The 100 Greatest American political figures of the modern era: #1. Franklin D Roosevelt (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

21. Sam Rayburn 

There’s no education from the second kick of a mule.

Sam Rayburn, our longest term ever Speaker of the House, was the most powerful man in Congress from the 1930s to the 1960s. As such he was a key figure in most of the legislation that was passed during this critical period in American history, from much of the New Deal to interstate highways to the Marshall Plan, civil rights, to the beginnings of the Great Society. 

There is a reason the chamber is named after him. 

 

[timschochet]

20. Barry Goldwater 

You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you have to be able to shoot straight. 
 

Barry Goldwater was one of the greatest statesmen of the last century. Forthright, honest and brave, he is representative of a lost era of American politics. Goldwater was an unfailing conservative/libertarian of the old order: he never compromised on principle. 
There is probably no single person on this list that I admire more. 

 

[rockaction]

There is probably no single person on this list that I admire more.

He also said that nuking Cambodia and Vietnam were options to be considered. Wanted to nuke the foliage from the trees in Vietnam that were giving the Viet Cong cover, I believe. The more I read his book, The Conscience of a Conservative, the more I realized he was a touch on the batty side. 

Goldwater is an impressive character, though. He rose from relative obscurity to become a polarizing and eventual winning figure in William F. Buckley's Republican Party. The Republican Party ran for thirty years on the Goldwater/Buckley platform, and got themselves redemption in 1980 when President Reagan was elected. (Yes, there was Nixon, but that was never really Buckley or the conservatives' guy.)

 

[timschochet]

He also said that nuking Cambodia and Vietnam were options to be considered. Wanted to nuke the foliage from the trees in Vietnam that were giving the Viet Cong cover, I believe. The more I read his book, The Conscience of a Conservative, the more I realized he was a touch on the batty side. 

Goldwater is an impressive character, though. He rose from relative obscurity to become a polarizing and eventual winning figure in William F. Buckley's Republican Party. The Republican Party ran for thirty years on the Goldwater/Buckley platform, and got themselves redemption in 1980 when President Reagan was elected. (Yes, there was Nixon, but that was never really Buckley or the conservatives' guy.)

He had some strange ideas for sure, But he was a man of great integrity who loved this country and it’s people, which is all I ask for in a leader. It’s depressing that there are so few of these. 

 

[rockaction]

He had some strange ideas for sure, But he was a man of great integrity who loved this country and it’s people, which is all I ask for in a leader. It’s depressing that there are so few of these. 

Oh yeah, I really respect Barry Goldwater. I just can see how Lyndon Johnson ran the nuke ad that nuked Goldwater's campaign. Goldwater just needed to come out and say only as a defensive last resort would we ever use nukes. Instead he was talking about nukes and NATO and Vietnam. 

If we had heard something like that today, the news would explode. It did back then, actually. It was just a little more long form in the journalistic delivery than sensationalized like now. But he certainly was cavalier about talking about the use of nuclear weapons. 

In case people haven't caught on, by the way, I absolutely loathe war and everything about it. I have massive dissonance when it comes to war and its attendant issues, so Goldwater being excluded and routed for the presidency is no skin off of my back. 

 

[timschochet]

19. Earl Warren 

I always read the sports section first. 
 

Arguably the most controversial Supreme Court Chief Justice in our history. The Warren Court desegregated schools, decided that prayer in school was unconstitutional, determined that there was a right to privacy, gave suspected criminals Miranda rights. No wonder that all throughout America in rural areas during the 1960s there were billboards that read “Impeach Earl Warren”. 

Warren was also the man who led the commission that determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of John F Kennedy. This was a great contribution towards preserving the continuity of governance. 

Yet there was another side to this liberal Republican. He was the main impetus, as governor of California, behind the shameful imprisonment and relocation of 100,000 Japanese Americans. It should never be forgotten that most of the men behind this terrible violation of civil liberties were liberals, not conservatives. 

 

[rockaction]

Warren took away from the state legislatures what was rightfully theirs and created new federal rights whole cloth. His jurisprudence might be considered a stain on the field, actually. Or he's a hero. Depends on your worldview. But if you believe in the Constitution and its procedures and checks and balances, Warren is not your guy. He's a King Judiciary guy, and our nation still reels from the decision to use the Court as a legislative policy body. 

