I’m shocked nobody has mentioned Andrew Johnson. The guy was what, one vote from impeachment?
And I guess in a strange way, Abraham Lincoln was, at one time, the most hated President ever. People may dislike Clinton but you didn’t see entire states secede because of him.
Just a thought, here:
If you hold a high position and NOBODY hates you, you’re not doing very much.
Millions of people loathed Franklin Roosevelt, and NOBODY hated Rutherford B. Hayes. Millions of people loathed Ronald Reagan, but nobody had a bad word to say about Benjamin Harrison.
Under the circumstances, is it an honor to be hated by no one?
RickJay, Andrew johnson has been discussed repeatedly. Didn’t you read the thread?
I could see this was going to degenerate into a “who was the worst president” debate, but going back to the OP I’d have to agree that Lincoln was far more intensely hated than any other president we’ve had. Not surprising - how many periods in American history have been as traumatic as the Civil War?
I’d put Johnson (Andrew) second, for the reasons already stated, and Nixon third, although I have to disagree that the hatred of him will last. That hatred was (and is) based partly on the anti-Vietnam War spirit of the time, and partly on his scandalous abuses of power. History, however, will see Vietnam in the broader context of the cold war, and ultimately the “containment” policy that prompted Vietnam was successful in forestalling the spread of communism. Nixon’s decisions will be seen as part of that larger process (please do not think that I am defending Nixon’s policies - this is merely how I think he will be remembered by posterity). As for the scandals, how many Americans can even name the president who presided over - and was implicated in - the teapot dome scandal, Watergate of its day? Do you really think our grandchildren, upon hearing that Nixon, back in the 1970s, bugged the headquarters of the opposing party then lied about it, will give enough of a damn to hate him for it?
In addition to those already suggested, I would offer another division of the types of hate Americans can conjur up for their presidents. There is the hatred of ideology and the hatred of personality. People who were hated more for their ideology include Reagan, FDR, and, I’m convinced, Clinton. Clinton is illustrative: he lacks character, but he’s not a very hatable person for most of the public. The real animosity towards this man comes principally from those with a strong ideological ax to grind. The same seems to be true for Reagan. Nixon, on the other hand, seems to have had the gift of really getting on people’s wrong side in his own person. Of course, it’s not that there weren’t objective reasons to deride him, but his personality did nothing to mitigate the way people received that information.
Rutherford B. Hayes was hated by a lot of people because it was thought that he stole the election of 1876 from Tilden. He was often derisively referred to as “Old 8 to 7” because that was the margin that he won all the disputed electoral votes by in a special commission in Congress.
However, Hayes was a very straightforward honest person.
Southern,
You wrote: Nixon used the power of the Oval office to protect those people that protected him and got him elected. For this you consider him your most hated president. To me that argument rates Clinton at least a tie.
And I don’t understand your logic here. Nixon used the power of his office to have the CIA block the FBI’s investigation of his friends illegal activities. That clearly sounds like abuse of powers of his office. If Nixon didn’t know of those activities, he was grossly incompetent, if he did, he’s an accessory to the fact.
As for the aside about Clinton, I’ll wait 'til his term is over and facts sorted out before I decide how rate him amongst the other presidents.
…then you said: And Reagan rates #2 because two years after he left office it was revealed that he suffered from Alzheimer’s? We have an incumbent president that for the first time in American history won’t allow his medical records to be revealed. A tie is an insult to Reagan.
Hrm… prehaps the comment about Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was a bit snide, but I still stand by the idea he was either incompetent (not knowing what his underlings were doing, either thru ignorance or disease) or he did know and that makes him an accessory.
Nixon’s criminal actions clearly damaged the office of the presidency in ways that are still being felt. I agree, his foreign policy was good, prehaps even great, but his domestic actions are appalling.
Reagan’s economic incompetence and ignorance of his underlings make him the clear runner up.
You say I’m looking for excuses since I apparently don’t agree with their policies. This whole thread is about which president we hate and why. I’ve present my opinions and the facts by which I made my judgement.
Why do you (apparently) hate Clinton so much?
PS Sneevil: I checked out those links you post. They’re all by Clinton haters/bashers. Could we get something a bit more objective, please? :-/
Freyr,
I’m looking at the “greater whole” and seeing remarkable parallels in the Nixon and Clinton administrations. For the sake of space I’ll not completely parse your reply, but let me hit just a couple of spots.
True.
Clinton’s administration has used the Justice Department to thwart the FBI, civil litigation, et al. And just as Nixon knew of and perhaps directed the CIA, the Justice Department is certainly working with the direct knowledge of, or consent of Clinton.
The crimes of Nixon’s allies were (generally) directed toward protecting Nixon and his administration. The Clinton administration is filled with characters of shady reputation from long before they got to Washington. Witness the number of Clinton’s pals that have been forced to leave in disgrace, been indicted, and/or been convicted of crimes. And those crimes were generally of the greed variety.
Sure Reagan knew what was going on with his staff. Just as Clinton is aware of his staff. As time marches on, we’ve generally become more forgiving of Nixon as we’ve come to understand that he wasn’t all bad. I believe that the American people will not accept another president that has behaved like Clinton.
