Was FDR-Truman-Ike-JFK the best sequence of US presidents?

[buritobr]

There is almost a consensus that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy were good presidents, no matter the partisan preference. So, there were 30 years of good administrations.

Is this the longest sequence?

The early presidents George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were good presidents, but their sum is only 20 years.

It is a consensus that Abraham Lincoln was a good president, but it is a consensus that James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson were very bad presidents.

That's why the 1933-1963 could be the best sequence. LBJ could also be included if there was no Vietnam War.

[Aurelius]

Hard to top Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Hell I'd even extend that to Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-JQA-Jackson.

JFK wasn't a particularly good President. His legacy punches far above his accomplishments because he was a young, handsome playboy who got assassinated.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'd say so

[President Johnson]

Add Lyndon Johnson, then certainly.

If only Nelson Rockefeller or Hubert Humphrey were victorious in 1968, that streak could have gone on for even longer.

[SWE]

Hard to top Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Hell I'd even extend that to Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-JQA-Jackson.

JFK wasn't a particularly good President. His legacy punches far above his accomplishments because he was a young, handsome playboy who got assassinated.

Madison's presidency was defined entirely by starting an unnecessary war and then losing that war. It was a miserable failure from any ideological perspective and easily breaks that streak no matter what criteria you're judging the presidents on.

[TDAS04]

If you include Kennedy, then include Johnson.  LBJ got a lot more done.

[Aurelius]

Hard to top Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Hell I'd even extend that to Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-JQA-Jackson.

JFK wasn't a particularly good President. His legacy punches far above his accomplishments because he was a young, handsome playboy who got assassinated.

Madison's presidency was defined entirely by starting an unnecessary war and then losing that war. It was a miserable failure from any ideological perspective and easily breaks that streak no matter what criteria you're judging the presidents on.

The war was completely necessary and justified - every peaceful means to get the British to respect our rights had been attempted and exhausted - and for America's intents and purposes it was a victory. America spent the 40 years before the War of 1812 desperately trying to preserve its sovereignty amidst the great power struggles of Europe. After that war, our sovereignty was no longer at risk, and our equal status as an independent nation was firmly established. Mission accomplished.

[LBJer]

JFK wasn't a particularly good President. His legacy punches far above his accomplishments because he was a young, handsome playboy who got assassinated.

JFK certainly wasn't a spectacular president, but given how lackluster his record in Congress was, I think he did considerably better than anyone had a right to expect. 

[Podgy the Bear]

I would add LBJ up to 1966.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hard to top Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Hell I'd even extend that to Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-JQA-Jackson.

Washington and maybe Monroe are the only not-bad Presidents on that list. John Adams brazenly violated constitutional rights and utterly failed to unite the country during the Quasi-War, Jefferson catastrophically mismanaged foreign policy (Exhibit A: the Embargo Act), Madison launched a stupid war that resulted in the worst consequences for the Native populations in American history up to that point, even the man in my signature was a completely failed President - it's his career before and after the White House that is worth celebrating -; and Jackson was of course a genocidal tyrant.

Oh, and under all of these Presidents sectional conflict over slavery grew, along with the institution of slavery itself -- proving that the States were anything but United. Hard to ignore all of the moral depravity, political cowardice, and outright incompetence wrought by this early era of the Republic.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If you include Kennedy, then include Johnson.  LBJ got a lot more done.

Hard to ignore Vietnam, although whatever Kennedy's intentions re: withdrawal, I am convinced that that ship had sailed by November 22, 1963. The Kennedy-approved CIA-orchestrated coup that resulted in the assassinations of Diem and his brother just three weeks prior to JFK's own assassination utterly destabilized South Vietnam (and the situation under Diem was of course very far from being good!), and it has been argued with good reason that LBJ's achievements on domestic policy and civil rights were paid for with the wages of military escalation overseas.

LBJ was not going to "lose" South Vietnam like Truman had "lost" China, and if I recall correctly Johnson was in the midst of stealing a US Senate election in Texas when Mao defeated the Nationalists. As President, he wasn't going to sacrifice his/JFK's/the Democrats' domestic agenda, and his own chance as a legacy worthy of FDR's in domestic policy, by appearing "soft" on Communism. And besides, unlike Kennedy or Nixon, Johnson didn't care much for foreign affairs--it was neither his passion nor his area of strength. But again, by late 1963 the ship in South Vietnam had sailed, and Johnson had a presidential election to win the next year.

Furthermore, even though Johnson had effectively campaigned on NOT wanting to "send American boys to die in 'Nam", military escalation after the Gulf of Tonkin incident was initially popular enough, and LBJ thought he had enough political capital to spend after his historic landslide against the bellicose "nut" Goldwater. Johnson thought he could talk out of both sides of his mouth and have it all, Vietnam and the Great Society, guns and butter. He had gotten away with brazen two-facedness and Machiavellian juggling of contradictory positions his whole life and career up to that point, hadn't he?