I support some of the rights he created and think them beneficial. It doesn't mean that he didn't usurp power that wasn't granted to him by the Constitution. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Warren was also the man who led the commission that determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of John F Kennedy. This was a great contribution towards preserving the continuity of governance.

Is it a "great contribution" no matter what really happened?   For sake of argument lets pick one of the many conspiracies and say it was true and that was understood by the commission, was it still a "great contribution" to cover that up?   As someone that claims democrats all to often give into "the country cannot afford another..." and thus "for the good of the nation" bury scandals I think a lot of people would argue "yes", but I'm not sure how we can effectively "self govern" based on so many secrets and lies.

 

[rockaction]

Is it a "great contribution" no matter what really happened?

This was my first thought when reading tim's post. Is it the truth we seek or stability? Because if it was the truth...seems like a lot was left to be desired. 

I do understand the need for expediency and closure in the matter, though. We were going to have an upheaval if the public hadn't had what happened explained to them. Shock would have become anger. 

 

[timschochet]

Is it a "great contribution" no matter what really happened?   For sake of argument lets pick one of the many conspiracies and say it was true and that was understood by the commission, was it still a "great contribution" to cover that up?   As someone that claims democrats all to often give into "the country cannot afford another..." and thus "for the good of the nation" bury scandals I think a lot of people would argue "yes", but I'm not sure how we can effectively "self govern" based on so many secrets and lies.

I’m probably biased here because I tend to reject almost all conspiracy theories. I begin by believing the Warren Commission, not doubting them. Beyond Warren, these were all men of high standing and integrity. And the country accepted their word on the matter. Frankly this is something I believe we’re missing today. If only there was, for instance, a Warren Commission, that Americans on all sides trusted ,  to tell us that the 2020 election was a valid result. 

 

[rockaction]

Frankly this is something I believe we’re missing today

We're missing it in part because there were so many questions about the Warren report that people didn't think their own government was on the level with them. Nor did the legislative body. We had the Church Committee a decade and a half later, and that really shook things up a bit. Finding out about Hoover also decimated credibility. These "top men" were functioning as a shadow government, and not one of the people. They did it in the name of the people, but what they did was highly illegal and I'd say odious and rotten. Especially Hoover.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would happily be a solid Republican if it still resembled the party that gave us Goldwater and Reagan.  

 

[timschochet]

We're missing it in part because there were so many questions about the Warren report that people didn't think their own government was on the level with them. Nor did the legislative body. We had the Church Committee a decade and a half later, and that really shook things up a bit. Finding out about Hoover also decimated credibility. These "top men" were functioning as a shadow government, and not one of the people. They did it in the name of the people, but what they did was highly illegal and I'd say odious and rotten. Especially Hoover.  

I will never watch a Woody Allen movie again (with good reason) but I will always remember the scene from Annie Hall where Allen’s character questions the integrity of the Warren Commission, and Carol Kane looks at him skeptically and says “Come on Alvy. Earl Warren? Earl Warren’s lying?” 
 

It’s that kind of trust that we’re missing these days. Where you don’t doubt the integrity of certain people. Was the trust in Warren misplaced? I don’t know, honestly. But I wish we had that trust again. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I’m probably biased here because I tend to reject almost all conspiracy theories. I begin by believing the Warren Commission, not doubting them. Beyond Warren, these were all men of high standing and integrity. And the country accepted their word on the matter. Frankly this is something I believe we’re missing today. If only there was, for instance, a Warren Commission, that Americans on all sides trusted ,  to tell us that the 2020 election was a valid result. 

But this doesn't really answer the question.  I also get that the "simplest answer that fits the facts" is always the best answer until some fact comes along and changes things.  But the question remains that IF the facts had connected the dots in other ways which may have been damaging or even damning to the nation, would settling on a simple, but (for sake of argument) fictitious narrative been a "great contribution"?  Have you considered the question this way?

And I think a lot of the reason the nation gets so caught up in wild conspiracy theories is that we have brushed aside (or at the very least too narrowly scoped) so many real scandals for the "sake of the nation" that we all know "the whole truth" is all too often not even being seeked.

 

[rockaction]

And I think a lot of the reason the nation gets so caught up in wild conspiracy theories is that we have brushed aside (or at the very least too narrowly scoped) so many real scandals for the "sake of the nation" that we all know "the whole truth" is all too often not even being seeked.

