Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[TheReckoning]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

Either way, while the financial support of Contras was questionable, it doesn’t discredit Reagan entirely because 1) It makes perfect sense as to why Reagan would oppose the spread of Communism, and 2) because Reagan’s presidency was much more than just this.

he was really patriotic and stuff.

You say that as is patriotism is not one of the most necessary requirements for being a good president.

[TheReckoning]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon.

In summation: HP

You focus only on the bad while leaving out important context. Yes, Reagan said a racist thing once. He was born in 1911 and had his early childhood under a president who supported the KKK, and he held some of the prejudices of that time. If you’re calling every president who’s said something racist once a HP, then Washington, Lincoln, LBJ, and pretty much all presidents pre-Reagan were HP.

I judge people's values and deeds based on the time they lived in. There were plenty of people who were not bigots in the 1960s and 1980s, and people who had plenty of exposure to outside groups and still were bigoted are worse human beings. Reagan was an adult in control of his facilities when he chose to deliberately pander to racists for their votes. Other Republicans who had presidential ambitions chose not to, even though they were doubtless aware of previous Lily White strategies. Not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes makes a politician an HP.

You think the same of FDR?

He didn’t just make a racist comment once. He sent hundreds of thousands to an internet camp.

How’s that for “not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes”?

Yeah, I think FDR was a sh**tty guy, though an effective wartime leader and one of the best American presidents on economic policy. He sent parts of my family back to Europe to die, I'm not championing his character or actions. Pointing to another president is running from the question asked. The question is if Reagan was a Freedom Fighter or a Horrible Person. He was an HP.

And dismissing eight years of giving voice and legitimacy to racists to act like it was just a few comments is why Republicans are not going to win back people of decency.

How exactly did Reagan “give voice” to racists?

One off-hand racist comment a decade before coming into office in a private conversation doesn’t negate all the good he did.

[TheReckoning]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were vastly better Presidents than Ronald Reagan.

What makes you so confident in that assessment, given how most independent political scientists disagree?

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

[TheReckoning]

Utter garbage President and person who wrecked the working and middle class with the de-regulations and huge tax cuts that in a way caused the great recession of 2008 and the ever growing wealth gap.

Have you considered that recessions aren’t caused by polices passed 25 years prior?

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

[TheReckoning]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were vastly better Presidents than Ronald Reagan.

What makes you so confident in that assessment, given how most independent political scientists disagree?

Because I teach history and economics and I know of the same events they do.  I believe what is going on is the right wing political scientists and historians in these surveys deliberately vote Reagan as the best President ever (or, at lowest, third best) in order to put him higher up the rankings than he would be otherwise.

Other than that, I can understand also understand some of it.  After Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, all men essentially defeated by their offices, there were, at least, arguments in academia that the office of the Presidency should be replaced in favor of the Swiss governing model.

Reagan did restore the idea of a 'strong Presidency' and he also did play a role in successfully addressing the two top issues of the day: inflation/stagflation and the Cold War.

Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War and Reagan's brinksmanship with the Soviet Union could have ended in a much different way, but Reagan deserves the credit for recognizing that Gorbachev was genuine.  In this, Reagan had to marginalize his own cold war hawks like Richard Perle.

Beyond that though, I invite you to try to argue that Reagan's Presidency was not 'short term gain for long term pain.'

However, because of these two major accomplishments, this is why I put Ronald Reagan as the 10th best President since 1901, out of the 20 Presidents.

Even among Democrats, Reagan is ranked 14th out of 44, or just below Clinton. Independents put him at 7th. Republicans at 5th. Since there are more Democrats surveyed than Republicans, he’s overall at 9th.

Given how the Democrats on this forum think he’s pretty much Hitler, I doubt the Democrats surveyed think Reagan is some sort of a hero because of Right-wing propaganda.

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

True, but I do believe that SE Asia is different from Latin America since SEA is much more diverse, so nothing spread much in those regions.

Plus, you can’t ignore the role that neighboring China played in the spread of Communism in that region (and later, Vietnam), even if those were just one part of the equation.

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

True, but I do believe that SE Asia is different from Latin America since SEA is much more diverse, so nothing spread much in those regions.

Plus, you can’t ignore the role that neighboring China played in the spread of Communism in that region (and later, Vietnam), even if those were just one part of the equation.

1.Central American nations have gone to war with each other not long before Reagan. The Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 is an example of that.  Central American nations are more diverse than you seem to think.

