Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents, Ahistorical?

[Deku]

It has become popular in recent years to rank U.S. presidents from best to worst, especially because of distaste for the Bush administration.  Historians, political scientists, and journalists alike have tended to place Bush very low on the list (36th of 43 in a recent survey*), with some considering him to be the worst president ever.  First let me say that I am no fan of George Bush and his imperial reign presidency and am very glad to see him gone.  Nevertheless, I believe it is impossible, ridiculous, and ahistorical to rank modern presidents in this manner.  Historical judgments, such as whether a presidency was "good" or "bad," are too difficult to make seeing as they lack the most essential part of history - hindsight.  Without knowing the long-term effects of a president's policies, is it fair to make such claims?  Also, discussions of "good" or "bad" policies are somewhat relative, aren't they?  Was the Bush administration's leanings towards imperialism in Iraq bad?  Sure.  But was it worse than Jackson's backing of the Indian Removal Act (1830), which caused a massive amount of Native American deaths, perhaps comparable to genocide?

What do you think?  Is it fair to make these types of judgments on modern presidents?  Please explain your answer.    

*CNN Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html#cnnSTCOther1  

[Deku]

I officially suck at making interesting topics. 

[Geneaux486]

Without knowing the long-term effects of a president's policies, is it fair to make such claims?

Exactly.  Personally, I think the history books will remember former President Bush a lot more kindly than many currently do, and I still think he was a good president.  He wasn't perfect, by any means, but given the situations he had to deal with at the start of his first term and beyond, what president would be?  Also, nobody's approach to Iraq has been imperialistic. 

But yeah, through time our country has certainly changed, and presidents have had to deal with all kinds of different things, so it really isn't fair to compare some of them to modern presidents. 

[Link Reborn]

Obama, at the rate he's going, is making Bush look like a fucking genius.

[Beh]

Obama, at the rate he's going, is making Bush look like a fucking genius.

If you're gonna say that shit, back it up.

[Bidet to you sir]

Obamas getting a hard time because republicans don't want him to do the more liberal stuff he has planned, and democrats won't support him because they want to get re-elected.
On top of that Republican supporters say he is a "die-hard liberal", funny seeing as he recently supported DOMA a very right wing piece of legislation.
He then gets negative opinion polls from right wing voters who just plain aren't going to like him unless he goes more right wing, and bad polls from left wing voters who don't think he's doing what he planned.
The thing is, he's a politician first and what he wants to do usually comes second to what all the other politicians are allowing you to do.

[Geneaux486]

If you're gonna say that shit, back it up.

He's right, though.  Well sort of.  I mean you've got the classic Bushisms where he'll mispeak during a speech and everyone laughs, but Obama being as slavish as he is to the teleprompter and generally doing a bad job when speaking without it or making an off the cuff remark doesn't get a fifth of the attention Bush got.  Also his policies suck, but that's just my opinion. 

Now onto Zim, and his attributing any and all opposition to Obama to ignorance, which is in and of itself ignorant.

Obamas getting a hard time because republicans don't want him to do the more liberal stuff he has planned, and democrats won't support him because they want to get re-elected.

Obama is getting a hard time because his policies are becoming less popular among both politicians and citizens.  But hey, who cares what the PEOPLE want, it's all about him, right!?

And are you really telling me that democrats won't support him because they're afraid they won't be re-elected?  That they're afraid to support the guy who won the presidential election and gathered a huge following in spite of his lack of political experience and shady connections?  I seriously doubt that's the reason they won't support him.

On top of that Republican supporters say he is a "die-hard liberal", funny seeing as he recently supported DOMA a very right wing piece of legislation.

So he can only be called a liberal if he never supports anything right-wing?  How many liberal politicians would exist by that criteria?

He then gets negative opinion polls from right wing voters who just plain aren't going to like him unless he goes more right wing, and bad polls from left wing voters who don't think he's doing what he planned.

No, he's getting negative opinion polls because the American people are starting to dislike his policies.  And as for whether or not they think he's doing what he planned, he's already gone back on a few things he promised both sides during his campaign. 

