Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[Classic-Xer]

(02-22-2021, 10:59 AM)> David Horn Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 01:02 AM)Einzige Wrote: I love the assumption, coming from well-to-do (relatively speaking) members of the American labor aristocracy as populate this board, that a proletarian revolution would be immiserating.

For you, perhaps.

I think it would be both proper and fitting for the Democratic party and its strongholds to end by  succumbing to a proletarian revolution myself.

Let's start by agreeing that any change this dramatic will trigger some degree of violence -- how much is still TBD.  But let's assume that at least two sides are ideologically wedded to fighting to the end.  If so, then yes, a proletarian revolution will hurt everyone.  

FWIW, I don't see the proletariat revolting.  I see the petty bourgeoise carrying that torch.  The proletariat are too burdened to "mount the barricades",  but a put upon class of small business owners like you might take it on.  You have the grievance part down pat.

A proletarian revolution would hurt the Democratic side much more than the Republican side (the American right). I don't know, the proletariat seemed to have plenty of time on its hands last summer since it was able to continue battling with police pretty much non stop for several months. You must not have seen all the violence (the proletarian revolution of sorts) and all the damage that occurred last summer that went on for several months all over the country. Is it your political bias that's causing a problem with your inability to see/acknowledge what we saw last summer or is it your eye sight, hearing or your memory associated with your age that's failing you? As far I could tell, you were able to see and you were fully aware of it as it was going on back then.

You should know by now that we're either going to fight to the bitter end or split the country and force the Democrats to make the same mistake as the British/Confederates/Imperialist Japanese did and trigger an all out war with all Americans. Like I said, the American right doesn't represent slavery or a monarchy/aristocracy or fascism/communism or a particular religious faith or  any other form of a dictatorship. The Democrats do today. As I told Bob, the country isn't the same country as it was during our grandparents time. The country has more American believers today than it had back then. All the Democratic groups are doing now is setting themselves up for defeat/slaughter when America sets rule aside and takes its gloves off.

The American right represents American freedom, the American Constitution, the American flag, American values and core principles and the American way of life like it always has throughout American history. I don't care who wins a war between fascist Democrats ( the Woke's) and socialist Democrats (the urban social justice crowd/third world mentalities). If we're separated, we'll defeat which ever group wins or if we're not, we'll destroy both of them at the same time during a Civil War war. What's a dead billionaire or a dead heir of some billionaire of the past worth?

[Classic-Xer]

(02-23-2021, 12:44 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:48 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 01:02 AM)Einzige Wrote: I love the assumption, coming from well-to-do (relatively apeaking) members of the American labor aristocracy as populate this board, that a proletarian revolution would be immiserating.

For you, perhaps.

I think it would be both proper and fitting for the Democratic party and its strongholds to end by  succumbing to a proletarian revolution myself.

That goes for the Republicans, too. It never fails to amaze me that conservatives don't see that the GOP is just the functional counterpoint of the Democratic Party- white Christian identity politics etc.

You, as a small business owner,  are doomed by the capitalist system. It wants to resubmerge you back into the proletariat, and will succeed. You can either embrace the forces trying to destroy you or see that the only alternative is a united working class, global in scope, that smashes their system and all its workings into junk. And you can work for that even if it does not come to fruition in your time.

We know there's a group of Republicans who are in cahoots with the Democrats (5 Senators, 10 Congress people). We refer to them as half Republicans or Rhino's these days. We've known about them for many years now. They're about as spineless and wishy washy and eager to please/bow down to the media and corporations/donor class as the Democrats these days.

No, you twit - they're all in cahoots with each other.

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification- they genuinely believe that they are all in opposition to each other, and this false consciousness impels them to act in ways that are self-destructive of the system. But there is a fundamental unity of class interest st the very bottom of things, which manifests as different competing strategies (the needs of a rural capitalist miner are very different from a NYC importer). They are a band of warring brothers, and this extends to AOC, Sanders, Paul, all of them.

Both the Democrat representing NYC and the Republican representing OKC rely on the same strategies (identity politics etc.) to get elected. Once elected, they tie those strategies into the needs of their local capitalist class. They are all the enemy, every last one of them.

