who is the worst President in US history?

Great Debates
101

What exactly makes it a “confirmed” threat? The British claimed to have intercepted it, and showed it to us. We didn’t ourselves intercept it, and so there was no way for us to confirm it’s validity. The British had pretty darn good reason to concoct something like that. Trusting the veracity of a highly interested party on the legitimacy of such a note strikes me as utter folly.

And did we have any evidence at all that Mexico was going to agree to this deal? Or that Japan was? If either of them was going to do so, then why didn’t they when we joined the war. With our boys heading off to Europe, Mexico would have been in a much better position than before to engage us on the Southern border. Fact is, neither of those countries did attack us, which tells me that either A) the telegram was a British hoax designed to drag us into the war to save their own asses, or B) the German proposition was a pipe-dream that would never have come to fruition. In either of those cases, our entry into the European conflict was dead wrong, possibly the most catastrophic mistake of the century.
Also, surely nothing about engaging in trench warfare and exposing troops to chemical weapons could possibly be described as a “best strategy”. Americans dying in “no-man’s-land” making a obviously suicidal charge to capture 100 yards of useless land in France that neither they nor the nation gave a lick about doesn’t seem like any part of a “best strategy” to me.

20th century Presidents ignored our founders’ advice to avoid European entanglements, and our young men paid for it with hundreds of thousands of their lives. All that goes right back to Wilson and his failure to keep his campaign promise and keep us out of that war. If a few thousand casualties in Iraq are enough to make many posters here seriously consider Bush among the worst Presidents, then surely the hundreds of thousands we can lay at Wilson’s feet make him hundreds of times worse.

102

Truman.

Truman, Truman, Truman. That’s a toughie.

So many good things, so many bad…

Would rather have him than Reagan, any Bush, Nixon or Johnson.

Clinton? Hmm, they’re both manipulators, but Clinton didn’t kill anyone with nukes, and didn’t create a war that hasn’t ended 50 years on…

Plus, I’m convinced, as this nonsense wears on, that Bush II is more dangerous than Reagan. Based on what I understand of history, he is coming really close to paving the way for America’s first dictator…

  1. George W. Bush
  2. Ronald Wilson Reagan
  3. George Herbert Walker Bush
  4. Richard Milhous Nixon
  5. Lyndon Baines Johnson
  6. Harry S Truman
  7. William Jefferson Clinton
  8. Gerald R. Ford
  9. James Earl Carter
  10. John Fitzgerald Kennedy
103

I’m a long-time lurker, but I just had to come out of hiding for this one. Specifically, I’m trying to come to grips with RexDart’s assessment of Wilson’s decision to involve the US in the First World War.
Now, I’ve got no problem with a moral objection to sending US troops to fight in wars overseas; but for cryin’ out loud, admit that its a moral issue!
I’ve never heard the proposal that the Zimmerman Telegram was a British-perpetrated hoax: cite? And the fact that it wasn’t taken seriously by the Mexican government speaks volumes about the Mexicans’ good sense. The fact that the proposal was extended by the Germans in the first place speaks volumes about their desire to see us stay out of the war!
Why? Because in the absence of US involvement, the British and the French were going to lose, and rather quickly. Perhaps RexDart will elaborate on his condemnation of Wilson by describing how modern history would have played out with all of Europe under the control of the Kaiser?
Not that I’m a huge Wilson fan; he did renege on his campaign promises to the American people. But for the above reasons, as well as the horrors wrought by unlimited submarine warfare by the Germans, he did as good a job as any president could in confronting this situation, and in fact he tried very hard to avert World War Two. It is a great pity (and a black mark on the legacies of folks like Clemenceau) that Wilson’s attempts to create a sustainable peace were defeated.
One more thing: “hundreds of thousands” of American lives lost in the Great War? I come up with 48,900 battle deaths (from here. Not that that’s good, per se, but again, you’re way off.
I don’t want to overstep my bounds as a newbie, but a lot of what Rex says above just didn’t ring true for me. Feel free to correct anything I’m wrong about myself, of course.

104

“One that forces upon the populace social programs that not only create dependance, but also rides the backs of an otherwise prosperous people with huge taxes.”

I’ll thank you to sign over all of your Social Security benefits to me then, since you must be morally adverse to using them.

105

For the love of God, Montresor!

Welcome aboard! Good delurking and the sort of stuff we like to see in Great Debates.

I reiterate that the discussion is very skewed if you consider Presidents in the last 20 years, but so be it. I stand by Hayes. Against Hayes. YKWIM.

