Over at Debatable Land, Alex Massie has asked for the three most under- and overrated presidents in U.S. history. The three most underrated presidents [in order] in my view are:
1. Jimmy Carter
2. John Adams
3. Richard Nixon
The three most overrated presidents, also in order:
1. Andrew Jackson
2. John F. Kennedy
3. Thomas Jefferson
And now, why: (1) Jimmy Carter's single most gift to the U.S. was low inflation from 1981 to the present. It was he (and not Ronald Reagan) who first appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed. Knowing that a tough monetary policy was needed for long-term growth, Carter fell on his sword as interest rates spiked in 1980, one of the major reasons he lost his re-election bid. But inflation has not been a worry in the U.S. since. I also think the Camp David accords are not given enough credit.
(2) John Adams is historically squeezed by Washington and Jefferson two larger-than-life presidents. Adams continued the tradition set by Washington; kept us out of war with both England and France in our fledgling years and ensured our continued independence. Adams is also the first president of a particular party and did well in the new format.
(3) The two presidents that historians can never really peg correctly are LBJ (great domestic policy; disastrous foreign policy) and Richard Nixon. Nixon's accomplishments with the USSR and China, and his domestic policies for the environment (Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, EPA), deserve more credit which the fact that he was a paranoid criminal gets him.
(1) Andrew Jackson is all about symbolism. He's the first non-Easterner to be president. He's the proof that in this democracy anyone could be president. However, his kitchen cabinet and introduction of the spoils systems really harmed this country. He staved off the inevitable Civil War, as president of the Union who was also a slave owner, but at what future cost? He gets credit for the Bank of the U.S., but not much else. All in all, his former military victories seem to make him legendary but the 1828-1836 years--there isn't much there.
(2) JFK's term of office 1961-3 is really too short to infer any level of accomplishment. [All historians never rate W.H. Harrison or Garfield since they served less than a year, however, what can be said for two years, like JFK, Harding, or Gerald Ford?] JFK's greatness is given in terms of potential that was unfulfilled. He would have gotten us out of Vietnam; he would have passed the Civil Rights Act, etc. are all based on potential not on his actual record. On foreign policy he's one for two (Bay of Pigs v. Cuba Missiles).
(3) Thomas Jefferson as president 1801-1809, does what other than the Louisiana Purchase? His major life accomplishments happen mostly before becoming president and somewhat after. People forget that his first term is as accidental as George W. Bush's 2000 election. A brilliant man, but brilliant president?
Most presidents are blamed and congratulated for that which lands during their term in office although is largely out of their hands. Jimmy Carter is nailed on Iran with the hostage crisis, but the Iranian policy with the shah started in the Eisenhower administration. Hoover is blamed for the depression, the causes of which happened completely in the Coolidge administration. Reagan is given credit for the downfall of the Soviets, which was the culmination of foreign policy starting with Truman and each successive administration. Likewise, the economy is largely out of a president's hand. The Fed and Congress have more influence on the U.S. economy. Bill Clinton was not responsible for the prosperity of the 1990s, although he, with a republican Congress pushing him, spent the dividend wisely and balanced the budgets. That economic boom was Volcker, Greenspan and the collapse of communism. So, it's difficult to credit any one president with anything that is historical current of occurrences.
