Worst US President other than GWBush?

[Michael]

I think we can all agree that GW Bush is going to go down in the history books as the all-time worst US President. He's in a class by himself there.

This thread is dedicated to figuring out who is the 2nd worst US President of all time?

Herbert Hoover certainly looks like a strong candidate. Jimmy Carter also has certain claims to this honor. Jackson is also often mentioned by some.

So who do you think is the all-time worst US President - other than GW Bush! :D

[Dominick]

Mrs. Palin :angel:

[partofme]

Mrs. Palin :angel:

I could see that being the case in the future.

[Michael]

Mrs. Palin :angel:
You got some crystal ball there?

One has to actually become President before one can be worse than Bush! :D

Herbert Hoover is my suggestion for "2nd" worst US President. Study his Administration if one wants to know precisely how to turn a stock market crash into a world-wide economic depression.

[Americano]

While it will never be acknowledged due to his personal appeal I have to nominate the Reagan administration for supply-side economics and tax cuts, the precursor to current US fiscal problems.

[Michael]

While it will never be acknowledged due to his personal appeal I have to nominate the Reagan administration for supply-side economics and tax cuts, the precursor to current US fiscal problems.
Yes, he also seems to be part of the source of the 'testosterone' approach to US foreign policy issues (i.e. Iran and Iraq).

Btw, JFK always makes my short list of the all-time worst US Presidents - just that I think Hoover was worst. Nixon played clean politics compared to JFK.

[Americano]

Yes, he also seems to be part of the source of the 'testosterone' approach to US foreign policy issues (i.e. Iran and Iraq).

Btw, JFK always makes my short list of the all-time worst US Presidents - just that I think Hoover was worst. Nixon played clean politics compared to JFK.

It has been long said that only his assassination saved JFK from a bottom of the barrel presidential rating. One could contemplate the fruit not falling far from the tree considering how Joe Sr. made his money and Rose's absolute maternal dominance of that family.

[Donkey]

I've often heard Warren G. Harding cited as "the worst." If I remember correctly he was a generally ineffective choch, who gave positions to all his friends who subsequently screwed him over.

[O'Sullivan Bere]

I don't rank GWB as the worst, but assuming for the sake of the argument he is, then the 2nd worst IMO would be James Buchanan. He's buried near me in Lancaster, PA and I see his grave regularly when I'm at court there.

There are a long list of serious flaws in judgement on several areas of great importance as outlined in the wiki article below, but the biggest of all were his positions on slavery as to who and what he chose to support and not support, etc, all of which led to inflammations and great mishaps in his one term that culminated in massive secession of states, in response to which he made IMO his most egregious error: his lack of action upon the breakout of secession as follows:

. . . As Southern states declared their secession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) in the lead-up to the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), he held that secession was illegal but that going to war to stop it was also illegal and hence remained inactive. His inability to avert the Civil War has subsequently been assessed as the worst single failure by any President of the United States. . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

Wilfully acquiescing to the fission and/or disintegration of the country is paradoxical to the purpose of being a head of state. His logic that the government could not lawfully put down unlawful secession showed even more absurdity. Hell, he's a full case of poor leadership and bad judgements for being the POTUS if you read that article.

[Sucre]

But GWB has more power than any other presidents before him. And he screwed up in major fields : foreign policy, justice and economy. It's tough to do better than that, LOL !

[O'Sullivan Bere]

But GWB has more power than any other presidents before him. And he screwed up in major fields : foreign policy, justice and economy. It's tough to do better than that, LOL !Buchanan screwed that all up too in one term plus more.

1) Buchanan's 'domestic Iraq War'

He wouldn't go to war with the Southern secessionists trying to break up the country, but he attacked the Mormons in Utah out of prevailing public dislike of them followed by his failure to investigate erroneous reports of intents by the Mormons to attack the federal government, and then screwed up the prosecution of the fight:


In March 1857, Buchanan received reports that Governor Brigham Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young) of the Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon)-dominated Utah Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Territory) was planning revolt. In November of that year, Buchanan sent the Army to replace Young as Governor with the non-Mormon Alfred Cumming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Cumming) without either confirming the reports or notifying Young of his replacement. . . .

