your choices are
Carter
Reagan
George HW Bush
Clinton
George Bush
Obama
Obama still has a year and half to go. But his track record is pretty firmly established by now.
By lowest I am referring to effectiveness in dealing with Congress, the Economy, and foreign policy. Who harmed America the most by his inept leadership and administration?
When you say “effectiveness in dealing with Congress,” are you allowing us to control for Congress’s willingness to work with the president? Because while I don’t think Obama has been spectactulary effective, the hostility of his Congresses have so clearly outstripped his predecessors’ that it’s hard to judge him on his part of the relationship alone.
Obama has encountered a more hostile Congress. I guess its up to each of us to decide if it’s his leadership abilities or the political climate. Could a warmer and more personal leadership style somewhat overcome the political climate?
I watched Carter struggle with Congress much the same way. Books in later years attributed it to his cold and aloof personality. He just didn’t connect with the congressional leaders. Heck, he didn’t even connect with the people in his administration. Many later said he was often a difficult person to work with and like.
It may be a few years before enough is written about Obama to know whats going on. Historians will be studying his presidency for quite awhile.
Ronald Reagan, for his war against the Sandinistas and the Salvadoran left, and for his Cold War idiocy.
W edges St Ronnie out. Would have been interesting putting Nixon into the mix, as the question is harmed American the most.
Nixon would have won this poll hands down. 
There would be no point in listing anyone else. 
Although he did a brilliant job opening up relations with China. That’s his administration’s biggest achievement.
I disagree. While I’ve detested Nixon since his Commie hunting days, the man was a brilliant statesman and won in a landslide in his second term. Reagan set the agenda for what is now today’s dysfunctional Republican Party, and fuck him for doing that. His propensity for woo-woo economic policy and to dabble in proxy wars didn’t do anybody any favors, either.
But I have to go with George W. The man was nearly completely inept, governed with benign neglect, allowing others to dictate policy, the economic side of which destroyed a lot of folks’ savings and put them out on the street. His willingness to engage in a discretionary war has cost us trillions of dollars, killed thousands of people, and damaged thousands of lives. And it’s not over yet. His post-presidency work is non-existent, other than to produce childish paintings.
Don’t forget the Patriot Act and the security theatre that went with it.
I don’t think so. Nixon did harm mostly to himself. I detested him personally, and I disagreed with most all his policies, his stands, and his statements, but the harm he did to the country was just a blip. Bush the Younger was off the charts.
You forget that on the night he was elected the Republicans met and agreed to do everything they could to block his every attempt at legislating. It wouldn’t have mattered if he was the nicest and most diplomatic guy in the world, or the biggest asshole - the Republicans weren’t going to work with him either way.
Without excusing Watergate, Nixon’s administration had quite a few triumphs; if Watergate had never happened, or even if Nixon had survived it and completed his second term (cf. Reagan and Iran-Contra), he’d probably be in the top quarter of presidents. Everyone here is certainly familiar with George W. Bush’s disasters, but there’s hardly anything at all to balance the other side of the ledger: AIDS funding to Africa, and maybe Supreme Court appointments if you like the choices he made (after Harriet Miers, anyway). Nixon was also sleazy and partisan, but he wasn’t an incompetent hack like Bush.
I’m curious about who voted that Bush the elder, who’s the poster child for solidly average caretaker presidents, was the worst of the six. Even rabid partisans would presumably prefer Carter or Reagan in that slot. Something with Iran-Contra or handling the fall of the Soviet Union?
I’m surprised at the few votes for Carter. I wonder how many people here lived through the double digit inflation during his term? That was some of the most difficult economic times I ever experienced. People made fun of Reagan’s economics. Calling it voodoo economics during his primary election. But double digit inflation ended within a few years under Reagan. It made it possible for me to go to college. College seemed impossible under Carter in 1979. I was working 10 hours days in construction and trying to save for college. I wasn’t getting anywhere. A paycheck just didn’t buy very much in that horrible inflationary spiral.
George W, IMO
Carter is/was a brilliant man, but not a great president or even a good one. Like Obama, he inherited a horrible economy, but he didn’t seem to know how to deal with it. He spent too much time on research while things continued to devolve before he began acting. A total research geek. By the time it started improving, Reagan had taken the driver’s seat and took the credit for anything good.
