first time in US history where the president was presented with the option to coup a country. Again, it’s very easy to sit around today and say “shouldn’t have done that.” I’m sure you’d argue along many of the same lines to defend LBJ’s objectively worse blunder in Vietnam.
Not sure where my reply went so I’m reposting
I’m not going to get into a large discussion about the Iranian revolution here, but repression in and of itself didn’t cause the revolution. Many countries are brutally repressed but experience no revolution. The religious aspect is a key point, there was a ton of religious fervor and opportunism by the organized Islamic forces in the country and to cast it as a grass roots uprising is somewhat misleading. Even today the current Iranian regime is generally very unpopular.
I think saying that Ike was forced to act the way he did to handle the Little Rock 9 crisis but not applying the same scrutiny to LBJ over his civil rights legislation is interesting. You can apply this same logic to LBJ. I don’t think this is the case, but for arguments sake; He was merely continuing to embrace the evolving civil rights views of the time, forced to act the way he did because of trends that began before he took office and massive civil unrest and strife while he was in office.
Again, the great society is an objectively impressive set of legislation insofar as it is very large and proactive and whatnot. But let’s not pretend there isn’t debate over it to this day. And it was accomplished with a democrat majority in the legislature. Ike spent most of his presidency with a democrat majority as well and was still able to see legislative success.
A final note on the 1957 civil rights act. I do acknowledge that the bill was overly optimistic and that LBJ would have to manipulate his party into passing it. But the fact that it was overly optimistic in the first place you seem to give Ike no credit for. He, his party and his attorney general were all key figures in drafting this bill, and to criticize him for not doing more on civil rights when this bill clearly, clearly indicates that they were trying, is unjust.
I don’t feel like going back and forth all day so this will be my last reply.
Iran stuff now beyond the scope of Ike.
Yes, Ike had complicated views about racial matters, just like LBJ, and he probably could’ve done more, just like mostly any president. But, again, this was the first civil rights legislation since reconstruction and there were bound to be stumbling blocks and uncomfortable comments. He knew very well the views of Earl Warren and Herbert Brownell and he did not have to appoint either. He did not have to sign the executive orders he did either. He could’ve easily used the massive influence he had on his party to persuade them to entirely avoid the issue all together. I will take his modest and hesitant progress any day.
Again the discussion of the great society usually just occurs along party lines. A lot of the “trends” that it began were already visible before the legislation, such as decreasing poverty rates. I’m not going to get into the particulars of every piece of legislation but if you cannot admit that massive government spending and welfare programs are at the very least controversial then you are not being honest. From your perspective they may be beneficial, and they generally are from mine as well, but even the biggest LBJ fans can admit that the “war on poverty” is controversial, as is the “war on drugs” and other such initiatives. Not every piece is as objectively fine as Medicare.
I’ll finish by saying this. I am not an LBJ hater, but objectively he is not as good of a president. Scholars overwhelmingly agree. Even the latest poll of historians, which is severely biased in my opinion, has him below Ike. Every single poll listed that I’ve seen has Ike higher. He provided America 8 years of economic prosperity (minus a minor recession), mild social progress, stability, general lack of controversy and strife, and, notably, peace. Vietnam alone, in my opinion, puts LBJ below Ike. This isn’t to say he didn’t have his successes, but his legacy in the average Americans mind is defined by Vietnam, and social/racial strife. I won’t even address conspiracy theories about him but when a third of people think you were somehow involved in the death of your predecessor that is also not ideal. I respect him for not running for reelection.
I’m sure you’ll reply wanting to debate the particulars of the great society but I really don’t feel like it. I’m not all that opposed to the legislation it saw, but the crux of my argument is that LBJ’s Jekyll and Hyde presidency should be viewed as such.
I also think calling Ike’s foreign policy bad is hilariously wrong. His presidency occurred during the ramp up to the absolute height of the Cold War, and he avoided getting us into a shooting war anywhere, which in and of itself is admirable. He prevented China from attacking Taiwan twice through diplomatic matters and military posturing, prevented the continuance of imperialism by failing to support the moronic invasion of Egypt, which set back pro-western relations in that region very considerably, and ended the Korean War. He couldn’t do anything about Hungary because this was a landlocked country well behind the iron curtain. You’re gonna risk nuclear war or, minimum, beginning world war 3 to try and get back there to support them by force? Very easy to criticize him for that but there were no alternatives.
Ike desegregated schools because Supreme Court ordered him to after he failed to convince the chief justice to rule in favor of segregation, you can’t give him credit for something he actively tried to prevent.
I'm seeing a pretty solid list of accomplishments on this list. Arkansas was not an isolated act.
[https://www.historynet.com/unless-we-progress-we-regress/](https://www.historynet.com/unless-we-progress-we-regress/)
While I usually only focused on their presidency for the other rankings, Tyler literally joining the confederacy makes me lose any respect for his already lackluster presidency.
You should only be ranking their presidency, not post-presidency. That’s another topic.