Poor planning, inadequate supplies for the Army, and the failure of the President to verify the reports of rebellion and to notify the territorial government of his intentions to replace Young led to widespread condemnation of Buchanan from Congress and the press, who labeled the war as "Buchanan's Blunder". . . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Utah_War

That's remarkably the same pattern of the Iraq war.

He was also a major inflamer of civil strife in the 'Bleeding Kansas' situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Bleeding_Kansas

2) Buchanan's foreign policy objectives and created results

On foreign policy, he mostly was wrecking the country internally, but had he the time, he would have caused just as many problems abroad too. For example, he supported the Southern slaveholders in their desire to conquer and annex Cuba from the Spanish and create a slave state of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Buchanan.27s_personal_views

That certainly would have led to a war with Spain.

By also acquiescing to the secession of the southern states, he also signalled to the British and French and others that it was in their Machiavellian interests to unofficially provide aid and support for the Southern Confederacy's bid for independence and/or at least declare neutrality in the hopes the South would win. That was especially so with Britain given it relied so much on its cotton trade with the South. It was only when the American Civil War under Lincoln turned decidedly against the South that countries started to throw their unofficial support around the North and Lincoln.

3) Buchanan's injustice

Insofar as justice, the guy was a total nightmare. As the wiki explains, the man was a 100 percent total supporter of slavery and did everything in his power to appease southern slaveholders and frustrate attempts by anti-slavery people, for whom Buchanan faulted for the national strife. All that did was in the end make the nightmare of secession a reality rather than something he tried to prevent with appeasement of the slavery hotheads who were hell bent on unreasonable demands and secession anyway.

As part of his these appeasements, many of his errors are explained above (Bleeding Kansas, Cuba, etc).

But the most remembered injustice was his connivance with the US Supreme Court to issue the Dred Scott decision, which is likely the most infamous decision the court ever issued, helped inflame the slavery question leading to the Civil War instead of settle it, and required the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War to overrule in the interests of basic human rights and justice.

. . . Buchanan was widely believed to have been personally involved in the outcome of the case, with many Northerners recalling Taney whispering to Buchanan during Buchanan's inauguration. Buchanan wished to see the territorial question resolved by the Supreme Court. To further this, Buchanan personally lobbied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) his fellow Pennsylvanian Justice Robert Cooper Grier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_Grier) to vote with the majority in that case to uphold the right of owning slave property. Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) denounced him as an accomplice of the Slave Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power), which Lincoln saw as a conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy) of slaveowners to seize control of the federal government and nationalize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization) slavery. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#The_Dred_Scott_case

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#cite_note-name-0) 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=60&page=393) (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court) that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States) and held as slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States), or their descendants[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#cite_note-1)—whether or not they were slaves—could never be citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), and that the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) had no authority to prohibit slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) in federal territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_regions_of_the_United_States#Former_organ ized_territories). The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) in court, and that slaves—as chattel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel) or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Court in the Dred Scott decision sided with border ruffians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_ruffians) in the Bleeding Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) dispute who were afraid a free Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas) would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri). The Supreme Court's decision was written by Chief Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States)Roger B. Taney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney).

. . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

His injustice to the Mormons cited above was another example of his legacy.

4) Buchanan the economic nightmare

. . .
Financial Panic

Economic troubles also plagued Buchanan's administration with the outbreak of the Panic of 1857 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857). The government suddenly faced a shortfall of revenue, partly because of the Democrats' successful push to lower the tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff). Buchanan's administration, at the behest of Treasury Secretary Howell Cobb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howell_Cobb), began issuing deficit financing for the government, a move which flew in the face of two decades of Democratic support for hard money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_money) policies and allowed Republicans to attack Buchanan for financial mismanagement. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Financial_Panic

Deficit spending in bad manners and at bad times along with financial panics and aggravations of them....boy, is that story familiar to GWB.

Thankfully he only served one term rather than two but then again there wouldn't have been much of a US left for a second term had he run for re-election, especially when his own Vice President went on to fight as a Major General in the Confederate Army along with several members of his Cabinet. :rolleyes: It's pretty hard to top what this guy did in just one term.

