Who was the Worst American President?

[SGOS]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-worst-president-ever-13002

Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, George Bush, Woodrow Wilson, are among the list of candidates.  I don't personally remember any further back than Harry Truman, and my education about past presidents is mostly limited to learning their names, so I can't speak to Harding, Buchanan, and Wilson.  I'm cautious about Richard Nixon, and even George Bush just on the grounds that they are recent.  Nixon did more damage to the image of the presidency, not so much to the country, but I think the resulting cynicism about the presidential office was inevitable and needed to happen.

In lists of greatness, "worstness", or importance, articles usually include current persons or events.  They feel some need to do this, I suspect, because those are the things and persons most people know and have developed strongly held notions about, but history may or may not recognize them in the long term.  But current historians, political partisans, and spin jockeys are busy working hard right now at shaping what they want to be the eventual historical record.  But when it comes to the worst, I think Bush will always deserve at least an honorable mention.  The invasion of Iraq, no matter what or who is responsible for the situation there today, was a bone headed plan, and started an era of conflict that is shaping up to be quite enduring.  Who knows how history will eventually see it?

[Atheon]

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both for the enduring damage they have done to the US and the world.

[SGOS]

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both for the enduring damage they have done to the US and the world.

I'll always remember Reagan as an actor from Hollywood, but not a very good actor.  My mother thought he was handsome, but I was just a little kid when she told me that, and my reaction back then was, "Is that important for some reason?" (I was really young then). 

I remember watching the Republican convention in the early 60s or around then.  I think Richard Nixon won the nomination, but there was this vocal support group for Reagan, who at the time was mostly remembered for saying something about winning a thing for a Gipper.  So at some point during the convention, one of those well organized "spontaneous demonstrations" broke out where some voice introduced, "The next President of the Great United States of America, Ladies and Gentlemen... Ronald Reagan," and everyone started waving signs and yelling.

OK, so the camera searches out Ronald and Nancy in the audience while everyone is wildly cheering, and catches Ronald sound asleep.  I mean he is out like a light, with his head hanging forward and he's really cutting some serious 'zzz's, although it was after 9:00 at night, and he was like 70 years old.  So Nancy visibly gives Ronald a poke in the ribs with her elbow, and he wakes up completely startled with a look of, "WTF, Huh?"  And you could see Nancy gesturing to him and mouthing the words, "Stand up," while she's trying to get him to clear his mind.  So he obediently stands up, and realizes the audience is in a wild frenzy over something, and at least has the good sense to raise his hands in a show of gratitude, although he's still not sure what's happening.

I remember thinking that he looked and acted just like my uncle when he had Alzheimer's.  And during his entire presidency, I kept thinking, "This guy is running a depleted brain cells or something."  And shortly after his two terms, Nancy announced that he had Alzheimer's, and then I'm thinking, "Well, duh!??"  The Regan Presidency was the first time I became acutely aware that some presidents could be handled by "handlers" who are the real sources of power.

[drunkenshoe]

Lyndon Johnson. Others are just the followers of the same sort of politics. 

[Mike Cl]

For me, GW Bush stands above the rest (or way below, depending upon your frame of reference.).  I see his legacy as only becoming worse and worse as time goes by.  Buchanan, Reagan, Nixon, and I'm not that sure who to put into 5th place--Pierce, Polk, Harding, Wilson and maybe put Jackson into both camps (best and worst).


The best?  The usual--Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson--and maybe Eisenhower, Truman, or Carter. 

I really am not sure where to include Obama.  He will always be seen as a bell weather type of president--the first black and all.  But, what did he accomplish?  I have to look at what I expected from him and chuckle at myself.  How stupid of me!  I expected real change--no, no, I really did!  I cannot believe I fooled myself that much or that easily.  He is nowhere as progressive as he could have been or should have been.  On the other hand, what chance did he really have?  First, he was and is a top of the line politician.  That means he really has already compromised away any real moral ground he may have had. (All politicians of that caliber have to dance with the devil to get to the positions of power they enjoy.)  And the big PLUS, is that he had to buck the inherent racist streak in our society.  And the flat out banding together of the Rep. party to simply not allow Obama to do anything--to block everything, no matter the cost to the country.  And they did, to great effect for them.  So, did he get enough accomplished to stand the test of time?  That he faced the worse congress in our history and still got something done enhance the fact he got some things done?  I don't know--way too early for me to figure that one out.  Would I vote from him again?  Yeah.  I mean, I would still tell the Electoral College that I wanted them to vote for him. 

[Mike Cl]

Oh, and I wanted to put in a special plug for Ford as the worst.  He pardoned Nixon.  He did it under the guise of not splitting the country apart.  What he did show, is that the president and those close to him are special--they don't get punished for any wrong doing.  They are above any law the land may have.  And that idea has been reinforced since.  GW Bush is an obvious war criminal, yet nobody goes there.  Nothing will be done officially or even unofficially, about those crimes.  And even Obama wants things like the Patriot Act to stay in effect, because it gives the president more power.  And I suspect whoever is elected next will have the same stance. 

[TomFoolery]

A toss up between Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

[SGOS]

Oh, and I wanted to put in a special plug for Ford as the worst.  He pardoned Nixon.  He did it under the guise of not splitting the country apart.  What he did show, is that the president and those close to him are special--they don't get punished for any wrong doing.  They are above any law the land may have.  And that idea has been reinforced since.  GW Bush is an obvious war criminal, yet nobody goes there.  Nothing will be done officially or even unofficially, about those crimes.  And even Obama wants things like the Patriot Act to stay in effect, because it gives the president more power.  And I suspect whoever is elected next will have the same stance. 

