The 5 WORST US Presidents in Foreign Policy [RANKED]

Episode Overview

• Hosts Jacob Shapiro and Marko Papic rank the top five and bottom five US presidents based on their geopolitical performance, spanning American history from its founding to the modern era.
• The hosts establish key criteria for their rankings, focusing on the "degree of difficulty" of the challenges faced and a president's ability to prioritize pragmatic strategy over rigid ideology.
• The discussion uses major historical events—the Civil War, World War II, the opening of China, and the Korean War—to analyze the strategic successes and failures of various administrations.
• The conversation features heated debates over the controversial legacies of figures like Harry Truman and Barack Obama, and concludes with a sharp critique of the Biden administration's foreign policy on Ukraine and China.

Key Concepts

• Ranking Framework: The episode is structured around creating a "geopolitical All-Star team" by ranking the five best and five worst US foreign policy presidents.
• "Degree of Difficulty": A primary metric used to evaluate a president's success, prioritizing leaders who navigated existential threats with limited resources (e.g., Washington, Lincoln) over those with seemingly easier victories (e.g., Reagan).
• Pragmatism Over Ideology: A recurring theme praising leaders who demonstrated strategic flexibility, such as FDR allying with Stalin or the anti-communist Nixon opening relations with China.
• Domestic Constraints on Foreign Policy: An analysis of how public opinion shapes a president's options, highlighted by FDR's "strategic patience" in guiding an isolationist America into World War II.
• Inherited Problems: The idea that a president's performance should also be judged by how effectively they manage and de-escalate the long-term challenges they inherit from predecessors.
• Geopolitical Blunders: The episode dissects major foreign policy mistakes, with Truman's handling of the Korean War serving as a central case study of miscalculation and its consequences.
• Controversial Legacies: The discussion grapples with the mixed records of presidents like Harry Truman (credited with post-war architecture but blamed for Korea) and Barack Obama (credited for de-escalation but criticized for Libya).
• Constitutional Precedent: The analysis distinguishes between presidents who bent constitutional rules to save the nation (Lincoln) and those who set dangerous precedents for executive overreach out of political motivation (Truman).
• Modern Foreign Policy Critique: The conversation concludes with a critical look at the current Biden administration, focusing on its lack of a defined "victory" in Ukraine and its confrontational stance toward China.