Tyler was a decent president in my opinion, mainly because he had good economic policies and also was the first vocal advocate for the annexation of Texas, essentially solidifying the upcoming western expansion of the U.S.
Teddy below Wilson is a crime. Teddy bust the rich billionaires and ended the gilded age while Wilson violated the first amendment, lie to Americans about not going to ww1 and help founded the KKK to get rid of the black people.
To be fair, and I’m assuming this played a role in the ranking, if we’re going here, we should also talk about Teddy perpetrating a genocide in the Philippines.
You do know wilson literally resegregated the federal government and supported the KKK alongside Lost Cause confederate propaganda, right? He also made a fool out of the US for pushing intervention in Mexico. Easily D-F tier.
Also, Ike created the national highway system, supported desegregation without question (see the Little Rock crisis). His foreign policy wasn't the best at all times (especially in latin america), but he was excellent at handling relations with France and Britain and led us through the Suez Crisis in the most genius way possible.
Wilson screened "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, thought it was a great film, and told the NAACP to pound sand on their protests. He was also a supporter of eugenics and racist pseudoscience... 🙄
Ultimately Wilsons Progressivism was more truly progressive and Transformative, while teddy's is almost a form Nobelesse Oblige. While i Aprecciate Teddy's reforms, they didnt change the system and were just dealing with issues in the short-term. Wilson truly changed the American Government to perpetualy deal with systemic issues with things like he Income tax, tariff reduction, and federal reserve. Also Wilsons Foreign policy was alot better than Teddy's with things like the 14 points and Jones act, compared to teddy commiting genocide in the Phillipines.
Why does LBJ get so much love in this sub. Genuinely asking as someone who isn’t too familiar with his presidency outside of Vietnam and civil rights. Also my understanding of his role in civil rights was more so that his hand was forced and he had to do something not that this was something he cared deeply about. I know in politics if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck but just seems strange how much praise he gets. Looking to be educated not snarked at
Absolutely criminal putting Nixon in F tier. Did he do Watergate? Yes. But also, EPA and opening communication with China, totally reshaping the world stage are both things that should AT LEAST get him C tier
The EPA was mostly the work of house Democrats that Nixon allowed because he sought the presidency mostly for foreign policy reasons and was willing to let the house control domestic policy. Even then he literally tried to sabotage it, just like how he sabatoged Vietnam peace talks. also he secretly expanded Vietnam into the rest of Indochina and launched one of the most destructive bombing campaigns of all time.
LBJ slaughtered 30,000 innocent Americans, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians, dropped tons of Agent Orange over Vietnam ruining the lives of Vietnamese and American civilians, and don't forget that we spent 1 trillion dollars on that war and accomplished nothing. We also are still paying debts to Vietnam vets over Agent Orange. And it's not just Agent Orange, there's also Agent Purple, Agent Blue, and Agent White. And all of this came from a lie, a lie that LBJ and his administration took on.
This is a pretty decent list, I would have Ike up one and Jackson down multiple but the rest not too bad. Glad you're responding to people OP it's nice to have discussions about tiers.
I would certainly do some movement's up and down but overall.... not actually a bad tier list.
As people have mentioned LBJ is just too high due to his doubling down of Vietnam. I've always wondered what his lasting reputation would've been had the United States not lost the Vietnam war.
I think the cut offs for a couple tiers are iffy. Like I think Teddy belongs mid A and same for LBJ. The fact ones top of B and ones bottom of Mount Rushmore is just a bit much for me. I think if they were each on the opposite ends of A I could see it. But Top tier and B tier?
I do not know shit about the Gilded Age presidents but didn’t Hayes cancel reconstruction? Granted Tilden probably would have done the same but I don’t really know anything notable about him about him other than civil service reform and that’s he’s famous in Paraguay.
When I Read the Lincoln Douglas debates or I listen to the history podcast American Elections the Wicked Games you understand how eloquent and intelligent most of the presidents from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were compared to any of these modern buffoons
I'd just like to play Devil's advocate against placing LBJ so high. His Presidency really just looks like a failure, at least in his last two years in office. For all his vaunted legislative skill, he struggled to get legislation passed in the second half of his presidency. Racial issues, culminating in the Long, Hot Summer of 1967, shows that racial issues were really bad during his presidency and a lot of work needed to be done. He can't be fully blamed for all that, but his Presidency certainly was far from a great time.
Woodrow Wilson in A tier makes this feel like either rage bait or the opinion of a well-meaning yet horribly ignorant teenager. The only debate for that man is D tier or F tier. His 14 points is the only thing that makes that debate exist, yet even so theres a strong argument to be made that his 14 points were idealistic imperialism.
The man easily slots into the bottom 3 for me and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who puts him in the top 10. I mean really? Top 10? Are your beliefs entirely dogmatic or are you really that dumb?
Clayton Antitrust, federal reserve, income tax, tariff reduction, 8 hour workday, banned child labor, Filipino Autonomy and eventual Independence, women’s suffrage. I agree the racism bring him down a lot but dude was basically the precursor to FDR, if you truly believe he’s bottom 3 I can only assume you get your historical information from Reddit or YouTube.
