Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not actually a Stalinist and I think the collapse of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism and freedom in general. I'm against left-wing and right-wing dictatorships and believe they all fall eventually because human beings are not mindless sheep and a society isn't sustainable without basic democratic institutions in place. I think both sides of the economic argument have important things to say, but I just stop listening to people when they favor any form of totalitarianism.

I just can't hold to the logic that Truman was ballsy + Truman ended WW2, therefore Truman is top 5, or even great. We'll never know if a better, more humane end to WW2 was possible, and the consequences of the specter of nuclear war that his decision cast over the following years is unquantifiable. There's still an outside chance that Bush's decision to blame Iraq for 9/11 will result in a more stable middle east and that his decision will be seen by some in the same light as Truman's, but we'll know better than to call him a top 5 president.

As for my top 5, I can't really do it. First, you're right (though maybe you were a bit insulting in your insinuations) that I'm not a scholar of history, and don't know much about quite a few presidents. In addition, I'm increasingly unsure that it's possible understand any historical situation well enough ex post to compare it to present experience. That's a cop out to an extent - certainly you can do better than I've done - but I think it's true.

My number one, simply judging by personal philosophy, would probably be Jefferson, though. Pretty tough to touch.

lets just forget what my pops (ten years later) still refers to as "The Mother Of All Tax Burdes" (referring, of course, to the Hil-Bill health care boondongle, but shit---have you seen the price for this prescription drug enema?)

I'll also forgive criticism on the tax hikes----its another argument for another day especially in this era when the Repubs have turned this shit into a cross between the New Deal and Who Wants To Be a Gazillionaire? (BTW---Redlands has just been declared a "historic" site and I will be receiving my check for $1,248,346 next week---I had voted for the right honkey I tell you); I mean, Bill, who ain't gettin paid?

Clinton at least brought some shit together, balanced a damn budget, and froze spending....Even mypops is in a huff on this G O P that is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Blech. Sad, sad, sad and I feel a tinge of sadness (though not much) for you and Boortz and the other Libertarians who laid down with GWB (not that it was any better to sit anywhere else) in 2004, but yall look like some dipshits--just sayin'.

Our experience in Europe, especially the Balkans, was generally not bad. We rooted out some real monsters, with the help mostly of NATO, and not so much of the UN. If anything, he put too much faith in the UN, possibly because he's got a soft spot in his heart for liars and thieves.[/quote]

Yeah, Jefferson my #1, too.

My real list:

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. John Adams
3. George Washington
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. Teddy Roosevelt

FDR was a remarkable man with great abilities and is technically a "great president," but I think he was so duplicitous about so many things that I can't personally consider him "great." Effective, but not great.

Kennedy has been mythologized, but many of his "firm" decisions could easily have backfired and we could have been in a hell of a mess. He was a fascinating human being, but his presidency was more about successful image than actual greatness.

Absolutely, I believe that. I would also point out that Vaclav Havel is on the record as saying he believes that Reagan's defense strategy and diplomacy were vital factors in ending the cold war saying that communism would have likely collapsed eventually but it would have taken a lot longer.

I'm not insulting you in the least//shit dude, I'd hope being in your position you'd know this shit...and if you don't, thats fine....you're a smart boy and they should at least give you guys a foundation.....

Don't slip and think that I give Truman such a big nod based solely on the H/N thing.....you have to understand that this guy was usurped by a member of the military in what was (i consider) an attempted takeover of the executive branch of the United States by the military;......Truman shut. that. shit . down.

I missed this whole thread, and only skimmed it. However, I'll add that the single most undervalued president is Eisenhower. Alot of people at the time viewed him like Bush. Common knock was he wasn't running his own ship. However, it's since been learned that he was. And as far as understanding the issues and getting to their heart, probably nobody was better. Top 5.

1. G. Washington
2. A. Lincoln
3. T. Jefferson
4. T. Roosevelt
5. Eisenhower

I admire Truman alot. Maybe more than any other president, but he's not a top fiver for me. But really I don't know if any other president embodied America more than Truman.

There are some really good arguments that Kennedy was a very bad president. But a great figure to believe in.

Kennedy was very mediocre. As someone mentioned earlier, Civil Rights Legislation was pursued by JFK but only pushed through by a very good Texas politician LBJ. Johnson essentially used the assassination of JFK to get that shit legislated. No, i don't believe LBJ was a "good" president, I meant simply that he possessed great political skill. Back to JFK, his economic policies were half-baked and he nearly caused a pretty significant snafu early in his first administration that could of blackened his legacy.

Me thinks it a few bullets to the head that creates his positive legacy with people.

Kennedy was only president for ~1000 days.

As Senate Majority Leader, LBJ managed to orchestrate the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the first piece of Civil Rights legislation to get throught the Senate since 1875. That 1957 Act was basically toothless, but it had been 82 years since anything had gotten through. I don't think you can really attribute the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties that to JFK assassination.

