Great discussion. As a Canadian, I had a sinking feeling though when one of the panelists said that Ronald Reagan's place in history would have been so much more secure if only he could have succeeded in getting Justice Bork's nomination through the Supreme Court. Perhaps he is right, but what does it say about American democracy that these unelected judges have become so important? Sadly, Canadian democracy seems to be going the same way as American democracy ever since PM Trudeau patriated our constitution and brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has give our Supreme Court judges way more clout than they ever had before, and they don't have to be approved by either house of parliament.
I think Franklin Pierce is being treated very unfairly here. He suffered terrible tragedy in his life with the loss of his sons, yet he still managed to get out of bed every day, put on his trousers and do his job - He didn't walk away from his responsibilities yet he's ranked as the 3rd worst president in American History. George W. Bush for his part is ranked 33rd although he spent most of his time playing golf, making enemies of old friends and generally coming across as an idiot every time he opened his mouth - all the while taking the country to war on trumped up charges that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which of course they didn't. He bailed out Wall Street Bankers to the tune of Billions of your dollars, money the bankers then used to pay themselves huge bonuses. Yet that clown Bush is ranked higher than Franklin Pierce? Go figure.
Pierce also presided over an 83% reduction of the national debt, while Bush presided over an expansion (I don't recall the statistic off hand) of the national debt. Yeah, these rankings aren't usually based on whether or not their actions benefited the country, but how great of a celebrity they are.
@@hermittraveler2163 Where did you get that 83% figure from? The Herald Review stated that Pierce reduced the national debt by 52%, which is still a very impressive amount, but no where near the 83% that you are suggesting
John Tyler deserves better than 5th. Texas Annexation, the Extension of the Monroe Doctrine into the Pacific, Webster-Ashburton Treaty and his restrained posture during the Dorr War. Maybe not a top-tier President, but he made a fair show of it.
@@celticlofts , Presidents best: 1) Abraham Lincoln 2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt 3) Ronald Reagan Worst: Presidents from Andrew Jackson to Milliard Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan...
Why is FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson not 1st, 2nd, and 3rd repectivly? They ruined the country. I also dont get how Theadore Roosevelt isnt always first. He did the most for the country.
Many people would have had much more radical responses to the Great Depression (and Vietnam and World War I) than they did. Really don't get hate for Wilson or Johnson.
all the writers and evaluators of course are eminently qualified but I constantly see a dearth of the diversity of Race on these panels it's great that women are included I find that wonderful and fine but the evaluation of the full panoply of presidents this country has produced could stand the evaluation of a person of color living at this time looking back would have provided, and I believe there is more than enough scholarship on these subjects in the black and African-American community available, would have provided a greater diversity of opinion and greater perspective. if you're not allowed to sit at the table then you will certainly be on the menu!
@@suarezguy He was extremely radical. He increased income taxes to about 90% above a million dollars which turned the depression into the great depression. He created the welfare state that is a problem to this day. He locked up Japanese Americans in concentration camps and confiscated their property. Also he was a traitor who allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen.
Too many blind spots from my perspective, ignorance of history and uninterested in the future, he allowed Dick Cheney to sit in the throne for the first five years and we all suffered for it, Cheney big footed all of the subordinates and ran a secret cabal out of the vice presidents office that overrode all of the executive departments undertakings, even to the length of big footing other executive departments, and with the acquiescence of W's brain, the question must be asked why did it take so long for the president to assert himself in his presidency, and if he was afraid of the job or thought it was too big for him to manage then why did he seek it out, was it all for the aggrandizement of others, I think it must be part of the reason why he doesn't maintain contact with Cheney even until this day!
.....um no? He made the government a ton bigger and he wrote alot of awful executive orders. The government now can spy on everyone for no reason at all. Obama instead of doing away with this expanded it. 2 truly awful presidents. Still not as bad as fdr or lbj but its hard to be that bad.
A war can occasionally, though rarely, lose support from historians later, even rarer that when the public does turns against it historians later somehow for some reason argue that it was right and just.
I don't see how or why attacking Iraq and trying and failing to make it a democracy would be considered a good response to 9/11 or how historians could later ignore or minimize that his term (after his nearly 8 years) ended on one of the greatest economic collapses.
The journalist in the middle said there are some of us who wish that nothing happens to ginsburg. That guy is not a journalist he is not an author he is a political activist. So I eliminate him from consideration in the discussion because he has nothing intelligent to add.
