I went with Buchanan because he actually knew he was doing a bad job. Buchanan was opposed to secession. But when the southern states began seceding, he dithered over whether he should anything about it.
Yes, I wouldn’t rate Bush as the worst.
But I’d have no difficulty putting him in the bottom five.
What’s even worse is that most of Grant’s greatest sins stem from simple lack of oversight. He was betrayed and used by his friends and associates. Had his policies actually been followed by those who swore to follow them, the country would have been much better off. Then one of them (Ferdinand Ward) swindled Grant of his personal wealth. Grant’s post war life would have been vastly better, if he had just been a lot less trusting.
That said. It is hard for me to place anyone as worse than James Buchanan, Jr. If Washington gets credit for creating the Union, and Lincoln for saving the Union, Buchanan gets the credit for fiddling and watching the Union burn. Certainly he had the job at a terrible time, and it is possible that nothing anyone could have done could have headed off succession. But Buchanan somehow seemed to advance succession with every action he took to prevent it. Despite Tyler complete ineffectiveness, and later support for the confederacy, Buchanan was still worse as a president.
George W. Bush wins this contest by a mile. Given that he’s been out of office for almost three years and politics have been rather heated during those three years, perhaps it’s no surprise that some folks are forgetting how terrible he was. Just consider a a few of his most major sins:
- Authorizing that many prisoners be tortured, in some cases to death.
- Ordering a war in Iraq that killed over a million people, based on claims about WMDs that he knew were false.
- Presiding over not one but two major waves of corporate crime, and disabling the regulatory bodies responsible for preventing such crime, thus setting off a worldwide financial catastrophe.
- Sabotaging attempts to fight global warming, publishing false information about climate change, and covering up the truth.
- Putting incompetent loons in charge of FEMA, thereby botching relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina and other disasters.
- Running up an enormous federal deficit by giving huge tax cuts to the rich and a massive new Medicare benefit, thus squandering the opportunity to bring entitlement spending under control.
- Undermining government agencies in charge of environmental protection, worker safety, product safety, &c…
- Passing the No Child Left Behind Act.
- Spying on American citizens via illegal wiretaps and other means.
- Having a disastrous approach to foreign policy that brought America’s reputation to an all-time low.
- Increased penalties for minor drug offenses, thus preventing people from rebuilding their lives.
- Misusing the powers of the presidency to harass political opponents.
- Running a generally sleazy, corrupt administration.
- Campaigning based solely on sleaze and lies, and poisoning national politics with nonstop attacks and negativity.
- and so forth.
I honestly can’t comprehend why anyone would list any other President as the worst ever. So Tyler joined the confederacy? So Harding had the Teapot-Dome scandal? So Nixon almost got impeached? None of them caused suffering for hundreds of millions of people both at home and abroad that lasted indefinitely. George W. Bush did that.
While George W. Bush apparently isn’t responsible for any wars? I don’t use smilies, but if I did I would send a rolleyes right back at you.
Buchanan or Bush; I suspect that Bush will prove to have been worse in the long run because of all the damage he did that’s still snowballing.
I agree. Every time he’s president, the world is coming to an end.
I mean, I’m no fan of torture either, but LBJ got the U.S. into the Vietnam War and authorized the first bombing campaigns that slaughtered God only knows how many innocents. So why not LBJ? Vietnam was a much greater disaster than Iraq; why does LBJ get off for that one? Corporate crime in Bush’s tenure wasn’t any worse than it usually has been - God, the late 19th century the companies were shooting people - and so on and so forth.
Bush was a terrible President, but you really have to consider Martin Hyde’s point; there were Presidents in the 19th century that made Bush look like King Solomon. Buchanan and Pierce (Pierce being drunk so often he was often called “the Hero Of Many A Well-Fought Bottle”) led the USA into a CIVIL WAR that killed six hundred thousand people. Guantanamo Bay is an ugly incident but sort of pales in comparison to… I dunno… Antietam.
Warren Harding should have way more votes than he does. Way more.