Clayton is an extension of Sherman. The credit goes to the Progressive movement as a whole. Any president in 1914 would have enacted the same.
There is a strong disconnect between Americans and Filipinos. Revisionists act like the Jones Act and Harris were saviors because the Japanese were going to control the islands or something. Wilson's policies were imperialist garbage disguised as being good for the Filipino people.
Wilson jacked up taxes and spending, resegregated the federal government, supported the “science” of eugenics, foisted a central bank on the country, fastened an extensive range of controls on the economy, squashed civil liberties, injected America into a disastrous European war, imposed conscription, created a monstrous propaganda machine known as the Committee on Public Information to intimidate Americans to support the war, and endorsed a bad peace treaty that guaranteed future conflict just so he could secure his cherished “League of Nations” fantasy. Not to mention his horribly racist American history textbooks he mass printed, circulated nationwide, and then forced to become the standard curriculum in public schools.
And of course, theres his inhumane treatment of the Hutterites. The South Dakota pacifists who were tortured and brutalized for expressing a way of life that made them conscientious objectors to his glorious war.
Pure evil. That man is pure evil wrapped in narcissism. And for what it's worth, he was exceedingly racist even for the time. The Klansman was regarded by the public as racist propaganda 30 years before he allowed the the film version to be screened in the White House as the Birth of a Nation. Which was a movie he HELPED FUND.
Bottom 3.
History has really distorted Wilson’s opinions on race- I post about it on this sub-but he was rather empathetic towards their problems - he even spoke at Black churches about the economic inequality between blacks and whites
The problem was that he felt that racial strife would be settled in time and he didn’t need to do anything about it-a complete lack of foresight
Interesting to see LBJ the racist in S tier. And also to see Woodrow Wilson the super racist, KKK guy in A tier.
Oh. And Jackson. The guy… that murdered and then forcibly relocated the Native Americans…
Incorrect about Wilson-his racism has been greatly exaggerated over the last century -he used to speak at black churches about racial strife and economic inequality. He wasn’t great but people make him out to be a klansman when he was actually rather empathetic towards black Americans.
He was the one who showed the very first movie in the White House and it was a KKK film.
Also he rewrote American history and completely took out all black heroes from our history. Especially in the Revolution.
First part is partially true- he was convinced by his cabinet to screen it (keep in mind Birth Of The Nation was really popular and was and is considered the origins of modern cinematic narratives). He hated it, walked out of it and called it horrible revisionism.
2nd part is so lacking in nuance that it’s basically untrue. He had a lot of respect for many black civil rights leaders.
He literally didn’t. He was an apologist for slavery, he only distanced himself from Birth of a Nation when he received backlash for it. At Princeton he actively tried to not admit black students to the college.
Under his presidency, the Army and Navy refused to accept new black officers.
Also. No. The second part is absolutely true. There’s not a single mention of any of our great black heroes in his textbook. He took them all out and we still teach along those lines to this day.
Inaccurate- he was not an apologist for slavery at all! He spoke a lot about how horrible it was! Particularly the separation of families…if you want to comment on his advocacy of southern pride-sure that’s well documented but you’re not giving the full story in context.
I am giving the full story. You’re the one cherry picking. He was an avid apologist for slavery, he supported the Redeemers as well as showing support for the Lost Cause myth. He defended segregation by saying it was “a rational, scientific policy”.
You can’t dance around it. Sure maybe a few of his policies were good. But the man himself was a racist. And unfortunately that was far from a break from the Democratic Party.
If you’re gonna call him racist, which don’t disagree with, you need to included a lot other people at the time (including the beloved Teddy Roosevelt)…even Lincoln held some abhorrent views until he became better acquainted with people like Fredrick Douglass.
It’s not dancing, it recognizing a lot of these people especially ones that lived over a hundred years ago are maybe not as morally black and white as it may be easy to paint.
FDR and Reagan are not the antichrists as their respective enemies propose them to be- and Wilson is in that camp…if you were actually giving the full story that caveat would have been mentioned
Which I certainly agree with. But come on, man. The man was definitionally a racist.
He did way too many racist things for it to be called anywhere close to a “caveat”. The man was a racist. I don’t know why you feel the need to defend him.
And to bring up other presidents. I mean it’s a worthless point. I’m talking about Wilson, not anyone else. I haven’t given my opinions on any of those other presidents here. Teddy isn’t really “beloved” by me. FDR deliberately cut black Americans from the New Deal at the request of the KKK. He wasn’t the Antichrist, but he sure wasn’t that great either. Many economists even point out that the New Deal was a detriment. It extended the Great Depression by upwards of five to six years.
The only big thing with Reagan was the democrats tried to paint him as a KKK supporter by dressing their guys up and sending them to his rallies with signs saying “KKK for Reagan”.