106

RE: Zimmerman telegram

Why do I need a cite for it? It’s my own personal theory, based on inferences from what followed after the event. The fact that neither Mexico nor Japan attacked us indicates that the telegram, if genuine, was at best indicative of a longshot hope of the Germans. It was therefore not a serious threat. And it’s a simple fact that our entry into the war greatly assisted the British, which gives them strong motive to have forged the note. It’s not surprising that nobody investigated the note’s authenticity at the time, since any press agent who had attempted to do so would have been thrown in prison for sedition, for daring to question Wilson’s war.

RE: Europe had the Kaiser won

Well, there was a very good article in this month’s issue of Free Inquiry about the rise of the Nazis. Specifically, the Nazis popular support can be largely attributed to the fact that most Germans (both Protestant and Catholic) did not at all like democracy, and wanted a more authoritarian rule. Traditionalism was on the rise, and they wanted a strong government to enforce that as a moral ideal, much like had been done in Italy. Had Germany still been a monarchy, perhaps we would never have seen the rise of fascism, because the desire for strong government would have been satisfied by the monarch.

But that’s all beside the point, since the US government’s job is to protect the people of the United States. It is definitely not the role of our military to intervene in shaping the political landscape of sovereign nations abroad, our founders specifically warned us against that. Whether Europe would have been better or worse had the Germans won the First World War is none of our concern, because we aren’t Europe.

Oh, your cite on the death toll is right, I pardon the confusion. In an earlier post, I had argued that all the deaths caused by US military interventionism during the 20th century can be laid at Wilson’s feet for entangling us in European alliances. Ergo, hundreds of thousands. But, all the same, you can probably get us to a hundred thousand in WW1 if you count as casualties those we killed in addition to our own deaths, as many do in tallying the casualties of Iraq II.

107

OK, I’m willing to buy your theory re. the Zimmerman Telegram, but you have to admit that its just a theory with nothing aside from an argument to back it up. Japan was, at the time, theoretically at war with Germany, which is a plausible reason for their failure to act on the offer (well, they were an ally of Britain, at any rate). Like I proposed earlier, Mexico was just acting rationally. But the telegram, “longshot” though it may have been, was a pretty naked act of aggression; if I circulate a petition in your neighborhood encouraging your neighbors to burn down your house, even if they don’t take me up on it, I could hardly complain if you got upset, right?
As far as “what ifs” concerning Germany’s government go, I stand by my assertion that the Nazis came to power despite Wilson, hardly because of him. There’s a compelling argument that a socialist revolution was in the wings in Germany during the final days of the Great War, and the Kaiser would not have been long in power in any event. In that case, the imminent German victory over the Allies would have quickly led to some pretty serious instability in a sizeable portion of the world. All these alternate history scenarios are fun to think about, if not particularly useful to the discussion at hand.
And I can definitely see your point about laying blame for the deaths in subsequent wars at the feet of Wilson’s abandonment of isolationism, but that’s a pretty controversial topic. I mean, could ANY president have kept the US as isolationistic (?) as the founding fathers had intended? I think that its a little naive to assume that would have happened ad infinitum. What about blaming Fillmore for Perry’s actions in Japan? And McKinley’s prosecution of the Spanish-American War? Dewey in Manila and Commodore Perry certainly “intervened in shaping the political landscape of sovereign nations abroad,” so I think its a little blinkered to blame Wilson for an unavoidable and pre-existing process.
All in all, I see your points (I think), but I don’t feel its fair to single Wilson out as the “Worst… President… Ever” based on idealistic criteria that other presidents violated in much more egregious ways.

108

I should have said “I’m willing to respect your opinion about the Zimmerman Telegram and your right to hold it,” because I’m going to need some more convincing evidence before I buy it.

109

Dude, I’m citing the IRS statistics, on Rush’s site. What’s wrong with that?

110

Montresor, my answer to people who defend Woodrow is this: could history have turned out any worse?
If not, we could have at least saved those 50000 American soldiers, not to mention all the wounded, by simply following George Washington’s original advice. How hard would that have been, really?
BTW, the reason the Zimmermann letter had such resonance in the first place is that we had already interfered in Mexico’s politics, because of, you guessed it, Wilson. The guy was a serial intervener.

111

I’ve got a better idea. Let me keep the money taken from me over the years and invest/do what I see fit… I am not a failure who will have to rely on the government for support when I retire.

112

It’s so refreshing to see a nice open debate with so little brains and so much prejudice. It reinforces the notion that the left is simply sheep being led by the media. To suggest Reagan or George W. Bush are the worst presidents is ridiculous.