[Sucre]

Probably, OSB. But you see the difference is that, although I am well versed in history, it is the first time I ever hear the name of Buchanan. Somehow, he must have not been that terrible or the consequences of his actions very limited in scope, geography, time.

The consequences of the actions or non actions of GWB will reach far beyond his actual time in service and this guy will have a chapter just for him in the history books of our children and grand-children : 8 years Bush - Before / After -

Your case shows that mediocre statemen have always existed. As long as these mediocre people have limited powers - and that was the case of the presidents of the USA in the 19th century, the consequences of their actions also remain limited.
(cf. the Buchanan financial panic and the present world desaster ...)

[O'Sullivan Bere]

Probably, OSB. But you see the difference is that, although I am well versed in history, it is the first time I ever hear the name of Buchanan. Somehow, he must have not been that terrible or the consequences of his actions very limited in scope, geography, time.

The consequences of the actions or non actions of GWB will reach far beyond his actual time in service and this guy will have a chapter just for him in the history books of our children and grand-children : 8 years Bush - Before / After -

Your case shows that mediocre statemen have always existed. As long as these mediocre people have limited powers - and that was the case of the presidents of the USA in the 19th century, the consequences of their actions also remain limited.
(cf. the Buchanan financial panic and the present world desaster ...)I think time has more to do with it.

Buchanan was POTUS 150 ago. That's around 7-8 generations ago so nobody is alive today that knew and experienced his Presidency and other than a centurian person still alive today that even once knew those who were once alive then. Technology and global communication was primitive then compared to today. Not only is everyone alive today to know GWB in this globalised technologically advanced era, but also he's actually still the POTUS.

Time hasn't vindicated Buchanan's service either and instead confirmed how awful he was with each successive presidency by comparison and human advancement of prevailing thought compared to what Buchanan preferred to be its direction.

The excellent corrective measure of Abraham Lincoln, his successor, prevented much of the additional and catastrophic blood loss that would likely have occurred had Lincoln been a lesser man. That gave Buchanan the backhanded benefit of burying him in negative obscurity. Had Lincoln been poor and ineffective, the US as we know it could have dissolved into two or more separate states with a Southern area full or slavery and racial hatred much worse and much longer right into the Twentieth Century. As it stood even with Lincoln winning and his visions (cut short by assasination as the Civil War concluded), Jim Crow and racial prejudice continued until recently with Obama being the last broken barrier. Imagining if the South had won it would have been 10x worse in social retardation and injustice. And a broken up US could have fought with each other, never been the kind of heavy power against people like Hitler or even a power against him, etc.

Unlike Buchanan, Bush's legacy is still undecided. From what we know already he'll rank low in all likelihood and certainly never good. But, if the neocon vision of toppling Hussein and democratising Iraq pans out over the next couple decades where it become a functional and prosperous democracy and--even better--then acts as a positive catalyst for more in the region, then Bush might in time get the last laugh, all despite the manner and initial post-war planning screwups because only the final result will matter most on that subject. His many other flaws and mistakes will still be on his record, but at least he'll move up the rankings on overall performance if that Iraq vision pans out.

[Sucre]

More importantly, Buchanan was the president of a State which was of no importance at the time. It does not matter whether it was 150 years ago or last year. His actions were limited.

The actions of the present President of the USA affects the entire globe and this is why by the way, the entire globe takes interest in the elections.

[dilettante]

I've got to agree with OSB about it being too early to rank Bush as the "worst" president in American history. Unless the current recession develops into a whole 'nother Great Depression, Bush 43 will probably be defined by his decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. We still don't know how those ventures are going to play out (or be judged) in the long run. American historiography shows that our view of the past changes drastically over time; there's really no knowing that future generations will think.


There's also the question of "Worst for who?" I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who are proud of how Bush 43 had handed the last 8 years. The above posts by OSB and Sucre show that the judgement of "worst" depends on where you're at in the world. From an American perspective, the current economic and foreign policy troubles are nothing compared to the horror of the Civil War; from a global perspective, the US Civil War was far away and not terribly tramatic.

