u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212

In which presidential elections would you have the most difficult time deciding?

My personal answers, in chronological order:

1800. It is very difficult to say who I would favor in this election but I know that I am definitely not voting for Hamilton's pick slavocrat Charles C Pinckney. Aaron Burr supported women's suffrage and abolishing slavery, which is interesting, but seems pretty opportunistic. He also actively fought against the Jay Treaty's ratification in the Senate by pushing to shelve it, renegotiate its terms, and force Britain to pay for stolen property. I sympathize with that because Burr helped clarify the separation of powers in the handling of American diplomacy and wouldn't rule him out in 1800. Then John Adams was a good president, although at that time all I would know is that the US was engaging France in negotiations and news of the Treaty of Mortefontaine did not reach the US until AFTER election day - if it did then I would have voted for Adams. I would have despised the Alien and Sedition Acts, 3 of which were still in place by election day (the Friends Act already expired). Then Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Declaration of Rights of Man but was a terrible Secretary of State and Vice President. I would be debating between Jefferson and Burr right up until election day, and probably swayed by whichever propaganda I am hearing from either side. The pamphlet exposing the Sally Hemings affair came out in September of 1802, well after election day. Had it been released beforehand, I would have voted definitely for Burr.

1808. This is a tough one. The Embargo Act was terrible for the economy and James Madison literally wrote it. However, it did help prevent a war. Despite pledging to overturn that act, Charles Coteworth Pinckney is once again my last choice for being a member of the slavocracy and a former Hamilton stooge. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and inspired much of the US Constitution, and was a pretty good secretary of state. However, he was also a slaveowner and major partisan and was nominated in a rig nominating caucus. I possibly would want to vote for James Monroe or George Clinton if they were on the ballot in my state, or write them in. If I cannot vote for either of them in the state I was in, I might be tempted to vote for Pinckney to protest the Embargo Act and how Madison was nominated. But Jefferson was extremely popular and Pinckney didn't really have concrete issues he was running on, as far as I know. Please tell me more. Would I want to risk a Madison or a Pinckney presidency by voting Monroe or Clinton?

1880. In the GOP convention, I would have been happy to see neither Blaine nor Grant be nominated, but a little disappointed to see Arthur as the VP pick, a man known for "legally" embezzling funds from the Port Authority, so much that President Hayes (a man I would have supported in the convention) fired him. Garfield also had a tricky history, throwing out the votes of entire counties in Louisiana during the 1877 debacle, voted against the KKK Act of 1871 due to executive concerns, and supported restricting Chinese immigration. He also had forced fraudulent treaties upon plains Indians. However, he was progressive on civil service reform, having supported Hayes in those efforts, and championed voting rights and education for African-Americans. Then there is James B Weaver, a former Republican, who ran as a Greenback and favored an 8-hour workday, racial inclusion safety regulations in factories, an end to child labor, and the end of wage slavery. But he also criticized the use of the army to police Southern polling stations in his first speech in the House. I also would be unsure about Greenback policy versus hard money. Then the Prohibition Party would probably be my last choice in this election. Or the Democratic candidate Winfield Scott Hancock, who I would have appreciated as president being the winner of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, his career afterwards included instigating Indian wars and burning Indian villages and supporting Johnson's appeasement to racist southerners, issuing an order that ingratiated himself with the secessionist white population when he was serving in the south during Reconstruction. His running mate also voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act. So I know I am not voting for either of these last two picks. Do I risk a Hancock presidency which could be disastrous for civil rights right after reconstruction had ended by voting for Weaver?

1896. Similar to 1880, I would not have a strong enough stance on monetary policy, which was the main issue in this election. However, McKinley was much more of an imperialist and favored high tariffs, two issues that would make me lean towards Bryan. But Bryan also would bring in the Democratic establishment which was against the civil rights movement that was still on life support in the GOP. McKinley ended up being not good for civil rights, but I wouldn't know that then. There was the prohibition party again, which I would not vote for. Since McKinley had the backing of big money and the robber barons, I would probably vote for Bryan. But I am not sure, as I would be very opposed to the anti-labor rhetoric of the McKinley campaign and probably vote for the socialist candidate Matchett, taking the risk of a McKinley presidency which might not be terrible for civil rights.

1908. Another election featuring Bryan, this time against William H Taft. Taft was embedded with the imperialist movement as governor of the Philippines and War Secretary, but he had the Teddy Roosevelt endorsement which would have been huge. Unlike 1896, I definitely don't think I would have voted for Debs over clear progressive candidates. This time Bryan had become better on civil rights, but he had not yet vocally supported suffrage as he did later in life. I probably would have favored Bryan's anti-imperialism, but Taft said he was going to continue TR's trust busting and progressive regulations. So I would lean Taft but be undecided until election day.