That's what I was trying to say only you said it better than I did. 

 

[timschochet]

18. **** Cheney 

Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. 
 

I find the above quote especially ironic, since one of the main themes of Bush’s campaigns in 2000 and 2004 was that the deficit was a huge problem that needed to be tackled. Of course like every other President he increased it enormously. 

Like James Baker, **** Cheney served a number of very important roles during his long career, but his placement so high on this list is mainly because he was the only Vice President in modern political history with any real power. So far as I am aware, all of the others without exception have served a ceremonial role and were kept far away from any significant decision making. Cheney appears to have had a strong hand in all of Bush’s policies, especially the response to 9/11 and the Iraq War. Thus he is a rather unique figure in American history: the Vice President who mattered. 
 

 

[timschochet]

17. Bobby Kennedy 

Only those of us who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly. 

There were, IMO, many Bobby Kennedys: there was the one who was a stalwart anti-Communist senator, and who joined Joseph McCarthy in the persecution of many innocent people. There was the Bobby Kennedy who, as attorney general, went after the mafia and unions and corruption and became their most hated enemy. 

There was the Bobby Kennedy who as attorney general aided the Civil Rights movement, at first reluctantly, but eventually enough so that his portrait, along with Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr, was a staple of many black households throughout the 1960s. Finally there was the Bobby Kennedy of 1968: reconstituted as a liberal, an opponent of the Vietnam War, the heir to his brother’s throne, and a symbol of the youthful future as he walked barefoot on the beach (expertly photographed.) 

It’s this last Bobby Kennedy that the world remembers, because he was shot in Los Angeles and became a martyr to the left forever. 

 

[rockaction]

17. Bobby Kennedy 

Only those of us who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly. 

There were, IMO, many Bobby Kennedys: there was the one who was a stalwart anti-Communist senator, and who joined Joseph McCarthy in the persecution of many innocent people. There was the Bobby Kennedy who, as attorney general, went after the mafia and unions and corruption and became their most hated enemy. 

There was the Bobby Kennedy who as attorney general aided the Civil Rights movement, at first reluctantly, but eventually enough so that his portrait, along with Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr, was a staple of many black households throughout the 1960s. Finally there was the Bobby Kennedy of 1968: reconstituted as a liberal, an opponent of the Vietnam War, the heir to his brother’s throne, and a symbol of the youthful future as he walked barefoot on the beach (expertly photographed.) 

It’s this last Bobby Kennedy that the world remembers, because he was shot in Los Angeles and became a martyr to the left forever. 

Ooh, it's early in CA. Up all night? Nice write-up. I've been reading your writings for years and I'd call this your best. By far. 

 

[timschochet]

Ooh, it's early in CA. Up all night? Nice write-up. I've been reading your writings for years and I'd call this your best. By far. 

Thanks. I’m usually up around 5:30. 
 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It’s this last Bobby Kennedy that the world ...

...wonders "what if?"

 

[Insomniac]

...wonders "what if?"

Conservatives of the time certainly didn't have any love for him.  I was always under the impression that even if he hadn't been assainated by Sirhan Sirhan he still would not have beaten Hubert Humphrey for the Democratic nomination.

I'm a huge fan of RFK but I wonder what he could have accomplished if he had won in 1968. The GOP was close to 100% in favor of the Vietnam War, so were the Southern Democrats. Still would have been better than Nixon.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Conservatives of the time certainly didn't have any love for him.  I was always under the impression that even if he hadn't been assainated by Sirhan Sirhan he still would not have beaten Hubert Humphrey for the Democratic nomination.

I'm a huge fan of RFK but I wonder what he could have accomplished if he had won in 1968. The GOP was close to 100% in favor of the Vietnam War, so were the Southern Democrats. Still would have been better than Nixon.

Oh, I'm not convinced that he is the democratic nominee or governs all that much from the left.  But I still think the "world" wonders "what if".  Some out of dismay of the lost hope, some out of relief.  But they still wonder.

 

[timschochet]

16. William F. Buckley 

I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said, 

Much more than Ayn Rand (who incidentally hated him and regarded him as her worst enemy), William F. Buckley was for most of his life this country’s most important conservative intellectual, arguably the greatest conservative intellectual of all time, and if we remove the word “conservative”, he was one of our greatest intellectuals, period. 