Well, both sides are capitalist and both are in cahoots that way. You're the twit who hasn't come to grips with the fact that you were born in a capitalist country. You quit before you started, whose fault is that? I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth but that didn't stop me from learning a skill and making a decent living and accumulating wealth. I didn't have someone misguiding me and telling me stupid shit or teaching me that I'm inferior and I'll never make it without them. So, who fucked up you? Did someone like Eric indoctrinate you and fuck you up? Lots of that going on these days with the internet being the way that it is these days.

[pbrower2a]

(02-23-2021, 12:44 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:48 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 01:02 AM)Einzige Wrote: I love the assumption, coming from well-to-do (relatively apeaking) members of the American labor aristocracy as populate this board, that a proletarian revolution would be immiserating.

For you, perhaps.

I think it would be both proper and fitting for the Democratic party and its strongholds to end by  succumbing to a proletarian revolution myself.

That goes for the Republicans, too. It never fails to amaze me that conservatives don't see that the GOP is just the functional counterpoint of the Democratic Party- white Christian identity politics etc.

You, as a small business owner,  are doomed by the capitalist system. It wants to resubmerge you back into the proletariat, and will succeed. You can either embrace the forces trying to destroy you or see that the only alternative is a united working class, global in scope, that smashes their system and all its workings into junk. And you can work for that even if it does not come to fruition in your time.

We know there's a group of Republicans who are in cahoots with the Democrats (5 Senators, 10 Congress people). We refer to them as half Republicans or Rhino's these days. We've known about them for many years now. They're about as spineless and wishy washy and eager to please/bow down to the media and corporations/donor class as the Democrats these days.

No, you twit - they're all in cahoots with each other.

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification- they genuinely believe that they are all in opposition to each other, and this false consciousness impels them to act in ways that are self-destructive of the system. But there is a fundamental unity of class interest st the very bottom of things, which manifests as different competing strategies (the needs of a rural capitalist miner are very different from a NYC importer). They are a band of warring brothers, and this extends to AOC, Sanders, Paul, all of them.

Both the Democrat representing NYC and the Republican representing OKC rely on the same strategies (identity politics etc.) to get elected. Once elected, they tie those strategies into the needs of their local capitalist class. They are all the enemy, every last one of them.

Political life at its best is transactional: that one gives up something to get something. It requires people to contemplate that the Other Side of some sectarian, regional, interethnic, or interclass rift is legitimate. When that breaks down one gets at first gridlock, and perhaps (if nothing resolves itself) a command-and-control system. 

Marxism depends upon the assumption that the economic elites operate as a monolith without conflicts between urban and rural elites, between ownership and management, and between the blatant money-grubbers and the creative people. When the economic elites are all joined in purpose, then Marx' depiction of capitalist society fits well. When Marxism describes the economic and political order well, that order has decayed into a nightmare. 

The ultimate expression of identity politics is the class struggle.

[David Horn]

(02-23-2021, 12:44 AM)Einzige Wrote: No, you twit - they're all in cahoots with each other.

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification- they genuinely believe that they are all in opposition to each other, and this false consciousness impels them to act in ways that are self-destructive of the system. But there is a fundamental unity of class interest st the very bottom of things, which manifests as different competing strategies (the needs of a rural capitalist miner are very different from a NYC importer). They are a band of warring brothers, and this extends to AOC, Sanders, Paul, all of them.

Both the Democrat representing NYC and the Republican representing OKC rely on the same strategies (identity politics etc.) to get elected. Once elected, they tie those strategies into the needs of their local capitalist class. They are all the enemy, every last one of them.

If all the politicians are on the other side of the line, then it's unlikely your side of the line will ever win.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-23-2021, 01:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: A proletarian revolution would hurt the Democratic side much more than the Republican side (the American right). I don't know, the proletariat seemed to have plenty  of time on its hands last summer since it was able to continue battling with police pretty much non stop for several months. You must not have seen all the violence (the proletarian revolution of sorts) and all the damage that occurred last summer that went on for several months all over the country. Is it your political bias that's causing a problem with your inability to see/acknowledge what we saw last summer or is it your eye sight, hearing or your memory associated with your age that's failing you? As far I could tell, you were able to see and you were fully aware of it as it was going on back then.