Nixon had a wonderful foreign policy. Despite the height of the cold war, we slept well. Like most recent presidents, Nixon was caught up in world affairs and often ignored domestic problems.
Clinton, on the other hand, has presided over a foriegn policy joke due to his obsession with a domestic agenda. The kicker is that most polls give Clinton little credit for anything but the economy. Those people being polled obviously forget that the economy is generally unchanged from the last year of the Bush administration. Except for one huge tax hike, Clinton has left the economy on the cruise control course established by Bush’s economic genius Greenspan. Even retaining him to ensure the same economy.
You speak of Reagan’s economic incompetence. In what way? The bills of previous administrations were coming due. The entitlement programs had grown to the point where the federal government was preparing to collapse under its own debt. At Reagan’s behest, a tax cut sparked an economic boom that saw federal revenues climb at about 10%/year. Before giving Reagan the entire blame for the debt incurred over those years, check the growth of the discretionary portion of the budget.
Personally, I don’t hate Nixon or Clinton. I’m ashamed of what both men have done the office.
I truly believe that how history records the two is by the fact the Nixon’s party saw his “sins” and refused to stand behind him, while Clinton’s party rallied around him regardless of the allegation or crime.
APB9999 wrote:
If you don’t count people in other countries “hating” a particular president, then Lincoln probably wasn’t as badly hated as that – after all, the Confederacy considered itself to be a separate country from the U.S. throughout the entire Civil War.
We’ve all been talking about how the American people have felt about our president. But what about other countries. What president has been hated the most by folks who are not Americans?
Southern said:
I’m looking at the “greater whole” and seeing remarkable parallels in the Nixon and Clinton administrations. For the sake of space I’ll not completely parse your reply, but let me hit just a couple of spots.
I agree with this, but then, wouldn’t you concede that we wait at least 25 years so we can observe Clinton’s term more objectively? The man still has a little less than 6 months left yet people are already writing histories of his term.
Then you said: You speak of Reagan’s economic incompetence. In what way?
As I see it, he and his administration gave the “Capitalism Uber Alles” gang carte blanche to the economy. While this originally started out pretty well, I think the market crash of '87 and the subsequent recession that lingered into early '90s can be traced to “trickle down” economics. Agreed, capitalism is a great system, but left unchecked, it can cause as much damage as any economic system gone wrong.
Southern, you and I will never reach a consensus on this. You sound like a die-hard conservative while I’m middle-of-the-road moderate. Let’s agree to disagree. Tell you what, let’s meet in 25 years and compare notes. We can shock the youngsters of tomorrow with our tales of how we survived the last two decades of the 20th century. 
Hey Freyr,
One of the universal truths is that people tend to become more fiscally conservative as they get older. People generally reach a stage in their lives where the sum of their life puts them somewhere above the current average and don’t want the leftist policies to “bring them down”.
I had the advantage of starting my adult life as a conservative. I’ve always believed that my life was whatever I could make it to be. As such, I resent anyone that tries to step in and make my life less that I’ve been able to make it.
If you follow the norm, your slant to the left will straighten, perhaps even lean you to the right. At which point I’ll buy the first beer.
And about the Nixon VS Clinton debate, remember this: Nixon was popularly elected, and by a wide margin. During his first term, and into his second he was liked by the majority of the country. Now the press hated him, but not joe-average.
Clinton is very much like Nixon except that the press doesn’t hate him. Were the press to have turned on Clinton and showed their discontent to the same level that they showed displeasure with Nixon we’d now be referring to President Gore, who would have NO chance of reelection.
Just to add my two cents – Jefferson was hated by almost all member of established religions due to his stance on separation of Church and State.
Not by the Danbury Baptists, he wasn’t.
pkbites wrote:
All of them.
But particularly all American presidents since the end of WW2, which was when the U.S. became a major world superpower.
– tracer, who hopes that this doesn’t get hijacked into a discussion of “what superpower would you most like to have?” again.
X-ray vision?
D’OH!!!
Southern wrote:
One of the universal truths is that people tend to become more fiscally conservative as they get older. People generally reach a stage in their lives where the sum of their life puts them somewhere above the current average and don’t want the leftist policies to “bring them down”.
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! Republicans are an alien species from another dimension! Southern, let me clue you in, there are only 3 “universal truths” in this reality:
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Speed of Light in a vacuum
Everything else is based off of these or is simply a cultural bias.
FYI, I was rather republican in my outlook back in '72. I did hope that Nixon would be cleared of the whole mess of Watergate. I’ve since grown wiser.
I’ve also learned that money is simply that; money. It is a token of exchange. It has no intrinsic power. If you want something with real power, I suggest you try COMPASSION It’s one of those old-fashion traditional values that Republicans keep harping on but showing very little of.
Now, this is totally off-topic, so I’ll end here.
Where oh where do I begin???
Intrinsic or not, money is power.
All the compassion in the world won’t cure one head-cold, but intrinsically unempowered money has funded the research that has wiped out polio, typhoid, et al and made cancer, heart disease, and AIDS survivable.
As a life-long Republican, let me assure you that the old fashioned values that I espouse are self-reliance and self-worth. A person so much the greater appreciates the things that he’s earned than the things he’s been given.