The thing is, he's a politician first and what he wants to do usually comes second to what all the other politicians are allowing you to do.

Exactly, which is why he's having such a hard time pressuring more moderate democrats into supporting his health care reform.

[Bidet to you sir]

NH you're completely off the mark on this.
A recent poll amongst democrat voters claimed that Obama was too right wing, he's being forced by Democrat senators to vote more right wing and agree with republicans because they're scared of the smears they'd get for siding with the "ultra liberal".
His opinion polls are going down because democrats don't think he's following up on his liberal policies, right wing voters are always going to not want the health care reforms, left wing voters DO want them and unfortunately he's getting forced back by spineless democrat senators.

[Geneaux486]

And I think you're completely off the mark.  
You mention the poll about the democrat voters.  The rest of the post is just your interpretation of the things that are going on and what you think the motives behind everyone's actions are.  I can sit here and say "I disagree, I think this is the reason they're doing that" all day long but then we'll just be going around in circles, and ultimately we'll both just be second guessing people.  And approval for his health care reform among the general poluation recently dropped below 50%.  Finally, I would like a link to the poll you mentioned.

[Bidet to you sir]

I'm sorry NH, the poll I mentioned I had misinterpreted, what the poll showed was that independents see the democratic party as more conservative than democrats and republicans.
As well as seeing the republicans as too conservative, what the poll also showed was that the independents see the republican party as too conservative, and that most voters see the republicans as too conservative over "just right", especially compared to the democrats which while at the moment see a slight increase in being "too liberal" still is considerred to have an ideology more in line with the voting public.
Also as the numbers aren't perfect, 50-42 is an 8 point drop in "just right" while only a 7 point increase in a too liberal leaning means there must have been a slight increase in the numbers arguing that the democrats are too conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121307/More-Americans-See-Democratic-Party-Too-Liberal.aspx
While I concede I was wrong, it's been a good month since I read the poll. You however can't get away with this:

Obama is getting a hard time because his policies are becoming less popular among both politicians and citizens.  But hey, who cares what the PEOPLE want, it's all about him, right!?

He still has a higher approval than bush at this stage into his presidency and Clinton as well.
On top of that while he may get most dissagreements on healthcare:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121814/More-Disapprove-Than-Approve-Obama-Healthcare.aspx He's getting high approvals on foreign affairs, the war in iraq, afghanistan, and the economy while leaning to the dissaproval is so close to 50/50 it really can't be called either way at the moment.

Also you mention shady connections, are you forgetting your previous president that soon, every politician has some dodgy people in their pasts, but well I'm sorry but Bush really takes the cake in that regard.
Also you said this:

So he can only be called a liberal if he never supports anything right-wing?  How many liberal politicians would exist by that criteria?

Thats not what I said at all, but he can't be the "die-hard socialist marxist ultra-liberal some conservatives try to make him out to be. And also as I've mentioned before most "liberals" are really quite centre right, as are most "conservatives".
Especially when it's DOMA, a gay rights issue, how many die hard liberals are against gay marriage?
It'd be like a die hard conservative trying to bring in a socialist system.
They wouldn't do it if they were a "die hard" conservative.

[Uber_Challenger]

I'm VERY certain that during the presidencies of many past presidents, many people questioned and even disliked the president or even more than one president during their time for many reasons concerning their policies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and possibly even something about the person themselves that seemed peevish to some. But look at the presidents of the past 100 years...I'm no history buff or even someone who knows as much about history as the average person (which could, potentially, totally make what I've said here not worth taking seriously ), but all I can remember in terms of presidents that were hated by many is Nixon, and that was mainly because of the Watergate Scandal.

Chances are, if George Bush's War on Terror results in any major progress in the middle east (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, or other such countries were transformed into Democracies), people may look back and think that maybe he wasn't as bad as they thought. Heck, even if we've all died and gone to Heaven by the time anything major happens, people who were not alive when Bush was alive may look upon him very differently than most people who are alive now did.