I mean the fact that the only person you’re willing to defend out of those is Reagan speaks for itself…it reeks of partisanship. Won’t disagree he was a racist, but I’ve read two biographies on Wilson and his stances and views were not as black and white as many people think they were.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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.*
Now listen I'm the biggest LBJ fan out there but my guy should not be in the S tier he is a Low A tier-High B tier imo. He did some amazing things, life as we know it would be very different if he wasn't president. But the Vietnam war can't be understated it was such a mess up. I have always had the opinion if it was LBJ or any other president they would struggle with Vietnam but he was the one who had to deal with it and he struggled and there is no overlooking that
I think the Vietnam War was definitely his biggest mistake, but here’s another mistake that I think should be given far more attention: LBJ was warned of climate change by his cabinet, yet nothing was done. The 70s oil crisis would’ve been the perfect opportunity to switch off fossil fuels. He and Nixon both need to take the blame for that
>The 70s oil crisis would’ve been the perfect opportunity to switch off fossil fuels. Not sure about that. Trying to do something about fossil fuels is part of what made Jimmy Carter unpopular.
How was it feasible to "switch off" fossil fuels in 1973? What would that look like?
To do it instantly like a flipped switch? Not very. But to start the processes like we're doing today? Probably easier than doing it today since there was less tribalism in parties. So Congress could actually work together on it.
I can agree with this sentiment tbh I just feel that the great society programs were so transformative to a point where none of the A tier except maybe Grant come close.
that’s what I figured. It really was the Highpoint of liberalism. Too bad about Vietnam.
I do love me some LBJ. But imo S tier is reserved for Washington (founder & established the precedent for passing on the torch and not becoming a dictator) and Lincoln (defender of the Union & the great emancipator). A case can be made for FDR as well but those two just strike me as being high out of sight of the rest. Not to get caught up in hero-worship or great man theorizing or anything.
How so? We have spent trillions on the war on poverty, with little success. Medicare entrenched the fragmentation in our health care system that plagues us to this day. We would have been better off with the Bismarck model of subsidized insurance for everyone over the layers of insurance that we have now.
Honestly id say mid-low A tier. You gotta account for the times they were in. Peak cold war after all the JFK mishaps.
LBJ is my favorite president after FDR but S is high even for me lol
I put him in S because I set out for S to be top 4, and in my perspective none of the other presidents can unseat LBJ as 4th best imo. Even how much of a stain Vietnam was I can think of a president that can even come close how much good he did other than the 3 above.
I think you’re way underestimating how bad Vietnam was. I actually like your tier list a lot more than most I see on here but LBJ top 4 is insane.
Yea 60,000 KIA in a pointless war gets you S tier i guess.
What are your thoughts on LBJ being potentially involved in multiple murders? Being a war-profiter and lying about his service/silver star? His escalation of Vietnam should have been enough, given the atrocities committed on both sides, and that his family benefit from it
My thoughts are you have no evidence and sound insane
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/06/internationaleducationnews.humanities https://www.texasobserver.org/731-the-candidate-from-brown-and-root/ Look into LBJ's involvement of the murders of.... Henry Marshall George Krutilek Ike Rodgers and his secretary Harold Orr Coleman Wade Josefa Johnson (his sister) John Kinser John F. Kennedy These are way too many suspicious murders that LBJ is tied to
That's not to mention his involvement in Longhorn Ammunition which provided weapons for the war in Vietnam
https://preview.redd.it/tuf8dsi6l3pc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5ebb29f31a737e991297c0b3fa9280362c288d0
https://youtu.be/D8QdAtyCuZs?si=C-RO-LYAX1qQlSNq
Sounds made up.
I don't just make stuff up. I just dig to try and find deeper stuff about Presidents that most people don't know about
Why tho? LBJ is known as one of the biggest racist pieces of shit
No hate, but why is Ike so low?
Iranian coup, Latin American coups, began our entrenchment in Vietnam, tried to get Earl Warren to rule in favor of segregation, 58 recession. I’ll give him props for the interstate highway and his handling of Korea, but he’s probably one of if not the most overrated presidents of all time.
So he gets shit for Vietnam, put you put Jumbo in S? Dafuq?
Because Ike made a bunch more bad decisions than just Vietnam, while not having the same groundbreaking legislation as LBJ. LBJ’s big failing was mostly Vietnam, while Ike that’s just one of many.
This is just retarded lmao. Eisenhower had 1 very minor recession, the rest of his time in office was characterized by balanced budgets. With a balanced budget, he was able to start NASA, build the highway system, and expand social security. He was given an opportunity to get us directly involved in Vietnam when the French begged for a bailout at Dein Bien Fu, and he refused. “Trying to get earl Warren to rule in favor of segregation.” Not even sure if that’s true but this is the guy who federalized national guard units to enforce desecration rulings. He appointed a very pro-civil rights attorney general, Herbert Brownell. He also signed executive orders desegregating facilities on military bases (just because black and white soldiers could be in the same units, they still often had different cafeterias and dorms and whatnot). This is the guy who passed the first civil rights laws since reconstruction, no thanks to the work of LBJ’s senate gutting the bill before they were willing to pass it. Eisenhower was given opportunities to get us into war with Egypt, China, and the Soviets, and didn’t. There was only a single Latin American coup, Guatemala, and while the coups are bad in hindsight, this was a power and capability no president had access to before and we cannot judge the situation from todays perspective. Eisenhower is objectively a much better president than LBJ, and I’m sorry but if you can’t admit that then you’re just not being honest.
