Who's the worst U.S. president ever?

[Ted Striker]

RFK - greatest President that never was

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
As usual, Kuci is right.

As usual, Jaguar is right

[Zkribbler]

I hesitate to respond to the question because, once the presidency is far enough in the past to gain some perspective, good things can be said about even Presidents I loathed.

Richard Nixon - won the election by lying about his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam and indeed, he unnecesarily prolonged it. He was a paranoid weasel who brought about his own justifiable downfall with the Watergate cover-up.

However, if you ever listen to his speeches, they were great! If he'd ever had listened to his own speeches, he'd have been one of the great Presidents of all times. He knew that realism was needed in foreign policy, not the idealism that had dominated foreign policy since Eisenhower. Nixon also opened up China to the West.

Ronald Reagan sent the economy reeling in the wrong direction with his staggering deficits that we're still trying to pay off today, and with his de-regulation of banking and S&Ls, which lead to swindles of a magnitude never seen in the course of human history. For example, more money was lost in the Lincoln S&L scandle than in all the bank robberies in U.S. history combined!

But he restored dignity to the White House and prestige to the U.S. around the world. He also turned plain speaking into a political artform.

I can say -- and have said -- lots of bad things about George W. Bush. But he has exhibited strong leadership qualities when America needed a strong leader, he enjoys campaigning more than anyone I ever seen, he truely believes in what he's saying, and he has a strong moral foundation. I can't say he is the worst President ever, no matter how much I loath his policies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Broken_Erika
they say how bad clinton was but, his popularity soared even higher after the monica thing, and the economy also soared while he was president, so lets just leave him out.

Clinton was an awesome President.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
RFK - greatest President that never was

[Immortal Wombat]

'sfunny, the way Wilson comes across in the British history curriculum, he was a pretty cool guy. Kept the USA out of the war from '14 to '17 (dubious in Europe, good for America), Moderating Clemenceau's harshness, drawing up his 14 points, winning a Nobel Peace Prize, setting up the League, then getting no support for joining it back home, and dying quickly.

But then the bad things are never really relevant to mention re WWI in Europe.

[Ned]

We have to think of these things as if we were looking back 2000 years, divorced from the passions and politics of the moment. We judge Roman Emperors primarily on how the empire fared under their guidance. In this regard, Commodus, even though judged by history as a moral bastard, has to be judged as a good emperor because the empire did well while he presided. But it is clear that the most damage was done by the likes of Valens and Honorius. Valens because of Andrianople. Honorius because he acted to undermine Rome's security exactly when it needed great leadership.

In US history, I think it is clear that van Buren lead the US into its greatest depression ever. He has to be condemned. Ditto Herbert Hoover. People whose policies actively harm the US must be condemned.

Grant's regime was corrupt, but the country prospered under his presidency. Ditto Clinton. We have to judge these presidents favorably.

Nixon too performed well as president even though he was truly mentally ill, in my view. I think the had paranoia.

In contrast, the country faired poorly under both Ford and Carter, and clearly Johnson was a failure due to his disastrous mismanagement of Vietnam. No other event in US history so traumatized this nation.

So, in order

1. Johnson
2. Van Buren
3. Hoover
4. Ford
5. Carter

[JohnT]

'sfunny, the way Wilson comes across in the British history curriculum, he was a pretty cool guy.

Amazing what one decent decision will do to a mans reputation. One of the things that is rarely mentioned is the mobilization of the American populace for WW1, including the arrests of artists and comedians who did not properly support the war (including the vetting of jokes by the government for "morale" purposes), endless (and legal) harassments of German descendents, and more of the same, making the Patriot Act a joke in comparison.

The fact is, that once the decision was made to go to war, "pacifistic" Wilson turned into a freakin' nut.

[Sava]

No other event in US history so traumatized this nation.

Bush is trying his damndest to beat that with Iraq.

I was reading an old 1964 almanac that my parents have. Some of the newspaper clippings resembled today's so much so that it is scary. Now that the US is at 1,200 dead Americans in Iraq, and with rumblings about Iran, it seems likely that in 10 years, Iraq will resemble Vietnam more so than many people would like to admit.

[Ted Striker]

Actually I'd say the Civil War tramautized this nation more than any other event.

The South was destroyed and to this day people there are still bitter about it.

The casualty count was the highest as a percentage of the population, no other war has even come close. The casualties near the end were so very heavy the war nearly ended with a treaty.

Then we have the whole civil rights issues that spawned from the afteraffects of a freed black population.

Though, Vietnam certainly is a very traumatizing event, and this blunder in Iraq is one of the worst miscalculations ever.

[Sava]

Ted Striker

[Berzerker]

once the decision was made to go to war, "pacifistic" Wilson turned into a freakin' nut.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Actually I'd say the Civil War tramautized this nation more than any other event.

The South was destroyed and to this day people there are still bitter about it.

The casualty count was the highest as a percentage of the population, no other war has even come close. The casualties near the end were so very heavy the war nearly ended with a treaty.