Beginning with his book God and Man at Yale (probably the earliest attack against college leftism) and then National Review and the television show Firing Line, Buckley became famous as THE voice of the conservative movement. But unlike today’s conservative voices which tend to be populist in both tone and presentation (think Sean Hannity) Buckley was aloof, witty, urbane, caustic. He was anything but an Everyman sort. Among other things he had one of the greatest vocabularies of any public personality. 

Over the years he steadfastly supported certain issues and people that got him into trouble. Buckley was a firm supporter of South Vietnam and refused to countenance any criticism of that corrupt regime. He was also a strong supporter of Apartheid South Africa, mainly because of its anti-Communism attitude. Buckley had an unfortunate habit of defending right wing dictatorships around the globe on the basis that we needed allies against the true enemy, the Soviet Union. In fact the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to deflate him; he retired from National Review soon thereafter. Late in life he was a sharp critic of the war in Iraq and warned of the limits of American power. 

 

[rockaction]

Nobody was more important to twentieth century politics than William F. Buckley Jr.. His organization of the American Right and the ideas that were to shape it crowned contenders and champions both, blazing trails while cementing age-old truths. As a young man who really knew little of him, I envisioned the American Right to be something like him. He was witty and urbane, something most of us on the American Right had never experienced within our families or even in our life. A semi-blue blood, Buckley opened the doors of aristocratic living within democratic constraints to a large swath of readers and set forth the intellectual high life to be consumed into modest, middle-class homes everywhere.

Teamed with his wife Pat, a true blue blood from old Canadian money, he put forth a journal that was to shape the American Right for three decades. Concerned with free markets, Catholicism, and anti-Communism, National Review became the conservative conscience of a generation, ushering in modes of thought and discourse as well as cementing official conservative positions. In this way, Buckley helped control the American Right and its aspirations. Generally written with stay-the-course aims for all of its flowery language and zeal, it served as intellectual catharsis for those on the right seeking not the drudgery of electoral politics but more lofty things. And they were beautiful, lofty things despite their grounding in old traditions. "Standing athwart history yelling stop!" was on its masthead, and stop it yelled at many things along the way, much to history's applause and also chagrin. Its anti-communism was a beacon for those who sought true human rights and provided much-needed hope for dissidents in the Soviet Union and behind the Iron Curtain. In this way, it was truly a moment where, much like Catholicism, the right wing advocated for the right thing. 

Its free-market position was more fraught with problems among the inevitable pushes and pulls towards social democracy and America's War on Poverty. Staking out an almost Hayekian/Von Mises-esque libertarianism regarding markets and taxation, National Review's free-market emphasis pushed candidates like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to the front of the national Republican political scene, and Buckley's battles with Nelson J. Rockefeller and Mayor Lindsay of New York were the first attempted purges of RINOs set to paper. But the almost always genteel Buckley took these purges on with self-deprecating humor and gentlemanly style. He was the kind of man you could have a drink with after he was calling for your job. 

Its civil rights positions, however, register poorly these days. National Review opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was constantly on the wrong side of history regarding race relations. Brown v. Board was often (and is still) criticized in its pages, once upon a time for the actual result vís a vís the power of states vs. the federal government argument, now for its jurisprudential undesirability, as it were. Old dogs don't learn new tricks. 

So it is with the legacy of National Review. Ever a well-written magazine at the forefront of conservative politics, Buckley's magazine and legacy serve to edify older conservatives. These days it is not nearly as groundbreaking and earns criticism from the New American Right as well as the American Left. Buckley's death in 2008 led to a Republican party in disarray and in need of a kingmaker. He might still be rolling over in his grave when considering the background and intellectual capabilities of its new one. But that is for more earthly concerns. Let the celestials speak for and to him now. R.I.P., William F. Buckley Jr. Imperfectly perfect, you and your cohorts, all the Olympians in this land of saints, a thing never known again. 

 

[timschochet]

Nicely done, @rockaction! I should have left the write up to you. 
 

I agree with you about Buckley and communism. Much like Churchill he recognized Communism as a great evil and unlike the American left, who were often, unfortunately, equivocal on the subject, Buckley never lost sight of this. 

 

[rockaction]

Nicely done, @rockaction! I should have left the write up to you. 
 