[Michael]

I made this thread about the "second worst" after GWB because I didn't want this thread to be just a boring 'Bush-bashing' thread. We all know why Bush is unpopular and a failure and we are all pretty much in agreement about that.

I think it is very interesting to discuss other Presidential failures - regardless if they are greater (or lesser) failures than GWBush. Whether GW Bush is the absolute worst or only just amongst the 'top-five' worst is immaterial to this discussion. This thread is meant to be about other lousy Presidents besides GW Bush.

And I certainly think OSB has made a very good argument in how Buchanan definitely deserves to be considered a rival to Hoover for the (dis)honor!

[O'Sullivan Bere]

More importantly, Buchanan was the president of a State which was of no importance at the time. It does not matter whether it was 150 years ago or last year. His actions were limited.

The actions of the present President of the USA affects the entire globe and this is why by the way, the entire globe takes interest in the elections.The US actually had an incredible amount of importance at that time too. The Civil War also considerably disrupted and affected international affairs.

Trade was the biggest factor in importance. For example, US grain constituted half the British import grain trade. Without that supply, Britain would have starved. US cotton also played a huge role in British imports. Other US raw materials and manufactured goods played a big role in British, French and other country's trades, and vice versa the US imported plenty of manufactured and other goods.

When the Civil War erupted, it put many European countries in a sticky wicket given their trade interests with the North and South. The US government threatened war against anyone who recognised the independence of the South so they had to play neutral with careful balancing acts with lots of unofficial side-switching and playing both sides, blowing with the prevailing winds, and tomfoolery in the mix to cover their interests.

This nearly resulted in a simultaneous war between the North and Britain with the 'Trent Affair':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair

British connivance with Southern attempts to build, staff, and operate commerce raiders for attacking Northern merchant marine and naval ships also led to strained relations and eventual reparations following the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims

Other countries were also involved in the commerce raider situation by choice or by getting caught up in its whirlwinds and were thus affected by it.

Besides commerce raiding operations, smuggling operations between the South and other nations were also a huge ongoing effort and problem during that war, especially with 'blockade runner' ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Anaconda_Plan_and_blockade.2C_1 861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_runner#American_Civil_War

European nations did not like slavery but the biggest issue was how to get their needed goods, and especially so for Britain. Eventually the British need for the North's grain outweighed the need for cotton given the British luckily had enough storage of cotton when the war erupted and they managed to get cotton grown in Egypt and India, but they needed the grain supply from the North at all times. Plus, the British also started to make money trading armaments with the North. This fact pretty much doomed the South's attempts to get Britain to recognise it as independent.

As for France, it took the opportunity of the Civil War to overthrow the Mexican government and instal Prince Maximilian of Austria as its head of state. Anticipated US intervention would ordinarily dissuade such schemes in the Western Hemisphere, but the Civil War created a preoccupation that allowed France this imperialistic opportunity.

This event primarily involved French, Austrian and Belgian troops, an Austrian monarch (Maximilian) and Napoleon III of France. The war ravaged Mexico. Only when the Civil War concluded was the US then able to send arms and other aid to the Mexican resistance, set up land and sea blockades, etc, to help the Mexican topple the installed regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

[O'Sullivan Bere]

I made this thread about the "second worst" after GWB because I didn't want this thread to be just a boring 'Bush-bashing' thread. We all know why Bush is unpopular and a failure and we are all pretty much in agreement about that.

I think it is very interesting to discuss other Presidential failures - regardless if they are greater (or lesser) failures than GWBush. Whether GW Bush is the absolute worst or only just amongst the 'top-five' worst is immaterial to this discussion. This thread is meant to be about other lousy Presidents besides GW Bush.

And I certainly think OSB has made a very good argument in how Buchanan definitely deserves to be considered a rival to Hoover for the (dis)honor!There have been plenty of flops in the White House for sure. Another candidate for the bottom of the barrel section given the mention of GWB is POTUS Franklin Pierce:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce

http://www.aztecclub.com/biopix/pierceb.jpg

He is related to GWB and even physically resembles him. GWB's mother is Barbara Pierce (Bush).

