TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

UK Experts rate Roosevelt best US president., Bush 31st

Go To

EricDVH Since: Jan, 2001
#51: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:45:30 AM

FDR is almost singlehandedly responsible for ending the gilded age, creating the first 1st-world nation, and preventing armageddon as humanity entered the atomic age. All while successfully fighting off both the worst depression in the USA's history and an alliance of fascist maniacs in the worst war in history, as he was secretly dying of polio. Aside from allowing the Cold War to start, the man is practically a messiah in my book.

English Ivy: Raeg at Reagan and Jackson being in the top ten, or anywhere away from the bottom, for that matter.
Definitely, they'd be the bottom #2 & #1 respectively on my list.

silver 2195: And Reagan is high on the list because he played a big part in winning the Cold War and ending the 70's recession.
AHAHAHA!!! Oh, wow, so suddenly the '80s was an economic boom, and heating the Cold War back up from lukewarm to near boiling while the CIA had NO idea of the politics going on in the USSR's upper echelons was a great idea?

The Gloomer: *Thinks up suggestion box idea for Fox News or CNN to rate UK Prime Ministers and royalty in the same fashion.*

It'd be interesting to see how Blair would fare

I think Blair, like other centrist mushgobs such as Clinton or Carter, will ultimately be one of those leaders that schoolkids always dread having to try and remember the name or significance of on tests.

Eric,

edited 18th Jan '11 5:56:42 AM by EricDVH

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#52: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:55:25 AM

He sent our country to war for no reason other than to be BFF with America and lied to the electorate whilst doing so. I doubt his name will be remembered well, but it will at least be remembered.

There is also the fact that he converted to catholicism as soon as he left office, which may play into some view of his rule.

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#53: Jan 18th 2011 at 7:41:53 AM

I'd be kind of curious to see such a list, but it would probably annoy me. Thatcher always does well because she was so chummy with Reagan and because she was the first woman PM (because obviously, Britain had never, ever been ruled by a woman before...). Never mind what she did to this country.

I actually agree with FDR being on top. He was pretty clearly at least top five, and none of the other top five handled two seperate crisises.

But the rest of the list is clearly crap. Clinton and Bush I>> Carter, Nixon > Carter and Bush I (Nixon was a surpizingly good president excluding Watergate), Jefferson should be maybe at ten instead of top five (he gets a lot of credit for the Louisiana Purchase, but he also started a pretty delusionary embargo against Britain and France that completely trashed the US economy), and Reagan might've been better than Carter but was way worse than any president since Carter. Except Bush II. Who should be bottom five.

EDIT: OH YES RT JUST REMINDED ME. While Wilson may have made the Treaty of Versailles less bad than it would've been otherwise, he also was an entirely bad president from America's point of view.

QFT. All of it.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#54: Jan 18th 2011 at 7:48:31 AM

Eric: Had we kept up the practice of detente the Soviet Union would still be here today as would the Cold War. (Then again with Putin in control of Russia today it begs the question did the Cold War really end?)

Reagan basically put up an ultimatum that set the stage for the Cold War's end by basically saying "Are we going to fight World War Three or not?".

Detente was all about pussing out in the face of being confronted. Avoid war at all costs just like Neville Chamberlain did 40 years before that. It was a failure then, it would have been a failure to remain in detente.

Unless you liked the Soviet Union and the perpetual wondering when the nukes would start flying.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#55: Jan 18th 2011 at 8:22:23 AM

Well for me, I prefer the softer presidents and the ones that tried to help Americans rate much higher in my book than ones that were making policies for "the good of the people no matter the cost".

I'd rate FDR pretty high, Woodrow Wilson would be fairly high too (that he failed in his attempts at global peace isn't so bad when few other presidents even tried). King Bush I would be somewhat above average, Clinton above him and then King Bush II (or dubya as we like to call him affectionately) would be pretty low. I would say that the latter Bush was not bad, by himself, but he surrounded himself with terrible advisors instead of listening more to Colin Powell and other more intelligent figures in his administration.

