What presidents have you changed your mind about the most?

[Ebowed]

I've gained more respect for Nixon over the years because he was the last Republican president who truly cared about the poor.  That doesn't change my opinion that he's still despicable for the 1972 election and Watergate scandals.

My opinion of Reagan has gone down because of his economic policies ("voodoo economics") and the way he made fun of Walter Mondale in the 1984 debate that effectively insured Mondale's landslide defeat.

[Rob]

Richard Nixon is really underrated because of that damn Watergate scandal, but he did truly great things.

[dazzleman]

Reagan

It's funny that a lot of people who hated Reagan's policies at the time now effectively approve of them.

People who would have been apoplectic at his "tear down this wall" rhetoric in 1987 now say it was great.

That is proof of his success.

[The Duke]

I like Hoover more, I like Jefferson more, and I like Adams more.  I like Ford, Coolidge, and Wilson less.

[Defarge]

Nixon.  I used to think he was simply a scumbag.  Now I know he may have been a scumbag, but he was a brilliant scumbag, perhaps the best foreign policy president this country has had since WWII.

[J. J.]

Richard Nixon is really underrated because of that damn Watergate scandal, but he did truly great things.

I will be the first to say that Nixon did a number of positive things, but Watergate canceled those things out, sorry.

My opinions of Truman went up slightly, though he wouldn't make my list of "great" presidents.  Jerry Ford has really increased in my eyes, both policy-wise and as a person. 

[A18]

Jerry Ford has really increased in my eyes, both policy-wise and as a person. 

Interesting... how come?

[Beet]

Reagan

It's funny that a lot of people who hated Reagan's policies at the time now effectively approve of them.

People who would have been apoplectic at his "tear down this wall" rhetoric in 1987 now say it was great.

That is proof of his success.

I was not alive in the 80's. Yes, Reagan's foreign policy was proven effective in coaxing Gorbachev towards his policy of self-destruction.

And his domestic policies helped the economy re-structure into what it is today, which seem to have led us to overcoming, at least to some extent, the social and economic problems of the 1975-95 era.

The verdict on the present-day economy's long term effects is still out, as what we have is a system based on heavy consumption, accumulating debt, and demanding work yet low job creation, a housing bubble which causes inflation to be understated, unrealsitically high p/e ratios, and inconsistent corporate profit growth. Furthermore, the median income of the bottom 90% of households has barely grown since 1970. Nor can it be said to be even mostly the work of one man, let alone a politician. However, Reagan would have endorsed the structural changes since the 70s. He certainly represented them, and they seem to have generated economic revival at least in the basic sense of GDP growth with controlled inflation and lower unemployment.

[went that way]

George H.W. Bush increased in my view

[dazzleman]

The verdict on the present-day economy's long term effects is still out, as what we have is a system based on heavy consumption, accumulating debt, and demanding work yet low job creation, a housing bubble which causes inflation to be understated, unrealsitically high p/e ratios, and inconsistent corporate profit growth. Furthermore, the median income of the bottom 90% of households has barely grown since 1970. Nor can it be said to be even mostly the work of one man, let alone a politician. However, Reagan would have endorsed the structural changes since the 70s. He certainly represented them, and they seem to have generated economic revival at least in the basic sense of GDP growth with controlled inflation and lower unemployment.

You make some very valid points here.

In the postwar period, the US became accustomed to industrial supremacy, and that allowed many people without a high level of skills to move to the middle and even upper middle class through manufacturing jobs.  This ascendency eroded and ended in the hellish economic decade of the 1970s.

Since then, others have developed their manufacturing capacities, and we have faced competition that we didn't face before.  Our response has been mixed.  I think that in the case of automobiles, our unions, in trying to hold on to prior benefits, have cost us our edge, as others have been able to build higher quality cars than we can for equal or less money.

