I was recently asked if I thought Trump or Biden was a better president. My first reaction would be, as someone with a history background, that it’s much too soon to tell. Biden hasn’t even really started, and Trump’s effects won’t be known for at least ten years, so I can’t say.
But it did get me thinking about the presidents in my lifetime, and where I they’ll end up ranking in the order of Presidents. Occasionally historians publish updated rankings as new information or research comes out, and sometimes presidents move up or down. For example, John Adams has moved quite a bit (generally higher), and Grant has fluctuated wildly. So, this list is just my thoughts at this time, and might change in the future. Hope you find it interesting, and feel free to comment with your own list.
Jimmy Carter – 1977-1980
Carter is one of the presidents whose evaluation has been rising pretty consistently since he left office. He had the lowest popular approval since 1945 when he left office (34%), which meant of course that Reagan could basically walk into the Presidency. Today his approval rating is 66%. Why has it changed so much?
I think we could ask why it was so low. Number one, the economy was in trouble, and people tend to blame the president for that, despite ample evidence that presidents have virtually no control over the economy, especially in the short term. But, people get frustrated with the economy and look for someone to blame.
Number two, the Iran hostage crisis was ongoing for a large piece of his presidency, and he was seen as weak for not resolving it more quickly. In retrospect, he did resolve it, but the public didn’t know the behind the scenes diplomacy until later, and Carter looks much better.
Number three , Carter had struggles navigating the political structure of Washington. There was upheaval happening in both of the major parties, and neither he nor anyone else knew how they would shake out. In short, he was a good man without the experience needed to get things through Congress. In retrospect, people think he actually did manage to do decently in the rising tide of partisanship.
Rating – top 15-20. Carter was better than originally thought: a good man not ready for the complexity of Washington.
Ronald Reagan – 1981-1988
Reagan is the president in my lifetime that I think will change the most. He’s the first president I really remember, and I remember people around me in the church lionizing the man. There was even talk of adding him to Rushmoore.
But as time has gone on, Reagan’s rating has fluctuated, and is especially partisan. Many conservatives look back on Reagan as a golden era, but among liberals Reagan’s aura is fading, and I would argue somewhat dramatically.
In my corner of the world, many in the church are realizing how much of his early victories were based in racism (his first speech was at Bob Jones University, promising to allow them to continue segregation) and the way his campaigned “used” abortion as an issue to rally votes rather than any real conviction. I think there is a growing sense that Reagan took advantage of the church rather than supported it.
As more evidence becomes available, it appears Reagan’s role in the end of the Cold War was greatly exaggerated (most historians see his presidency as the culmination of decades of policy, rather than his success. He just got to take the victory lap.) There is also growing consensus that his economic policies (tax cuts for the wealthy) have been disastrous both for the US debt load and for American middle and lower class families. There is also (in my opinion) a growing sense that the partisanship in politics has overtaken the church, and much of that can be traced to the Reagan era.
I think Reagan will continue to be a source of contention for historians, and his ranking will probably fluctuate between top 10 and bottom 15. For me:
Ranking: 15-20. Not one of the greats, but not disastrous. Probably around the middle.
George H.W. Bush – 1989-1992
Bush was a victim of terrible timing. One year before his second campaign, he had one of the highest approval ratings in history – almost 90% in February 1991. In November 1992, he lost to Bill Clinton. How is that possible? Simply put – the economy. Americans have short attention spans, and one year is an eternity in an election.
As a president, Bush was good administratively. He was an experienced politician and had once been the director of the C.I.A. The man knew how to run an organization. He was also clear on his foreign policy goals, and didn’t let the excitement of the moment over-ride his strategy (such as refusing to pursue Saddam Hussein into Baghdad).
I think Bush will go down very similar to James Polk; an effective president that historians and political scientists appreciate, but virtually everyone else forgets.
