Scholars rank Trump as the worst President in American history

[pbrower2a]

Not really a judgement one can make only year into someone's Presidency.

The article mentions that there is still three years for him to improve. This is just how he ranks currently.

...and three years of opportunity for an economic meltdown, a scandal that he cannot shake, or an international disaster. In view of his bloated ego and his refractory personality, I cannot expect him to meet any major challenge effectively. We have all seen his style of management -- "My Way or the Highway", and it does not work in Washington.   

Note this comes almost ten years after a much-maligned President -- Dubya -- left office with the Presidency in tatters. So he i s being compared to Dubya, one of the least effective Presidents ever.

His character is well established, and I doubt that it will improve or that Americans will like it any more. The only changes of character that one sees in people of President Trump's age come from increasing debility of mind.   

[pbrower2a]

Somewhat surprised by the low ranking of Kennedy. The Cuban Missile Crisis alone ought to place him higher.

Sexcapades might be taking down his rating. Public attitudes toward reckless fornication by the rich and powerful have changed dramatically in the last few months. 

[pbrower2a]

This says more about academia than Trump. No matter how you feel Trump saying stupid/mean things does not surpass plunging the country into a civil war. Despite the partisan hysteria that surrounds every president, the worst presidents are the pre/post civil war era presidents: Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson. Outside of that era any reasonable person would rate Tyler, Harding, and Hoover worse than any President from the modern era

But those stupid and nasty things that offend American sensibilities might be even harsher insults elsewhere.

[pbrower2a]

Democratic scholars rank Obama sixth, after the usual trinity of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR and then what are usually the two greatest peace-time Presidents (Jefferson and T. Roosevelt).  Independent scholars rank Obama twelfth, which is decidedly above average. Republican scholars rate our 44th President sixteenth, which is still above average.

The problem that conservatives can have with Obama isn't the faults of recklessness, corruption, insensitivity, or inattention (none of which apply) that could bring down any President. The problem with Obama as a President to conservatives is that he was not one of them. Conservative scholars surely recognize that President Obama has virtues that would serve a conservative President well.

So if it is a matter of disliking the result, Ronald Reagan is fourteenth for Democratic, seventh for independent, and fifth for Republican scholars. Obama, who displayed much the same skill set as Reagan, will probably be seen very well for conducting himself well -- and Reagan will get credit for reshaping America in his direction. Even that is a matter of taste.

Now what about Donald Trump? Conservative scholars rate him 40th, which is awful. Democratic and independent scholars both rate Franklin Pierce 40th, and I have never heard anyone laud Pierce as President. Independent scholars rate him second-to-worst.  Style points? That may be part of it, but we have not had a President so ill-prepared for the job as Donald Trump for over a century. We had also never elected a demagogue.    

Scholars can look to the long term, and perhaps they see in Donald Trump many of the signs of failure. Catastrophe is hard to predict, and if it did, then current Republicans  (maybe 'conservatives' in the future) would assess whether he handled the catastrophe well. If Trump were to get us into a bungled war or if he were to preside over an economic meltdown that begins as severely as those beginning in the autumns of 1929 or 2007, then they might fault him for making the Republican Party highly unattractive for a very long time. It's hard to imagine any President facing so hideous a spiraling of events as James Buchanan, second-to-last for Democratic scholars and last for independent and Republican scholars.

If I have a fault for Obama, it is that Donald Trump follows him.     

[pbrower2a]

One of my favorite ways to show the similarities of two Presidents is to show similarities in states in voting for one or the other. It is hardly surprising that Hoover in 1928 and Eisenhower in 1952 should win mostly the same states. Hoover promised peace and prosperity, and got only peace right; Ike could deliver. What is truly eerie is when the two presidents are from opposite Parties, as between Eisenhower and Obama. Partisan affiliations have changed dramatically  since the 1950s, but while much of the Democratic vote of the 1950s has since gone Republican and vice-versa, the similarities between Eisenhower and Obama present themselves in an odd way.

It is telling that Eisenhower won three states  (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that no Republican nominee has ever won together since 1924 -- and Ike did it twice. I'm guessing that Ike did best in the states with the highest levels of formal education -- which is much the same in the 2010s as in the 1950s.  Eisenhower and Obama both won Virginia after long dry spells for Republican Presidential nominees in that state for their respective Parties' nominees for President. 
..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

You can ignore the numbers which  indicate electoral votes from 2012.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

[pbrower2a]

It could be that the scholars are voting heavily upon achievements and conduct. Putting Obama near the top despite no evidence that his achievements will stick and Trump at the bottom indicates that behavior matters greatly. Obama did not try to get law enforcement to do the dirty work of partisan politics. His administration was spit-and-polish underneath the facade of an easy-going personality. He did not get into fights with the intelligence services or the military. He made no money off the Presidency. He kept his family members out of positions of power and influence. His communications were always measured. He showed a sense of humor. He did not use his power as a means of punishing opponents and rivals.