You should know by now that we're either going to fight to the bitter end or split the country and force the Democrats to make the same mistake as the British/Confederates/Imperialist Japanese did and trigger an all out war with all Americans. Like I said, the American right doesn't represent slavery or a monarchy/aristocracy or fascism/communism or a particular religious faith or  any other form of a dictatorship. The Democrats do today. As I told Bob, the country isn't the same country as it was during our grandparents time. The country has more American believers today than it had back then. All the Democratic groups are doing now is setting themselves up for defeat/slaughter when America sets rule aside and takes its gloves off.

The American right represents American freedom, the American Constitution, the American flag, American values and core principles and the American way of life like it always has throughout American history. I don't care who wins a war between fascist Democrats ( the Woke's) and socialist Democrats (the urban social justice crowd/third world mentalities). If we're separated, we'll defeat which ever group wins or if we're not, we'll destroy both of them at the same time during a Civil War war. What's a dead billionaire or a dead heir of some billionaire of the past worth?

The Confederates were the cavalier, rural, racist faction. They lost. They have contributed heavily to the US in many ways, but when they confront the roundhead, urban, principled culture head on they lose.

The red support the Constitution, the flag, many of the values and core principles, but they take exception to solving the problems confronting the culture, most notably racism. Conservatives want to keep the current structure unchanged, which is why the don't want to solve problems that can only be solved by changing that structure. They are on the do nothing side on all the current crisis level problems. That is why they have lost in the past, and why I anticipate the conservative values will fail again given the crisis mind set. In the crisis heart, the focused disciplined objective is to solve the crisis problems.

[Eric the Green]

(02-23-2021, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:48 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 02:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 01:02 AM)Einzige Wrote: I love the assumption, coming from well-to-do (relatively apeaking) members of the American labor aristocracy as populate this board, that a proletarian revolution would be immiserating.

For you, perhaps.

I think it would be both proper and fitting for the Democratic party and its strongholds to end by  succumbing to a proletarian revolution myself.

That goes for the Republicans, too. It never fails to amaze me that conservatives don't see that the GOP is just the functional counterpoint of the Democratic Party- white Christian identity politics etc.

You, as a small business owner,  are doomed by the capitalist system. It wants to resubmerge you back into the proletariat, and will succeed. You can either embrace the forces trying to destroy you or see that the only alternative is a united working class, global in scope, that smashes their system and all its workings into junk. And you can work for that even if it does not come to fruition in your time.

We know there's a group of Republicans who are in cahoots with the Democrats (5 Senators, 10 Congress people). We refer to them as half Republicans or Rhino's these days. We've known about them for many years now. They're about as spineless and wishy washy and eager to please/bow down to the media and corporations/donor class as the Democrats these days.

The 7 Republicans senators and 10 congresspeople who voted to convict Trump are actual Republicans. The rest are just Trump loyalists. You and other Trump loyalists are simply the Party of Trump, now. It is a cult of personality only. When he goes, it will go, and the Republicans will just go back to being the Republicans again-- wrong as before on all the policy issues, but at least no longer hypnotized by one man who does not respect law, democracy or decency.

[pbrower2a]

(posted in the wrong forum, so it is deleted)

[Eric the Green]

Under Abraham Lincoln, you wrote that Trump gets a #1 rating.

I don't really agree with these historian evaluations, especially because they rate one of the worst presidents, Reagan, as one of the best. I guess they are trying to be ideologically neutral, but I suggest that in the long run, a president with a wrong and destructive ideology is a bad president, even though Reagan was "successful" in imposing this wrong ideology and distorted and destructive "vision" upon us.

Of course Reagan also rates highly in my horoscope scoring of candidates. He has an awesome persuasive ability, which got him elected. Trump doesn't do too badly by this measure either. But I don't see how Trump can be rated as anywhere but as #44. And I disagree with the new high rating of Eisenhower. The mistakes you mentioned brower help sink him in my estimation.

[pbrower2a]

(07-01-2021, 06:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Under Abraham Lincoln, you wrote that Trump gets a #1 rating.