For the older presidents, I'm somewhat more hazy on the issue. I would rate Andrew Jackson pretty low, Washington as fairly high, while a guy like Jefferson, I have to rate low because he invaded Canada :). Also, I think he handled the War of 1812 terribly. If it weren't for Jefferson, Canada would be a part of the United States now, and the politics of this continent would be completely different. For instance, Freedom of Religion, cultural splits, the economic divide would be three way, the differences in native relations, the effects of a powerful police force in the north being transmitted southward. Who knows! But that's a diff topic.

Reagan would be very low on my list, when relations were at an all-time high between the Soviets and Americans, he decided to engage in warmongering. He increased global nuclear stockpiles and scrapped the nuclear arms reduction treaties. He backed terrorist groups that directly led to today's War on Terror. He bankrupted America and you still haven't cleaned off his debt. And the Soviet Union was defeated? One doesn't defeat something like that. The USSR fell down in 1991 but the Russian Federation simply rose back in its place and if you take an aggressive stance against them now, it's the Cold War all over again.

Stop using the "appeasement" argument. History would be completely horrible if you had pre-emptively attacked Germany and would have directly led to World War 3. Nobody in Western countries should have any right to use that argument. There was plenty of chance to prevent war, by deploying assistance to Nationalist China against the Imperial Japanese but instead, everyone stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands died. Nazi Germany basically had no international politics blocking its expansionism after that. Just look at how terrible the shape of the world is in now after using the "appeasement" argument twice. War in Iraq. War in Afghanistan. Millions died for what?

edited 18th Jan '11 8:22:47 AM by breadloaf

lordGacek Since: Jan, 2001
#56: Jan 18th 2011 at 8:33:39 AM

wild mass guessThey rated Andrew Jackson high, because they were afraid that if they got him pissed, he'd rise from his grave and snap their necks like twigs.wild mass guess

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#57: Jan 18th 2011 at 12:48:55 PM

[up][up]Reagan also introduced paradigms that proved toxic in the long run—namely, running up a large deficit.

The USSR was going to collapse eventually due to internal pressures; it's an unsustainable model. Reagan might have sped its demise, but he didn't create it.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#58: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:32:57 PM

Looking back on it, I challenge you to see Wilson as being anything but absolutely correct about the Treaty of Versailles. To be honest, in his place, with the knowledge that I have now, I would have used American troops to force France and Britain to act like adults about it. And no, defending it by saying a generation of men had died does not excuse them, if you consider how much higher the body count was in WW 2.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#59: Jan 18th 2011 at 3:10:48 PM

It was for you guys, Russia and Germany.

For Britain and France the casualties in human terms were quite low. But then thats kind of expected when so many people have died.

The death toll was larger, but Britaina nd France paid less of it.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#60: Jan 18th 2011 at 3:14:40 PM

^ I'd argue France paid a higher price in World War Two than it did in World War One. Being conquered in 3 months and having the rest of the world save your sorry ass does not indicate a low paid price of war. Sure the death toll may have been smaller, but the war ended France.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#61: Jan 18th 2011 at 4:14:51 PM

^ That means absolutely nothing. The only people joking about them being militarily weak are Americans. Their GDP hit was reasonably low and they recovered quite fast, as very little in comparison to the First World War was destroyed. I think you are underestimating just how utterly debilitating the First World War was for whatever reason. The Second World War was really devastating to Germany/Russia/China/Japan but not really that much to Britain/France/USA/Canada/Aus/NZ.

I just think UK likes conservative Americans more because they like strong authority figures.

pagad Sneering Imperialist from perfidious Albion Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
#62: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:02:57 PM

^ I think that's rather too much of a generalisation. Obama is still looked on far more favourably in this country than Bush was, despite the rather cold shoulder Obama has been giving the British government.

Going back further, Reagan is viewed favourably only by Thatcherites, for fairly obvious reasons. JFK is still remembered fondly by the older generation, Johnson is regarded as a dodged speeding bullet with regards to the Vietnam war, Nixon is mostly remembered for Watergate, Carter is kinda meh, Clinton is quite liked, and George H. W. Bush is...well, I'm not sure really. I think his son has more or less overshadowed him here, considering he dragged us into Iraq.