Rating: 18-23
Bill Clinton – 1993-2000
Clinton brought the presidency down to “our” level. He intentionally tried to “demystify” the presidency, wooing younger voters with common talk and appearances on late night talk shows. We started seeing it as “just a man in a job,” rather than an elevated or honored position. This can be seen as both good and bad. The office of the president lost a lot of respect, even among those who approved of Clinton’s policies.
Politically, Clinton had great interpersonal skills, ensuring success with the electorate, but he also was able to compromise with the “other side,” meaning the Republicans in Congress, in order to get legislation accomplished. Obviously, some on the Democratic side didn’t approve, but it was a successful approach.
Clinton’s legacy will also always be marred by the Lewinsky scandal. For the church, this was a huge issue, and many religious leaders loudly decried his immorality and argued that he could never be a good president if he didn’t have moral character. (Cue foreshadowing music). His economic legacy is still being written, but I think it will be seen as successful as well, navigating the emerging online commerce activity.
Clinton will probably be seen as the start of the “everyman” tradition of presidents. Men (and maybe women?) that are seen are “just one of us” that happen to get elected. Is that a good thing? Hard to say.
Rating: will probably end up lower than average; I’d guess somewhere around 30 or so.
George W. Bush – 2001-2008
Bush is an interesting case for me, because I remember people where I worked talking about how terrible he was, and yet his reputation is increasing constantly since he left office. The big mark that people argue is that he was a war criminal regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet all but one member of Congress voted for the war in Afghanistan, and the resolution for Iraq was approved by a 4-1 margin, including 60% of Democrats. I think history will see this as an understandable move given the information available at the time.
His leadership after the 9/11 attacks led an approval rating of 92%, the highest in history. In my opinion, he also was clear about why we went to war, and followed international law in the process (despite some protests then and now). Economically his choice not to subsidize oil led to higher prices, but also to development in the Bakken region and other alternative fuel sources. I think we may look back on this as a turning point in US energy trends.
In my opinion, I think Bush tried to restore some dignity to the office of the president (the suits and office precision of his administrative style), but unfortunately for him his speaking ability didn’t cooperate. Depending on who you ask, it was either frustrating or endearing, but I don’t think anyone would argue it was overly dignified.
Rating: especially as time goes on, Bush keeps rising. I think he’ll probably end somewhere around top 15, possibly even top 10.
Barak Obama – 2009-2016
Obama was the first president that, I would argue, was elected primarily because of the Internet. His ability to motivate younger voters and utilize technical resources showed politicians the power of the new media. He was also an amazing speech maker – he rose to prominence in 2004 with a speech at the Democratic National Convention.
However, he was also extremely inexperienced. He had only served a half term as a Senator before starting his campaign for President, and had almost no national political experience before that point (which Obama admitted in 2004). I think this inexperience is reflected in his inability to work with Congress, and his reliance on executive orders (cue foreshadowing again).
I do think Obama was willing to listen to people around him. During the war with ISIS, a reporter challenged him on his policy, and he essentially said he trusted the generals in the Pentagon were the best in the world, and he would follow their advice. This is similar to George Washington’s approach, and I think history will end up recognizing that.
Many people argue that Obama increased racial tension in America. As time goes on, I think more historians will see that he brought existing tension to the attention of the dominant white culture. It seem to me it will be judged as a good thing, but that remains to be seen.
Rating: in the end, Obama will probably be rated somewhere around the middle 20-25 or so.
Donald Trump – 2017-2020
Trump – the one everyone wants to know. It is very difficult to judge since it’s so close in time, so this will be more based on similarities to other presidents. Trump is one of the more controversial presidents (so far), and his legacy will be complicated.
It appears Trump wanted to turn back the clock to Reagan’s time, enacting tax cuts for the rich for example. But his personality is more like Andrew Jackson or Richard Nixon – seeing enemies everywhere, hiring and firing staff on a whim, seeing political disagreement as personal attacks, and so forth. He was the first president elected where more people voted against his opponent than for him. That is, more people voted for him because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton than because they wanted him.