I don't really agree with these historian evaluations, especially because they rate one of the worst presidents, Reagan, as one of the best. I guess they are trying to be ideologically neutral, but I suggest that in the long run, a president with a wrong and destructive ideology is a bad president, even though Reagan was "successful" in imposing this wrong ideology and distorted and destructive "vision" upon us.

Of course Reagan also rates highly in my horoscope scoring of candidates. He has an awesome persuasive ability, which got him elected. Trump doesn't do too badly by this measure either. But I don't see how Trump can be rated as anywhere but as #44. And I disagree with the new high rating of Eisenhower. The mistakes you mentioned brower help sink him in my estimation.

Correction made here.  I'm sure that plenty of people think Donald Trump "up there" with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR (Egad!).. I see him as the worst President in American history, differing from Buchanan in inadequacy only that Buchanan did not get away with it. Buchanan might have been a fine president twenty to thirty years earlier... but by the late 1850's he was way past prime. Donald Trump was never adequately prepared for the President, nothing about his life grooming him for the greatest responsibility in American life. 

I fault Eisenhower on two issues of foreign policy -- Jacobo Arbenz, who would have made Guatemala a much different country than what it became. Ike was under pressure from the United Fruit Company that wanted to keep Guatemala as its complete fief. United Fruit succeeded, and the Guatemalan people have paid a high price... which includes the reality that many Guatemalans have sought refuge in America from civil strife relating to economic entities far worse than United Fruit (drug cartels) ever was. The other is Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. Shah Reza Pahlavi II had a love-hate relationship with America as a puppet for over twenty years . Look at how that turned out! Perfect knowledge of the future is not available even with astrology. 

Modified post:

Quote:C-Span just released a poll by historians of how Trump rates against other Presidents. Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) Trump gets an overall rank of #41, reflecting assessments of being  

#32 in public persuasion
#41 in crisis leadership
#34 in economic management
#44 in moral leadership
#43 in international relations
#44 in administrative skills
#42 in relations with Congress
#36 in vision and setting an agenda
#40 in pursuing equal justice for all
#42 in context for the times.

The strongest aspects of the Trump Presidency were his ability to persuade some mass support (even though he offended slightly more people almost all the time, and having a vision (even if terribly one-sided and flawed). Trump had trouble dealing with his own Party in Congress when it was his Party that had the majority! To say that Trump was at the bottom in both moral leadership and administrative skills indicates a singular lack of those. Obviously it is impossible to demonstrate moral leadership if one is grossly immoral or amoral; nobody speaks of the "moral leadership of John Gotti" except as irony. A low value for administrative skills is what one expects from someone who demands blind loyalty but rewards it with legal problems from blind obedience.

Let's contrast a President who rates really high.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN  

Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) Lincoln gets an overall rank of #1, reflecting assessments of being  

#2 in public persuasion
#1 in crisis leadership
#1 in economic management
#1 in moral leadership
#3 in international relations
#1 in administrative skills
#4 in relations with Congress
#1 in vision and setting an agenda
#1 in pursuing equal justice for all
#1 in context for the times.

It's a shame that those two are in the same Party.

Here is our fifth-best:

 Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) Eisenhower gets an overall rank of #5, reflecting assessments of being  

#11 in public persuasion
#6 in crisis leadership
#6 in economic management
#4 in moral leadership
#5 in international relations
#4 in administrative skills
#6 in relations with Congress
#16 in vision and setting an agenda
#12 in pursuing equal justice for all
#7 in context for the times.

The old rap that Ike got elected on his military record and coasted through the Presidency was once the normal assessment. At one time he was seen as a mediocre-to-poor President, at least among academics. As time passes one recognizes that he translated administrative skills suited to mapping the D-Day invasion of Europe into skills appropriate for other things, like sponsoring the Interstate Highway System. He got America out of the Korean War with honor, and to spoof Lincoln Steffens, one could say of South Korea "I have seen the future and it works". He prevented a great blow-up in the Suez Crisis. I can fault him for greasing the skids for Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadegh in Iran, for which Americans, Guatemalans, and Iranians alike pay a high price. But he stayed off the Joe McCarthy bandwagon and came out unscathed when the lying demagogue imploded.