I agree with you about Buckley and communism. Much like Churchill he recognized Communism as a great evil and unlike the American left, who were often, unfortunately, equivocal on the subject, Buckley never lost sight of this. 

Thanks, tim. I just did a little editing for grammar and style's sake. Plus, I love Yeats. 

He did recognize communism as a great evil and was instrumental in stiffening American resolve to defeat it. 

If you'll allow me, the equivocations on the left regarding socialism continue and are embedded in the Democratic Party. They're also now even embedded in some Republicans because of the newly radical elements of the American intellectual right that preach a weird form of it. 

 

[Insomniac]

16. William F. Buckley 

I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said, 

Much more than Ayn Rand (who incidentally hated him and regarded him as her worst enemy), William F. Buckley was for most of his life this country’s most important conservative intellectual, arguably the greatest conservative intellectual of all time, and if we remove the word “conservative”, he was one of our greatest intellectuals, period. 

Beginning with his book God and Man at Yale (probably the earliest attack against college leftism) and then National Review and the television show Firing Line, Buckley became famous as THE voice of the conservative movement. But unlike today’s conservative voices which tend to be populist in both tone and presentation (think Sean Hannity) Buckley was aloof, witty, urbane, caustic. He was anything but an Everyman sort. Among other things he had one of the greatest vocabularies of any public personality. 

Over the years he steadfastly supported certain issues and people that got him into trouble. Buckley was a firm supporter of South Vietnam and refused to countenance any criticism of that corrupt regime. He was also a strong supporter of Apartheid South Africa, mainly because of its anti-Communism attitude. Buckley had an unfortunate habit of defending right wing dictatorships around the globe on the basis that we needed allies against the true enemy, the Soviet Union. In fact the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to deflate him; he retired from National Review soon thereafter. Late in life he was a sharp critic of the war in Iraq and warned of the limits of American power. 

I find it interesting that when you evaluate Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater you completely ignore there opposition to the Civil rights movement. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Bill Buckley entirely opposed the Civil Rights movement.

If you doubt this you should read his Why the South Must Prevail" article. https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf

Or you can watch his debate with James Baldwin where he was totally curb stomped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

 

[timschochet]

I find it interesting that when you evaluate Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater you completely ignore there opposition to the Civil rights movement. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Bill Buckley entirely opposed the Civil Rights movement.

If you doubt this you should read his Why the South Must Prevail" article. https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf

Or you can watch his debate with James Baldwin where he was totally curb stomped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

I didn’t include it because I don’t believe it defines either man. Their opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based on the states rights principle. I think it’s a weak argument but not a bigoted one, IMO. 

 

[timschochet]

15. Hillary Clinton 

People can judge me for what I’ve done. 
 

Hillary Clinton is the William Jennings Bryan of the modern age: always newsworthy and controversial, straddling two centuries, seeking the highest office in the land and failing more than once (Bryan actually lost out 3 times!) 

Its no secret that I strongly supported Hillary in 2016. I thought then, and still do, that she would have made a terrific President. Of course I didn’t really like her personally- nobody does and that’s the problem. At the time I misjudged just exactly how important a problem it is. You have to be a little likable to get people to vote for you. To all too many people Hillary came off as a rude, obnoxious, extremely arrogant know it all- which she was. And yes, sexism does play a role here, because most of these traits are acceptable in a man running for high office but not for a woman.

But sexism wasn’t Hillary’s only problem. There was her history, being on the wrong side of the “me too” movement, trying to be a Democratic centrist,  a series of strategic and tactical errors, and the misfortune to run again two of the most unusual political candidates this country has ever seen in Obama and Trump. And again it all came down to her lack of personal charm. In the end, not enough people were willing to say “I’m with her.” 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

46. Donald Trump 

Everything in life is luck. 

I had a lot of trouble placing Trump on this list. Clearly he belonged somewhere in the top half: a  former (and possibly future) President, and arguably the most ubiquitous and well recognized politician of all time. 

I know that you said it was tough to place Trump and that these rankings are subjective to begin with.  But with every new person you post it seems to me like Trump was wildly underrated here.  
 

Seeing Hillary at 15 despite the fact that she lost to Trump just seems indefensible.