Finally, the United States domestically erupted into mass protests, political violence, horrendous urban rioting, and a generational/cultural sea change that, whatever you think of it, was a complete repudiation of everything that figures like Lyndon Johnson stood for. That too cannot be considered anything but a strike against Johnson as President, if it is considered at all.

[Aurelius]

Hard to top Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Hell I'd even extend that to Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-JQA-Jackson.

Washington and maybe Monroe are the only not-bad Presidents on that list. John Adams brazenly violated constitutional rights and utterly failed to unite the country during the Quasi-War, Jefferson catastrophically mismanaged foreign policy (Exhibit A: the Embargo Act), Madison launched a stupid war that resulted in the worst consequences for the Native populations in American history up to that point, even the man in my signature was a completely failed President - it's his career before and after the White House that is worth celebrating -; and Jackson was of course a genocidal tyrant.

Oh, and under all of these Presidents sectional conflict over slavery grew, along with the institution of slavery itself -- proving that the States were anything but United. Hard to ignore all of the moral depravity, political cowardice, and outright incompetence wrought by this early era of the Republic.

This perspective mischaracterizes the essential nature of the Early Republic, and the social and political events of the period. It's hard to understate just how much the United States was a radical experiment. In a world of constitutional monarchies like the UK, absolute monarchies like France, autocratic despotisms like Russia, post-feudal fossils like the Holy Roman Empire, and tiny mercantile city-state republics that were functionally oligarchies, the basic concept of an expansive, self-governing republic that was run truly for, by, and of the people was unthinkable. The Founders, despite their careful and thorough study of republics throughout history, were uncertain and divided on a number of issues, and basic points like the role of the President, and even whether to have a President, were uncertain.

Washington stepped into the Presidency with a massive personality cult, universal adoration, and an absence of well-developed political factions. In some ways this made his task much easier, because this combined with his sheer force of will allowed him to move mountains, and his moral restraint helped him set the tone for future Presidents, which he did very skillfully. Because we don't disagree on Washington, I won't spend too much time there.

John Adams brazenly violated constitutional rights and utterly failed to unite the country during the Quasi-War

John Adams, upon taking the oath of office, stepped into a political scene very different than it had been eight years before. Emerging victorious from a fiercely contested election, he did not have the unanimous backing that Washington received twice. Even among his supporters, he did not enjoy anything like the cult of personality around Washington. And by this time well-developed political factions had emerged and partisanship was fierce. The unique contingencies of Washington's presidency allowed him to act, in many ways, almost like a constitutional monarch. Adams did not have this benefit, so even though Washington had laid out the basic bounds of the Presidency, Adams was still walking on much untrodden ground. For this reason I give him a lot of benefit of the doubt that I would not give to later presidents.

I agree with you on the Sedition Act, and even though he was not an active advocate of its passage Adams certainly did choose to sign it. However, it's worth noting that up until Jackson, the President was exceptionally deferential to the Legislative branch. In the Early Republic, vetoes were exceptionally rare. Presidents only vetoed bills that they believed were unconstitutional, and even then only if they thought they had damn good reason to think so. Otherwise, even if they strongly disagreed with its aims, they would sign it into law. Washington vetoed only two bills during his presidency, both on strictly constitutional grounds, and it was not until 1811 that another President would veto a bill.

Looking at the Quasi-War, Adams' "failure to unite the country" is not a particularly salient criticism. Like I've mentioned, the cult of personality under Washington was gone and Adams was operating in much more conventional political territory. And much more crucially, the situation in Europe had deteriorated tremendously, fierce war had broken out, and America's fragile existence hung in the balance.

Let's situate this in its historical context. Ever since France and England went to war in 1793, the United States became caught in the middle of a game of chicken as both warring countries sought to cut off American trade with their enemy, effectively trying to force us to choose one side or the other. France asked us to join them in the war against England. Washington rightly recognized that our young and fragile nation could not afford another war, and declined. He issued a proclamation of neutrality, but the reality on the ground wasn't so simple.

At this time the US had significant trade with both countries but the UK was our most important trade partner by a large margin. The UK wanted to force us into trading with them to the exclusion of France. They (and France) saw trade with their enemy as aiding and abetting the enemy in the war. At this time the UK seized hundreds of American ships trading between French and British colonies and engaged in other acts of agitation. America, still very fragile and small, negotiated a treaty (the Jay Treaty) to secure continued peaceful trade and avoid war. In this treaty America won some concessions from Britain, but not everything it wanted, infuriating anti-British Jeffersonians. France was angry at the treaty because it established most-favored-nation status between the signatory countries and allowed British fleets to sack American ships trading with France so long as they paid compensation to the US.

