Most overrated president

[The Duke]

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.

[Sibboleth]

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.

Hah!

[WalterMitty]

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

[PBrunsel]

We tend to forget Ander Jackson saved the Union from an early Civil War. He stared down Vice President Calhoun, the "nulification" man, and told him, "Our Union, it must be preserved."  He threatened hangings to any Congressman who preached sessesion on the floors of Congress.

Jackson saved the Union.

[Keystone Phil]

Most overrated without a doubt is JFK. I always find someone who says JFK is their favorite President and then when I ask what they love about him or what he did to think he was great, they can never answer.

Now I like that JFK cut taxes and solved the Cuban Missile crisis (I think Nixon could have provided much stronger leadership during that time) but there were other elements of his Presidency that were not successful at all. I still don't understand why people put him as one of the best and one of their favorite Presidents.

[Vasall des Midas]

We tend to forget Ander Jackson saved the Union from an early Civil War. He stared down Vice President Calhoun, the "nulification" man, and told him, "Our Union, it must be preserved."  He threatened hangings to any Congressman who preached sessesion on the floors of Congress.

Jackson saved the Union.

Postponed it till the South had no chance of winning it, is more like.

[PBrunsel]

We tend to forget Ander Jackson saved the Union from an early Civil War. He stared down Vice President Calhoun, the "nulification" man, and told him, "Our Union, it must be preserved."  He threatened hangings to any Congressman who preached sessesion on the floors of Congress.

Jackson saved the Union.

Postponed it till the South had no chance of winning it, is more like.

The South had more chance of winning it in the 1860's due to them having more industry than in the 1830's.

[Vasall des Midas]

We tend to forget Ander Jackson saved the Union from an early Civil War. He stared down Vice President Calhoun, the "nulification" man, and told him, "Our Union, it must be preserved."  He threatened hangings to any Congressman who preached sessesion on the floors of Congress.

Jackson saved the Union.

Postponed it till the South had no chance of winning it, is more like.

The South had more chance of winning it in the 1860's due to them having more industry than in the 1830's.

Yes, but the gap also got bigger.
More to the point, the North's big advantage in population developed after that time, and o/c, there were no railroads in 1830, which means it would have been far more difficult to move men to the battlefields. There were also improvements in weapon technology, though these were dwarved by those in the war itself.
A civil war in 1830 would have been more like 1812 than 1865.
Of course there wasn't as much support for secession in 1830 as there was in 1860 - simply because the "Domestic Institutions" were not under threat from Democracy. Yet. Otherwise, Jackson wouldn't have dared use the language he did. In fact, otherwise he'd more likely than not have supported secession. He was a large slaveholder from a state that did secede, after all.

[PBrunsel]

Durring the Taylor Administration sesession began to be really thought of as an alternative for the South.

[Dr. Cynic]

One thing I will say for Jackson is he wanted to preserve the union.

[The Duke]

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.

Hah!

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious military analysis that shows that had the US and USSR come to blows in W. Europe that we'd have won.  The Soviets had vastly superior armor and in far greater numbers to their NATO counterparts.  The Soviets were closer to the field of battle that their US counterparts.  NATO did not have nearly as compatible of weapon systems as the USSR.

I also think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the US had superior nuclear capabilities in 1981.  The Soviets had more warheads and, unlike the US, their missiles were usually mobile negating any possible counterforce capability the US might have otherwise had.

America had an advantage in the air, but wars aren't won by airpower.  There is an old joke that one Soviet general met another Soviet general in Paris and asked him, "By the way, who won the air war?"  Ultimately, US air superiority against Soviet fighters would not have been sufficient to stem the superior Soviet armored and artillery forces, and since stealth technology was not in service yet, US aircraft would have their operations hindered by Soviet SAMs and AAA even if they did achieve victory against the Soviet air force.

At sea, we'd have a draw.  Soviet aircraft and tactics for attacking American carriers were sufficiently advanced that the US would not have been able to effectively deploy or re-supply forces.  Soviet submarines would not make this effort any easier.

