John, I'm no fan of the 'historian surveys' ranking presidents, after I've seen the rankings be quite misguided and surprisingly uninformed.
I'll also note that your source of the Federalist Society is a far right-wing ideological organization, though their list is less biased than you might expect.
One issue is that in ranking the presidents, views of their policies play a role. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis - was it one of the high moments in US history, as the competition between the west and the east came to its most critical turning point, as the USSR was left looking underhanded and dishonest, and weak as they backed down from the conflict, while the US looked strong but restrained and carried the day increasing its position as the world leader - leading to the downfall of Kruschev within a couple years for his part and a slide down for the USSR until it fell 25 years after Kruschev?
Or was it Kennedy's reckless policies, an indefensible double standard as he had Jupiter nuclear missiles in Turkey on the USSR's border while refusing the same to them, without any justification, and risking nuclear war to escalate his position based on the double standard?
Was Kennedy's government reckless in coming so close to invading Cuba when it turns out that would have led to nuclear war?
Was the situation a result, as some republicans suggested, of Kennedy's weakness with Kruschev the previous winter at the summit in Vienna emboldeing Kruschev to the point that nuclear war was almost occuring?
Was it just dumb luck that got Kennedy out of the mess, such as the two letters from Kruschev and an aide suggesting the plan to respond to only the first?
Were Kennedy's back channel communications during the crisis the smooth moves of a talented leader or risky, foolish moves yet again illustrating his arrogance and recklessness?
Were his plans too timid, such that the risk that the USSR could have had operational missiles while he was doing a quarantine instead of invading was too dangerous?
One set of facts, many opinions can result in 'ranking' the president in handling the event.
For example, how do you rank a president who is too restrained, versus one who is too aggressive? The way you weight those is based on your politics.
I tend to put JFK, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt in the top 3 slots of the last century, despite misgivings with Roosevelt's aggressive foreign policy (justify the occupation of the Phillippenes). LBJ would be be strong for the next spot if not for his disastrous Viet Nam policy.
I'll also note that your source of the Federalist Society is a far right-wing ideological organization, though their list is less biased than you might expect.
One issue is that in ranking the presidents, views of their policies play a role. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis - was it one of the high moments in US history, as the competition between the west and the east came to its most critical turning point, as the USSR was left looking underhanded and dishonest, and weak as they backed down from the conflict, while the US looked strong but restrained and carried the day increasing its position as the world leader - leading to the downfall of Kruschev within a couple years for his part and a slide down for the USSR until it fell 25 years after Kruschev?
Or was it Kennedy's reckless policies, an indefensible double standard as he had Jupiter nuclear missiles in Turkey on the USSR's border while refusing the same to them, without any justification, and risking nuclear war to escalate his position based on the double standard?
Was Kennedy's government reckless in coming so close to invading Cuba when it turns out that would have led to nuclear war?
Was the situation a result, as some republicans suggested, of Kennedy's weakness with Kruschev the previous winter at the summit in Vienna emboldeing Kruschev to the point that nuclear war was almost occuring?
Was it just dumb luck that got Kennedy out of the mess, such as the two letters from Kruschev and an aide suggesting the plan to respond to only the first?
Were Kennedy's back channel communications during the crisis the smooth moves of a talented leader or risky, foolish moves yet again illustrating his arrogance and recklessness?
Were his plans too timid, such that the risk that the USSR could have had operational missiles while he was doing a quarantine instead of invading was too dangerous?
One set of facts, many opinions can result in 'ranking' the president in handling the event.
For example, how do you rank a president who is too restrained, versus one who is too aggressive? The way you weight those is based on your politics.
I tend to put JFK, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt in the top 3 slots of the last century, despite misgivings with Roosevelt's aggressive foreign policy (justify the occupation of the Phillippenes). LBJ would be be strong for the next spot if not for his disastrous Viet Nam policy.
Facebook
Twitter