When it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, they got rid of Agnew as a VP.  He was coming under investigation for some financial scam.  I doubt they wanted that scandal hanging over a new president.  It would look bad for the party as a whole, with two Republican presidents back to back, one not even voted in by the public, involved in criminal activity.  Ford seemed to have a clean record, but I'm quite sure that Ford being given the VP job was conditional on a pardon for Nixon. 

Keep the country from being torn apart?  I doubt that very much.  It was more likely just a political favor.  The country was torn apart and is more so today, long after Ford has been gone.

[Mike Cl]

When it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, they got rid of Agnew as a VP.  He was coming under investigation for some financial scam.  I doubt they wanted that scandal hanging over a new president.  It would look bad for the party as a whole, with two Republican presidents back to back, one not even voted in by the public, involved in criminal activity.  Ford seemed to have a clean record, but I'm quite sure that Ford being given the VP job was conditional on a pardon for Nixon. 

Keep the country from being torn apart?  I doubt that very much.  It was more likely just a political favor.  The country was torn apart and is more so today, long after Ford has been gone.

Oh, no doubt, I quite agree.  I just remember seeing a clip of Ford making a speech about pardoning Nixon and why it was for the good of the country and not that Nixon did not do something wrong.  And no, Ford was not the first to do something like that; just that this was highly visible and simply added another precedent to keep doing it.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woodrow Wilson.

He brought us the Income Tax, he brought us the Federal Reserve, he brought the US into World War One (1914-1989) which he had promised to keep us out of, he was a Klansman who continued discriminatory policies, he was quite nasty to Native Americans, and criminalized all dissent against him.

Compared to that, can you honestly say Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama really make the cut?

[trdsf]

Buchanan (a supremely weak man who did nothing to head off the coming civil war), Grant (in many ways even more of an absentee president than Reagan was, if not allowing then failing to notice the rampant corruption in his administration), Harding (ditto Grant re: corruption), Hoover (oblivious to the growing economic crisis and then paralytic in the face of it), Nixon (for the obvious reasons) and Bush Jr (too many to list) are all well down the bottom of the list, yeah.

There's a case to be made for Bush Jr to be the worst president ever, but it's far too soon to make that judgment.  I will go no further than to say that I am confident history will judge his time harshly.

I think Obama will ultimately be seen as better than average, especially considering the opposition he's had by the Other Party.  I mean, I thought the partisan witch hunt the GOP conducted against Clinton was appalling, but that was downright collegial compared to the knee-jerk absolutist opposition they have to Obama.  But I don't think he's top tier like Jefferson or Lincoln.

[Mike Cl]

Yeah, I could agree with those.

[trdsf]

Woodrow Wilson.

He brought us the Income Tax, he brought us the Federal Reserve, he brought the US into World War One (1914-1989) which he had promised to keep us out of, he was a Klansman who continued discriminatory policies, he was quite nasty to Native Americans, and criminalized all dissent against him.

Compared to that, can you honestly say Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama really make the cut?

If someone like Reagan ran today, he'd be run out of the GOP -- whatever his failings, he did something no Republican does anymore: he sat down and negotiated with Democrats, and when necessary, worked with them, rather than demonizing everything a Democrat says even before it's actually said.

Ron's administrative and political sins were many, but he'd at least talk, and even sometimes compromise.  That's better than you can say about almost any big name Republican any more.  Even so, he was largely an absentee president, making general pronouncements and platitudes while the real work was done at the Cabinet level.  Basically, he was the hood ornament on the limousine of state, not the driver.

I think the George H.W. Bush of 1980 would have made a better president than the George H.W. Bush of 1988 did -- 'voodoo economics' was a perfect description of what came to be known as supply-side or Reaganomics, but after eight years, he was unable to repudiate the economic policies of the administration he himself had served in.  So Bush Sr. was more of a disappointing president than a failure of a president, for continuing economic policies that he knew were unworkable.

I think Clinton will be ranked highly for a long time to come -- eight years of peace and prosperity is hard to argue with, and he's the most gifted natural campaigner we've seen in a long time (and I am really looking forward to seeing Big Dog back on the stump next year).  And he proved the 1980 George H.W. Bush right -- he raised taxes slightly on the rich, and the economy took off running, because he understood that an economy only works when the money moves in it, not when it collects in large stagnant pools.  Again, not up in the top tier of Jefferson and Lincoln, but a strong second-tier man, arguably in or near the top ten.

And I've nothing to add to my comments on Obama and Dumbass.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

8 years of peace under Clinton?  I guess so, as long as you don't live in the Balkans.  Or Sudan.  Or Iraq.  Or Waco.

[Mike Cl]

I think Clinton will be ranked highly for a long time to come -- eight years of peace and prosperity is hard to argue with, and he's the most gifted natural campaigner we've seen in a long time (and I am really looking forward to seeing Big Dog back on the stump next year).  And he proved the 1980 George H.W. Bush right -- he raised taxes slightly on the rich, and the economy took off running, because he understood that an economy only works when the money moves in it, not when it collects in large stagnant pools.  Again, not up in the top tier of Jefferson and Lincoln, but a strong second-tier man, arguably in or near the top ten.

I also think Clinton's stock will rise as time moves along.  What's not to like about relative peace and money in the bank????