1956. This one I have no idea because they are both so good. I normally say Stevenson, but Eisenhower would have been one of the best presidents of my lifetime then, with a good science and infrastructure policy. Operation Ajax did not become known to the public until the late 70s, and I probably would have known about Eisenhower's support for the new authoritarian regime in Guatemala but would have supported the rest of Ike's foreign policy such as withdrawing from Korea and the Suez crisis. I also would have supported his pick for SC in Earl Warren who ruled Brown v Board of Ed, and nothing controversial in Vietnam happened in Ike's first term. However, Eisenhower did not send troops to enforce desegregation until 1957, after the election. On the other hand, the bulldozing of communities to build the highway also wasn't until after the election. His domestic policy was also flawed, with Operation Wetback, support for the Red Scare, and a lackluster environmental policy. And his EO targeting LGBT members would have bothered me. Stevenson also no longer had a Dixiecrat as a running mate and would have been great for denuclearization and world peace, as he would be later in his career. My last choice would definitely be T Coleman Andrews, the segregationist candidate, but I have no clue who my first choice would have been.

reddit.com
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 — 2 days ago

Did Joe Biden have one of the best foreign policies of any US president, or at least modern presidents?

Comparison to how things are nowadays, I can't seem to think that any US president since JFK has had better foreign policy than Joe Biden. Maybe Bush Sr, but even he started the ill-fated defense pact with the Saudis and failed to protect Kurdish and Shia minorities from getting massacred or disappeared by Saddam just days after the Gulf War ended after encouraging them to revolt, leading to 12 years of deadly sanctions and nearly 200,000 civilian deaths.

Biden's biggest foreign policy mistakes were 1. giving unconditional aid to Israel despite the horrendous situation in Gaza, refusing to approve a UN Security Council Resolution to move forward full membership for Palestine, and failing to stop the offensive into the Rafah refugee camp; 2. abruptly removing troops from Kabul behind schedule after saying they would withdraw, despite terrorists attacking civilians, leaving millions of dollars worth of military equipment the Taliban would use; and 3. "opening the border" which encouraged further caravans although that seems to be more of a result of post-COVID than anything.

Compared to all US presidents since JFK, these foreign policy are relatively minor. Carter, Ford and Clinton probably are the only other ones with relatively inoffensive foreign policy drawbacks, yet they lack the achievements that Biden had. Even with Gaza, Biden urged Israel to decrease civilian casualties in Gaza and gave more aid to Palestinians than any other US president. Criticizing Biden for not rejoining the 2015 JCPOA or not ending the war in Ukraine without major concessions to Russia are disingenuous as Trump made Iran relations untrustworthy by ending the JCPOA and Ukraine does not want to make any concessions to Russia.

His major foreign policy wins, in order: 1. saving Ukraine from complete Russian destruction via $70 billion in military aid while Europe was delayed in protecting them; 2. rejoining the Paris accords while making renewable energy an international economic priority via the IRA and CHIPS Act which led to countries trying to match the US's subsidies on renewable energy and challenging China/Taiwan on minerals and semiconductor manufacturing 3. strengthened NATO by recommitting the US in the face of Russian aggression after the America First phase.

In response to the CHIPS and IRA, the European Commission proposed the Net Zero Industry Act as part of the European Green Deal to counter U.S. policies. This act aimed to boost the EU's green technology sector and reduce reliance on U.S. imports by promoting domestic production and innovation within Europe.

Biden was committed to American tradition and was not a realist in foreign policy, but one who emphasized both human rights and good relations with our allies, not just in NATO but in the far east as well. The one major blotch against this is his overcommitment to Israel which allowed possible future terrorists in Gaza to be angered by US weapons bombarding their civilian homes.

In the face of Russian aggression, Biden wisely judged that directly fighting Russia over Ukraine would be extremely dangerous and adopted a cautious approach to his support for Kyiv. American monetary aid kept the Ukrainian government afloat, and USAID relief included medical kits, food, and shelter. Biden has been criticized since by those who believe that he could have provided more weapons to Ukraine, more quickly, and still avoided war with Russia. But those criticisms are baseless: a rapid U.S. escalation would almost certainly have provoked a broader war. Aversion to war while protecting our allies is something I appreciate from Biden and he was right for protecting Ukraine.

