Ricky brings our attention to the RANT, where one "Tom Sawyer" (real name?) offers his list of America's best and worst Presidents. Before I go on, a side point is worth mentioning. From what I read of the RANT, it's a thoughtful, moderate voice. I'm going to find a place to add it to the blogroll, along with a couple of other new ones I've been noticing a lot of good posts from lately. But that's for another day.

Now, Ricky has the RANT listed on his blogroll on the same side as me and a bunch of other lefty's, but I swear while I read this list of Presidents and his ideas about why they were the best and worst, that I was convinced I was reading a righty warblogger's views. Later, I was suprised to see that one of the editors was a Kerry "voter" (not supporter, per se), and that the site content seemed to reflect an interest in preserving civil liberties against the right-wing onslaught. So, I guess that maybe we have a political mixed breed here. Nevertheless, a list that puts Reagan better than Kennedy and Carter worse than Nixon, and places Clinton on the "worst" list has got to raise some questions. It inspired some thinking on my part and I thought a good way to reply would be to create my own list, that highlights the more noteworthy presidencies (to me), whether for good or ill, and compare and contrast my views on those presidencies or the events surrounding them with whatever bits overlap Tom Sawyer's.

In rough, but not nearly exact, order from "best" to "worst", and stopping not at an even number, but when I run out of interesting presidencies (explanations "below the fold"):

1. James Madison
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. John F. Kennedy
5. John Adams
6. Harry Truman
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Grover Cleveland
10. Richard Nixon
11. Andrew Johnson
12. Lyndon Johnson
13. George W. Bush

1. James Madison - the good: He was the father of the American Constitution, that most venerable of documents. He played a major part in crafting the system that created a working democracy and fostered civil liberties. He did all of this before his presidency, but - just as Sawyer credits Washington's war effort to his presidency, we must credit Madison's brilliant conception of an egalitarian democracy to his, no matter when the contributions were made. He also led the opposition to the notorious alien and sedition acts. He had the vision and courage to face down the British the when there was a real threat of losing all of the gains that had been made in the first half century. He had the resolve to face down the secession threats from New England. Under him, an economy badly damaged by Jefferson's botched response to the Napoleonic wars (which Madison had, by the way, supported).
the bad: I'm sure there was some, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it was.
2. Abraham Lincoln - (I know I'll be in trouble with Buck for this one) the good: Emancipation. It was way overdue. Everything else that surrounded his presidency, from the Senate shenanigans to the war to the assassination was fall-out from his insistence on abolition. He had to have known what a struggle it was going to be, and he made the right choice, come hell or high water. The fourteenth amendment.
the bad: You can't second guess something like the civil war. Maybe it could have been avoided, and justice could have been served, but who can find a realistic scenario under which that might happen?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt - More or less what Sawyer said. My only qualm is that four terms is too many for any president, no matter how good. I think Roosevelt should have had enough faith in the American system to follow Washington's example.
4. John F. Kennedy - the good: In a nutshell - vision, intelligence, the ability to learn from mistakes (after the Bay of Pigs), understanding of human nature, and the ability to keep his head in a time of crisis. If there is a supreme being, I thank him mightily that George Bush was not President during the missile crisis. Kennedy used his substantial political capital to support the civil rights movement. Where he could have steered clear of a politically dangerous area, or even used his power to crush that movement, he did the right thing.
the bad: the Bay of Pigs. Illness that wasn't disclosed to the people he served.

One issue I will take with Sawyer's remarks about Kennedy: he was no political conservative. Not by the standards of his time, and not by today's standards. Yes, he had a strong military position, and yes - in addition to that - he was uncomfortably hawkish. Those are only "conservative positions" to the extent that conservatives have been successful in manipulating conventional wisdom. Tax cutter? Yes. And cutting taxes is a conservative thing to do. However, doing it without wrecking the budget or skimping on our obligations to society is a liberal way to do it. Championing civil rights was the most un-conservative thing he could do. Conservatives are finally courting minority votes, with some success, but they continue to stop well shy of boosting minority rights. Where civil marriage is concerned, their current effort is to quash the expansion of civil rights. Another defining conservative trait was and remains opposition to the entitlements of the New Deal. Kennedy was no conservative.

5. John Adams - the good: He resisted the war hawks that would have destroyed our fledgling democracy. He brought America (mostly) peacefully through a very stormy time in its history. He strengthened the military to prepare to face a threat, and he never had to face it. His leadership helped keep an economically fragile nation alive.
the bad: The alien and sedition acts.

