logo
Trump's new attack on DEI: Erasing history or a needed shakeup?

Trump's new attack on DEI: Erasing history or a needed shakeup?

Miami Herald3 days ago

Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives and respectful debate.
MELINDA: I'm calling the weekend I just spent at my Notre Dame class reunion a Mary-thon, because I got to catch up with so many Marys — Mary Virginia, Mary Ann, Mary Meg and Mary Pat, plus that outlier Kathleen Marie. But while we were closing down the dance floor, Donald Trump did not take a minute off from trying to close down free expression, distort history and put the arts in a headlock.
Oh wait, did I say that wrong? A news story I read about his possibly illegal Friday firing of the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery said he was 'continuing his aggressive moves to reshape the federal government's cultural institutions.' You say 'reshape,' I say 'deform.' Art that is told what to be and do isn't art anymore.
DAVID: I spent some time recently in Omaha's fabulous art museum, the Joslyn. Like the Smithsonian museums, it is free and a place of beauty and inspiration. At the same time, if you spend any of your visit reading the descriptions of the works, the monotony of the standard-issue Marxism from the artists is tedious. I've felt the same from the National Portrait Gallery and other Smithsonian art museums. It wouldn't hurt them to have some fresh blood from outside the usual suspects.
MELINDA: Fresh blood? Trump said Kim Sajet is out as director of the Portrait Gallery because she's a 'highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.' An inappropriately partisan person is just someone who doesn't agree with him. I mean, would he ever throw out one of his own supporters on that basis? On the contrary, he makes no secret of filling positions based not on expertise but on loyalty to him and on the way they look on television.
And isn't DEI just fairness by another name? This president has got things so upside down that any job not held by a white man is now assumed to be held by a know-nothing 'DEI hire,' instead of by someone who had to work even harder to get where he or she is.
DAVID: No, DEI is not the same as fairness or equality. It is right there in the name 'diversity, equity and inclusion.' Equity is the idea that people shouldn't be treated equally because they are not equal. It is the very opposite of the imperfectly achieved American creed that so many fought to finally make a reality in the 1950s, '60s and '70s.
Today, more than 90% of Americans agree on 'equal opportunity.' DEI tears down that hard-won consensus and replaces it with a raw racial spoils system and identity politics. Equity will never enjoy that kind of support.
MELINDA: Look, the college friends I was just with and love so much are mostly white Catholic girls who are grandmas now. But we are keenly aware not only of all we were so lucky to have had, but of what a lack of diversity in our classrooms cost not just those who weren't there but us, too.
Sajet is out because she once told The New York Times that the portraits in the gallery mostly represent 'the wealthy, the pale and the male.' I would not have put it that way, but no one can say it isn't true. Why not include more portraits of those who should have been there all along but were overlooked? And do you really agree with Trump that museums are hotbeds of anti-American propaganda? A confident country is not afraid to tell its whole story. Knowing more will not make us fall apart, and concealing unpretty parts of the past is what authoritarians do. Though if he succeeds, this current moment will certainly wind up as a blank page.
The reason people flock to the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture is that a lot of us know that what we learned about that history in school was subpar, to put it generously, and we are eager to change that. Unless this administration really is driven by racial animus, what's the problem?
DAVID: The DEI-mania in the years since the murder of George Floyd may have sometimes brought needed attention to the darker parts of our history, but more often than not it has turned into fact-free America hatred. The bits of The 1619 Project that turn up in the Smithsonian's generally wonderful Museum of African-American History are particularly rancid.
No, modern policing was not borne of the need to recapture escaped slaves. Policing has a history that goes back thousands of years across many cultures. No, American capitalism is not rooted in slavery. The most economically advanced parts of America rejected slavery first. No, the Revolutionary War was not fought to keep British abolitionists at bay.
MELINDA: I'd hardly call it a mania, and there have been more police shootings every year since Floyd's murder. You'd rather fact-check the 1619 Project than talk about Trump's determination to stoke white grievance — white genocide, really? You are right about those 1619 errors, which did a lot of damage. Only Trump isn't trying to correct, but to obliterate. Just like DOGE preferred counterproductive mass firings to the more targeted trims that everyone could have supported. And fact-free American hatred, huh-uh.