Where all this has led is to an ever larger premium on higher level cerebral skills, and the gap between the educated and uneducated has grown substantially since the 1970s.  Reagan's policies, in my opinion, recognized this reality but did not cause it.  I would say that your ratio of 90%/10% for losers vs. winners is extreme, but clearly there are many who have struggled to maintain their standard of living while others have seen their incomes go through the roof.

Part of it is demographics and changing social mores, none of which were caused by Reagan.  Housing prices went through the roof because of (a) large demand by baby boomers; and (b) a fundamental change in the typical buyer, which was at one time a family with one wage earner (and this dictated price levels) but since the 1970s is increasingly 2 wage earners, often with no kids.  It is the personal lifestyle decisions of many people that have led to higher costs of living, and the need for 2 incomes rather than one.  There is a circular effect here.

I share your concerns about the increasing intrusion of work in our lives, and the difficulty in creating a balance.  Many liberal forces have contributed to this, with feminism being foremost among them.  Feminism implanted the idea that there was embarrassment and shame in having the raising of children, and taking care of the house, as your only occupation, and many have taken this to heart.  This has gone beyond women, and created this mania to work all the time.

I would also add that prior to feminism, lower middle class couples could narrow the gap with upper middle class couples by having their women work part-time or full-time, while upper class women did not work at all.  Now, you have two huge wage earners who blow the lower middle class out of the water in terms of income.

I am also concerned about the high debt rates that people are using to maintain their lifestyles.  It reaches a point where you don't own your possessions; they own you.

Nothing will change until enough people change their values and their behavior accordingly.  I don't really see this situation as being the fault of any politicians, but rather as a result of uncontrollable international forces, coupled with the individual lifestyle choices of millions of people.

[riceowl]

Clinton +
FDR -
Carter -
Hoover +
Jefferson -

No reason.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would not say the 90/10 division is extreme. From 1970-1999, the average income of the bottom 90% slipped in real terms between 1970 and 2000, according to statistics in David Cay Johnston's book:

http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/chart.htm

I don't deny he has an agenda, and I have my doubts because based purely on personal guestimation it seems that average Americans buy more things, own more and better cars and appliances, and live in bigger houses than they did in 1970. But even if close to true, this would represent a major, major policy failure.

Another important point is that estimates of median income stagnating from 2000-2003 by the Census might actually be overoptimistic, because since around 1997 housing prices have begun to dramatically differ from the generalized CPI for the first time since the 1970s, and this hasn't been taken into account in calculations of inflation. Traditionally, rent rates are supposed to represent the cost of shelter, but in recent years rents have not grown nearly as fast as property. In 2004, for example, inflation would be running at over twice the rate of the official rate if housing prices were factored in. If this is accepted, then median purchasing power has actually fallen since 2000, despite a larger headline GDP every year. What is important to most people of course is their own purchasing power. Increases in GDP don't matter if that money doesn't come back to the people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, housing prices have really been booming at a rate since 1998 that can't be explained solely by demographic factors, although those factors might have made it more easy for the boom to occur. For one, the workforce participation rate has been stagnant among women since 1995 and falling overall since 2000. Also, there is no theoretical reason that the increase that you talk about should by itself cause any increase in the cost of living relative to income. Perhaps increases in consumption would balance out the additional supply in the labor force, but I don't see why the cost of living should grow faster than income unless there was some other factor driving up consumption over production (which there is), except for families that are still on a single income.

In terms of the work culture, I think one of the biggest factors is just the way the labor market is, if you compare to Europe. It is much more competitive. For example, labor union membership as a percentage of the labor force peaked here around 1955, has fallen by 3/4 since, and is much lower than Europe. I really think you give too much credit to feminism and social issues in general. The core issues which affect social issues more than vice versa are economic issues. Feminism for example first came to the scene in the context of the 'New Left' ala SDS, the Port Huron Statement, the biracial civil rights coalition, falling apart. It took many activists previously dedicated to socialism to the detriment of the latter. By moving away from class politics towards gender/personal politics, and feminism even foreshadowed the return of conservative economics. It was a symptom of the weakness of the left that activists moved away from class politics; this same weakness which is responsible in great part for feminism is also connected to the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 80s. In Marxism for example, women are theoretically supposed to be equal, but political energy in the USSR was never directed towards gender/personal politics. But even before the late 1960s, signs of a restoration of more market-based economics were present. Hence the movement was more of a symptom of its times, both in its liberal and conservative elements, than an originator of major trends external trends