Like GWB, Franklin Pierce followed the family heritage of being an irresponsible party boy. He eventually died of cirrhosis of the liver after a single term as POTUS right before Buchanan. Whilst POTUS, he similarly sided with the slaveholding factions despite his Northern roots and mismanaged the country on domestic and foreign matters. I wouldn't rank him the worst because at least he did preside over the Gadsden Purchase,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase

but otherwise the country lost total confidence in his judgement and abilities and he was even denied his party's nomination for re-election. He's usually ranked amongst the top 5 of the worst.

Some of the Bush clan have IMO done credible and serviceable jobs in non-POTUS elected offices and Bush 41 wasn't a bad POTUS IMO at all, but the family legacy does give off a sort of 'House of Stuart' kind of feeling when it comes to the White House. I get this mental picture the next time a Bush clan person seeks the White House that some people might just holler 'Bonnie Prince Georgie' and call out the Master-at-Arms to run him off to the Southern Hemisphere, preferably Antarctica.

[Michael]

I've certainly heard Buchanan's name thrown around quite often as one of the all-time worst US Presidents, generally carrying some blame for creating the Civil War.

Andrew Jackson's name pops as well, but I suspect that's just a rightwing pet issue, since Jackson wasn't really a failure as President - just one that rightwingers seem to love to hate.

Now this Franklin Pierce fellow certainly is a mediocre and obscure fellow to my understanding. Certainly a worthy comparison to GW Bush.

(And I agree about GH Bush being a reasonably decent or competent President who didn't actually go round fucking things up).

So far we have GW Bush, Hoover, Buchanan and Pierce for our list of absolutely lousy Presidents. :)

[O'Sullivan Bere]

I've certainly heard Buchanan's name thrown around quite often as one of the all-time worst US Presidents, generally carrying some blame for creating the Civil War.

Andrew Jackson's name pops as well, but I suspect that's just a rightwing pet issue, since Jackson wasn't really a failure as President - just one that rightwingers seem to love to hate.

Now this Franklin Pierce fellow certainly is a mediocre and obscure fellow to my understanding. Certainly a worthy comparison to GW Bush.

(And I agree about GH Bush being a reasonably decent or competent President who didn't actually go round fucking things up).

So far we have GW Bush, Hoover, Buchanan and Pierce for our list of absolutely lousy Presidents. :)

Other POTUSes that often get cited for bottom of the barrel categorisation include Ulysses S. Grant for his inept and incredibly corrupt administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Presidency_1869.E2.80.931877

and Andrew Johnson who, although he had some significant foreign policy achievements such as helping expel the French and Maximilian from Mexico and purchasing Alaska for the US from Russia, was an obstinate and cantankerous politician whose vehement racism set back and retarded civil rights for blacks immediately following the Civil War and left a lasting sad legacy to that effect. He was also the first POTUS to be impeached, although the charges were politically motivated as a result of his undesirable personality, positions and actions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson

But since you mentioned partisan bias, if you really want to see a common flamewar in the public where partisanship often produces the throwing of lighter fluid, I introduce this scoundrel's name to the debate floor for nomination to the list: ;) :D

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/RichardNixonFarewell.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

[Americano]

I've certainly heard Buchanan's name thrown around quite often as one of the all-time worst US Presidents, generally carrying some blame for creating the Civil War.

Andrew Jackson's name pops as well, but I suspect that's just a rightwing pet issue, since Jackson wasn't really a failure as President - just one that rightwingers seem to love to hate.

Now this Franklin Pierce fellow certainly is a mediocre and obscure fellow to my understanding. Certainly a worthy comparison to GW Bush.

(And I agree about GH Bush being a reasonably decent or competent President who didn't actually go round fucking things up).

The reason I voted for his son. Once.

So far we have GW Bush, Hoover, Buchanan and Pierce for our list of absolutely lousy Presidents. :)

[Michael]

Other POTUSes that often get cited for bottom of the barrel categorisation include Ulysses S. Grant for his inept and incredibly corrupt administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Presidency_1869.E2.80.931877

and Andrew Johnson who, although he had some significant foreign policy achievements such as helping expel the French and Maximilian from Mexico and purchasing Alaska for the US from Russia, was an obstinate and cantankerous politician whose vehement racism set back and retarded civil rights for blacks immediately following the Civil War and left a lasting sad legacy to that effect. He was also the first POTUS to be impeached, although the charges were politically motivated as a result of his undesirable personality, positions and actions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson
I was referring to Andrew Jackson (#7) for common partisan attack.

