the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[tstorm823]

So I counted them. I think there was sixteen surveys in total with 2 having Woodrow in the top ten.

The article has this line near the top: "Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians. The remaining places within the Top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy."

Then it has a table of 20 rankings done by scholars, and Wilson makes the top 10 in 15 of the 20.

Then you probably counted some of the individually mentioned polls that were only asking about the last 9 or since WWII, which obviously don't count for this metric.

Then there are 3 big tables of results from a survey that tracked by individual metrics, where Wilson was overall 8th, 11th, and 11th.

And then the article ends with some criticism, and a ranking as far as support of minorities, but only of the last 14 presidents.

Basically, if Wilson is included, it's better than a coin flip that he's rated near the top.

Also, anyone with LBJ in the top ten clearly is taking into account only his presidency, not anything from his life outside. He was a horrible bully who treated everyone with disrepect. Just becuase you signed the Civil Rights law doesn't make Vietnam okay. Also, Andrew Jackson? You've done bad historians

Just to be clear, I agree with your takes on the presidents thus far, you and I both are way at odds with historians is the problem.

I seem to remember Coolidge and Harrison regarded as being good Republicans presidents. Focused on protecting rights, some corporate control to spread power back to the people, good foreign policy. Harrison had raised tarrifs but that was common for countries at the time. He also paved the way for Teddy's anti Trust reforms but also his imperialistic ones

The chart closest to the top has overall results from 20 different scholarly polls taken over the course of decades. To bring it back to my original point, in the 150 years since Andrew Johnson was president, every single Democratic president is rated better than both the Republicans you bring up. The only one even in the same quartile is Jimmy Carter, averaging in at 26.3, to Coolidge's 28.8, and Harrison's 29.7. Like, I think Coolidge was an awesome president, but he's not as big a landmark as a Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Roosevelt, and being a modest Republican is worse to historians than being an actively bad Democrat.

When people say academia is biased in favor of Democrats, it's not a joke. Which makes sense, cause if you work off of government grants, you're gonna prefer the party that likes giving them.

 

[Agema]

When people say academia is biased in favor of Democrats, it's not a joke. Which makes sense, cause if you work off of government grants, you're gonna prefer the party that likes giving them.

a) Historians don't get much in the way of grants
b) The Republicans are in office half the time so they'd be offending the powers that be half the time if biased
c) Inasmuch as they do get grants, they're unlikely to gratuitously insult the people most likely to take them away

* * *

Wilson did Big Things. He instituted The Federal Reserve and other major economic reforms that were instrumental in the future development of the USA. He also ensured WWI came to a speedier end and was instrumental in setting up the League of Nations (which ultimately led to the UN). He's undoubtedly more popular with liberals than conservatives, but even conservatives should accept the massive impact of Wilson's presidency, and the fact that many of those accomplishments stood the test of time.

If we were to compare to Coolidge, for instance, Coolidge had no great ambitions and no great successes. He was mostly just a guy who kept things quietly ticking over. That's heading for middling territory for a start; beyond that, there's a recognition that his policies contributed to the onset of the Great Depression, which tarnished his reputation considerably. If there is bias, this is most likely where it will be. Historians will be likely to focus on Big Things that had major impacts, and give them a lot more weight.

But I don't think the chart is that bad. Eisenhower and Reagan are rated well, so is the Bush Snr. reasonably rated. I don't think anyone can seriously question Nixon, Ford and Hoover having bad ratings, and GWB was hugely damaged by the Iraq misadventure. Harding was (as I recall) widely recognised as corrupt, etc. Most of the others I just don't know well enough.

 

[tstorm823]

Wilson did Big Things. He instituted The Federal Reserve and other major economic reforms that were instrumental in the future development of the USA. He also ensured WWI came to a speedier end and was instrumental in setting up the League of Nations (which ultimately led to the UN). He's undoubtedly more popular with liberals than conservatives, but even conservatives should accept the massive impact of Wilson's presidency, and the fact that many of those accomplishments stood the test of time.

If we were to compare to Coolidge, for instance, Coolidge had no great ambitions and no great successes. He was mostly just a guy who kept things quietly ticking over. That's heading for middling territory for a start; beyond that, there's a recognition that his policies contributed to the onset of the Great Depression, which tarnished his reputation considerably. If there is bias, this is most likely where it will be. Historians will be likely to focus on Big Things that had major impacts, and give them a lot more weight.

The Federal Reserve system itself contributed more greatly to the Great Depression than anything Coolidge did. Like, you look into causes of the Great Depression, you might find some allusions to policy during the Coolidge Administration, but it's the policies of the Federal Reserve, which is a psuedo-independant entity that Presidents have no direct control over. The Fed screwed things up, not Coolidge.

