Worst this century? Gotta be Nixon. Nixon, in my opinion, was an absolute sociopath, rivaled only by Clinton. Nixon appointed Kissenger, the worst, most blood-thirsty, Sec’y of State we’ve ever had. We’re STILL trying to clean up from all the damage that Kissenger inflicted on the world…Chile, Viet Nam, etc, etc. Kissenger had absolute contempt for the rule of law and for human life.
By any objective measure, it’s gotta be Nixon by a large stretch. Wage and price controls? Watergate? Laos and Cambodia? Detante? Race Riots? The Plumbers? Doesn’t anyone remember what a vicious hateful man he was?
As noted before, it might be useful to seperate that question into seperate parts.
Who is the worst human being to ever occupy the Oval Orifice? Hands down, no question, no contest, Richard M. Nixon. There is a considerble body of evidence that he and “Hank” Kissinger sabatoged the Paris talks of '68. Treason, says I.
The least competent has already been adequately adressed, Warren G. Harding was an affable doofus, a man whose personal qualities, though mildly admirable, were utterly unsuited to the enormity of the office.
Hmmmmmm. Did he have a habit of giving out nicknames? Sounds kind of familiar…
Wow…I’ll agree that one could make a pretty good case for Nixon being the worst president of the 20th century, but let’s get real folks…
**
OK, I can understand why you would oppose wage and price controls; after all, lots of conservative Republicans opposed wage and price controls. But sociopathic?
**
Nixons attempts to ease tensions between the US and USSR were vicious and hateful?
**
Would that be the 1965 Watts riots which took place four years before Nixon took office or the MLK assassination race riots which took place one year before Nixon took office?
**
Are you holding Nixon responsible for the Ohio National Guard or for the entire Viet Nam War and antiwar movement?
It’s fair enough to argue that Nixon wasn’t moving fast enough to end the war, but surely he deserved more than one year to do it. After all, he did reduce combat fatalities by 35% in his first year alone. (In his second year he reduced them by 71%.)
**
Wasn’t “Hank” still just a Harvard professor in 1968? (Or am I yet again being whooshed here?)
Not only was he obscene, but he held his dog up by the ears and went skinnydipping in front of the press. Clearly these are criteria which make him the worst president ever. :rolleyes:
Oh, let’s call it a tie between Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon.
In addition to be a crude racist, Wilson was stupid enough to get the U.S. involved in a disastrous war that didn’t concern us, and then fancied himself brilliant enough to re-draw the map of Europe. His foolhardiness all but guaranteed that another World War would ensue.
As for Nixon… well, his ideological enemies have already noted his corruption, but what baffles me is why any CONSERVATIVE should make excuses for Nixon. For Pete’s sake, he kowtowed to Moscow and Beijing, he imposed wage and price controls, he appointed Harry (Roe V. Wade) Blackmun to the Supreme Court, he presided over the largest exapnsion in domestic government spending ever… it’s hard to imagine what a President McGovern could have done differently.
I read through the entire thread to be sure nobody else picked up on this before weighing in. I know everybody has an opinion on FDR, and I just let the negative ones go because there’s no point in disputing them. But you asserted as a fact that FDR was such a “bitch” that he “ignored” the 22nd Amendment. If you look up the amendment here you will discover that FDR was already pretty mouldy in his grave (he died in 1945) before the 22nd Amendment was passed. It was, in fact, proposed because FDR had been elected four times, and the Congress was afraid that somebody might make a dynasty of the Presidency. Truman concurred, by the way.
Not to make this a total hijack (but not inviting argument, it’s already been made in the thread), Nixon gets my vote for worst. IMO he was an unprincipled sonofabitch.
Why do I list detente among Nixon and Kissenger’s crimes?
Detente was the doctrine that Soviet style communism and Soviet style dictatorship were permanent. Since the Soviets were permanent and weren’t going away, it followed that therefore we must accomodate them. So questions of morality, of human rights, of human freedom, of captive nations all become impermissable. We didn’t institute detente with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Detente was a doctrine of moral equivalence. Totalitarian dictatorship or liberal democracy, makes no difference to Kissenger.
I’m honestly confused here…in your previous post you listed Chile, Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam as being amongst Nixons “faults.” Now you’re explaining why you believe “detente” was a fault and if I’m understanding your post correctly, you’re arguing that a policy of coexistence with the USSR was immoral because the USSR (and I assume all communist governments?) was immoral.
But in Chile the most common accusation is that Nixon plotted to overthrow a communist government.
In VN, Laos and Cambodia Nixon was initially commited to stopping the spread of communism (and immoral regimes) though one could argue that his policies eventually had the opposite effect.
So I’m confused…are you arguing that Nixon should have done more to fight communism in SE Asia or that he did to much? Or am I just missing your point entirely?
Side Note: You’re right that “we didn’t institute detente with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan” but we actually allied ourselves with Stalin, and Stalin was a far sight worse than Brehznev.
Well as a rule: Bad times make for bad Presidents, Good times make good ones. To paraphrase Dr. John; If you’re gonna be chief executive, “you gotta be at the right place at the right time”
That being said, I tend to agree with the side that says the FDR/LBJ legacies are the root cause of many of today’s societal ills. The crap they rammed down the public (and congress’) throat will take another century to overcome.
Re: Nixon. I agree he was awful. Do the liberals amongst us hate him for constitutional indiscretions during Watergate or because of his legislative agenda: Elimination of the Gold Standard, EPA, OSHA, Wage & Price Controls, Opening to Red China, pulling out of Vietnam, SALT, ABM, etc.
Re: Lincoln. Prior to his administration, The US was referred to in a plural sense ( i e The United States ARE going to war not IS going to war). But you really can’t pin the "Fed Gov (not) being subservient to its creator"on his policies. That was more a result of the war and the reconstruction.
Re: What about you Black Americans and Native Americans. Who do you suggest? The *incorruptible and principaled * Jesse Jackson? With the exception of Naders running mate, the Indians are too smart and too busy with their tobacco & gambling enterprises to run anyone for cheif executive.
FDR was President until his death on April 12, 1945.
The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the required number of states on February 27, 1951, almost six years after his death in office!
Duckster, that gale-force wind whoooooshing over your head emanated from the posts on this thread of DesertGeezer and MEBuckner posted earlier today, just four posts before yours.
Let me explain. Yes, Nixon/Kissenger were right to fight against communism in SE Asia. They were right to fight against communism in Latin America. But their machiavellian/paranoid style of governence did more harm than good for the fight against communism. Yes, sometimes you have to choose the less-bad of two bad choices. And yes, the constituition is not a suicide pact. But the ill-effects of the Nixon administration are still clinging to us, long after the Soviets are a footnote to history. We needed to fight Communism, but the Nixon ways of fighting Communism were ineffective and counterproductive.
Sometimes idealism is more practical than pragmatism. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even though it will cause you some pain. And oftentimes, when you do the right thing even though it causes you some pain, you will come out ahead. Not all the time, but often.
Or perhaps a simpler answer is that I am a patriotic believer in the rule of law, capitalism, and democracy. And Nixon did more to sabotage those ideals than any other president.