I love this country, which is why a year ago right now I was in Normandy for the 80th anniversary of D-Day, as proud of all of those veterans who saved the world from the Nazis, and especially of our local recipient of the French Legion of Honor Medal — France's highest honor, civil or military — as I could have been without having my heart burst out of my chest.
I also love our people who come from everywhere, and who look and think differently from me, too. Unlike the president, who on every holiday posts pretty much the identical festive message about what scum half of all Americans are. I just want us to tell our whole story, like you'd want for the health of your family. To airbrush is to propagandize, and what does that get us?
What's so scary about a museum director trying to make the portraits hanging in our national portrait gallery better represent the whole American story? I can't wait to see what kind of 'improper ideology' JD Vance will uncover at the National Zoo, as he's supposed to be doing across all of the Smithsonian. Maybe he will find that the new pandas or some other immigrant animals are up to no good.
DAVID: I love the National Zoo, but it is not the place to go if you want to learn the nuances of environmental policy. You don't get delicate shades of green — you get hit with a moss sledgehammer. We might agree that Trump is not going to add subtlety, but the place is in need of a shakeup.
The Smithsonian doesn't do nuance well, but nuance is what we need to showcase our common humanity and common problems. You are right that there have been more police shootings since Floyd's death, but it might be wise to dwell on the fact that every year police kill more unarmed white people than Black people. The police killings are best addressed in ways that bring us together as equality already does. The DEI approach of only looking at Black killings leaves us divided.
MELINDA: I took my kids to that zoo all the time and noticed very little environmental policy, nuanced or otherwise, but then I was just trying to keep my son from jumping in with the cheetahs.
You'd expect police shootings to kill more white than Black people since the latter make up only about 15% of the population. Trump's DOJ is not even going to look at police misconduct, which is a good way to get more of what you have decided not to see. But it isn't only the abuse of Black people that he wants to ignore. He also mothballed a federal database tracking all misconduct by federal law enforcement officers. How turning a blind eye to wrongdoing might bring us together I don't know.
That's never been his goal. And this Portrait Gallery director's firing is only one example of this administration's non-stop efforts to disappear all but MAGA-approved history. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just ordered the Navy to review the names of vessels honoring civil rights icons, starting with assassinated San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, a Navy vet himself, and one of the country's first openly gay elected officials. Happy Pride Month! Others on the list include Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Medgar Evers, Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. You can call all of this anti-DEI, or you can hear Trump raving about 'dead white farmers' in South Africa and realize that the man's racial views, and our willingness to accept them, are exactly what 1619 was talking about. When only the pale and the male and the straight are acceptable, then that's in-your-face white supremacy.
When Trump replaced those who ran the Smithsonian's Kennedy Center, which he sometimes mistakenly calls the Lincoln Center — I sense a cognitive cover-up in the making here — they were replaced by folks who were not at all partisan. You know, because the new KenCen board he put in place had the nonpartisan good taste to immediately elect Trump as chairman.
After installing himself to run this cultural gem, he according to The New York Times told his new team that as a kid, he could pick out notes on a piano and impressed someone his father had hired to assess his potential strengths with his inate musicality. 'I have a high aptitude for music. Can you believe that?' Yes!
White House communications director Steven Cheung answered a question about this revelation by calling his boss a 'virtuoso' whose musical choices 'represent a brilliant palette of vibrant colors when others often paint in pale pastels.' Sadly, the president said, he was never encouraged to develop his talent. But I say it's never too late to pursue a gift like that on a full-time basis. C'mon, Juilliard, help us out here.
DAVID: If you keep talking Trump, all we're going to do is agree. Let me just say this: As offensive as the blatherings of the sycophants around Trump obviously are, so is the uniform liberalism of the Smithsonian. It paints America through red-colored glasses when there are so many other colors to see. A few years of Trumpy chaos might just inject some needed diversity of thinking to the place. That's part of DEI, too, right?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!'
The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!'