These are what I personally think the popular perceptions rather than academic ones are, mind.

edited 18th Jan '11 5:03:41 PM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#63: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:06:21 PM

^^ The French and British Empires were essentially gone 15 years after World War Two, 15 years after World War One both empires were stronger than before the war.

edited 18th Jan '11 5:06:29 PM by MajorTom

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#64: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:14:52 PM

That doesn't really prove anything, since they gave up their empires to make more money.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#65: Jan 18th 2011 at 5:17:43 PM

HA! They were larger Tom, not stronger. Britain's empire was at its strongest when it didn't even have to involve itself in Europe, everything after that was simply the big boy trying to stay ahead of the pack.

For instance look at South Africa, during WW 1 it had (just about) supported the British, by the time WW 2 rolls around it had stopped, the british empire didn't loose it because of WW 2, it had already lost by WW 1 and it needed a good quarter of a century to figure it out.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#66: Jan 18th 2011 at 8:09:43 PM

Ah, Tom, you bait me way too much. So instead of a long ranting post, I'll just say, First World War was debilitating for the British Empire and the French Empire and was the reason why those empires collapsed (I know more of the British than the French so I would personally focus on discussing the British Empire). Any history textbook will say exactly the same thing because there is plenty of rhetoric, statistics and everything else to back up those claims.

EricDVH Since: Jan, 2001
#67: Jan 19th 2011 at 12:14:18 PM

Empires aside, WW1 was utterly devastating for France. Something like 8% of French men were killed by the time it was over.

Eric,

TheGloomer Since: Sep, 2010
#68: Jan 19th 2011 at 12:31:24 PM

They were probably a bit cheesed off about the countryside being kind of wrecked. Germany hadn't actually been invaded, of course, so the French were convinced that as soon as the naval blockade was removed then Germans would be in a good position to recover if harsh terms weren't enforced. The Treaty of Versailles could have been significantly worse. As it was, I would say that breaking up Austria-Hungary was advantageous for Germany in the long run. At the same time, any treaty enforced by the Germans would have been tougher (based on the precedent set by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk).

From what I know, Lloyd-George was keen to support Wilson, but the British public and some Tory ministers in the coalition government wanted tough, punitive measures against Germany. With this in mind, and especially considering the shaky position of his government, I don't think it's too surprising that he ended up siding with Clemenceau.

Bur from Flyover Country (Living Relic) Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#69: Jan 19th 2011 at 12:48:36 PM

Clemenceau was kind of a tyranic force of nature from what I've gathered (largely from a book written by a Francophile). Wilson didn't stand a chance.

edited 19th Jan '11 12:51:12 PM by Bur

TheGloomer Since: Sep, 2010
#70: Jan 19th 2011 at 5:19:12 PM

The thing is, while hindsight has left Clemenceau's position somewhat unpopular, it's not difficult to see where he was coming from.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#71: Jan 19th 2011 at 6:19:46 PM

Xenophobic, nationalistic pandering to a population that was even worse? Yes, it is easy to see where he was coming from. He was coming straight from the French people themselves. He does not deserve any sympathy at all.

edited 19th Jan '11 6:20:31 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
washington213 Since: Jan, 2013
#72: Jan 19th 2011 at 11:30:05 PM

That list only goes to 40. Even if they don't want to grade Obama, it should at least go to 43. Who are the three presidents deemed so horrible that they're not even worthy of listing?

Acebrock He/Him from So-Cal Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: My elf kissing days are over
He/Him
#73: Jan 20th 2011 at 1:31:03 AM

Obama wasn't added because he's in office.

Two ohter presidents (Harrison and Garfield I believe) were left out because their tenures were too short to render judgement.

My troper wall
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#74: Jan 20th 2011 at 1:33:38 AM

They excluded Washington as well for some reason.

Fight smart, not fair.
Ironeye Cutmaster-san from SoCal Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
#75: Jan 20th 2011 at 1:38:06 AM

[up][up][up]You want Grover Cleveland's two terms to be rated separately?

edited 20th Jan '11 1:38:15 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Total posts: 104
Top