Well, Tyler, iirc, saddled his successor with the Mexican-American War by admitting Texas into the union.
And no one beats out Wm. H. Harrison. We had to shell out for his inaugeration, socializing and health care but what did we get for it? Not even one bill signed.
Buchanan? What could he have done to avert the Civil War? Nixon? Nixon merely broke a promise to end a pointless war, he didn’t start one; otherwise, his worst failing – his persecution mania – wrought its own punishment. Harding? An incompetent, indifferent, corrupt lout and horndog, but how much actual damage did he do? And Wilson?!
Yes, Wilson. Wilson had no problems segregating the federal government, clamping down on dissent, invading neighbors willy-nilly (I understand he invaded Mexico seven times). He is a complex figure in history, and could be placed almost anywhere on the rankings, based on what evidence you use to justify your reasoning.
George W. Bush is interesting because, despite the boneheadedness of his policies*, he was actually good at being president. He got most of his policies through, had a remarkably smooth transition into office, managed to get himself reelected, and controlled the debate. This all started to fray after he was reelected and he went after social security. He and his advisors badly misjudged how that would go over and his power (and republican power generally) began to wane after that (a long series of fumbles from the party didn’t help matters, either).
*I’m a liberal democrat, FYI. His legacy should be a terrible one, but credit where credit is due.
I think a lot will depend on what happens during the next term of office.
There are many things kept secret from ‘us’, or at least we think they are keeping many secrets from us. If things like the Nixon ‘enemies list’ come out of the Bush closet, then he’ll be in for a really bad historical view.
But…
The thing is that we (Americans) don’t like to talk about the bad stuff in our history. We just skip them. So a hundred years from now, he just won’t be well known.
Only once. To chase Pancho Villa. (Never caught him.)
Well as he did nothing at all that was kind of the worst of both worlds, ehe? Possibly this issue could never have been resolved without bloodshed…but no one did ANYTHING until Lincoln and by then the pressure had built up to the point where only a massive confrontation was possible. You can hand wave away his and the others that preceded him if you like…I feel no such need to do so.
:rolleyes: You are seriously grasping here. Good grief.
He was a total incompetent who did nothing and brought nothing to the White House except a raft of corrupt friends who looted the treasury while Harding sat about and played cards! Sheesh. Come on BG…the guy was a horrible president.
Yeah…Wilson. Got us into a totally pointless and purely European conflict that cost the US 10’s of thousands of lives. He was IMHO (and I concede that my opinion on this isn’t shared by all) one of the worst presidents we ever had making messes on both the domestic, economic and foreign policy fronts.
-XT
‘Visions’ of men on mars aside, Bush dropped the only real project quickly:
White House Go-Ahead On NASA Nuclear Prometheus Project
NASA’s Prometheus: Fire, Smoke And Mirrors.
It had caused me to briefly think better of the man.
In today’s news, this could end up having a serious impact on how history views Bush:
The government’s research into highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease likely will move from a remote island to the U.S. mainland near livestock herds
He has shifted funding away from the Shuttle and fought for the vision yearly on the Hill. The out years were always where the rubber met the road on this. If, as some claim, it was a big plan to retire the Shuttle and scuttle manned space flight -well shame on me. But as I said, if it is followed through as an American bi-partisan consensus it could be important.
Obama has all but said this DOA in his administration - so we will see.
All I am saying is IF we end up on the Moon by 2020 and on Mars sometime with the same program - Bush could be remembered positively for it.
Well, Buchanan’s legacy is being discussed now in this thread, feel free to weigh in.
Look, I know RMN was a creep and a liar and the worst kind of bigot, and at the time the only thing to be said for him was that he was preferable to Wallace. But I’m sure I’m not the first liberal who’s seen the “I never thought I’d miss Nixon!” bumper-sticker and nodded. At least he accomplished some things of value on his watch – opening relations with China, supporting the space program, creating the EPA and OSHA, taking at least the first moderately effective steps to deal with the early energy crisis. What has W got on the plus side of the ledger? AIDS aid to Africa, a preserve in Hawaii, an underfunded new vision for the space program – that’s about it. The other side is not only bad but existential-threat-level bad. W has taken the imperial presidency to heights and depths Nixon never dreamed of, though Nixon deserves credit for the inspiration. (Hint: The connecting thread is Cheney.) He has ruined America’s international credibility. He has put the federal agencies in bed with the industries they are supposed to regulate and police. He has left us in two intractable military quagmires the next POTUS will have to deal with, and it is not yet entirely out of the question that he will leave us with a third. Just scratching the surface. We’ll be cleaning up his messes for at least the next two administration. He tops Nixon.
Exactly. He did nothing. Puts him way ahead of Bush.
This is the first time I’ve ever known a living American, ever, in this forum or anywhere else, to express isolationist sentiment WRT WWI.
Texas was admitted into the Union in Dec. 1845, well into the term of James K. Polk, who of course was president during the Mexican War. And since the US got California out of that war, right at the point when gold was discovered there, I find it hard to argue, from an American perpective, that the war was a “bad” thing for the US.
Won’t be the last, I reckon. Myself, I don’t have that firm an opinion on it, but am about 80% convinced that American involvement in WWI was largely pointless and futile. But I wouldn’t characterize that as “isolationist” so much as “fuck that shit!”