As I've alluded to, foreign policy orientation was most defining issue of the First Party System, and this was especially the case after the Jay Treaty. Many Jeffersonians, by this point in time, had been swept away in the moment and attached themselves far too firmly to Jacobinical radicalism, and demanded a strong US-France alliance against the UK. Many Hamiltonians had been skeptical of republican democracy from the very beginning and favored a more aristocratic system or even outright constitutional monarchy; they abhorred the French Revolution and demanded closer attachment to Britain.

In this context, any foreign policy approach whatsoever would have sharpened political divisions, so it's wrong to judge Adams' course of action harshly for failing to smooth over these divisions. In his handling of the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War, he avoided direct war with France, allowed us to avoid humiliation by either France or Britain, and engaged in an important military buildup of both army and navy that allowed us to more effectively defend our sovereignty. Importantly, he also resisted the Hamiltonian ultra-Federalists, in his own party, who were demanding outright war with France; he also ensured that Hamilton's attempts to raise a massive army and put himself at its head went nowhere. Most importantly of all, he succeeded in preserving our independence for another four years, avoiding shackling us in suzerainty to either France or Britain, and keeping us as far out of the fray of Europe's wars as was realistically possible.

To be continued, with Jefferson next. Above all, we are incredibly lucky that our first seven Presidents all had such a strong conception of independence and Union.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To be continued, with Jefferson next.

Looking forward to it. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post detailed counterarguments to mine.

[zoz]

Three poor presidents and one mediocre one. Hard pass.

[President Johnson]

I would add LBJ up to 1966.

Lyndon also had accomplishments after 1966, like the Fair Housing Act, a bunch of consumer and environmental protection laws, the Gun Control Act, the appointment of Thrugood Marshall, some executive actions to strengthen equality, a balanced budget for 1969 and the American space program that laid the groundwork for the successful moonlanding months after he left office. While 1964/65 were the highpoint, he wasn't done in 1966.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would add LBJ up to 1966.

Lyndon also had accomplishments after 1966, like the Fair Housing Act, a bunch of consumer and environmental protection laws, the Gun Control Act, the appointment of Thrugood Marshall, some executive actions to strengthen equality, a balanced budget for 1969 and the American space program that laid the groundwork for the successful moonlanding months after he left office. While 1964/65 were the highpoint, he wasn't done in 1966.

I saw an interview of his from 1973 where he called 1968 one of his most successful years domestically .

Though Vietnam  did start to unravel by 1966 and by 1968 had collapsed into full blown chaos .

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

[Senator Incitatus]

It's obviously the first four (or five) over these and it would be McKinley-Roosevelt-Taft if they weren't bookended by such godawful presidents.

[Aurelius]

To be continued, with Jefferson next.

Looking forward to it. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post detailed counterarguments to mine.

Thanks. I'll try to get to Jefferson within the next few days.

[progressive85]

It also coincides with a period of a new, strong middle class and incredible economic growth.  It starts with World War II under FDR and there were dips here and there, but it lasts through all those other presidents.  The economy was in general in very good shape and the future seemed very bright for the nation in terms of jobs, wages, and the idea that you could have a chance at the American Dream.  It was simply a good time to work in the United States and have a family.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To be continued, with Jefferson next.

Looking forward to it. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post detailed counterarguments to mine.

Thanks. I'll try to get to Jefferson within the next few days.

...or weeks. heh.

[Aurelius]

To be continued, with Jefferson next.

Looking forward to it. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post detailed counterarguments to mine.

Thanks. I'll try to get to Jefferson within the next few days.

...or weeks. heh.

Sorry... got sidetracked by IRL stuff and then completely forgot about it. Sorry about that. Jefferson coming today.

[Aurelius]

To be continued, with Jefferson next.

Looking forward to it. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post detailed counterarguments to mine.

Thanks. I'll try to get to Jefferson within the next few days.

...or weeks. heh.

Sorry but I actually just had a new phone arrive and since Atlas has become a *massive* time suck for me I've decided to take a break, and not having it on my new phone's history yet will make it easy for me to stick to that for awhile. The cliffsnotes are that for Jefferson, the embargo was an idealistic experiment using peaceful coercion as an alternative to war. We'd been so heavily provoked at that point that we couldn't just continue to stand by and do nothing, so we tried an experiment that would hopefully avoid masses of American dead. When that failed, Madison had no other choice but to declare war.

It's also worth noting that the Louisiana Purchase is the single most important decision any US President has made, aside from maybe the Emancipation Proclamation, and has provided unbelievably high return on investment and contribution to our prosperity. It's the equivalent of mining bitcoin back in 2009.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Washington to JQA, or FDR to LBJ.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It was easy back then no inflation, inflation is the biggest problem in American politics when the prices surge and it was like under a 1.00 to buy many snacks and movie theatres


The failure in this time was there should of been a Wealth tax and Neither Carter or Clinton instituted it when they became Prez within the first two yrs of D Congress especially Carter inflation wouldn't have been a big deal if there was a Wealth tax and Reagan raised the cap on SSDI, that Carter should of done