Then we have the whole civil rights issues that spawned from the afteraffects of a freed black population.

Though, Vietnam certainly is a very traumatizing event, and this blunder in Iraq is one of the worst miscalculations ever.

Let's be honest. The Civil War traumatized the South, permanently we hope. It unified the North and made the United States what it is today. The Civil War transformed the US to a better place.

Nothing positive can be said about Vietnam.

[Ted Striker]

Of course it had positive effects.


However in terms of tramautizing the nation, Vietnam doesn't even come close.

Half of the nation was destroyed, families were literally fighting against each other, roving gangs of marauders roamed the plains and burned down entire cities.

Vietnam was halfway around the world, and didn't even come close the amount of casualties that the Civil War did.

[Pekka]

I'd say US vs Finland semifinals in hockey World Cup 04 traumatized US more than anything else

[Ned]

Ted, you are right of course. But, still, that does not make Lincoln a bad president because he steadfastly conducted the war to a Union victory. I disagree that Lincoln would have negotiated a treaty with the South. McClellan would have, but he was not elected.

The reason Vietnam was a failure had everything to do with Johnson, though, as he did not prosecute that war with victory as an objective.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
I'd say US vs Finland semifinals in hockey World Cup 04 traumatized US more than anything else

Pekka, was that Finland's finest moment?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned
Ted, you are right of course. But, still, that does not make Lincoln a bad president because he steadfastly conducted the war to a Union victory. I disagree that Lincoln would have negotiated a treaty with the South. McClellan would have, but he was not elected.

The reason Vietnam was a failure had everything to do with Johnson, though, as he did not prosecute that war with victory as an objective.

I never mentioned that the event had anything to do with being a bad President.

In fact, I like Lincoln alot.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So many bad ones to choose from, so few good ones.....

The three I hate the most are the ones Berzerker already brought up - FDR, Lincoln, and LBJ, probably in that order, for their efforts in shredding the US Constitution. For example, Lincoln's decision to ignore the Supreme Court in Ex parte Merryman strikes me as one of the worst abuses of power in the history of the Presidency - far, far worse than anything Nixon did.

Franklin Roosevelt violated the Constitution so regularly, the only way his New Deal became Constitution was through his threats to pack the Supreme Court. SCOTUS began to see things his way more often after that Court Packing mess, but the timing of the decisions against FDR vs. those in his favor is sort of telling.

He was neither the first nor the last President to attempt to use his power to appoint Justices to bend thing his way. For their part the Supreme Court repeatedly over-stepped their bounds just because they didn't like his programs.

Put another way, without FDR's threat to pack the court (an abuse of power up their with Lincoln's Merryman decision in my book), most of his legislative programs that had not already been found unconstitutional would undoubtedly have been found as such.

I can think of no instance in which the Suoreme Court backed down from a decision because they were afraid of FDR.

FDR also was conducting an illegal undeclared war against Germany, and trying to do anything he could to get the US into the biggest bloodbath in history, otherwise known as WW2.

Even in the 1790s the US reserved the right to protect its merchant vessels by providing armed escort in war zone waters. Thomas Jefferson sent a convoy of grain ships escorted by American (and French) warships to Repuiblican France through a British blockade. The escorts were forced to fight a battle with a British squadron in order to clear the way for the convoy. Was Jefferson conducting an illegal war against Great Britain? OTOH by the time that the US began providing armed escorts for American merchatmen Nazis submarines were already operating on this side of the Atlantic. Therefore it could be said that the Nazis had made all of the seas and oceans between the Old World and the New into a war zone. Would you have confined our merchant fleet to the 3 mile zone?

Woodrow Wilson is also pretty high up on my list of "worst Presidents" - not only did he get us into WW1, but he also played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, and once we were in the Great War, his administration quelled dissent everywhere they could find it, and created a propaganda of hate against the Germans - in some ways, Wilson stirred up more hatred against the Germany of WW1 in the US than FDR was able to stir up against Nazi Germany, in my opinion. Wilson's administration actively prosecuted ANYONE who disagreed with the war, the draft, or any measures in support of either - people actually went to prison for saying they felt that the war or draft was wrong.

I think you'd be hard put to find a President who hasn't played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, so why single out Wilson? Also I seem to recall that the US Congress declared war on the Germans, not Wilson. The Zimmerman telegraph pretty much out raged the American public.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Ned
Let's be honest. The Civil War traumatized the South, permanently we hope. It unified the North and made the United States what it is today. The Civil War transformed the US to a better place.

Nothing positive can be said about Vietnam.

You make the South sound so bad. The north hated blacks and didn't want them anywhere near the north. That's why many of the northern states had rules against blacks even coming into the state. While the South might have enslaved, at least they were tolerant. And the north only didn't want expansion of slavery, not abolition, until after the Civil War even started.

[Pekka]

Ned, absolutely. Well maybe not the best.. but only second to the inter-baltic berry picking contest where we paricipated and came second!!