I had to go with Millard Fillmore and his stance on slavery: to allow the newly annexed territories to have slaves in order to appease the south; signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law; signed onto the Compromise of 1850; opposed Lincoln as president. And I’m related to him.
In modern times, 1900 - Present, George W. Bush, no question.
The internets say the Civil War caused ~625,000 deaths. If it is true that the Iraq war caused a million, then by this one single metric Bush is worse than Buchanan. But then LBJ would have to be worse… didn’t Vietnam kill about 3 million?
So should FDR. Stupid New Deal.
Easy question. Andrew Johnson, that fool caused the South nearly 60 years of poverty and misery under Reconstruction. Carpetbaggers took everything. Southern states had appointed Northern Governors for years and years.
Lincoln had a plan to reintegrate the South back into the Union. Life would have gotten back to normal within a few years.
After his death, the haters in Congress were allowed to destroy the South and reap the profits. Andrew Johnson was so useless as a leader that he couldn’t stop it.
The irony of course is… The dumb fool that shot Lincoln was a Southern sympathizer. He crippled the South well into the 20th century.
I also find the answer so obvious, I think it’s silly that the question has to be asked. Lacking the ingenuity to prevent a war is not worse than starting a foolish and unnecessary war.
While I think 1 or 2 of your points could be mitigated, you’ve also left out some of the most important. Especially important was his incompetence. There were other Presidents lacking in vision or experience (though none so extreme as GWB, whose figure-head Governorship of Texas is a joke), but at least these other incompetents sought out advisors with experience and admirable ideals. With GWB we got a White House run by Cheney and Rove. :smack:
Obama could well go down as the worst if things continue to bad. He is terrified of doing anything unpopular at a time when unpopular and necessary decisions have to be made.
FTR I am not a right winger or a Tea Bagger (whatever the hell that is) or a Obama is a muslim believer. I am actually not even American.
Yeah, in the past when we’ve had discussions about this what it has always come down to is most people just aren’t willing to consider that their present reality isn’t the most significant time in history. In this case, Bush is a President most people on this board really disliked, and most people feel like “their time” is the most important time, so that means Bush is the worst President ever.
I’ve been saying for a few years now that looking back in the year 2100 I actually think the Iraq and Afghan wars will be remembered by people in the year 2100 with about as much familiarity as Americans today remember our brutal fight to suppress the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century. That was a conflict that probably saw over 1,000,000 dead Filipinos and involved our soldiers committing acts of brutality with greater frequency than we did in either Vietnam or Iraq. FWIW if you were to poll a man on the street “ala Jay-Walking” do you think even 2 out of 100 would know about the Philippine Insurrection?
For some reason perception is very separated from reality when it comes to the Bush administration. Bush wasn’t one of our best Presidents, but most of the problems SDMB liberals had with him, virtually every other President had similar things happen on their watch (corporate corruption–which the President only vaguely can prevent through Federal regulatory/law enforcement arms, human rights abuses by the military/government, overseas adventurism etc.)
I mean President Obama dramatically increased troop numbers in Afghanistan, and has implemented such plans as authorizing our soldiers to burn the crops of Afghan civilians, and the use the threat of future burnings to entice those civilians to accept free wheat seeds from us to replace the crops we had destroyed. (Yes, the crops were poppies, but imagine your reaction as a farmer if someone burned an extremely valuable cash crop and offered to replace it with a bulk commodity crop that sells for less than 1% per pound of your previous crop.)
Don’t blame me. I voted for Buchanan.
Anyway what did you expect when you posted this poll? If you wanted to avoid partisan bickering and discuss actual historical goodness/badness, make a poll that goes from Washington to, I don’t know, Coolidge or something. Anything beyond that and people start thinking along party lines, not accomplishments.
Just from reading American history I went for Harding.
Mr. Stephen Colbertagrees with the Harding haters.
I have read three books about Harding. I keep washing my hands, but they don’t feel clean.
Guess I’m a lone vote. Because IMO, Woodrow Wilson caused more damage to this country than any other president.