But since you mentioned partisan bias, if you really want to see a common flamewar in the public where partisanship often produces the throwing of lighter fluid, I introduce this scoundrel's name to the debate floor for nomination to the list: ;) :D

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/RichardNixonFarewell.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
Actually, I should think Ronald Reagan's name is the one that tends to produce the most fireworks. I have no problem putting him on a 'bottom-ten' list, maybe not the 'bottom-five' though. Too much competition apparently. ;)

As for Nixon, I wouldn't put him anywhere near a bottom-ten list. His ending of the Vietnam debacle and his trip to China are both impressive feats.

Nixon's failing was not playing dirty political games - that's too common to pay attention to (and JFK was the worst on that score) - Nixon's failing was getting caught. Americans seem to like to punish the loser. Overall, Nixon was a fairly competent President - judging by the low-standards of the others in this thread.

[O'Sullivan Bere]

I was referring to Andrew Jackson (#7) for common partisan attack.


Actually, I should think Ronald Reagan's name is the one that tends to produce the most fireworks. I have no problem putting him on a 'bottom-ten' list, maybe not the 'bottom-five' though. Too much competition apparently. ;)

As for Nixon, I wouldn't put him anywhere near a bottom-ten list. His ending of the Vietnam debacle and his trip to China are both impressive feats.

Nixon's failing was not playing dirty political games - that's too common to pay attention to (and JFK was the worst on that score) - Nixon's failing was getting caught. Americans seem to like to punish the loser. Overall, Nixon was a fairly competent President - judging by the low-standards of the others in this thread.
Agreed on Nixon that he isn't in the bottom rung. IMO he is almost enigmatic and, depending on the issues or personality trait, progressive and well intended or regressive and ill intended. He showed open mindedness and closed mindedness depending on the issue or even time of the issue. He could be ethical or unethical, rewarding or punishing, generous or selfish, confident or paranoid, gambling or reserved, etc. All people are to a degree inconsistent but he's a textbook of it in full throttle and his record and legacy bears that out.

I also agree that some right wingers drink way too much Kool Aid on Reagan. He got great benefits of timing and candidates for both his races and the winds going for him at both times. When one looks past his charms and rhetoric that did indeed IMO have value in restoring American confidence (at least if you weren't a minority), it's a mixed record on actual performance IMO. I wouldn't say he's amongst the worst though--more a midling POTUS.

[O'Sullivan Bere]

I also cited Andrew Johnson because he's commonly cited for reasons above. But Andrew Jackson being argued to be amongst the worst I don't understand. I haven't even heard him suggested as such. What is said about him that way and why?

[Sucre]

I made this thread about the "second worst" after GWB because I didn't want this thread to be just a boring 'Bush-bashing' thread. We all know why Bush is unpopular and a failure and we are all pretty much in agreement about that.

I think it is very interesting to discuss other Presidential failures - regardless if they are greater (or lesser) failures than GWBush. Whether GW Bush is the absolute worst or only just amongst the 'top-five' worst is immaterial to this discussion. This thread is meant to be about other lousy Presidents besides GW Bush.

And I certainly think OSB has made a very good argument in how Buchanan definitely deserves to be considered a rival to Hoover for the (dis)honor!
Yes, I see your point. My apologies if my posts sounded like Bush-bashing.

Making "comparisons" though is problematic - It seems to me that comparing Bush with any other president in the USA before WWII is like comparing apples and oranges. It belittles his influence and makes it sound as if "everything was not that bad."

Because the world has survived to Harding or Buchanan.

I think it would be more adequate to make comparisons with Carter, Nixon etc. They are playing in the same field.

But maybe it is because I am a foreigner that I see it this way.

[Sucre]

The US actually had an incredible amount of importance at that time too. The Civil War also considerably disrupted and affected international affairs.