[David Floyd]

He was neither the first nor the last President to attempt to use his power to appoint Justices to bend thing his way.

Good point - Lincoln threatened to do it too. Besides, there is nothing wrong with appointing Justices who are likely to rule "your way", but "packing the Court" with extra Justices on the basis of ideology alone is an unconscionable abuse of power.

For their part the Supreme Court repeatedly over-stepped their bounds just because they didn't like his programs.

Give me an example. Striking down, say, the AAA or the NRA was fully within the bounds of the Supreme Court, because both of those entities were unconstitutional, or at least were acting unconstitutionally.

I can think of no instance in which the Suoreme Court backed down from a decision because they were afraid of FDR.

Perhaps not in any single case, but on the other hand, Justice Owen Roberts suddenly started voting with the liberals on the Court, coincidentally right around the time that FDR was threatening to pack the Court. This created a liberal majority and instead of every major New Deal program being struck down, they were upheld instead. I'm sure you've heard of the "switch in time that saved nine" and this was it.

Even in the 1790s the US reserved the right to protect its merchant vessels by providing armed escort in war zone waters.

So what? In the 1790s the US wasn't shipping war material essentially for free to a belligerent in a major war, and using its navy to attack on sight the warships of the other belligerent, which is what was going on in 1940/1941. The USN was at first radioing the position of German U-boats to the British, and eventually simply began attacking them on sight. Those are hostile acts.

OTOH by the time that the US began providing armed escorts for American merchatmen Nazis submarines were already operating on this side of the Atlantic. Therefore it could be said that the Nazis had made all of the seas and oceans between the Old World and the New into a war zone.

Duh, Canada was a major belligerent on the side of Great Britain, and a great deal of shipping went between the two nations. We only had a right to keep the U-boats out of our territorial waters, yet by the time we declared war, we had a "security zone" extending over 1200 miles away from the US East Coast. That was both unnecessary for US security, and violated international law, and as far as I'm concerned, that zone was simply in place as a)an intentional provocation to get the Germans to attack, and b)an aid to the British.

Would you have confined our merchant fleet to the 3 mile zone?

Not at all, I'm not advocating that. I'm simply saying that the US was behaving in a hostile way towards Germany, while acting as a virtual ally towards Great Britain. You may say that we had a right to do so, and while I disagree with you on the basis of my argument about the war-making powers in the US Constitution (you've heard it before, but I'll repeat it if necessary), that also isn't the point.

I think you'd be hard put to find a President who hasn't played imperialist games in the Caribbean and Central America, so why single out Wilson?

I'm singling Wilson out on the basis that he got us into WW1, and then subsequently suppressed individual liberty on a larger scale than Dubya.

Also I seem to recall that the US Congress declared war on the Germans, not Wilson.

True, but Congress was manipulated by Wilson - Wilson's mis-information/propaganda network was screaming bloody murder over the Lusitania incident, which we really had no right to be upset over. The Lusitania was carrying arms, and the Germans tried to warn Americans against boarding the Lusitania - but the US government suppressed those warnings.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

You make the South sound so bad. The north hated blacks and didn't want them anywhere near the north. That's why many of the northern states had rules against blacks even coming into the state. While the South might have enslaved, at least they were tolerant. And the north only didn't want expansion of slavery, not abolition, until after the Civil War even started.

Sortof a blanket statement and sounds like an apologist argument from 1862.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, I dislike Wilson as much as the next guy, but to say he was manipulating Congress into getting into the war is dishonest. He REALLY didn't want to get into the war. In fact, he campaigned on it. He did want to send materials to Britain, but that was the extent of it. It was after the newspapers ratcheted up public sentiment that he was forced to do so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

You make the South sound so bad. The north hated blacks and didn't want them anywhere near the north. That's why many of the northern states had rules against blacks even coming into the state. While the South might have enslaved, at least they were tolerant. And the north only didn't want expansion of slavery, not abolition, until after the Civil War even started.

Wait, how can one have slavery AND be tolerant? Sorry, thats, well, NUTS. NO the south was NOT tolerant- saying that the north was racist, which it was, is not the same as saying the south was tolerant- in fact, the south was FAR more racists than the north and remained so for well over a century AFTER the civil war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hehe... they were enslaved but tolerant! That could be the dumbest thing I've ever read!

[Agathon]

Did anyone watch Wolf Blitzer today?

I was watching Jimmy Kimmel and he had a clip from Wolf's show where a professor was talking about Lincoln being gay. Wolf asked the professor whether he (the professor) was gay, to which the professor replied that he had "a strong anal fixation", whereupon the interview was terminated.

Did this really happen, or was it a joke?

edit: Twas a joke, a sharp piece of editing. Pretty funny though.

[Bosh]

While the South might have enslaved, at least they were tolerant.

WFT?!??!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Sortof a blanket statement and sounds like an apologist argument from 1862.

And also true. Though not the tolerance bit.

[Ted Striker]

Blanket statements are not true son.