This will surely grate upon Trump should he read this:

   Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) OBAMA gets an overall rank of #10, reflecting assessments of being  

#9 in public persuasion
#17 in crisis leadership
#9 in economic management
#6 in moral leadership
#21 in international relations
#14 in administrative skills
#32 in relations with Congress
#12 in vision and setting an agenda
#3 in pursuing equal justice for all
#10 in context for the times.

(I would have rated Obama higher on economic leadership for getting America out of the most dangerous economic meltdown since that of 1929-1932). He's #21 in international relations, which is near average... but "mediocre" by standards of the Presidency is still very good because Americans generally elect above-average people to be President. He is on par with Trump for relations with Congress; he did not successfully ram-rod much when he had both Houses of Congress on his side, but when the Other Side greets him with "We will make him a one-term President and do everything possible to make that so", then the Other side has ensured a stormy relationship. Aside from the economic mess while he was inaugurated, Obama seemed to avoid crises well more than to solve them. That is how caution works.  

If you are to rebel against something, then make sure to rebel against something worthy of rebellion -- like alcoholism, addiction, child abuse, economic exploitation... Bill Clinton knew enough to preserve the one strong point of his predecessor in adopting his foreign policy intact. Trump saw Obama as a pure bogey.

OK, so how about a President who is a mixed bag?

  Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) Jimmy Carter gets an overall rank of #26, reflecting assessments of being  

#35 in public persuasion
#35 in crisis leadership
#37 in economic management
#7 in moral leadership
#28 in international relations
#34 in administrative skills
#34 in relations with Congress
#24 in vision and setting an agenda
#5 in pursuing equal justice for all
#30 in context for the times.

Jimmy Carter is the last President to have fully become an adult before the end of the last completed Crisis Era, and he is the last to have pushed a New Deal agenda. Carter is generally understood as a troubled President for trying to fine-tune the Presidency at a time in which America was undergoing hige changes in political and intellectual culture. He was President when the Religious Right transformed Carter's "New South" into a world that he could hardly recognize. Carter would be the last Democratic nominee for President to win Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina and the second-to-last to win Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. It's hard to see much of an ideological difference between Carter and Clinton, but Clinton stayed away from fine-tuning something that was losing its relevance.

Carter exemplifies a disjunctive President in the Skowronek cycle for very different reasons than Trump.

So what of Carter's successor, the one who set the mood as the "Redemptive" President of the neoliberal era as FDR was the Redemptive" President of the New Deal era?

 
... Liberals may not like how Reagan did things, but he did put an end to inflation (mostly by compelling young and unconnected  workers to lower their expectations -- work at jobs that they despise for harsh management and abysmal pay, and if unsatisfied with the pay, then do another such job and always remember to keep that "happy-to-serve-you smile"). Reagan's economy was the "take a second job to make ends meet" economy which was great for creating the basis of creating prosperity if spreading it poorly. He did get away with much.

Of the 44 Presidents that we have had (Cleveland counted as one) Reagan gets an overall rank of #9, reflecting assessments of being  

#5 in public persuasion
#9 in crisis leadership
#15 in economic management
#13 in moral leadership
#9 in international relations
#30 in administrative skills
#8 in relations with Congress
#5 in vision and setting an agenda
#22 in pursuing equal justice for all
#8 in context for the times.

Reagan shaped American politics for at least forty years, but as a Redemptive President hs is far below Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Maybe it takes less time to deteriorate from 9th to 44th than from #3 (FDR) to #26 (Carter) than from #9 (Reagan) to #44 (Trump). Reagan was no saint, but he could moralize. He had good people around him to cover for his dementia. Trump's idea of moralizing was to have law-enforcement tear-gas protesters so that he could raise a Bible that he neither reads nor heeds high in front of a church that is not his denomination.  

 Statistical source at C-SPAN

The analysis is mine. History will judge Donald Trump, but the historians of our time give little cause to rate him high -- ever.

Donald Trump is the Nero of American Presidents.

[pbrower2a]

ARIZONA:

It's mostly a favorability poll, so I can use it solely for calibration.

