You're viewing a single thread.
It's a popularity contest among 150 academics. A group that has swung hard against Republicans recently.
But really regardless the current president shouldn't be on these. And not that it has come up before but current candidates probably shouldn't be on there either.
I think in 30 years we will see Biden's first term as much more politically successful than Trump's, and probably Trump's as more influential as a break from Reagan/Bush conservatism. Historians will weigh these two things against each other and I bet we see Biden well above Trump but we don't have enough information, it's too soon.
I'm no scholar and Trump should be somewhere in the bottom-10th percentile for sure, but that Andrew Jackson isn't dead last discredits the entire thing, honestly.
Andrew Jackson was an evil bastard, but he was also very effective.
He successfully paid off the national debt, was highly-successful navigating foreign affairs (including avoiding a war with France), brought Arkansas and Michigan into the union, and was partially responsible for Texas joining through covert arming of Texan revolutionaries. His last act as President was to formally recognize the Republic of Texas, which was the first step towards its annexation.
The Indian Removal Act earned him a special place in Hell and tainted his legacy forever. But he had some successes. Trump's only real achievement was being President after the Republicans had refused to appoint any federal judges, so even his single political success came down to Mitch McConnell being effective in the Obama years and RBG dying at the right time.
Him paying off the national debt caused the longest and deepest (by percentage not dollar value, great depression wins there) depression in US history.
We were founded as a country of traders, and by paying off the national debt, we removed the dollars that other countries had to buy stuff from us. This crippled our economy for well over a decade. I wouldn't call that effective, unless you think he was actually trying to sabotage the country, which I wouldn't put past him.
That's the thing. He was evil, but effective. What did Trump even accomplish aside from stacking the Court, which really had nothing to do with him?
If a politician does something harmful that I hate, that's not necessarily the save thing as being a bad or ineffective President. Plenty of bad people are effective leaders, and plenty of good ones are not.
Jimmy Carter was probably the best person to ever be President, and his stances on environmental issues were decades ahead of their time. I love Jimmy Carter.
But he wasn't a good President because he couldn't get anything done. Andrew Jackson did.
That's why I say Trump should forever be stuck at the 45th percentile of presidents. He was mediocre at best, and a useful tool at worst.
Yeah those are fair points but I just personally kind of think the whole genocide thing immediately sends him to the bottom, independent of his efficiency elsewhere. Scholars seem to be over-thinking it if not whitewashing here.
If Trump were to have had a chance at a genocide, he'd have jumped at the opportunity. I firmly believe that he'd have directly started carpet-bombing Gaza if he were in office a few months back.
What about Buchanan?
He was pretty mediocre as a president really. Put him in the 45th percentile, and keep him there.
Also Wilson is arguably worse than Jackson, but not by much
to be truly fair it should be only ranking any president who has died more than 26 years before the poll date. That allows for all their classified documents to be declassified and their legacy to be truly dissected.