Quotes

• At 0:36 - "He was a shrewd, shrewd navigator of foreign policy." - Marko Papic comments on Richard Nixon's skill in international relations, specifically mentioning his role in flipping China.
• At 0:43 - "Top five geopolitical US presidents and then bottom five geopolitical US presidents." - Jacob Shapiro lays out the main topic for the podcast episode.
• At 24:43 - "I feel that his greatest victory in his portfolio was relatively easy. And I say that because Soviet Union was crumbling... he just needed to kind of give it a gentle push and he did." - Marko explains why he didn't include Ronald Reagan in his top five, arguing the collapse of the USSR was already in motion.
• At 25:36 - "He had the highest degree of difficulty of any of them, by far. I mean, maybe Lincoln can make an argument there, but compared to all the others, like there were no institutions at this point. There was nothing that said the United States was going to be there." - Jacob praises George Washington for creating a nation and its foreign policy from nothing.
• At 29:32 - "The strategic patience that he had... to last long enough until Japan made that terrible mistake at Pearl Harbor and whipped up that American fervor to come into the war. Like he played all of that completely perfectly." - Jacob commends FDR's masterful handling of the events leading up to the U.S. entry into World War II.
• At 30:40 - "He understood the post-war order better than anyone... And I think that's why he was so willing to make a deal with the devil. He's like, look, I need Stalin to be on my side against Japan, and I need Stalin to be on my side at the UN." - Marko describes FDR's pragmatic and forward-thinking geopolitical strategy during the war's final stages.
• At 32:18 - "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher... as a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide." - Jacob quotes Abraham Lincoln to illustrate his profound understanding that the greatest threat to the U.S. was internal division, not foreign powers.
• At 33:03 - "The presidents that we most admire... are the ones who are willing to say 'fuck it' to the Constitution when they feel like they need to. And there's a certain ends-justifies-the-means." - Jacob reflects on the uncomfortable reality that some of the most effective leaders, like Lincoln, took extreme, constitutionally questionable actions to preserve the nation.
• At 55:42 - "He's just copying and pasting FDR's plans and then actually butchering them in the implementation... And then we've got Korea sitting there like a massive venereal disease... the gift that keeps on giving." - One speaker vehemently dismisses the positive view of Harry Truman, arguing he mishandled FDR's post-war vision and entrapped the U.S. in the Korean War.
• At 56:36 - "He did flip China... That was a big, big deal." - The speaker justifies including Richard Nixon on his "bench" of best foreign policy presidents, citing the strategic opening to China as a monumental achievement.
• At 58:08 - "I am going to put Barack Obama on my bench for foreign policy." - The speaker makes a controversial choice for an honorable mention, eliciting surprise and amusement from his co-host.
• At 58:25 - "If someone brings up Libya, I'll just punch you in the fucking face... Benghazi man, Benghazi. Shut up." - The speaker preemptively and crudely dismisses common criticisms of Barack Obama's foreign policy to focus on what he views as larger successes.
• At 1:00:15 - "I hate Henry Kissinger with the fire of a thousand burning suns... I think he was an odious little toad of a man." - In a brief but passionate tangent, one speaker expresses his intense disdain for Henry Kissinger, aligning his view with that of Christopher Hitchens.
• At 1:00:32 - "Tell us Jacob, where did Henry Kissinger touch you?" - The co-host jokingly responds to the intense hatred expressed for Henry Kissinger.
• At 85:38 - "I think Korea was just such a massive geopolitical blunder." - Jacob introduces his primary criticism of President Harry S. Truman's foreign policy legacy.
• At 86:12 - "He decides it's an international police action that he gets to do with the United Nations. And I'm sure other US presidents would have wanted to do it, but every single US president since Truman gets to use that justification to do things that are illegal." - Jacob criticizes the precedent set by Truman that bypassed a congressional declaration of war, empowering future presidents to take unilateral military action.
• At 86:35 - "President Truman giving the middle finger to the Constitution not to save the Republic like Lincoln... but because he got caught with his pants down on Korea and didn't want to be seen as a weak Democrat." - Jacob argues that Truman's motivation for entering the Korean War was based on political vanity rather than a legitimate constitutional or national security imperative.
• At 89:48 - "Suddenly Truman gets his panties in a wad and says, 'No, no, no, we have to defend South Korea.' And 3 million people die so that the Korean peninsula can remain divided." - Jacob forcefully summarizes his view on the tragic and pointless human cost of the Korean War, which he attributes directly to Truman's reversal.
• At 1:08:40 - "The first and foremost is not defining what victory in Ukraine looks like... This notion that Ukraine must win... it's like, okay, but what does that mean?" - Marko outlines his primary criticism of the Biden administration's foreign policy, arguing it lacks a clear strategic objective in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
• At 1:11:35 - "Joe Biden shows up and says to Zelenskyy right off the bat, 'You don't have to abide by any of these agreements,' that ended the war from 2014 to 2015." - Marko claims the Biden administration encouraged Ukraine to abandon the Minsk agreements, which he views as a critical step that escalated the conflict with Russia.

Takeaways

• When evaluating a leader's success, consider the context and "degree of difficulty" of their situation, not just the final outcome.
• Effective geopolitical strategy often requires prioritizing pragmatic outcomes over ideological purity, even if it means making uncomfortable alliances.
• Foreign policy decisions are heavily constrained by domestic politics; a leader's ability to manage public opinion is a critical, often overlooked, skill.
• Be wary of the "ends justify the means" argument for executive action, as precedents set for noble reasons can be abused later for political vanity.
• Ambiguous or mixed signals on security commitments can invite aggression; clear and consistent communication of national interests is essential to deter adversaries.
• Judge leaders not only on new crises but also on their ability to skillfully manage and de-escalate the long-standing problems they inherit.
• In any strategic engagement, you must clearly define what "victory" looks like to avoid mission creep and endless conflict.
• The long-term foundations a leader builds can be more impactful than the immediate crises they solve.
• Internal division often poses a greater existential threat to a nation than any foreign adversary.
• A single, monumental strategic achievement, like opening relations with a rival power, can sometimes outweigh a leader's other personal or political failings in a geopolitical context.
• Scrutinize the legal justifications for military action, as precedents like the "international police action" can expand executive power at the expense of constitutional checks and balances.
• True strategic vision involves planning for the post-conflict world order, not just focusing on winning the immediate war.