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see how this works. Female labor participation has not entirely evened out though and shows no indication of doing so. Lower class women still participate at much greater rates than upper class women.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. What I worry about most is that if the data in the Johnston book are correct (despite, as you noted, a massive increase in labor force participation from 1970 to 2000) and median income continues to be sluggish as it is, we are not exactly succeeding as we should be in raising living standards. Further, there is really nowhere else to look to, because Europe and Japan have stumbled; hence the world depends on the U.S. model to succeed more than anything.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interestingly the % Unionised in the U.S and France is pretty similer IIRC

[WalterMitty]

bill clinton.

all in all, a very good pro-business president.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Truman. I've gotten much more positive on him.

My opinion on Nixon has changed, but it's still negative. It was originally negative because of Watergate. Now I realize Watergate was really no big deal, but he sucked because of his disgusting foreign policy and coddling of murderers, which included everyone from Mao to Pinochet to Pol Pot.

[dazzleman]

Truman. I've gotten much more positive on him.

My opinion on Nixon has changed, but it's still negative. It was originally negative because of Watergate. Now I realize Watergate was really no big deal, but he sucked because of his disgusting foreign policy and coddling of murderers, which included everyone from Mao to Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Mao was a wonderful man.  The major goal of his cultural revolution was to destroy the suburbs that were developing at that time in China.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He had the right ideas, but he carried them out in the worst possible ways. He was a great revolutionary, but China would've been far better off had he simply died around 1950 or so.

[dazzleman]

He had the right ideas, but he carried them out in the worst possible ways. He was a great revolutionary, but China would've been far better off had he simply died around 1950 or so.

Well, since that was about the year he took power (Oct. 1949), you can't think much of his rule.  But if you think he had the right ideas, you're a little cockeyed (or maybe a lot cockeyed).

[Peter]

You can find more of this article that New Left Marxist has plagiarised on this website

[BobOMac2k2]

He didnt claim it as his own....I dont believe.

[Peter]

He didnt claim it as his own....I dont believe.

Failing to cite a source basically says that it is your own writing.

[DanielX]

My major changes:

Grover Cleveland (up from slight disapprove to slight approve).
Teddy Roosvelt (down from approve to neutral).
Jimmy Carter (down from disapprove to way, way, way disapprove).
John Adams (down from approve to slight disapprove).
Richard Nixon (down from neutral to disapprove).
Gerald Ford (up from neutral to approve).
John F. Kennedy (up from slight disapprove to slight approve).
Martin Van Buren (up from disapprove to slight approve).
John Tyler (down from neutral to disapprove).
James Buchannan (down from slight disapprove to way, way, way disapprove).
Woodrow Wilson (down from neutral to disapprove).
William Howard Taft (up from slight disapprove to slight approve).

[A18]

Washington has gone down a lot, due to his level of partisanship.

Partisanship? Please elaborate. He wasn't even technically a Federalist, and he appointed Thomas Jefferson secretary of state.

[TomC]

Washington has gone down a lot, due to his level of partisanship.

Partisanship? Please elaborate. He wasn't even technically a Federalist, and he appointed Thomas Jefferson secretary of state.

Washington was the one who warned "us" of partisanship and factions in his farewell address. Other than his military victories, probably the best thing about Washington.

[A18]

Washington has gone down a lot, due to his level of partisanship.

Partisanship? Please elaborate. He wasn't even technically a Federalist, and he appointed Thomas Jefferson secretary of state.

Washington was the one who warned "us" of partisanship and factions in his farewell address. Other than his military victories, probably the best thing about Washington.

I know, that's why I'm wondering why anyone's opinion of him would go down due to his "level of partisanship" (very low).