The real issue I see for Trump is his inexperience. He is arguably the least experienced President we’ve ever had or could have; he served in no other elected office in his lifetime. Unfortunately, that means he had virtually no political experience for the most important political office in the world. Some people see that as a good thing, but I would argue that history will show it was a major liability.
Trump also personally did not take advice from others, especially leaders in their fields. He seems to want to be seen as THE expert on everything, and unfortunately no one can be an expert on all the aspects needed for a successful presidency.
As for the positives, I think you could make a case for some of his policies if you believe in them. But the major failing is that none of them (except for the tax cut) are legislative. That is, the “good” things he did were all by executive order; which means they can all be undone in a blink by the next president (which they have been – half of Biden’s executive order in his first 100 days reversed Trump orders).
In short, a successful presidency should be relying on lasting legislation, not executive orders. That’s a strong indicator of a weak presidency. Early suggestions are that Trump may go down as the least effective president in our history.
Additionally, Trump’s personal approach to politics has exasperated partisanship in the US. Teddy Roosevelt argued that the President has to rise above politics and be the “president for all.” Trump has done the exact opposite of that. Rather than look for common ground with political adversaries, he has demonized them. His overall goal seemed to be to overpower or out-elect political opposition rather than compromise, and that does not lead to a successful presidency. (Trump is the first president since Hoover in 1932 to lose the House, the Senate and the presidency in 4 years.)
Foreign policy is another complicated question. His America First is an ideology harkening back to more isolationist approach, and I believe that is an outdated philosophy. I think historians will see his policy as a desperate nostalgic attempt for an America and World that does not and cannot exist anymore. The faltering economy towards the end of his term would seem to verify this, but it will take some time to know for sure.
More problematic is the issue of alliances. Trump’s close relationship with Putin is seen as a great weakness around the world, especially in Europe and the Middle East. In short, he is seen as easily manipulated by one of the more devious minds of our time, and I think he will be judged quite harshly on it. Our reputation with our allies dropped precipitously under Trump, with some even refusing to share intelligence data out of fear Trump would reveal it to enemies. Allies in the Middle East feel betrayed, and there are early suggestions that his election decimated the US reputation overall around the world.
Moreover, even in his own election, he questioned the election process before the returns were in (“if Hillary wins, it’s because she cheated”), and that rhetoric has ramped up since he lost in 2020. The peaceful transfer of power has been the cornerstone of American politics since George Washington, and Trump’s continual challenge of that is eroding trust in the process. I don’t know if he will be seen as merely a bump in an otherwise peaceful road, or the start of a collapse, but either way, I don’t think it will be seen favorably.
Rating: In the end, I think the good Trump did was easily reversed, and with little lasting legislative effect, all we’re left with is the cultural effects, which I would argue have been mostly negative. I believe Trump will end up as a bottom 10 president, and probably bottom 5. He’ll likely be saved by Buchanan and Andrew Johnson (rightfully so), but even Nixon is starting to be seen in a more favorable light, so who knows.
Biden – 2021 –
I’m reluctant to even guess on Biden at this point. I think he has done pretty much what everyone expected he would do. I think he will be seen in a favorable light for the Afghanistan pullout once some more time passes. I am personally thus far disappointed in his immigration policies, but I have hopes that may change. He clearly has far more experience than Trump, so I expect he will have more lasting changes, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Rating: Around 20-25. I’d guess he’ll end up somewhere around the middle. A career politician with moderate tendencies, I think that’s where he’ll land, but events sometimes come out of nowhere that change people, so we’ll just have to see.
Typically, presidential ratings fluctuate a lot the closer you are to them in time. For example, there are many that see Trump as the best president we’ve ever had, and other who see him as the worst. Over time, that tends to mellow out as a general consensus emerges. I think it takes at least fifty years to know where a president will likely end up, so all of these are pretty up in the air (except for Carter, who’s approaching that fifty year mark).
The big ones I know people disagree with me on are Reagan (I think he’ll end up lower) and Bush II (I think he’ll end up higher). I think there are some underlying trends that support my position, but you never know. We’ll see in another 25 years.
If I’m wrong, I’ll owe you a coke.