2.Reagan dropped to 13th in the latest Sienna Times College Poll of Historians and Political Scientists (down from 9th), I doubt he's ranked as high as 14th by Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

These polls have varying results, but before you think the one I just linked is biased in favor of the GOP, it put Obama at 8th, and Trump in last.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

1. Because I’m right and they’re wrong.

2. Yes, and I’m right and you’re wrong.

This quote could easily be from a Trump cultist after I point out no evidence of fraud.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

The long term effects of the Washington consensus formed in late 80s and how it shaped the world are very damaging. The longer time it passes, the easier it gets to notice.

Pinochet in Chile, Thatcher in UK and Reagan in US is like the trinity of hell to many people. You can disagree about the negative effects being overstated or not, but you’re missing the point people make when you bring the “US political scientist” perspective that deliberately judges these people based on very specifically picked patterns and indicators cold data, ignoring all human subjectivity and also all the long-term effects.

So much that these “specialized” rankings usually diverge a lot from each other. They also change a lot as time passes, because you can’t take out the subjectivity aspect. If anything, the reckoning that comes from current unrest makes Reagan look worse because it all can be traced back to him. Naturally people who just want a more Keynesian capitalism back will hate him.

Even then, not all rankings are that favorable of Reagan. Siena puts him on par with Clinton and Obama, which even if they consider it decent enough, it’s far from the “greatness” associated to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc. But it’s a mistake to base yourself on these too firmly regardless of what they say. They’re mostly pointless and serve better to understand how these people tend to be remembered by specific groups.

It’s quite something to see people who identify as patriotic conservatives with angry anticapitalist discourse about corporations and elites invading the US capitol wanting to kill their neoliberal leaders. And yet they are really convinced they’re fighting against communism/socialism. That’s the biggest evidence that some major political “castration” happened in the past and they were increasingly brainwashed. And a lot of that can be traced back to Reagan, even if the effects increased slowly.

Trumpists aren’t conservatives- at least, them being Trumpists doesn’t have much to do with them being conservative.

If it did, why didn’t this happen for George HW Bush- Reagan’s own successor?

This can be traced back to Trump first and foremost. You could make some sort of abstract argument involving Reagan, but that would be like involving JFK because he was also a patriotic capitalist.

Reagan was someone who was ACTUALLY anti-communist. Not Trump, who has brainwashed millions into believing raising taxes in those making 400k+ will turn us into the Soviet Union.

[TheReckoning]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

TFW a study must be wrong because it doesn’t confirm your bias.

[TheReckoning]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

TFW a study must be wrong because it doesn’t confirm your bias.

A cutesy survey of political scientists asking them to rank the best Presidents is not a study.

Also, do you know what political scientists do? It’s not sitting around debating who the best President was.

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

All I’m saying is, in not a single ranking of US presidents in this millennium has Reagan not been in the top half. And I think they might know a bit more than “LVScreenssuck” on talkelecions.org.

[TheReckoning]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

But just because something wasn’t “scientifically” conducted in a technical sense, doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis for the views of experts.

[TheReckoning]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

But just because something wasn’t “scientifically” conducted in a technical sense, doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis for the views of experts.

Yes, as a personal opinion, but you referred to those as a "study", and I am saying that a piece of nonfiction literature has to meet certain scientific standards and criteria to be referred to as a study.

I’d say it’s less that this poll itself was a study, but more that the answers given are reflective of the studies that Political scientists do. Actual, scientific studies.

So it still holds some fact-based merit, especially since I only included Independents- no partisans.

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

I don't care about it because I'm making an evaluation on *my* opinion of Ronald Reagan, you nitwit.

And “your” evaluation goes against almost all respected political scientists, so clearly something is wrong with it.

Appreciate the use of the word “nitwit” though, so take the recommendation.

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

Dude, evaluations of presidents cannot even remotely be compared to scientific studies. It’s not even close. It’s something that’s inherently subjective and unscientific.

If they’re so subjective and not based on science at all, why has if Reagan been ranked in the top half in every presidential ranking this century, and often in the top 3rd- including by Democrats?

[TheReckoning]

What happened in the Capitol a few days ago is the culmination of 40 years of Reaganism infesting American politics.

How so?

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

Dude, evaluations of presidents cannot even remotely be compared to scientific studies. It’s not even close. It’s something that’s inherently subjective and unscientific.

If they’re so subjective and not based on science at all, why has if Reagan been ranked in the top half in every presidential ranking this century, and often in the top 3rd- including by Democrats?

