Since 1955,what is the historical order of US presidents and very brief description of leadership ability?

Answer 1

Eisenhower - Good
Kennedy - OK
Johnson - Sucked
Nixon - Sucked even more
Ford - Virtually non-existent
Carter - OK
Reagan - Good
Bush #1 - OK
Clinton - OK
Bush #2 - Sucked since day 1

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Eisenhower -Good. Civil rights came under his watch. Good anti commie measures.
Kennedy - did little except preventing Nukes going to Cuba.
Johnson - Bad attitude bad leadership. Took over anti commie fight from the French. Didn't fight it as a war and so prevented it from being winnable. Treated anticommie allies (like vietnemese and cubans little better than their commie relatives)
Nixon - good foreign policy. Shouldn't have made deals with china. national policy ehh not so hot. His crimes aren't part of leadership ability so not mentioned.
Ford - Not elected and so not listened to so much. A good guy pretty much just cleaned up the crap from previous administrations.
Carter - Lousy. Raised taxes alot which was bad national policy wise. Foreign wise Iran didn't fear him and he flubbed hostage rescue.
Reagan -Probably best foreign wise since 1955. Iran gave up hostage day he came to power. USSR respected and fear him. Great due owed to him for the fall of the USSR.
Bush #1 - lousy. Nationally he did little. No new taxes line and then adding taxes ruined his crediablity. Better foreign wise. MUch of the world sided with him against Saddam.
Clinton - lousy. Nationally was better than bush 1. Mainly because of stale mate between house and senate which usually prevented anything being inacted. Foreign wise he blew it with his attacks on Sudan and other places in Africa. His infidelities wasted time that could have been spent on other things.
Bush #2 - nationally he's done almost nothing. Nationally security inacts "measures" that sound good but do little. Attacks terroristic countries but doesn't take measures that could solve matter faster. Doesn't require so called allies like Pakistan to allow osama searches in it own borders.

Answer 3

Truman, made a decision, dropped the big one, ended WWII
Eisenhower, sat in a chair for eight years and did nothing.
Kennedy nailed Marilyn Monroe and died young. Nothing else accomplished.
Johnson, lied more then Bush and killed more in vietnam. Biggest crook that never got caught
Nixon, biggest crook that got caught, but opened up USSR and China.
Ford, nice man, out of his league\
Carter, totally out of his league. He was a nuclear phycist and farmer, but not a leader.
Reagan, the great man, outspent the Russians and ended the cold war
George Bush, good man, too good for the office
Clinton, sat back and watched as America ran itself. Good man for the office.
GWBush. A good person, but easily led by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice.

Answer 4

I'm going by election year here, not inaugural year:

1956 Eisenhower: good leadership ability, but not very in touch with popular issues. Handled things like military leaders often do, by orders.

1960 Kennedy: very popular and charismatic, complete opposite of Eisenhower, but made some questionable decisions -- Bay of Pigs for example. Tended to "lead" by persuasion.

1963, 1964 Johnson (took over Kennedy's term on his death): Strong on civil rights and government programs, was a "hothead" according to many accounts, got us heavily involved in Viet Nam war.

1968, 1972 Nixon: Publically a straight-arrow, privately a foul-mouthed "emperor." Always had to have things his way. Terrible temper under pressure, leadership skills very questionable.

1974 Ford: became president after resignations of both VP and President. Almost a non-entity, most remembered for tripping frequently on foreign trips, no real leadership or policy during his brief presidency.

1976 Carter: Too nice a guy to be a hugely successful leader. Somewhat ineffective domestically, was outstanding at foreign policy.

1980, 1984 Reagan: Great public-relations wise, in private left pretty much all decisions to his advisers who really ran things. Most "figurehead" president in recent history. Outstanding at getting public support for programs, not good at knowing the details of them or following through on them.

1988 Bush Sr. : Largely ineffectual, but gets points for strong foreign policy and for abandoning idealistic-but-unrealistic "no new taxes" pledge when faced with reality.

1992, 1996 Clinton: Smartest both politically and economically of this period. Good foreign relations skills, a superb compromiser who for the most part made got hard-core conservatives to work with his liberal administration. Poor judgement in his personal life :)

2000, 2004 Bush Jr.: Least intelligent and skilled both politically and policy wise of this group. Too much of a slave to dogma to compromise and work with other parties. As with Reagan often relies on advisers to make crucial decisions (and many of them are the *same* advisers as Reagan had), but keeps his hand in more than Regan did. Will likely go down in history as the most divisive president in history, and won't win any historical points for his running of the economy, Iraq war, terrorism, or abuses of the constitution.

Answer 5

Hey Im not going to do your History term paper do your homework

Answer 6

I know a source where you can get all this it's called read a damn book.

Answer 7

Hmm.. do your own homework.

Answer 8

Do you want us to do your homework for you?