Reagan, was a brilliant con-man, IMO, and he did do a lot to improve the economy but he also set the stage for the corporate greed we see now. He was great at putting industry heavies in federal roles where they could influence national policy to favor industry over citizens. His foreign policy? A roller coaster. Yes, Star Wars did help break the Soviets but how can we explain the aftermath of his less than enlightened policy towards Afghanistan’s situation? And the recession that we experienced at the end of his reign?
H.W. Bush was a weaker version of Reagan: witness Desert Shield-not a long term solution. However, I do give H.W. credit for his “Thousand Points of Light” that inspired AmeriCorps, which *has *done a lot of good.
The economy did improve under Clinton but I’m still on the fence about him. I do appreciate that he brought the left back towards the center but he continued some of the economic stuff from Reagan even though cracks were beginning to appear as corporations grew in strength and citizen power appeared to shrink. (Mind you, if we would all get off our duffs and complain loudly as the Tea Party does, we might get somewhere.)
G.W. - Whoo boy, not the sharpest knife in the drawer but smart enough to bring in a Veep who has a solid background of knowing how to bluff and stand his ground as well as couch bad programs in fuzzy words. G.W. regularly took his eye off the ball, whether in foreign policy or citizen and economic issues. He simply was clueless and very much out of his depth. Surrounding himself with daddy’s experts wasn’t enough to hide his lack of brilliance.
For me, the jury is still out on Obama. The economy and job situation has improved, and unlike some, I do approve of Obamacare as a step in the right direction. He definitely needs to do a lot better on foreign policy IMO and needs to appoint more balanced people to hold Fed program jobs. If the Senate will let him, he still might not do it. Ask me about him again in 2017.
Bush the Lesser
The OP is asking contradictory things. I voted Bush, Jr. because his Presidency caused the most damage to the country. However in no way can one say he had inept leadership. Democrats were in control of Congress the last two years of his administration and they could have done several things–for example defunded the Iraq war. They didn’t–because Bush was far from inept.
I put Bush II on the bottom both on this list and out of all the Presidents of the 20th last century. Earlier than that James Buchanan beats him out, since for all his failures even Bush didn’t manage to bumble the US into a civil war.
Or because they are inept. Or just didn’t care.
As others said without Nixon to vote against who else could it possibly except the man who pretended Madman Hussein was responsible for 9/11?
GWB: It’s a case of where do you start? A man completely unsuited to the job, launched two lengthy a costly wars that achieved the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Alienated America’s allies and entrenched their enemies. Presided over the worst global crash since the Great Depression, whose genesis can be linked to the policies of his administration. Failed miserably in response to the challenges of his presidency (e.g. Hurricane Katrina). Oversaw a decline in the USA’s global dominance. I can’t think of anything he did which could said to be an acheivement.
Carter: on paper the perfect presidential candidate, but ultimately his handling of the challenges of his presidency were underwhelming
Reagan: perhaps the worse charge you can bring against Reagan is that he ushered in policies that wouldn’t prove to be so much disastrous in his own time, but which would be the genesis of major future problems. More about style than substance, he did though manage to achieve a few things purely by style.
Obama: Inherited a country with a weak economy, declining international influence, engaged in a hopeless war and was hamstrung by an extremely belligerent and obstructionist political opposition. However his cautious, middle ground-finding approach has not been particularly effective in tackling the myriad of problems he inherited. He still has time to make a difference, but I’m not hopeful.
GHB: In many ways the antithesis of Reagan: a safe pair of hands who was pragmatic in his policy and was more about substance than style. However the fact that he couldn’t get the style bit right cost him on a few occasions.
Bill Clinton: a man of both style and substance who achieved a significant amount. That was not to say he was perfect as he was at times given to carlessness, which saw him occasionally manufacture political scandal for himself.
By surviving a full two terms, he single-handedly kept Dick Cheney from being President.
I disagree with you on Bush’s leadership, realistically the Democrats lacked a strong consensus on the war and defunding it could’ve proved politically disastrous for them. Bush was a weak leader, but he did have strong leaders within the senior ranks of his administration.