The Soviet military was already proving its superiority in subduing Afghan militias.  This contrasted greatly with America's disaster in Vietnam.  It was not until later when the USSR was strained by the US arms buildup and CIA activity that they faltered in central Asia.

Economically, the USSR was behind the US, but there is no doubt that our lead wasn't growing, but was staying constant.  During the decade of the 1970s, the USSR managed to keep pace with the USA.

[Bugs]

Jackson is my choice.

[Sarnstrom]

My Picks:

1. Dwight Eisenhower
2. Ronald Reagan
3. Calvin Coolidge

[Jim Valvano]

In my mind it's FDR because he put drove America in the wrong direction when he tried to solve the depression with his new deal.

From Reassessing the Presidency "It is remarkable to note that. . . to this day Franklin Roosevelt is still appropriating one dollar of every ten. . . to be used by the federal government establishment. In a sense, all of us tithe to the memory of this man."

[??????????]

Lincoln.

[Dabeav]

I agree with StatesRights.  Lincoln is by far the most overrated, with Reagan in second because of his recent death.  

Lincoln instituted the first not value-based currency in the US, Greenbacks and instituted the first graduated tax on the American people.  So, from his actions can be built the Federal Reserve and the IRS.  Maybe a indirect connection, but it is still there.

[swarch]

1. FDR
2. Lincoln
3. Wilson
4. Reagan
5. JFK

[Rothbard]

Lincoln, for all the reasons stated, and so many, many more.

[Defarge]

Reagan and JFK are tied in my book

[frenger]

In alphabetical order
Clinton
Eisenhower
FDR
JFK
Lincoln

[JohnFKennedy]

1. FDR
2. Lincoln
3. Wilson
4. Reagan
5. JFK

In alphabetical order
Clinton
Eisenhower
FDR
JFK
Lincoln

BOO!

[True Democrat]

reagan by a long shot, he did nothing, he didnt even end the soviet union, it collapsed on its own

[dazzleman]

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

That's only clear in retrospect.  The Soviets had serious problems, but they also had the ability to force their citizens to endure hardship in order to continue their relentless military buildup and foreign aggression.  The democratic nations of the west lacked this ability.

When Reagan took office, Soviet power was at its peak in the world.  The Soviets were arguably ahead of the US militarily, all things considered.  They were certainly ahead in conventional arms in Europe, forcing NATO to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Soviet aggression.  They had recently invaded Afghanistan and were threatening Poland, on top of all the geopolitical gains they had made in the latter half of the 1970s using surrogates like the Cubans.

It was recognized that their economy was performing poorly, but this was mitigated at the time by the fact that they could force their people to endure hardship in order to devote a much higher percentage of their economic output toward the military than the US could ever get away with.

Reagan helped hasten their collapse by forcing them into an arms race that they couldn't afford.  From the mid-1960s, Soviet arms buildups had not been met by a western response, so there was little in the way of their strategic advances, but Reagan hit them where they were weakest by forcing them to strain their faltering economy further in order to keep up, rather than helping them in their weakest areas, as Nixon did under detente, and as the Democrats did and proposed to do.

It is facetious to then apply an inevitability to collapse of the Soviet Union in order to negate Reagan's contribution.  Reagan doesn't deserve the sole credit for their collapse, but he certainly helped.

[dazzleman]

Correct answer: Andrew Jackson.  Our worst President is often regarded as top 10 because he hated the rich.  Never mind that his policies hurt the poor more than the rich, his hatred endears him to leftist historians.  JFK is second most overrated.  He is often rated too high by the public, but he actually was a decent PResident, as opposed to Jackson who was not.

Reagan was definately the most overrated. This is the same man who told schools to give kids ketchup, because he said it would provide the veggie part of the "Balanced" school lunch. That sounds really redundant.

In 500 years, what will matter more: Ketchup as a vegetable or the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact?

It is almost always the case that those who make the strongest case of hating the rich, and advancing the poor, usually hurt the poor more than anybody.  Hurting the rich is not a good way to help the poor.  It sounds great but never works.

[Kodratos]

Definately JFK