That's not to say the Federal Reserve System isn't good or useful, just that the first downturn after the Fed was made was notoriously painful in its own right, and between then and the Depression, they did literally the opposite of what is now accepted practice, they inflated the money supply during an upturn and contracted it during the panic. Wilson's federal reserve was him trying to jump on the global bandwagon of central banks without good theory to back it up, and his own party wouldn't even let him have the central bank he actually wanted. Not the success you're making it out to be.

Wilson was instrumental in setting up the league of nations, in return for which he was willing to concede all sorts of awful policies, and which fell to pieces and World War II happened anyway, so not a great success. Wilsonian foreign policy is how America ends up in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Wilson personally sent troops all over Central America, not exactly something we look back on fondly. Foreign policy, also not the success you're making it out to be.

Yes, Woodrow Wilson did some big things. Every one of them blew up down the line and irreparably scarred the US. And that's not the low-hanging fruit like segregating the White House and setting up a federal propaganda office. Woodrow Wilson sucks. I wish I could change his last name to Johnson so that I could round out my personal bottom 3 presidents with all Johnsons.

 

[Trunkage]

snip.

I'm not as against the Fed as you. Still problematic to be sure, but every intuition is like that (and full of rent seeking.) For example, the institution of democracy in the US was limited to rich white guys because 'they are the only ones who CAN look after the country.' The League of Nations is far more Wilson fault as he pushed it through without taking the country with him and the US rejected joining because of it. The Fed was designed to fix financial downturns, and was successful in 1913 and 21. But no system is perfect, and only some blame should be placed on Wilson. There is plenty of blame to share around for future chairmen and presidents. And this comes from a guy who clearly dislikes Wilson.

The Great Depression had a ton of factors, including France hoarding gold to try and prop up it's economy. Which is a result of WW1 depleting its resources. It effected ALL major economies except China and Argentina (I think Argentina - it was definitely a South America country, I may be mixed up) because they were on the Silver standard. It's also THE reason whenever someone says 'let's go back on the gold standard', you know they haven't read history. Labour movements had been fighting for more wages, and some bosses complied, leading to more wealth in middle and bottom classes. They tried to save money but were swindled, leading to high levels of debt and bankruptcy. All this money flowing through the economy made brokers reckless, leading to the crash in '29. And I feel like I'm forgetting something, but it's been a decade since I learnt all this

The Fed initially didn't want to change the money supply (they actually didn't think it was important and they especially looking at Germany and how increasing it destroyed their economy) and let just fiscal response happen. And, to Hoover's credit, he organise a LOT of structural spending, helping many people keep jobs. He requested business owners to keep the wages at their current level and the BOSS LISTENED, and kept wages high to keep the country afloat, and taking on reduced profits. It wasn't until the gold standard, the Fed playing with money supply, Social Security was introduced (which FDR was against, and was only forced into by the New Dealers). This was also a time when they threw literally everything, including the kitchen sink, policy at the problem and there were a LOT of failures by Hoover and FDR. Also, FDR getting pissy and removing Hoover's name from the Dam he commissioned is petty. AND we still haven't decided what the definitive cause and cure for the Great Depression was.

Anyway, that's what those 'liberal arts professors' taught me. And I totally recognise that being in another country means they don't have a vested interest in siding with a US political stance. If I didn't see similar sentiments repeat of Leftie Historian YouTube, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you

Also, why isn't Pierce near the bottom. At least Wilson did some nebulously positive things. All Pierce did was assure that the Civil War would happen

Edit: I specifically like progressing in small increments, and I think Coolidge fits that bill. Jerking things around generally doesn't help most people. Sometimes big movements lead to big f-ups

 

[tstorm823]

I'm not as against the Fed as you. Still problematic to be sure, but every intuition is like that (and full of rent seeking.) For example, the institution of democracy in the US was limited to rich white guys because 'they are the only ones who CAN look after the country.' The League of Nations is far more Wilson fault as he pushed it through without taking the country with him and the US rejected joining because of it. The Fed was designed to fix financial downturns, and was successful in 1913 and 21. But no system is perfect, and only some blame should be placed on Wilson. There is plenty of blame to share around for future chairmen and presidents. And this comes from a guy who clearly dislikes Wilson.

To be clear, I'm not against the Fed in the sense of a centralized fiat currency. But the implementation feels sort of like a predecessor to the dumbest economic policies of the later 20th century, where they decided that if government power monopolies were economically bad, they'd just transfer the monopolistic power to even less accountable entities as though that fixes the issues.

Anyway, that's what those 'liberal arts professors' taught me. And I totally recognise that being in another country means they don't have a vested interest in siding with a US political stance. If I didn't see similar sentiments repeat of Leftie Historian YouTube, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you

Also, why isn't Pierce near the bottom. At least Wilson did some nebulously positive things. All Pierce did was assure that the Civil War would happen

Again, I don't think we necessarily disagree on much here. Also, Pierce is near the bottom. It seems modern historians rank him just above Donald Trump.