USA Today

time14 minutes ago

  • USA Today

The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!'

The 'true' origin story of 'The Ritual' is even more hair-raising: 'Begone Satan!' Show Caption Hide Caption 'The Ritual': Al Pacino, Dan Stevens take on exorcism horror Al Pacino and Dan Stevens star in "The Ritual," a horror film based on the account of a 1928 American exorcism. "The Ritual" exorcism horror drama (now in theaters), starring Al Pacino as the real-life German-American Capuchin friar Theophilus Riesinger and Dan Stevens as Father Joseph Steiger, proudly claims to be "based on true events." The star duo delivers hair-raising moments as they recreate the 1928 exorcism of Emma Schmidt (Abigail Cowen). But on a horror level, it pales in comparison to the more sensational source material. Writer-director David Midell has made it clear "The Ritual" is inspired by the 1935 "Begone Satan!" book by Father Carl Vogl, a German priest and author. Vogl's exclamation point-filled "true account" of the proceedings in Earling, Iowa, is still available online and makes for great, campy reading. How 'Begone Satan!' emerged as the source of 'The Ritual' in Time magazine Steiger's job was to host (other churches declined) and to take notes during the harrowing (and reportedly successful) exorcism. The Steiger notes are the purported source of "Begone Satan!" which made front-page news in religious publications like Denver's Catholic Register years later. Time magazine brought the story to mainstream readers with a Riesinger-heavy 1936 account of the "diabolical possession." The Time article demonstrates some skepticism by reminding readers "that no Catholic is obliged to believe in any particular account of a case of diabolical possession outside of those recounted in Scripture." At the end of this long, twisted, and sometimes dubious road, "The Ritual" earns the right to make the carefully worded claim in its closing: "The 1928 exorcism of Emma Schmidt represents the most thoroughly documented and well-known exorcism in American history." The devil will apparently mess with your car In an early "Ritual" scene, Steiger apologizes for failing to pick up Riesinger at the train station, attributing the oversight to the devil's mischief. With 19 exorcisms to his name, he knows that the devil will mess with cars. In "Begone Satan!" Steiger can't explain why his "tip-top" car takes two hours to get to the station. Riesinger points out that the traveling mishap is the devil "doing his utmost to foil our plans." Later, Steiger is nearly killed after inexplicably losing control of his still-new car on a familiar road and crashing it to "smithereens." The book's car-totaling "devil's trick" doesn't make "The Ritual," which is a shame, given the rich real-life irony: Stevens' "Downton Abbey" character, Matthew Crawley, was killed in a Season 3 car crash that allowed him to pursue a film career. In "Begone Satan!" Steiger's congregation pitches in to buy a new car for the pastor, which frankly could have been an alternate film ending (with a Ford sponsorship). Riesinger had met Schmidt's demons before In "The Ritual," Riesinger makes it clear that the case is personal because he had previously exorcised Schmidt. "Begone Satan!" says Riesinger "freed her from this possession" in 1912, but Schmidt "became possessed again" in her 40s. Schmidt is said to be possessed by four entities that announce themselves as Beelzebub, betraying disciple Judas, Schmidt's abusive father Jacob and Mina (Jacob's lover and Schmidt's aunt). The devil didn't mess with the 'Ritual' nuns Three nuns are injured while dealing directly with the possessed Schmidt in "The Ritual," and Sister Rose ("Twilight" star Ashley Greene) has her hair pulled out of her scalp. In "Begone Satan!" the devil never attacked the nuns, saving his blows for the bigwigs — Pastor Steiger or Mother Superior (played by "Everybody Loves Raymond" star Patricia Heaton). In "The Ritual," the demons within Schmidt taunt Steiger with knowledge of his brother's recent death by suicide. There's no suggestion of these low blows in "Begone Satan!" But in the book, Steiger gives some memorable verbal shots in that never made the movie, like "detestable hellhound" and "vile serpent." Satan also calls Riesinger "dumbbell" when the overtired priest doesn't get his prayers right. That didn't make the movie, either. 'Begone Satan!' has the possessed woman flying over bed like 'The Ritual' The possessed Schmidt throws up black bile often in "The Ritual," but not as much as in the book. 'It was not unusual for her to vomit 20 to 30 times a day," the book says, including bedside descriptions of wretched output "resembling vomited macaroni." The movie scene featuring Schmidt flying over the bed is detailed in "Begone Satan!" "The possessed woman broke from the grip of her protectors and stood erect before them," the book says. "Only her heels were touching the bed." How 'Begone Satan!' ends the story Unlike the movie, the Iowa exorcism reportedly took place in three stages, in August, September and December 1928. The book's climax differs from "The Ritual" ending, which has Schmidt running through the church catacombs, and Steiger stepping up with an exorcist hero moment, shouting down the demon with the Bible in hand. In the book, levitating Schmidt returns to the bed, and "Satan was forced to leave his victim at last to return to Hell." Schmidt utters, "My Jesus mercy! Praised be Jesus!" showing she's clear. The woman "reportedly lived out the rest of her life peacefully," the movie says in the closing credits. "Begone Satan!" backs up that happy ending, adding "there were still possessions, but of a milder nature."

Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

time18 minutes ago

Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''

US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office

For the past 70 years, Gallup has measured US presidents' approval ratings. Bill Clinton had the highest approval ratings at the time he left the Oval Office. Donald Trump's first-term rating is tied for eighth place with George W. Bush's and Jimmy Carter's. President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Read the original article on Business Insider

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store