Seems to me Trump should have been top 10.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I know that you said it was tough to place Trump and that these rankings are subjective to begin with.  But with every new person you post it seems to me like Trump was wildly underrated here.  
 

Seeing Hillary at 15 despite the fact that she lost to Trump just seems indefensible.

Seems to me Trump should have been top 10.

I have to agree.  For better or worse (mostly worse), Trump was the most impactful president since Reagan, who was the most impactful president since FDR.

Hillary accomplished pretty much nothing during her political life by comparison.

 

[Rich Conway]

Hillary accomplished pretty much nothing during her political life by comparison.

She certainly contributed greatly to getting Trump elected, which in turn contributed to him being as impactful as he was/is.

 

[timschochet]

She certainly contributed greatly to getting Trump elected, which in turn contributed to him being as impactful as he was/is.

And she contributed to Obama’s election as well. 
I think my ranking of both Hillary and Trump is fair. My major reasoning is this- Hillary Clinton has been a central figure to American politics for over 30 years. Love her or hate her she has largely dominated the news cycles since 1991. 

Meanwhile Donald Trump, while certainly the most ubiquitous political personality we’ve ever had, has been around for 7 years in political terms- maybe 10 if you want to stretch it to include the Birther stuff. It’s just not comparable. Trump’s trajectory is more like a shooting star and comparable to Huey Long or Joe McCarthy- now that is, unless he runs again and is the nominee. That would shoot him up the list. But not now, he hasn’t been around long enough to place him in the upper echelon. 

So for these reasons I stand by my rankings. 

 

[timschochet]

Reagan, who was the most impactful president since FDR.

Disagree with this too but we’ll get there. 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

I have to agree.  For better or worse (mostly worse), Trump was the most impactful president since Reagan, who was the most impactful president since FDR.

Hillary accomplished pretty much nothing during her political life by comparison.

She accomplished a 9 figure bank account 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hillary Clinton has been a central figure to American politics for over 30 years.

But it has been like 80-20 gossip over political relevance.  

 

[timschochet]

But it has been like 80-20 gossip over political relevance.  

I would seriously challenge you to differentiate between the two. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I would seriously challenge you to differentiate between the two. 

In getting Hillary elected or dooming her specific projects the gossip is relevant.  But in the grand scheme of things I don't think it has caused Hillary's opinions and goals be drowned out more than promoting them into the actual public debate.  

 

[rockaction]

I have no problem with the Hillary ranking. From First Lady/partner of the President (a new role), to her time as Secretary of State, to her time as aspiring candidate for the Presidency, to her actual candidacy for the Presidency, she's been front and center for, as tim points out, thirty years. There's nothing about her that isn't significant in some way. If she wasn't in the top twenty, I'd wonder about these rankings. 

 

[timschochet]

14. George H. W. Bush 

I do not like broccoli. 

I actually had a much more difficult time with ranking this guy than I did with Hillary. He originally began much lower on my list; one term President, and unlike Hillary and others, not especially a center of news either before or after his Presidency. 

But as I pondered more I kept raising him up the list until he reached his current high spot. There are essentially two reasons for this: first because prior to his Presidency, his influence in the  Republican Party was immense, mostly behind the scenes, bigger even than James Baker. Bush was the main figure in the establishment wing of the Republicans. It is interesting that Ronald Reagan chose him to be VP because Bush opposed everything about Reaganism long before 1980- basically the two men formed a historic compromise to win office. 

The second reason is that Bush’s Presidency saw the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. He was not the cause of this of course, nor was he for the most part anything more than an enthusiastic witness. But still, it was the most profound and important event in foreign affairs, perhaps in all American affairs, since World War II. Therefore I believe the President who was there when it happened deserves a higher placement. 

 

[dickey moe]

15. Hillary Clinton 

People can judge me for what I’ve done. 
 

Hillary Clinton is the William Jennings Bryan of the modern age: always newsworthy and controversial, straddling two centuries, seeking the highest office in the land and failing more than once (Bryan actually lost out 3 times!) 

Its no secret that I strongly supported Hillary in 2016. I thought then, and still do, that she would have made a terrific President. Of course I didn’t really like her personally- nobody does and that’s the problem. At the time I misjudged just exactly how important a problem it is. You have to be a little likable to get people to vote for you. To all too many people Hillary came off as a rude, obnoxious, extremely arrogant know it all- which she was. And yes, sexism does play a role here, because most of these traits are acceptable in a man running for high office but not for a woman.

