I know we're all focused on the right as our main concern currently but I was curious to ask do you think the far-left is going to be a problem for us in the future?
It feels like liberalism is rapidly decreasing in popularity and most young people these days are either MAGA or socialists.
This is a question that always came to mind for me when trying to assess President McKinley. Historically, he's usually been considered an above average president due to his impact on America being largely positive, however I've seen some on this sub rank him poorly due to his foreign policy being morally worthy of condemnation.
My opinions change a lot as I learn more and more. Even reading a comment I made like a month ago, sometimes I'm like "I thought *that*?"
​
But reading some of my old posts or comments is a painful read for me because I had some really bad takes that I was defensive of and that I don't stand by anymore.
​
Does anyone else have this experience?
One interesting thing I've found lately is that D tier used to be the largest tier on my tier list, but the more I learn about presidents, the bigger my C tier gets.
Now I've ended up with only, give or take, 9 presidents that I rank as bad presidents, landing in D or F tier (I'm on the fence about Nixon) and that is a very weird feeling since I used to have so many I considered bad.
What do you think? How many presidents do you consider bad?
Historians rank Taylor as one of the worst presidents of all time, usually in the bottom 10, whereas this sub usually ranks him as an average president. This is likely due to him having served only 1 year, which messes up his scores in historian rankings as it makes him lacking in accomplishments.
Woodrow Wilson's reputation on this sub has changed a lot in the past year or two and it's hard to say where he would stand now as it's even changed since the last community ranking we did. That said, historians have never ranked Wilson below the top 15 greatest presidents, whereas this sub in it's most up-to-date rankings has ranked him as an average or C-tier president, and ranked him as a downright bad president in previous rankings.
Likely the most polarizing president of all time, among historians, he hasn't ranked outside of the top 20 since 1996, and is usually in the top 15. In the most recent community tier list, after much debate, he ended up in D tier. Of course, even in this sub, opinions remain extremely divided on him and there is no real consensus. Many rank him in B or A, similar to historians, while others rank him C or D.
Historians have always considered Madison among the greatest presidents America has ever had. This sub is not impressed by his presidency and usually rank him as merely average. This is one of the most interesting differences in my opinion. My best guess for the discrepancy is that historian rankings have categories like "intelligence" and "background" factor into the ranking, whereas people ranking him on this sub often focus solely on what he did during his presidency.
Calvin Coolidge is one of the most popular presidents in online spaces, mainly because he is the most small government president which resonates with libertarians. In the community ranking, he ended up in B tier for presiding over an economic boom and the Roaring 20s. Even non-fans of Coolidge here usually rank him as no worse than average. However, many would be surprised to learn that historians do not share this view of Coolidge. In recent rankings, he ranks not too far off from his successor, Hoover. He is often ranked as a bottom-15 president by historians.
Historians rank Ulysses Grant towards the upper middle because he is responsible for both huge amounts of corruption in the government, as well as great civil rights achievements. This sub tends to focus more on the latter, putting him into the top 15, and occasionally top 10.
One of the most controversial presidents of all time, historians rank him towards the upper middle, around where Grant is ranked. This sub tends to rank him towards the lower middle or sometimes as a downright bad president, though usually the former.
Historians tend to focus solely on a president's impact here in America, as well as their accomplishments and handling of situations, so by that standard McKinley consistently ranks as an above average president. This sub factors in morality far more than historians do which makes him rank much lower.
A similar situation to the above, where this sub factors in morality far more than historians do. Martin Van Buren is often condemned here for his role in the Trail of Tears, which consistently lands him in D tier. Whereas historians don't really focus on that and rank him as relatively average.
This sub often rank him as a bottom 5 president of all time. Historians rank him bottom 10, but never quite that low. This is again a case where historians rank presidents on an average of many categories, in which him not being too bad in certain categories can bump up his ranking. Whereas this sub mainly focuses on solely his great economic failure, one of the biggest failures commited by any president.
Honorable Mentions:
Obama and Clinton are considered above average presidents by both historians and this subreddit, but historians always rank Obama as a better president than Clinton, whereas most people on this sub say Clinton was a much better president than Obama whenever the question is asked.
FDR is considered one of the best presidents by both, but this sub never ranks him above 3rd place, whereas historians usually rank him second behind Lincoln, and occasionally first place.
James Monroe is well regarded by historians but not quite as much as on this sub, for whom he's a consensus A tier. Whereas historians rank him in the B range.
Adam Smith is known as the "father of capitalism", but he was not the laissez-faire caricature he's sometimes made out to be. He was a strong supporter of a progressive tax rather than a flat one, and wanted anti-monopoly regulations among other things.
Scottish economist and philosopher known as the "father of economics"
While my list does not perfectly resemble any historian ranking, and I have disagreement over certain placements, my assessments are all within the historically acceptable range, except for one, that being my ranking of Ronald Reagan, who I have always ranked as below average.
This is the only ranking I have where it makes me feel like my ranking is unserious or too partisan.
I have often cited historian rankings when defending FDR and Wilson online, so I feel like it is rather hypocritical for me to not do the same for Reagan.
Social Security is often considered one of FDR's greatest achievements, and it definitely has helped aot of Americans, but there's one huge problem with it:
The system relies on constant population growth to work.
Back in the 1960s, there was four times as many workers as there was people on social security. Now the ratio is at 2.7 to 1. And it's rapidly decreasing.
But even regardless of declining birth rates, it's just not sustainable. Even if people were having kids at the same rate they used to, then you run into a different problem; the fact that you can't have infinite population growth on a finite planet. It can't just continue exponentially. And overpopulation being bad for the environment.
Many have suggested increasing immigration as the solution to increasing the number of workers, and while that definitely helps in the short term, it feels like a band-aid on the problem that a system based on constant population growth is unsustainable.