Governor Doug Ducey ® 47-49 on favorability

President Joe Biden (D) 49-48 on favorability

former President Donald Trump ® 46-51 on favorability

US Senator Mark Kelly (D)  48-41 on favorability

US Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D) 50-37 on favorability


...Arizona could be the equivalent in 2020 of Virginia in 2008 in partisan tendency.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017a-...f62f8b0000

Do you support or not support the audit of the ballots in Maricopa County?

46% support (37% strongly)
49% oppose (42% strongly)

Thinking about future elections in Arizona, if a candidate for elected office in Arizona supported this Maricopa County audit, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?

37% more likely, 46% less likely

If the election for President of the United States were held again today and the candidates were – Joe Biden and Donald Trump, whom would you vote for?

51% Biden, 44% Trump

...relevant because Maricopa County is the focus of the hack audit of the vote for President. It is unpopular in Arizona. I know, I  know, I know... Trump supporters are often convinced that there is no way in which Trump could have lost in view of how wonderful he was (and according to them still should be) as President. Like much of America, Arizona is highly polarized in its partisan allegiance. Demographics are the difference between Arizona in 2016 and 2020; with the demographics of 2016, Trump would have won the Grand Canyon State.

[Eric the Green]

Another problem about Reagan that historians overlook now is the extraordinary corruption in his pro-business and anti-regulation administration. Along with several other Republican presidents, far more of Reagan's associates were indicted or convicted of crimes than under Democrats and more-honest Republicans. One scandal after another happened among his cabinet officials and departments. Reagan was very hands off, and that's how the EPA and the Pentagon and Labor Departments had scandal and how Iran-Contra happened. Historians tend to forget what an outrage his whole Iran and Nicaragua policies were and how he allowed Poindexter and Oliver North to get away with their misdeeds.

The chart below was made during rather than after the Trump administration so his figures by now are even higher.



Here's a more updated one:

Quote:Donald Trump is the Nero of American Presidents.

Some say in fact Trump IS Nero reincarnate.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump, the Law and Order President. Not!

#32 in public persuasion
#41 in crisis leadership
#34 in economic management
#44 in moral leadership
#43 in international relations
#44 in administrative skills
#42 in relations with Congress
#36 in vision and setting an agenda
#40 in pursuing equal justice for all
#42 in context for the times.

With all the corruption he was creating pointless crises. Trump is to integrity in government what Bill Cosby was to ethical dating or Bernie Madoff in fiscal probity. Mobsters have their own strange way of keeping people in line, but those ill fit the Fortune 500 businesses. Equal justice for all? Trump likely turns up better than those Presidents who promoted or appeased slavery. "Criminal justice" usually means the suppression of crime, and not seeking breaks for well-connected criminals.  

The Chicago Machine wanted Barack Obama out of Chicago and indeed Illinois, and certainly not in federal prosecution or a federal judgeship in Illinois. Can you imagine facing Obama as a prosecutorial adversary or a judge hearing one's corruption case? He would have been a monster. Obama is the classic exponent of "do the crime, do the time". He was not generous with pardons.

[pbrower2a]

OK, the man for whom the Presidency was defined, and who defined what it means to be President:

GEORGE WASHINGTON

#4 in public persuasion
#2 in crisis leadership
#2 in economic management
#2 in moral leadership
#2 in international relations
#2 in administrative skills
#1 in relations with Congress
#2 in vision and setting an agenda
#14 in pursuing equal justice for all
#2 in context for the times

Of course he owned slaves... but several other Presidents did, too. That was normal for anyone from the South who had any economic status. Otherwise #1, #2, and #4.

AS I see it the only way in which Trump can be redeemed is if he redeems himself or if some acolyte compels America to become like his dream -- and a nightmare for everyone not part of the well-connected or those exempt due to extreme wealth, talent, or skill from having to meet the reality of a market.

...and how about the President who saved America from a scenario similar to that in The Man in the High Castle?

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT

#1 in public persuasion
#3 in crisis leadership
#3 in economic management
#1 in moral leadership
#1 in international relations
#3 in administrative skills
#3 in relations with Congress
#3 in vision and setting an agenda
#9 in pursuing equal justice for all
#3 in context for the times

Need I say more about the Second Lincoln in the Civil War of modern industrial civilization?