Biden also had an impossible situation with Afghanistan. If the United States continued to battle the Taliban, it would only have cost the nation more in blood and treasure and for the same desultory result. Biden was given an impossible situation from Trump who made the deal after losing the 2020 election knowing it would look badly on the next president. Anyone saying Trump doesn't deserve blame is not understanding the issue, but both presidents ultimately made the right call to withdraw.

With China, his administration stood up for Taiwan and restricted China’s access to vital U.S. technology while bolstering U.S. alliances and military forces across Asia. It relaunched diplomacy with Beijing, even after Beijing’s ham-fisted operation to spy on America from balloons in 2023 intensified domestic headwinds. The Marines started training in the South Pacific for island-to-island combat after China threatened Taiwan.

Some other things:

The United States–Pacific Island Country Summit was a meeting hosted by Joe Biden with Pacific Island leaders held on September 28–29, 2022. The Pacific leaders endorsed the declaration of the United States–Pacific partnership that commits the United States and the Pacific Island countries to work together "in the face of a worsening climate crisis and an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

Biden extended the US-Russia New START nuclear arms control treaty as promised. He also followed through on hosting a Global Summit for Democracy

On the day Biden took office, the new administration adopted tighter controls on drone strikes and special forces raids in places where there are few U.S. troops, including Libya and Yemen. The policy halted the Trump-era policy that gave U.S. military officials more discretion to launch counterterrorism attacks without White House oversight.

Biden killed the leader of al-Qaeda via drone strike.

Biden increased humanitarian aid to Venezuela while rightly calling Maduro a dictator.

Biden prioritized climate change in diplomacy with South American countries.

Biden returned the United States to the United Nations Human Rights Council (which the Trump administration withdrew from in 2018.

With ISIS nearly defeated there, Biden ended the combat mission to Iraq in his first year.

Biden rapidly decreased the use of drone strikes from Trump and undid Trump's suspension of the drone strike report of civilian casualties.

Biden rejoined the WHO and sent millions of vaccines to other countries, helping end the COVID pandemic.

Biden eased Trump's trade restrictions on Japan and the EU, but maintained them with China.

Biden negotiated the return of nearly all the hostages taken by Hamas back to Israel.

So out of all post-JFK presidents, did Biden had the best foreign policy? His most major mistakes were possibly not as bad as other presidents' and were not even entirely his fault (Trump for Afghanistan, post-COVID for immigration surge, the Abraham Accords for October 7). Biden was a non-interventionist, only starting 1 war to protect shipping in the Red Sea which was justified even if immoral. I already mentioned why Bush Sr had flawed Middle East policy which makes Biden slightly better. LBJ, Trump, Nixon and W Bush had the worst foreign policy of post-1963 presidents. Ford doesn't have enough accomplishments, and while Carter was better and had Camp David, he failed to respond to Iranian aggression and continued aiding Suharto's genocide of East Timor which Ford started. Clinton, Obama, and Reagan were above-average in foreign policy, but Obama's bungle with Libya and Crimea is worse than Biden's in the long-term and he started aiding a the Saudi offensive in Yemen. Clinton was very lucky to not have to deal with the USSR and minimal terrorism, but failed to respond to Rwanda and continued deadly sanctions on Iraq. Reagan allowed Saddam to use chemical weapons while aiding death squads in Central America, but denuclearization is of course a huge achievement.

u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 — 5 days ago

Ranking the most economically mediocre presidents from best to worst. Where did I get it wrong?

The following 15 presidents are the ones who did not appear on my list of list of worst economic policy nor my list for 13 best economic policy which I had not posted yet as I am unable to determine the order after my top 6 (FDR, Wilson, Eisenhower, Obama, Taft, TR) but the remaining 7 in chronological order would be Washington, Polk, Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton).

The best here is Madison. The worst is Monroe.