There’s no ifs about it. Science and the scientific method have definitions, and this isn’t it. The existence of a consensus opinion on a subject does not make that opinion a fact or make that opinion scientific. A majority of professional football analysts rank Tom Brady as the best quarterback of all time, and a majority of Christian theologians agree on the existence of the Trinity. Neither of those statements are in any way scientific, nor do they represent facts.

I mean, if there’s a general consensus of scientists, you can bet they’re right. This isn’t something they pulled out of their ass either, they’res actual research into how good presidents were- which is why people like Lincoln always rank in the top, and people like Buchanan always rank in the bottom.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

To answer your question, in these polls I have seen ranking Reagan in the decent category somewhere around low double-digits or even high single-digits, I've yet to read any explanation from the polled experts as to why he is ranked so relatively favorably. As mentioned, the one poll I saw that ranked him 11th at least further ranked the presidents in a number of categories, Reagan was very high on the list for communicating with the public, which is undeniable, as well as I kid you not, luck. Which come to think of it is also pretty undeniable.

But until then, I'll gladly stick by my own analysis, having live through and followed his presidency like a hawk from the day he was elected.

 His foreign policy is insanely overrated by Republicans when, at best late in his term he got aboard the internationalist Diplomatic train and had some moderate successes, and was thus merely a link in the chain running back to Truman rather than St Ronnie Slayer of the Communist dragon, and at worst were outright counterproductive embarrassments like Iran-Contra, his Nicaraguan policy, supporting the apartheid regime, etc etc.

His economic policy, despite some laughable attempts to credit the economic growth that arose years after he left the presidency with an intervening recession as being somehow related to him, created several years of growth with the economic equivalent of a debt-fuelled sugar high. He slashed social welfare programs for the poor and working-class and in its place slashed income taxes for very wealthiest individuals and corporations in the country, and thereby further started truly disastrous blueprint which continues to the present day of running our government inordinately on issuing debt rather than collecting Fair taxes from the wealthy.

His social policy brought the religious right into a full governing partnership with the GOP, again another dangerous precedent which continues to this day. He furthermore started the Republican policy of being overly and unapologetically opposed to civil rights and minorities in order to double down on the white vote that firmly launched the gop's trajectory towards even attempting to be the party of Lincoln towards eventually evolving into the de facto white nationalist party it has become today under Trump.

Yes, polled expert presidential historians, I'm all ears for your reasoning as to why Reagan even reaches the level of average president let alone hovering near the top 10!

Have you actually read any analysis of his presidency by political scientists?

Im aware you think Reagan was abysmal. But Republicans also think Obama was abysmal.

I’m sure you would disagree with the analysis of Republicans.

It sounds like you believe there is some sort of massive conspiracy among political scientists (who mostly are left-leaning) to make Reagan look far better than he actually was.

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

Dude, evaluations of presidents cannot even remotely be compared to scientific studies. It’s not even close. It’s something that’s inherently subjective and unscientific.

If they’re so subjective and not based on science at all, why has if Reagan been ranked in the top half in every presidential ranking this century, and often in the top 3rd- including by Democrats?

There’s no ifs about it. Science and the scientific method have definitions, and this isn’t it. The existence of a consensus opinion on a subject does not make that opinion a fact or make that opinion scientific. A majority of professional football analysts rank Tom Brady as the best quarterback of all time, and a majority of Christian theologians agree on the existence of the Trinity. Neither of those statements are in any way scientific, nor do they represent facts.

I mean, if there’s a general consensus of scientists, you can bet they’re right. This isn’t something they pulled out of their ass either, they’res actual research into how good presidents were- which is why people like Lincoln always rank in the top, and people like Buchanan always rank in the bottom.

It’s not objective, it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science. A consensus of historians is not science, no matter how much you want it to be.

It’s only subjective to a point. There’s a reason why Reagan is highly-ranked even among Democratic scholars- even though, if they’re anything like the Democrats on this forum, think he’s the AntiChrist.

[TheReckoning]

What do you think a political scientist does TheReckoning?

These rankings are actually generally done by historians, so they’re even less scientific. (This is not to try to discredit the discipline in any way, in fact I loathe natural scientists who engage in humanities-bashing and think they’re so superior, but it is just simply not quantifiable or falsifiable in the way even a social science study might be, let alone a natural science one.)

The ranking I’m referring to was done by political scientists, not historians.

[TheReckoning]

What do you think a political scientist does TheReckoning?

Analyze politics.