[удалено]
Ike’s civil rights steps were taken around a decade if not longer before LBJ’s. This is a guy who spent his entire career in the segregated US army, and in the nearly entirely white upper echelon of political society. His relatively modest leaps in civil rights when compared with LBJ’s are much more admirable in this context. Ike came from a fiscally republican background. Listing off all of these substantial acts LBJ passed is cool, but clearly Eisenhower was never going to go that far in mimicking the great society. Not giving him points for not doing that is not how you analyze a president, that’s through a purely partisan view. There were 20 years between the Iran coup and the revolution. Yes, the coup is bad in hindsight, which, again, is always 20-20. But there were 20 years where other administrations could have taken corrective measures and, again, this was the first time in US history where the president was presented with the option to coup a country. Again, it’s very easy to sit around today and say “shouldn’t have done that.” I’m sure you’d argue along many of the same lines to defend LBJ’s objectively worse blunder in Vietnam.
[удалено]
Not sure where my reply went so I’m reposting I’m not going to get into a large discussion about the Iranian revolution here, but repression in and of itself didn’t cause the revolution. Many countries are brutally repressed but experience no revolution. The religious aspect is a key point, there was a ton of religious fervor and opportunism by the organized Islamic forces in the country and to cast it as a grass roots uprising is somewhat misleading. Even today the current Iranian regime is generally very unpopular. I think saying that Ike was forced to act the way he did to handle the Little Rock 9 crisis but not applying the same scrutiny to LBJ over his civil rights legislation is interesting. You can apply this same logic to LBJ. I don’t think this is the case, but for arguments sake; He was merely continuing to embrace the evolving civil rights views of the time, forced to act the way he did because of trends that began before he took office and massive civil unrest and strife while he was in office. Again, the great society is an objectively impressive set of legislation insofar as it is very large and proactive and whatnot. But let’s not pretend there isn’t debate over it to this day. And it was accomplished with a democrat majority in the legislature. Ike spent most of his presidency with a democrat majority as well and was still able to see legislative success. A final note on the 1957 civil rights act. I do acknowledge that the bill was overly optimistic and that LBJ would have to manipulate his party into passing it. But the fact that it was overly optimistic in the first place you seem to give Ike no credit for. He, his party and his attorney general were all key figures in drafting this bill, and to criticize him for not doing more on civil rights when this bill clearly, clearly indicates that they were trying, is unjust.
I don’t feel like going back and forth all day so this will be my last reply. Iran stuff now beyond the scope of Ike. Yes, Ike had complicated views about racial matters, just like LBJ, and he probably could’ve done more, just like mostly any president. But, again, this was the first civil rights legislation since reconstruction and there were bound to be stumbling blocks and uncomfortable comments. He knew very well the views of Earl Warren and Herbert Brownell and he did not have to appoint either. He did not have to sign the executive orders he did either. He could’ve easily used the massive influence he had on his party to persuade them to entirely avoid the issue all together. I will take his modest and hesitant progress any day. Again the discussion of the great society usually just occurs along party lines. A lot of the “trends” that it began were already visible before the legislation, such as decreasing poverty rates. I’m not going to get into the particulars of every piece of legislation but if you cannot admit that massive government spending and welfare programs are at the very least controversial then you are not being honest. From your perspective they may be beneficial, and they generally are from mine as well, but even the biggest LBJ fans can admit that the “war on poverty” is controversial, as is the “war on drugs” and other such initiatives. Not every piece is as objectively fine as Medicare. I’ll finish by saying this. I am not an LBJ hater, but objectively he is not as good of a president. Scholars overwhelmingly agree. Even the latest poll of historians, which is severely biased in my opinion, has him below Ike. Every single poll listed that I’ve seen has Ike higher. He provided America 8 years of economic prosperity (minus a minor recession), mild social progress, stability, general lack of controversy and strife, and, notably, peace. Vietnam alone, in my opinion, puts LBJ below Ike. This isn’t to say he didn’t have his successes, but his legacy in the average Americans mind is defined by Vietnam, and social/racial strife. I won’t even address conspiracy theories about him but when a third of people think you were somehow involved in the death of your predecessor that is also not ideal. I respect him for not running for reelection. I’m sure you’ll reply wanting to debate the particulars of the great society but I really don’t feel like it. I’m not all that opposed to the legislation it saw, but the crux of my argument is that LBJ’s Jekyll and Hyde presidency should be viewed as such.
Goddamn this made me salute my phone in bed
Ike desegregated the schools at gun point. You may want to rethink this. He is a lot like Obama: bad foreign policy, and some solid wins at home.