Without even debating the bomb, Truman was in the not-so-enviable position of following a pretty damn popular Roosevelt while we were fighting a World War. When the fighting stopped, Truman found support for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe.

In Korea, MacArthur was hellbent on invading mainland China, and as a WWII hero, had wide popular opinion behind him. When MacArthur decided to publicly air his dirty laundry, Truman canned him, and settled for a stalemate on the peninsula rather than opening up a huge war in Asia all over again.

At home, Truman advocated universal healthcare (which I'm not a huge proponent of, but hey), outlawed lynching and integrated the Armed Forces.

So while Truman may not be a universal Top 5, he isn't too far of a stretch to fit in the Top 10-15. Just surviving a pretty sticky time in American and global politics is quite the achievement, moreso than performing acts of "greatness" when things are relatively calm.

Oh really, is that a fact? No, that's fucking asinine. I guess getting rid of the leadership is in some way "winning", but we cannot have won as long as we have ~150,000 soldiers there full time getting shot at and blown to pieces. Ridiculous.

As far as top 5, I'll have to copy:

I'm right there with him.

this whole thread is retarded.

Bush is definitely low on this though, and give 5 years when a lot of his programs really start to affect things. I honestly don't know if he'll appear worse than a Grant or a Hayes, but at this rate it's not out of the question. I think borrowing more money than all of the previous presidents combined isn't helping his cause either. I think that modern presidents, if anything, should be given something of a break in that I think the job is harder now (24 hours news coverage, constant surveillance, dissention at its highest levels) than it was in say the early 19th century. sticky conundrum.

How can you guys have Teddy Roosevelt on the best list?

oh cotton, if you understood history you wouldn't have said that.

My number 1 problem with Truman:

FDR had Ho Chi Minh singing the American national anthem in 1945 (ever seen that footage?), and then Truman made a policy decision to back the French in indochina, essentially sealing the fate of Ho turning red and the beginnings of the Vietnam War. Yes, Dien Bien Phu was not until after Truman's presidency ended (1954) but the French tried to re-establish control in that region after WWII and Truman had to make a difficult decision and definitely chose wrong.

Make no mistake, Minh was absolutely a Vietnamese first and a communist second. It's likely that if Truman followed in Roosevelt's footsteps instead of doing a 180, the Vietnam war would've never happened.

More scrutinized <> more difficult

The heavy lifting's been done--by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt. Our borders are set, our union established, our place in the world well-defined, and our standard of living/quality of life sitting at an all-time high.

It's possible, now, to install a caretaker. The survival of the nation is not in question, and to be frank, we're not in crisis. We are secure enough, in the last 100 years, that we can devote our attention to crises that exist beyond our borders, assisting our friends in their plight.

If it was possible to know who "our friends" were, that would sound more plausible. I mean, you know, the Taliban and whatnot.

while the patronizing remark is adorable, wouldn't have said what? about presidents now having a harder job?

i'm just riffing on yail's insinuation that if i knew the most basic facts about truman's presidency, i would see that he was top 5 material.

this is where Yail did not insult me:


i was only ironically condescending to you. but i was talking about your TR comment, which was analogous to my HT comment.

insert Tom Cruise glib joke.

wait, so dropping the bomb makes Truman a GOOD GUY? I understand it was the only way, the tenacity of the japanese, blah blah blah, but let's face it I'm pretty sure lots of people in his position would've done the same thing. Same with firing MacArthur.


I dunno, my whole opinion of TR is that he is the Hemmingway of U.S. Presidents (although he's got competition for that spot) in that he's celebrated more for his attitude/lifestyle and brusque relations (oh and national parks) than for his actions, which were often less than savory.

my bad, haq.

The little trust-busting affair was somewhat significant.

The dude had a track record of tackling the ensconced cronyism and inertia that had been stifling the country's progress--he assert this at the NYPD, in the Navy, and as President.

The Minh's Vietnamese declaration of independence actually lifted from Jefferson's, including passages take word for word.

While I agree to some extent--especially the fact that Minh was a nationalist first and communist second--when Minh petitioned Truman for aid in 1945-46, HST had his hands full with Europe and Asia. Vietnam just wasn't real high on the priority list. So while Truman could have had a greater impact on SE Asia, even to the point of averting conflict, he did have bigger fish to fry.

ok, you've got a point, i can buy that he helped accelerate the fall of the soviet union, and some of his rhetoric may have emboldened pro-democracy forces there ("tear down this wall" and everything). but i guess i have a little trouble believing that if he hadn't won a second term, we would have been dealing with soviets well into the 90s. what would mondale have done that would have allowed the soviet union to continue? if all reagan did is accelerate the fall of the soviet union by a year or two, i don't know if that amounts to greatness, especially at the price of supporting petty tyrants, arming and training radical islamists, etc. i just think the guy was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, kind of like clinton with the economy in the 90s.