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. He revitalized the economy, and brought hope and pride back to the U.S. The deficit was purely a result of the Democrats controlling bot the House and the Senate. Iran Contra was certainly not a positive, but on an historical basis is barely worth a mention.

The utter BS of GW Bush wrecking the economy is also ridiculous. The nation was already in recession when he took office, as a result of the excesses of the Internet bubble. Also I am unsure what the erudite participants in this bbs would have a president do after 9/11. Grab our ankles and let terrorism destroy our country? If GW follows through on the war on terrorism, he will end up being one of the best presidents.

I for one did not like Clinton, but to place him at the bottom would also be ridiculous. Clinton was the hindmost, he always led from public opinion polls, which means he mostly agreed with the middle. Never being great, but never really screwing up. He did nothing to address the growing terrorist threat and made poor responses to terrorist acts. He tried to burden us with Universal Health Care but failed. However, even with his absence of morals and lack of leadership, he certainly wouldn’t be in the bottom five.

By the way, if any of you care what actual historians believe, check these out. As others have mentioned, FDR hurt our country horribly with all of his social programs, but on the basis or strength of leadership and dealing with crisis, he was one of the best. And to suggest Lincoln was the worst, when nearly every poll of respected historians places his at the top, is another example of pure stupidity. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” All of you who believe that the war on terrorism will fight itself, appear to be the same who believe that any historical problem, slavery, World War I, II, Afghanistan, Gulf War I, II, will just go away as long as you ignore it.
1948 Poll conducted by Arthur M. Schlesinger of 55 historians, published in Life Magazine on November 1, 1948

Great

  1. Abraham Lincoln
  2. George Washington
  3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
  4. Woodrow Wilson
  5. Thomas Jefferson
  6. Andrew Jackson

Near Great
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. Grover Cleveland
9. John Adams
10. James K. Polk

Average
11. John Quincy Adams
12. James Monroe
13. Rutherford B. Hayes
14. James Madison
15. Martin Van Buren
16. William Howard Taft
17. Chester A. Arthur
18. William McKinley
19. Andrew Johnson
20. Herbert Hoover
21. Benjamin Harrison

Below Average
22. John Tyler
23. Calvin Coolidge
24. Millard Fillmore
25. Zachary Taylor
26. James Buchanan
27. Franklin Pierce

Failure
28. Ulysses Grant
29. Warren G. Harding

1962 Poll conducted by Arthur M. Schlesinger of 75 historians, published in The New York Times magazine on July 29, 1962

Great

  1. Abraham Lincoln
  2. George Washington
  3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
  4. Woodrow Wilson
  5. Thomas Jefferson

Near Great
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. James K. Polk
9. Harry Truman
10. John Adams
11. Grover Cleveland

Average
12. James Madison
13. John Quincy Adams
14. Rutherford B. Hayes
15. William McKinley
16. William Howard Taft
17. Martin Van Buren
18. James Monroe
19. Herbert Hoover
20. Benjamin Harrison
21. Chester Arthur
22. Dwight D. Eisenhower
23. Andrew Johnson

Below Average
24. Zachary Taylor
25. John Tyler
26. Millard Fillmore
27. Calvin Coolidge
28. Franklin Pierce
29. James Buchanan

Failure
30. Ulysses Grant
31. Warren G. Harding

1982 Poll conducted by Chicago Tribune of 49 historians, published in the Chicago Tribune magazine on January 10, 1982

  1. Abraham Lincoln
  2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
  3. George Washington
  4. Theodore Roosevelt
  5. Thomas Jefferson
  6. Andrew Jackson
  7. Woodrow Wilson
  8. Harry Truman
  9. Dwight Eisenhower
  10. William McKinley
  11. James Polk
  12. Lyndon Johnson
  13. Grover Cleveland
  14. John Kennedy (tie)
  15. John Adams (tie)
  16. James Monroe
  17. James Madison
  18. Martin Van Buren
  19. John Quincy Adams
  20. William Taft
  21. Herbert Hoover
  22. Rutherford Hayes
  23. Gerald Ford
  24. Chester Arthur
  25. Benjamin Harrison
  26. Jimmy Carter
  27. Calvin Coolidge
  28. Zachary Taylor
  29. John Tyler
  30. Ulysses Grant
  31. Millard Fillmore
  32. Andrew Johnson
  33. James Garfield
  34. Richard Nixon
  35. Franklin Pierce
  36. James Buchanan
  37. Warren Harding
  38. William Harrison
113

Here is a link to another rational list.

http://ragz-international.com/pres.pdf

114

“I am not a failure who will have to rely on the government for support when I retire.”