 

[Agema]

The Federal Reserve system itself contributed more greatly to the Great Depression than anything Coolidge did... Like, you look into causes of the Great Depression, you might find some allusions to policy during the Coolidge Administration, but it's the policies of the Federal Reserve, which is a psuedo-independant entity that Presidents have no direct control over. The Fed screwed things up, not Coolidge.

There's no single cause to blame for the Great Depression, it's rarely if ever that simple. To what extent various forces contributed to it also depends heavily on which economists you listen to.

Wilson's federal reserve was him trying to jump on the global bandwagon of central banks without good theory to back it up, and his own party wouldn't even let him have the central bank he actually wanted. Not the success you're making it out to be.

The actions of any body depend on the available theory to back it up, and understanding of economics was much more primitive back then generally (never mind economic theory is far from settled now, nearly 100 years later). There's absolutely no reason to assume the government would have done a better job than the Federal Reserve - and it's not like the USA was unique in it's struggle to cope with the depression.

Wilsonian foreign policy is how America ends up in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Wilson personally sent troops all over Central America, not exactly something we look back on fondly. Foreign policy, also not the success you're making it out to be.

No president gets to blame their own, self-concocted policy errors on other people. Never mind that it's extremely hard to frame Cold War and Kissingeresque realpolitik as Wilsonian liberal internationalism.

Wilson might have sent troops to Central America, but let's bear in mind since the Monroe Doctrine ~1850, the USA decided that the Americas were it's private playground, and by the late 1800s was busying itself with colonies (e.g. Cuba) and widespread interventions. It was Roosevelt (T.) ~ 1900 who declared the USA had free rein to militarily intervene in the Americas as it saw fit. I know that theoretically this was about removing European influence, but we all know it really about replacing European nations' influence with the USA's own. There is no way Wilson can reasonably be held responsible for what other presidents chose to do.

Yes, Woodrow Wilson did some big things. Every one of them blew up down the line and irreparably scarred the US.

Obviously not true.

 

[tstorm823]

There's no single cause to blame for the Great Depression, it's rarely if ever that simple. To what extent various forces contributed to it also depends heavily on which economists you listen to.

Says the person who thinks Coolidge contributed enough personally to count against him when comparing presidential success.

No president gets to blame their own, self-concocted policy errors on other people. Never mind that it's extremely hard to frame Cold War and Kissingeresque realpolitik as Wilsonian liberal internationalism.

It's probably hard to do that because Wilson was all for actual wars rather than cold wars. And I named actual wars in actual foreign countries with actual fighting. Only one of which was during the Cold War. Democrats put the US in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. You are going to have a difficult time comparing that to Republicans in the Cold War. Sure.

Wilson might have sent troops to Central America, but let's bear in mind since the Monroe Doctrine ~1850, the USA decided that the Americas were it's private playground, and by the late 1800s was busying itself with colonies (e.g. Cuba) and widespread interventions. It was Roosevelt (T.) ~ 1900 who declared the USA had free rein to militarily intervene in the Americas as it saw fit. I know that theoretically this was about removing European influence, but we all know it really about replacing European nations' influence with the USA's own. There is no way Wilson can reasonably be held responsible for what other presidents chose to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

Skim that a bit, looking specifically for where Wilson's presidency starts. You might notice that suddenly it switches from fighting with Europeans or backing rebellions to long-term occupation of nations. You might begin to understand the comparison to Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. Occupying foreign nations is Wilsonian.

 

[Agema]

Says the person who thinks Coolidge contributed enough personally to count against him when comparing presidential success.

I have no personal opinion on the extent to which Coolidge's policies contributed to the Great Depression. I merely note that his policies have been viewed as contributory, and this will affect his reputation with people who rank presidents.

It's probably hard to do that because Wilson was all for actual wars rather than cold wars. And I named actual wars in actual foreign countries with actual fighting. Only one of which was during the Cold War. Democrats put the US in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. You are going to have a difficult time comparing that to Republicans in the Cold War. Sure.

I might point out that the USA didn't start WWI, WWII, the Korean War, or Vietnam: other countries did. You can't blame the Democrats for happening to hold the presidency at the time.

Given the stakes and circumstances at the time, it is doubtful Republican presidents would have acted differently. In WWI the population was becoming increasingly anti-Germany; in WWII the USA knew a confrontation was coming with Japan anyway; Korea and Vietnam were both motivated by defence of the newly-created international order, anti-Communism and US interests. In all cases, it really is not like the Republicans were vigorously campaigning against it, and often clearly in support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

Skim that a bit, looking specifically for where Wilson's presidency starts. You might notice that suddenly it switches from fighting with Europeans or backing rebellions to long-term occupation of nations. You might begin to understand the comparison to Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. Occupying foreign nations is Wilsonian.

No, it's just the same ongoing process of military occuption, political and economic domination that it had been doing for decades, except that by that point it had run out of Spanish colonies and worthwhile bits of Mexico to take over.