  1. Madison - support for Gallatin's Treasury, promoted limited government and low taxes while supporting Clay's American system helping charter the Second Bank of the United States after the War of 1812 exposed the nation’s weak financial system, but his administration was hurt economically by the war with a large increase in the national debt. Trade disruptions in the first term increased domestic manufacturing.
  2. Hayes - return to the gold standard which helped end the Long Depression but did nothing to resolve labor disputes. He opposed the inflationary pumping of silver into the economy
  3. Ford - respected the independence of the Fed, lowered taxes, and unsuccessfully tried to lower unemployment and inflation by avoiding a stimulus. Inflation did decrease though from 9.1 to 5.8%. He deregulated the railroad industry and lowered the price of oil.
  4. Carter - deregulated industries such as airlines and trucking and appointed Paul Volcker to fight inflation which created a 20-year boom, but his solutions to combat the oil crisis (deregulating domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production and promoting renewable energy in response to the oil crisis) did not have political support. He also expanded the earned income tax credit which helped working-class Americans, strengthened minimum wage enforcement. He strengthened OSHA, created the office of Minority Business Enterprise, and expanded the Head Start program in adding 43,000 families. He signed the the Community Reinvestment Act to protect borrowers from redlining which had discriminated against people for decades at that point, and signed the Monetary Control Act of 1980 (strengthening the Federal Reserve’s control over the money supply, imposing universal reserve requirements, phasing out interest rate caps, and increasing FDIC insurance) and the Fair Debt Collection Act (prohibits third-party debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices to collect personal, family, or household debts). While he deserves credit for Volcker, unemployment never decreased during his term likely do do his drive for a balanced budget after the 1977 economic tax-relief and infrastructure stimulus did not lower unemployment
  5. Grant - supported a hard-money, gold-backed financial system and oversaw rapid industrial growth, though his administration was damaged economically by the Panic of 1873
  6. McKinley - raised tariffs and codified the gold standard, presided over strong industrial expansion, though his policies also reinforced corporate power and he disregarded antitrust enforcement
  7. Adams - maintained the Hamiltonian system but also instituted a Direct Tax of 1798 to get a balanced budget to fund increased military costs, leading to Fries Rebellion
  8. Bush Sr - increased taxes while cutting military spending to reduce the deficit but vetoed essential legislation like the FMLA and economic stimuli that cut taxes for the rich that could have both helped people during the recession of the early 90s. Did fund the internet development though.
  9. Cleveland - lowered tariffs and supported the gold standard but economic hardship worsened during his second term and unemployment rose. Might deserve credit for restoring trust to the US dollar but held rigid anti-labor policies (Pullman strike) that prevents him from getting higher.
  10. Pierce - reciprocal trade treaty with Canada, began opening of Japan to western trade, lowered tariffs, reclaimed funds from corrupt officials in previous administrations, substantially reduced the national debt by 25%, and surveyed and pseudo-funded the transcontinental railroad. BUT the panic of 1857 began the year he left, and was indirectly a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas.
  11. Arthur - Signed a tariff bill that only reduced tariffs by an average of 1.47 percent. Arthur signed the measure into law, and it had no effect on the budget surplus. Nothing else to say
  12. Fillmore - funded a few infrastructure projects, signed the Donation Land Claim Act which was a forerunner to the Homestead Act, and created the San Francisco Mint, but besides that no major economic developments
  13. Harding - resolved the recession of 1921 through cooperating with the Fed, and labor, banking and industry leaders, reducing the national debt via pre-existing government downsizing, and by Sec Hoover establishing a committee in each state facing high unemployment granting relief stimuli to those local governments, kicking off the roaring 20s. But he had the anti-labor Daughtry injunction, raised tariffs which was terrible for farmers, and Secretary Mellon's laissez-faire ended up being a major cause for the Great Depression.
  14. Taylor - no major economic developments
  15. Monroe - lackluster response to the Panic of 1819 (despite there being no precedent to help the ordinary people) but did fund a few infrastructure projects

previous post of this series on mediocre foreign policy

u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 — 15 days ago

A couple months ago i posted the following ranking of best and worst presidents for foreign policy but it didn't get a ton of engagement. https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1s062ia/top_ten_best_and_top_ten_worst_presidents_for/

After ranking the presidents who I considered average in foreign policy (not in the best or worst) in each of their respective eras, I have been able to rank all presidents by foreign policy. It is hard to gauge how to rate a president who didn't have a whole lot going on in foreign policy against others.

  1. A Johnson
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Eisenhower
  5. Hoover
  6. Reagan
  7. Carter
  8. Ford
  9. Hayes
  10. Tyler
  11. Wilson
  12. Coolidge
  13. Jackson
  14. Polk 
  15. Nixon
reddit.com
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 — 16 days ago

I personally think Clinton was the luckiest for being the only president entirely after the fall of the USSR but before 9/11 and during the dot-com boom.

Reagan had a Fed cleaning up stagflation and Gorbachev instituting reforms that helped end the Cold War.

Monroe took office during relatively little political divisions (he had no opposition candidate in 1820) and avoids blame for both the precedent of Indian removal caving to southerners with the Missouri Compromise.

Calvin Coolidge left office a few months before the Great Depression started and a few years before Hitler took power and the Mukden incident .

u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 — 18 days ago