But sexism wasn’t Hillary’s only problem. There was her history, being on the wrong side of the “me too” movement, trying to be a Democratic centrist,  a series of strategic and tactical errors, and the misfortune to run again two of the most unusual political candidates this country has ever seen in Obama and Trump. And again it all came down to her lack of personal charm. In the end, not enough people were willing to say “I’m with her.” 

Shocked she didn't make it into the top 10.

Intrigued where JFK, Reagan, and Obama will be ranked. 

 

[squistion]

Oh, my...I hope Timmy hasn't been suspended again. He has been MIA since Friday and didn't update the Brooklyn Shooting thread (which is a moot point since it was locked without discussion or explanation ).

I hope it wasn't because he called someone "ignorant" which is mild compared to some of the insults I have received. 

 

[The General]

14. George H. W. Bush 

I do not like broccoli. 

I actually had a much more difficult time with ranking this guy than I did with Hillary. He originally began much lower on my list; one term President, and unlike Hillary and others, not especially a center of news either before or after his Presidency. 

But as I pondered more I kept raising him up the list until he reached his current high spot. There are essentially two reasons for this: first because prior to his Presidency, his influence in the  Republican Party was immense, mostly behind the scenes, bigger even than James Baker. Bush was the main figure in the establishment wing of the Republicans. It is interesting that Ronald Reagan chose him to be VP because Bush opposed everything about Reaganism long before 1980- basically the two men formed a historic compromise to win office. 

The second reason is that Bush’s Presidency saw the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. He was not the cause of this of course, nor was he for the most part anything more than an enthusiastic witness. But still, it was the most profound and important event in foreign affairs, perhaps in all American affairs, since World War II. Therefore I believe the President who was there when it happened deserves a higher placement. 

No one gaffes like Ol’ W

 

[massraider]

No one gaffes like Ol’ W

Dang!!!! Came here to post this.

Never change, Dubya

 

[timschochet]

13. Mitch McConnell

The country doesn’t need saving. 
 

Easily the most powerful senator of the 21st century, and rivaling only Henry Clay and Lyndon Johnson as the most powerful US senator ever. Whether you love him or hate him (I personally have never been an admirer) nobody understands the Senate the way he does. Nobody in either party, since LBJ at least, has been able to coral and control his members the way he has. 
And McConnell’s impact has been enormous. It’s true that he wasn’t able to prevent Obamacare, but since then he has effectively prevented every significant Democratic initiative under either Obama or Biden. Obviously the Supreme Court. And during Trump’s term it’s arguable as to whether or not McConnell was the most powerful man in DC (including Trump.) 

Its rather ironic that the man who has, at least IMO, done more for modern day conservatism than any other appears to be roundly disliked by the base of his party. Like other establishment Republicans he is thought of as a “RINO”.

 

[timschochet]

12. Nancy Pelosi 

Pass it to find out what’s in it. 

Even more than Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi has been the most effective American politician over the last 20 years, and among the most effective in American history. The House is obviously much larger than the Senate, and much more unruly, and no one has ever understood it better. From TARP to Obamacare to the various stimulus packages, Pelosi has consistently gotten the job done. To answer the quote above (her most infamous): she DID pass it. She always does. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Too much recency bias with 12 and 13.  I agree that both of these folks have been highly effective in their respective positions, but they feel way way too high on this list.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Too much recency bias with 12 and 13.  I agree that both of these folks have been highly effective in their respective positions, but they feel way way too high on this list.

Without seeing the top-11, and after thinking about it for at least 10 seconds or so, I'd have McConnell higher, but agree Pelosi just isn't in the same league.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Disagree with this too but we’ll get there. 

Interesting.  Now I'm struggling to second guess who you could possibly have ranked ahead of him.  

LBJ was extremely noteworthy and deserves to crack the top 10 on this list.  I would disagree with ranking him above Reagan, but I can see an argument along those lines.

I can't even think of who else would even be a candidate here.  Eisenhower was very important as a historical figure, but wasn't anything special as a president (fine, but not a towering figure or anything).  Truman was so-so.  JFK was so-so.  

 

[Rich Conway]

Are they all going to be people or is there a Time magazine thing like "the Internet" or "We the People" in there?