Neither are many of the millions who do receive Social Security benefits. Let’s hope that your aren’t hit by a bus before you retire and injured such that you’re permanently disabled - you may find you need those Social Security benefits that only loser need.

115

Your very post proves my point about how those programs cause dependance. Instead of planning for such an ill-fated thing to happen (as I have) most people depend on having this Ponzi pyramid scheme to rely on. 70 years of this have made us soft.

116

Congratulations on your foresight. Unfortunatley, there are many folks who have the foresight, but don’t have the financial ability to put away enough money to live off of should they become disabled. They aren’t “soft,” they just don’t make enough money to do much more than make ends meet.

117

:rolleyes: Sigh.

Geez. Duh,…um…maybe they would have it if they weren’t being taxed to the hilt. Just keep proving my point, why don’t ya?:stuck_out_tongue: Federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes.

Listen, I’m not the only guy that opposes these programs and believes, as a free people, we’d be much better off without them.
And if you think you’re going to convince me otherwise, well, you’re going to be sitting at those keyboards for a long, long, long, loooooooooooooooong time.
And I gotta get back to work. One of my overtaxed clients is on the phone.

118

That is a total fallacy. People are more than intelligent enough to save. And, should people become disabled, its perfectly appropriate for society to pay for some help. But there is no reason that ordinary citizens must pay in to support the current elderly, who had plenty of time to save and the vast majority of whom lived quite well.

If someone foolishly spends all their money, perhaps they should have though a bit better beforehand. People today, as always, are sometimes willing to spend now and not think about the future. Making ends meet is a lot easier if you don’t buy frivolous things.

119

There’s nothing particularly enlightening about your lists, Austin, other than that Presidents who won wars, or more properly had wars won while they were President, rate highly with these historians. Wotta surprise that is.
Wait a second while I pick myself up off the floor.
There now. Wilson & Dubya had the same problem: a disproportionate military response to a problem. The rational thing for Wilson to have done is what George Washington did when faced with a similar problem from France: engage in a limited naval war. In response to the Zimmermann letter perhaps massing some troops along the Mexican border might have been appropriate. Sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Europe was a disproportionate and inappropriate response, but Presidents like war; it gives them power.
Ditto for Dubya. Afghanistan was appropriate; Iraq not. But given a police and intelligence problem like terrorism, it’s not surprising that a power-hungry President would prefer war over covert action any day, even to the extent of trashing the very intelligence agencies you need to solve the problem at hand.

120

If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union was still up and running as of the end of Reagan’s term in January 1989. He certainly outspent them on Weapons of Mass Destruction during his term.

As for revitalizing the economy, he revived the “trickle-down” theory from before the depression, the idea that giving money to the people who already have it evenutally benefits everyone. That formed part of the reason that Harding is considered a failure by so many of your historians, and Coolidge not much better. It buoys the economy for a coulple of years, then there’s a great crash. Worst one happened in 1929. The next worst one happened in 1987. Who was president?

Reagan brought no hope and pride to a single individual I met in the 1980s who took one minute to think about the condition the nation was in at the time. He was very popular amongst the mindless yahoos I knew, who had their hope and pride for America as effectively restored by a Miller Genuine Draft commercial as by anything Reagan ever did.

After entering office by denouncing Carter’s handling of the first Iran hostage crisis, saying he would never deal with terrorists, when anyone with a brain cell can tell from the hearings that he made a secret deal with the dictator of Iran to keep Americans held captive by college students with guns until he won the election, you want to tell me that selling them more weapons in return for the release of more hostages, then filtering the money to the Contras when Congress had expressly declared it illegal for him to do anything of the kind, is barely worth a historical mention?

I want a puff of whatever you’ve been smoking.

Certainly. And his plan for recovery was the same ghastly trickle-down theory that has failed our nation twice before. At least the earlier presidents had the brains to pull this scam when the economy was still somewhat afloat. Giving money to the rich has never once pulled us out of a deep recession, but Shrub decides it’s time to give it another go. And I’m supposed to admire him why?

And what a big if that is. What does an Iraqi land grab have to do with a war on terrorism? Afghanistan’s gone to hell in the interim. You know Afghanistan don’t you? Where the 9-11 terrorists had their central command?

At least FDR and his “horrible” social programs knew how to find the country’s way out of an economic crisis, which is more than Bush will ever know.