6. Harry Truman - basically what Sawyer said again. I'm not sure if I can, in good conscience, applaud the dropping of the bombs - especially the second one. However, he was tough when toughness was needed, and those were the days when the buck still stopped.

7. Theodore Roosevelt - the good: Again, what Sawyer said.
the bad: Imperialism - especially in the Phillipines. In many ways, Roosevelt's war in the Phillipines mirrors better than any other conflict the current war in Iraq.

8. Ronald Reagan - the good: nuclear disarmament treaties with Russia, negotiated from a position of strength. "Tear down this wall." The wisdom to moderate his tax cuts through later increases in order to avoid a budget meltdown. Good humor and intelligence.
the bad: Support for terrorism. Grenada - in Sawyer's words (though he applied them to Wilson), "he sent our troops to Latin American countries as a show of force for no adequate or well-founded reasons, simply because he could do so."; Ignored - and laughed about - AIDS, presumably because it seemed to be "just" a "gay disease."; "Welfare queen".

9. Grover Cleveland - the good: I can't think of any.
the bad: Union buster. Conservative ideologue reminiscent of his namesake, Grover Norquist. Refused to come to the aid of farmers during drought. His tenure is notable simply because it is so regrettable.

10. Richard Nixon - the good: Created the EPA. (Finally) managed to end the Vietnam War, albeit without honor. Update: From Say Uncle, opened talks with China. (How did I miss that?)
the bad: Watergate, though maybe it was a blessing in disguise, since it woke Americans up (for a couple of decades, anyway) that their leaders were not above distrust. Anti-semite. Blamed all his problems on the "liberal media" (sound familiar?)

11. Lyndon Johnson - the good: Continued to support civil rights after Kennedy. Cared enough about society to attempt to create a better system for the poor and disenfranchised. Had the decency to choose not to run for re-election in 1968.
the bad: Without cause or justification, started one of the bloodiest undeclared wars in American history. His social agenda failed to make much positive difference.

12. George W. Bush - the good: Quickly and decisively dealt with the Taliban when it continued to harbor al Qaeda after 9/11.
the bad: Started an unjust war in Iraq, deligitimizing the U.S. and undermining the "Global War on Terror" by reducing it to nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for use on his many (correct) foreign policy critics. He avoided a healthy debate over the existence and nature of a threat from Iraq, and instead used the bully pulpit to sell the war and prevent Americans from getting a full report from the weapons inspectors. He exhibits no legal or moral compass, bringing prisoner abuse and torture back to the realm of the "thinkable" as a tool of American foreign policy. He has completely ignored the gathering threat of nuclear proliferation - proably the biggest threat facing America today, or ever. There is a lack of vision in his domestic agenda that makes Gerald Ford (who Sawyer singles out as lacking vision) look downright, well, visionary. In place of vision, he connives to support the agenda of the ideologues who have taken over the Republican party, and occasionally floats a "Mars" trial balloon. His tax-cuts were not limited to targeted and reasonable ones meant to "stimulate the economy", and they were not moderated to avoid ruinous deficits as Reagan, and his own father had done. His administration was, as Iiluio and others noted, driven by politics instead of policy, and ideology instead of idealism. He has cynically opposed civil rights for gays in order to further his political career. Ironically, it may be the outgoing Deputy Secretary of State who has best encapsulated the Bush legacy, "The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

I won't argue that Madison was "the best" President in history, or that Bush is "the worst". But these are the goods and bads I find of some of the most noteworthy presidencies.

I do take issue with a couple of other items from "the Rant"... a lot of his criticisms, especially of Clinton, were about what people said about someone, accused them of, or impeached them for. Those things are not important. What was important is what actually took place. In some cases, there is enough evidence to say they probably did those things. In others, for instance his criticisms of Bill & Hillary for being "under investigation" represent nothing but over zealous political enemies, not afraid to use the justice system to pursue political vendettas. I also take issue with his tendency to praise presidents for their (tough) words to other nations. Tough words can be good or bad. The quality that involves rhetoric addressed to foreign powers and deserves praise is successful diplomacy. Finally, Carter, Ford, and Clinton simply do not belong a worst presidents list. Carter and Ford were largely ineffective, and thereby left the nation largely no worse off than before they took office. Clinton had a mixed record of successes and failures, and he eventually gave in to the pressure of the political coup that was being pursued against him, and he lied under oath, obstructing justice - but America is not so much worse off as a result. Under his watch, hundreds of thousands of Americans rose above poverty, and America enjoyed a great peace dividend. He wasn't the best ever, but he certainly wasn't among the worst.