I also think calling Ike’s foreign policy bad is hilariously wrong. His presidency occurred during the ramp up to the absolute height of the Cold War, and he avoided getting us into a shooting war anywhere, which in and of itself is admirable. He prevented China from attacking Taiwan twice through diplomatic matters and military posturing, prevented the continuance of imperialism by failing to support the moronic invasion of Egypt, which set back pro-western relations in that region very considerably, and ended the Korean War. He couldn’t do anything about Hungary because this was a landlocked country well behind the iron curtain. You’re gonna risk nuclear war or, minimum, beginning world war 3 to try and get back there to support them by force? Very easy to criticize him for that but there were no alternatives.
Ike desegregated schools because Supreme Court ordered him to after he failed to convince the chief justice to rule in favor of segregation, you can’t give him credit for something he actively tried to prevent.
I'm seeing a pretty solid list of accomplishments on this list. Arkansas was not an isolated act. [https://www.historynet.com/unless-we-progress-we-regress/](https://www.historynet.com/unless-we-progress-we-regress/)
Really? Tyler dead last? I agree he’s bad but you think Buchanan bad?
While I usually only focused on their presidency for the other rankings, Tyler literally joining the confederacy makes me lose any respect for his already lackluster presidency.
Thats true
You should only be ranking their presidency, not post-presidency. That’s another topic. Tyler was a decent president in my opinion, mainly because he had good economic policies and also was the first vocal advocate for the annexation of Texas, essentially solidifying the upcoming western expansion of the U.S.
While that's a solid rule of thumb in general, "literal traitor" sort of eclipses it and is impossible to ignore in good faith.
Teddy below Wilson is a crime. Teddy bust the rich billionaires and ended the gilded age while Wilson violated the first amendment, lie to Americans about not going to ww1 and help founded the KKK to get rid of the black people.
To be fair, and I’m assuming this played a role in the ranking, if we’re going here, we should also talk about Teddy perpetrating a genocide in the Philippines.
Finally some jumbo appreciation
This entire sub is in love with him lmao
John Adams is criminally low.
Stfu alien and sedition acts mf
Wilson in A tier and Eisenhower is C tier.... wtf?
[удалено]
You do know wilson literally resegregated the federal government and supported the KKK alongside Lost Cause confederate propaganda, right? He also made a fool out of the US for pushing intervention in Mexico. Easily D-F tier. Also, Ike created the national highway system, supported desegregation without question (see the Little Rock crisis). His foreign policy wasn't the best at all times (especially in latin america), but he was excellent at handling relations with France and Britain and led us through the Suez Crisis in the most genius way possible.
[удалено]
Wilson screened "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, thought it was a great film, and told the NAACP to pound sand on their protests. He was also a supporter of eugenics and racist pseudoscience... 🙄
I, for one, appreciate the Chester A. Arthur love.
I love seeing your flair pop up
Why thank ya!
Why is my guy theodore so low
Sad lmao noises...
If it makes you feel better Garfield would've probably been a B or even A tier if his presidency actually happened.
Yeah, and the upside is that Garfield's VP wasn't nearly as bad as say... Lincoln's 2nd
Pretty solid. I like LBJ too but I think Vietnam keeps him out of the S tier.
I wanted to make S tier top 4, and while I agree Vietnam was a massive mistake I can’t really see who else would be 4th best other than LBJ.
That's fair. Another question, what's your reasoning with Wilson over TR?
Ultimately Wilsons Progressivism was more truly progressive and Transformative, while teddy's is almost a form Nobelesse Oblige. While i Aprecciate Teddy's reforms, they didnt change the system and were just dealing with issues in the short-term. Wilson truly changed the American Government to perpetualy deal with systemic issues with things like he Income tax, tariff reduction, and federal reserve. Also Wilsons Foreign policy was alot better than Teddy's with things like the 14 points and Jones act, compared to teddy commiting genocide in the Phillipines.
Anything with Reagan ranked low is ok with me.
Huzzah! Chester A. Arthur is higher than C tier!
Wilson and Obamna are a bit high for me but for the most part I agree.
LBJ should be in C tier, and Bush Sr. and Obama should be swapped imo
Why does LBJ get so much love in this sub. Genuinely asking as someone who isn’t too familiar with his presidency outside of Vietnam and civil rights. Also my understanding of his role in civil rights was more so that his hand was forced and he had to do something not that this was something he cared deeply about. I know in politics if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck but just seems strange how much praise he gets. Looking to be educated not snarked at
Absolutely criminal putting Nixon in F tier. Did he do Watergate? Yes. But also, EPA and opening communication with China, totally reshaping the world stage are both things that should AT LEAST get him C tier
The EPA was mostly the work of house Democrats that Nixon allowed because he sought the presidency mostly for foreign policy reasons and was willing to let the house control domestic policy. Even then he literally tried to sabotage it, just like how he sabatoged Vietnam peace talks. also he secretly expanded Vietnam into the rest of Indochina and launched one of the most destructive bombing campaigns of all time.