Trade was the biggest factor in importance. For example, US grain constituted half the British import grain trade. Without that supply, Britain would have starved. US cotton also played a huge role in British imports. Other US raw materials and manufactured goods played a big role in British, French and other country's trades, and vice versa the US imported plenty of manufactured and other goods.

When the Civil War erupted, it put many European countries in a sticky wicket given their trade interests with the North and South. The US government threatened war against anyone who recognised the independence of the South so they had to play neutral with careful balancing acts with lots of unofficial side-switching and playing both sides, blowing with the prevailing winds, and tomfoolery in the mix to cover their interests.

This nearly resulted in a simultaneous war between the North and Britain with the 'Trent Affair':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair

British connivance with Southern attempts to build, staff, and operate commerce raiders for attacking Northern merchant marine and naval ships also led to strained relations and eventual reparations following the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims

Other countries were also involved in the commerce raider situation by choice or by getting caught up in its whirlwinds and were thus affected by it.

Besides commerce raiding operations, smuggling operations between the South and other nations were also a huge ongoing effort and problem during that war, especially with 'blockade runner' ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Anaconda_Plan_and_blockade.2C_1 861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_runner#American_Civil_War

European nations did not like slavery but the biggest issue was how to get their needed goods, and especially so for Britain. Eventually the British need for the North's grain outweighed the need for cotton given the British luckily had enough storage of cotton when the war erupted and they managed to get cotton grown in Egypt and India, but they needed the grain supply from the North at all times. Plus, the British also started to make money trading armaments with the North. This fact pretty much doomed the South's attempts to get Britain to recognise it as independent.

As for France, it took the opportunity of the Civil War to overthrow the Mexican government and instal Prince Maximilian of Austria as its head of state. Anticipated US intervention would ordinarily dissuade such schemes in the Western Hemisphere, but the Civil War created a preoccupation that allowed France this imperialistic opportunity.

This event primarily involved French, Austrian and Belgian troops, an Austrian monarch (Maximilian) and Napoleon III of France. The war ravaged Mexico. Only when the Civil War concluded was the US then able to send arms and other aid to the Mexican resistance, set up land and sea blockades, etc, to help the Mexican topple the installed regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
The USA had at that time as much importance than Europe on the world stage today. In fact, I would argue even less because "globalisation" was not what it is today. The Monroe doctrine volontarily limited this influence. (Your last example perfectly illustrates this)

The Mexican incident was not very important in French politics at that time. It happened in a far away country with strange customs and did not really endanger Napoleon III's regime. The relationship with neighbour Prussia/ Germany did.

Probably the USA was an "emerging" power at the time, and the Europeans were blind to it. Yet, since the center of power was in Europe, and the struggles for this power were taking place in Africa and the Orient, most Europeans were not aware of what was happening on the other side of the pound.

But again, I am writing all of this from my perspective.

[Michael]

Agreed on Nixon that he isn't in the bottom rung. IMO he is almost enigmatic and, depending on the issues or personality trait, progressive and well intended or regressive and ill intended. He showed open mindedness and closed mindedness depending on the issue or even time of the issue. He could be ethical or unethical, rewarding or punishing, generous or selfish, confident or paranoid, gambling or reserved, etc. All people are to a degree inconsistent but he's a textbook of it in full throttle and his record and legacy bears that out.
Yes, Nixon was a mixed bag - some good, some bad.

I also agree that some right wingers drink way too much Kool Aid on Reagan. He got great benefits of timing and candidates for both his races and the winds going for him at both times. When one looks past his charms and rhetoric that did indeed IMO have value in restoring American confidence (at least if you weren't a minority), it's a mixed record on actual performance IMO. I wouldn't say he's amongst the worst though--more a midling POTUS.
For me, Reagan's foreign policy 'outcomes' are most damning. 9/11 can be traced directly back to Reagan's game playing in Afghanistan - back when Osama Bin Laden was on the US payroll. Likewise with the Central American 'death squads' being trained and financed by the Reagan Whitehouse. Likewise with USA's toxic relationship with Iran. Nothing here to admire at all. USA is still playing a high price for Reagan's foreign policies to this day.