President Bush’s unflinching stance against animal-human hybrid research will be seen by historians as the Acme of his leadership, moral and political.
The Iraq War and abuse of power are the defining policies of the Bush administration, but, I believe, it will be his social policies that seal Bush’s fate as the worst president. This administrations total lack of response to the increasingly desperate needs of Americans and his allegiance to corporate power and obscene wealth - H1B for example - is Bush’s most potent legacy because these policies ultimately undermine democracy.
President Bush seems strangely detached and clearly out of touch with reality. From a soft shoe routine that he performed for cameras while endorsing McCain to his musical talent used to mock important issues and scandals surrounding his presidential tenure, Bush is oddly unaffected. Watching Bush, you would never know that thirty-five million Americans are hungry, half of American school children qualify for free or reduced lunch, or that we may be facing the largest financial crises since the Great Depression.
Aha, kind of like “by destroying America he will have saved it”. There actually is a glimmer of truth in there, but of course his intent was to kick off an “American Century” in which the US would be the undisputed one and only superpower – setting the whole world’s agenda without hardly a discussion.
Although certainly we can argue that the Vietnam war was on shaky moral grounds, at least the blame there is spread out amoung several adminstrations and parties. And although originally the Civil War was not on the surface a war against slavery, that is it’s end result.
**
tagos**: “What other President has pissed away an almost universal desire of other countries to stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA in its time of need.”
Absolutely, 100%. Gulf War I we had the UN and most of the world with us. Afganistan, again, we had the backing of most of the world. Iraq? Not so much. The USA was the wolrd leader in many ways before GWB pissed that all away.
And what is worse, he has got us so badly in debt that even the next 8 years of the Dems running things likely can’t bring us around.
I disagree, though it’s only a matter of degree. I think you are basically bending over backwards and twisting and turning every way you can to try and make Bush number one on the worst presidents hit parade. Your tortured logic is seriously showing your bias here BG. Bush is a really bad president…but there were worse presidents and Nixon was one of them.
I disagree again. I don’t see doing nothing as a virtue…especially coupled with the other stuff he allowed to happen on his watch.
The war in Iraq was worthless. The participation in WWI by the US was worthless. It wasn’t our fight, it was a purely European fuckup that had nothing to do with us. We didn’t need to send a single troop over there to die for Europe. I actually think invasion of Iraq was more justified…of course, that’s like saying shooting a little old lady is more justified than gunning down an infant but it’s all about degrees of difference. Wilson had a hard on to have the US join the war and pretty much contrived for the US TOO join the war after running a campaign stating he’d keep us out of the war. He manipulated the public to bring us to war, a war where thousands of Americans died for no good reason (and for scant thanks or appreciation from our Euro buddies who basically pissed on his peace concept and screwed the pooch on the League of Nations…and simply put fucked up by the numbers causing us to have to participate in ANOTHER bloody Euro fuck fest down the pike). And this is just what he did wrt the war…it’s not like his presidency was all goodness and light except for that.
Sheesh. Well, YMMV…you want to spin things until GW is worst, knock yourself out. Makes no nevermind to me to be honest…I put him in the bottom 10, but if you want to make him low man then torture that logic and spin to your hearts content.
-XT
I will say that there’s probably never been an American war that was as greatly attributable to a single President as the Iraq War is. Madison, Polk, and Johnson certainly advocated the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Vietnam War but they were all responding to a situation that existed before their administrations began and were part of a larger pro-war faction. Lincoln’s election led directly to the Civil War but he certainly hadn’t wanted that war. McKinley and Wilson opposed the Spanish-American War and World War I but were dragged into war anyway. Roosevelt, Truman, and Bush Sr. were all brought into wars by an enemy attack.
I can understand ranking Harding, Grant, Coolidge, and possibly Nixon at the bottom of the barrel, but Wilson was arguably a great president. Granted, history depends on whom writes it; however, it takes quite a bit of twisting to consider Wilson a failure. Although the League of Nations was never established, it was an ideal. His vision was to keep world peace. In terms of WWI, I thought German U boats forced the U.S. to respond. Wilson didn’t invade a sovereign nation in a preemptive war for no reason. I’ll agree that the Sedition Act and curtailing civil liberties weren’t high points of Wilson’s administration.
Your point? LBJ is despised.
Fair enough.
Thing is, we don’t even really know yet how bad he is/was. We know what we’ve seen, what has us gaping in numb horror. Rest assured, there is more. So many stymied committees, so many subpoenas left orphaned. But if this next election thingy goes like it looks, there will be no place to hide anymore. And a lot of very stinky things are going to be dragged out into the sunlight.
And there will be great weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
Just like I and elucidator have suggested, there will always be more information coming down the pike. I think that it will not only show that Bush was the worst President ever, but also that he was just not a very good person, period.
Here’s Bush approving the torture meetings that his principals were involved with, which ABC reported and I referenced in my earlier post in this thread:
“Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”
From: Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks - ABC News
I think that historians might note positively that the Bush administration was the death knell for the conservative movement in late 20th century America, and that after it was wiped from the face of American politics a period of prosperity and progress returned for the country, and for the world.