I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.
By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.
You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”
BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.
I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.
Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.
Various studies have linked inequality in the United States with fierce political polarization, if I remember correctly, which is why you see some of the same patterns now as in the Gilded Age. I don't see that as a good thing in any way.
Poll