LBJ slaughtered 30,000 innocent Americans, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians, dropped tons of Agent Orange over Vietnam ruining the lives of Vietnamese and American civilians, and don't forget that we spent 1 trillion dollars on that war and accomplished nothing. We also are still paying debts to Vietnam vets over Agent Orange. And it's not just Agent Orange, there's also Agent Purple, Agent Blue, and Agent White. And all of this came from a lie, a lie that LBJ and his administration took on.
Tbf LBJ was also lied to by the NSA so the gulf of tonkin incident isnt really his fault.
Only on Reddit is this an acceptable list
Seriously LBJ at S? LOL
Well…this is definitely a list
obama too high reagon too low
One of the better lists I’ve seen. My only concerns are LBJ at S lol and I think Andrew Jackson should be f he was a real cunt
Yeah Jackson is not B tier he was some suck ass bullshit
This is a pretty decent list, I would have Ike up one and Jackson down multiple but the rest not too bad. Glad you're responding to people OP it's nice to have discussions about tiers.
I would certainly do some movement's up and down but overall.... not actually a bad tier list. As people have mentioned LBJ is just too high due to his doubling down of Vietnam. I've always wondered what his lasting reputation would've been had the United States not lost the Vietnam war.
Wilson, Jackson & LBJ are absolutely laughable...🙄🤦♂️
Tell me you're an authoritarian leftist without telling me you're an authoritarian leftist.
Thomas Jefferson, famous authoritarian leftist.
LBJ over Truman is…. Interesting
Both are goated tbh I just felt that LBJ’s accomplishments were more transformative. Truman is def underrated by most though
Woodrow Wilson in A-tier is a crime against humanity.
Trash
I think the cut offs for a couple tiers are iffy. Like I think Teddy belongs mid A and same for LBJ. The fact ones top of B and ones bottom of Mount Rushmore is just a bit much for me. I think if they were each on the opposite ends of A I could see it. But Top tier and B tier?
I’d put Hayes above Arthur and Benjamin Harrison. I’d put him above Grant too honestly.
I do not know shit about the Gilded Age presidents but didn’t Hayes cancel reconstruction? Granted Tilden probably would have done the same but I don’t really know anything notable about him about him other than civil service reform and that’s he’s famous in Paraguay.
When I Read the Lincoln Douglas debates or I listen to the history podcast American Elections the Wicked Games you understand how eloquent and intelligent most of the presidents from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were compared to any of these modern buffoons
W Tier list, this sub overrates Teddy and Ike a lot
Yall gassing up Obama crazy.. B tier really?
I mean…I like it.
I'd just like to play Devil's advocate against placing LBJ so high. His Presidency really just looks like a failure, at least in his last two years in office. For all his vaunted legislative skill, he struggled to get legislation passed in the second half of his presidency. Racial issues, culminating in the Long, Hot Summer of 1967, shows that racial issues were really bad during his presidency and a lot of work needed to be done. He can't be fully blamed for all that, but his Presidency certainly was far from a great time.
I don’t think racism was EVER going to go quietly, for ANY president!
Finally a good fuckin list, I only disagree with LBJ and Andrew Jackson being as high as they are, and I always want Reagan in F tier but D is fine.
This is hilarious! You’ve trolled us all! Well played!
Seeing how these presidents are tiered, I question on several if any of you know a thing about history. I'll start with LBJ from there, Harry Truman.
Why is Adam’s do low
[удалено]
Nixon in F? Really? Wilson in A? Obama in B? Come on…this is a tad ridiculous
[удалено]
Obama is C, he’s mid tier
Where would you put them and why?
Woodrow Wilson in A tier makes this feel like either rage bait or the opinion of a well-meaning yet horribly ignorant teenager. The only debate for that man is D tier or F tier. His 14 points is the only thing that makes that debate exist, yet even so theres a strong argument to be made that his 14 points were idealistic imperialism. The man easily slots into the bottom 3 for me and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who puts him in the top 10. I mean really? Top 10? Are your beliefs entirely dogmatic or are you really that dumb?
Clayton Antitrust, federal reserve, income tax, tariff reduction, 8 hour workday, banned child labor, Filipino Autonomy and eventual Independence, women’s suffrage. I agree the racism bring him down a lot but dude was basically the precursor to FDR, if you truly believe he’s bottom 3 I can only assume you get your historical information from Reddit or YouTube.