[Michael]

I also cited Andrew Johnson because he's commonly cited for reasons above. But Andrew Jackson being argued to be amongst the worst I don't understand. I haven't even heard him suggested as such. What is said about him that way and why?
He's the 'symbolic father' of the Democratic Party and was a successful populist who thumbed his nose at the 'monied class'. Given that the US government was established as an 'elitist republic', the elites seem to have hated him for this.

In other words, he's often attacked by the 'wingnut' section of the rightwingers - just because.

[Malvolio]

Yes, Nixon was a mixed bag - some good, some bad.


For me, Reagan's foreign policy 'outcomes' are most damning. 9/11 can be traced directly back to Reagan's game playing in Afghanistan - back when Osama Bin Laden was on the US payroll. Likewise with the Central American 'death squads' being trained and financed by the Reagan Whitehouse. Likewise with USA's toxic relationship with Iran. Nothing here to admire at all. USA is still playing a high price for Reagan's foreign policies to this day.


... I guess Reagan gets most credit for "single handedly winning the cold war" .... at least among Republicans. ;)

[Americano]

... I guess Reagan gets most credit for "single handedly winning the cold war" .... at least among Republicans. ;)

And among realists as the father of voodoo economics which have brought the US to its financial knees.

[neorealist]

Buchanan was the worst IMO...he fueled the civil war
Harding comes next
And my oddball is W. Wilson...He did some great things...but one very poor piece of legislation that has haunted us since.

[Michael]

And my oddball is W. Wilson...He did some great things...but one very poor piece of legislation that has haunted us since.
What piece of legislation are you referring to?

[The Drunk Guy]

He's the 'symbolic father' of the Democratic Party and was a successful populist who thumbed his nose at the 'monied class'. Given that the US government was established as an 'elitist republic', the elites seem to have hated him for this.

In other words, he's often attacked by the 'wingnut' section of the rightwingers - just because.
I think the right wing despises Jackson because he represents true "conservatism." Abolishing the Fed was by far his best move. ;)

I will always despise the man because of his slaughter of the Cherokee people after the Battle of New Orleans. That's a cold bastard.

[Michael]

Note: I moved the posts about the Federal Reserve to a new thread in the Economics forum if anyone wants to continue that discussion. You can find it here (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192).

I think the right wing despises Jackson because he represents true "conservatism." Abolishing the Fed was by far his best move. ;)
True conservativism meaning 'populism'? Or true conservativism meaning 'old school'?

[The Drunk Guy]

Note: I moved the posts about the Federal Reserve to a new thread in the Economics forum if anyone wants to continue that discussion. You can find it here (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192).


True conservativism meaning 'populism'? Or true conservativism meaning 'old school'?
Conservatism as in adhering to the Constitutional guidelines as a rule by which to lead. See, in those days, the divide between the parties was based on the amount of power the federal government should have. The parties were reversed to what they were in the last century with the Democrats supporting smaller government and the Republicans supporting a larger government. Jackson fought for less of a centralized power and became a black sheep.

Today, the parties just fight over what the power should be used for and who is to profit from it.

[Michael]

Conservatism as in adhering to the Constitutional guidelines as a rule by which to lead. See, in those days, the divide between the parties was based on the amount of power the federal government should have. The parties were reversed to what they were in the last century with the Democrats supporting smaller government and the Republicans supporting a larger government. Jackson fought for less of a centralized power and became a black sheep.
That would be 'old school' conservative - meaning small government.

Today, the parties just fight over what the power should be used for and who is to profit from it.
Too true. Both parties are hopelessly devoted to the principle of 'big government'.

Unfortunately, with modern day conservativism, the only thing drowing in the bathtub is the taxpayer.

[The Drunk Guy]

Unfortunately, with modern day conservativism, the only thing drowing in the bathtub is the taxpayer.
Is that a crack at the church/state crisis? If so, then that is clever and amusing.

[Michael]

Is that a crack at the church/state crisis? If so, then that is clever and amusing.
Actually, I was 'riffing' off the famous US conservative idea that the US government ought to be small enough to drown it in a bathtub.

I believe Grover Norquist might be the origin of that expression. ;)