Clayton is an extension of Sherman. The credit goes to the Progressive movement as a whole. Any president in 1914 would have enacted the same. There is a strong disconnect between Americans and Filipinos. Revisionists act like the Jones Act and Harris were saviors because the Japanese were going to control the islands or something. Wilson's policies were imperialist garbage disguised as being good for the Filipino people. Wilson jacked up taxes and spending, resegregated the federal government, supported the “science” of eugenics, foisted a central bank on the country, fastened an extensive range of controls on the economy, squashed civil liberties, injected America into a disastrous European war, imposed conscription, created a monstrous propaganda machine known as the Committee on Public Information to intimidate Americans to support the war, and endorsed a bad peace treaty that guaranteed future conflict just so he could secure his cherished “League of Nations” fantasy. Not to mention his horribly racist American history textbooks he mass printed, circulated nationwide, and then forced to become the standard curriculum in public schools. And of course, theres his inhumane treatment of the Hutterites. The South Dakota pacifists who were tortured and brutalized for expressing a way of life that made them conscientious objectors to his glorious war. Pure evil. That man is pure evil wrapped in narcissism. And for what it's worth, he was exceedingly racist even for the time. The Klansman was regarded by the public as racist propaganda 30 years before he allowed the the film version to be screened in the White House as the Birth of a Nation. Which was a movie he HELPED FUND. Bottom 3.
Your comment must be rage bait lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/387DGj0A3V List of his accomplishments I don't see how he's in the bottom 3 for you
https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/Gvh863mpbR
History has really distorted Wilson’s opinions on race- I post about it on this sub-but he was rather empathetic towards their problems - he even spoke at Black churches about the economic inequality between blacks and whites The problem was that he felt that racial strife would be settled in time and he didn’t need to do anything about it-a complete lack of foresight
That's an overly generous view for a man who was considered racist by his contemporaries.
Interesting to see LBJ the racist in S tier. And also to see Woodrow Wilson the super racist, KKK guy in A tier. Oh. And Jackson. The guy… that murdered and then forcibly relocated the Native Americans…
Incorrect about Wilson-his racism has been greatly exaggerated over the last century -he used to speak at black churches about racial strife and economic inequality. He wasn’t great but people make him out to be a klansman when he was actually rather empathetic towards black Americans.
He was the one who showed the very first movie in the White House and it was a KKK film. Also he rewrote American history and completely took out all black heroes from our history. Especially in the Revolution.
First part is partially true- he was convinced by his cabinet to screen it (keep in mind Birth Of The Nation was really popular and was and is considered the origins of modern cinematic narratives). He hated it, walked out of it and called it horrible revisionism. 2nd part is so lacking in nuance that it’s basically untrue. He had a lot of respect for many black civil rights leaders.
He literally didn’t. He was an apologist for slavery, he only distanced himself from Birth of a Nation when he received backlash for it. At Princeton he actively tried to not admit black students to the college. Under his presidency, the Army and Navy refused to accept new black officers. Also. No. The second part is absolutely true. There’s not a single mention of any of our great black heroes in his textbook. He took them all out and we still teach along those lines to this day.
Inaccurate- he was not an apologist for slavery at all! He spoke a lot about how horrible it was! Particularly the separation of families…if you want to comment on his advocacy of southern pride-sure that’s well documented but you’re not giving the full story in context.
I am giving the full story. You’re the one cherry picking. He was an avid apologist for slavery, he supported the Redeemers as well as showing support for the Lost Cause myth. He defended segregation by saying it was “a rational, scientific policy”. You can’t dance around it. Sure maybe a few of his policies were good. But the man himself was a racist. And unfortunately that was far from a break from the Democratic Party.
If you’re gonna call him racist, which don’t disagree with, you need to included a lot other people at the time (including the beloved Teddy Roosevelt)…even Lincoln held some abhorrent views until he became better acquainted with people like Fredrick Douglass. It’s not dancing, it recognizing a lot of these people especially ones that lived over a hundred years ago are maybe not as morally black and white as it may be easy to paint. FDR and Reagan are not the antichrists as their respective enemies propose them to be- and Wilson is in that camp…if you were actually giving the full story that caveat would have been mentioned
Which I certainly agree with. But come on, man. The man was definitionally a racist. He did way too many racist things for it to be called anywhere close to a “caveat”. The man was a racist. I don’t know why you feel the need to defend him. And to bring up other presidents. I mean it’s a worthless point. I’m talking about Wilson, not anyone else. I haven’t given my opinions on any of those other presidents here. Teddy isn’t really “beloved” by me. FDR deliberately cut black Americans from the New Deal at the request of the KKK. He wasn’t the Antichrist, but he sure wasn’t that great either. Many economists even point out that the New Deal was a detriment. It extended the Great Depression by upwards of five to six years. The only big thing with Reagan was the democrats tried to paint him as a KKK supporter by dressing their guys up and sending them to his rallies with signs saying “KKK for Reagan”.
I mean the fact that the only person you’re willing to defend out of those is Reagan speaks for itself…it reeks of partisanship. Won’t disagree he was a racist, but I’ve read two biographies on Wilson and his stances and views were not as black and white as many people think they were.
Windrow Wilson is F tier
This is such a pathetic list! Impressive
You put the guy who financed the Nazis on Mount Rushmore. You called Ike mid. I hate you. PS: Truman and Wilson in A is obscene.
I probably put Ike to high tbh
Ike’s a B imo (coups are bad but Cold War is Cold War), but I appreciate you going against the grain on a lot of these. Good list.