Here is a list to get the comments flowing! First of all, this list is not my personal opinion – it is compiled from the average score of each president over 12 surveys – taken between 1948 and 2005. Wikipedia has the complete historical rankings.
10. Calvin Coolidge 1923 – 1929
In 1919, three quarters of the Boston Police Force went on strike. Coolidge (then Governor of Massachusetts) had observed the situation throughout the conflict, but had not yet intervened. Furious that the mayor had called out state guard units, he finally acted. He called up more units of the National Guard, restored Police Commissioner Curtis to office, and took personal control of the police force. Curtis proclaimed that none of the strikers would be allowed back to their former jobs, and Coolidge issued calls for a new police force to be recruited. Many people criticized Coolidge as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government. His reputation underwent a renaissance during the Reagan administration, but the ultimate assessment of his presidency is still divided between those who approve of his reduction of the size of government and those who believe the federal government should be more involved in regulating the economy.
9. Richard Nixon 1969 – 1974
In June, 1972, several of Nixon’s men were caught breaking into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC – bringing to light the infamous Watergate Scandal. Nixon himself downplayed the scandal as mere politics, but when his aides resigned in disgrace, Nixon’s role in ordering an illegal cover-up came to light in the press, courts, and congressional investigations. Nixon owed back taxes, had accepted illicit campaign contributions, and had harassed opponents with executive agencies, wiretaps, and break-ins. In addition, he had ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. Unlike the tape recordings by earlier Presidents, his secret recordings of White House conversations were revealed and subpoenaed and showed details of his complicity in the cover-up. Nixon was named by the grand jury investigating Watergate as “an unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal. In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his probable conviction by the Senate, he resigned on August 9, 1974, after addressing the nation on television the previous evening. He never admitted to criminal wrongdoing, although he later conceded errors of judgment.
8. Zachary Taylor 1849 – 1850
The slavery issue dominated Taylor’s short term. Although he owned slaves, he took a moderate stance on the territorial expansion of slavery, angering fellow Southerners. Taylor urged settlers in New Mexico and California to draft constitutions and apply for statehood, bypassing the territorial stage. New Mexico was too small to act but California — which had high population growth from the gold rush — wrote a constitution that did not allow slavery; the voters approved it and a new state government took over in December 1849 without Congressional approval. Southerners were furious with Taylor and with California. Taylor held a stormy conference with Southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons “taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang … with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico.”
7. John Tyler 1841 – 1845
Tyler’s Presidency was rarely taken seriously in his time. Opponents usually referred him to as the “Acting President” or “His Accidency”. Tyler shocked Congressional Whigs by vetoing virtually the entire Whig agenda, twice vetoing Clay’s legislation for a national banking act following the Panic of 1837 and leaving the government deadlocked. Tyler was officially expelled from the Whig Party in 1841, a few months after taking office, and became known as “the man without a party.” In 1843, after he vetoed a tariff bill, the House of Representatives considered the first impeachment resolution against a president in American history. A committee headed by former president John Quincy Adams concluded that Tyler had misused the veto, but the impeachment resolution did not pass.
6. Millard Fillmore 1850 – 1853
Fillmore ascended to the presidency upon the sudden and unexpected death of President Taylor in July 1850. The change in leadership also signaled an abrupt political shift in the administration, as Fillmore removed Taylor’s entire cabinet, replacing them with individuals known to be favorable to the Compromise efforts. Fillmore signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act as a compromise between Southern slaveholding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. The act sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.
5. Ulysses S Grant 1869 – 1877
Grant achieved international fame as the leading Union general in the American Civil War. The first scandal to taint the Grant administration was Black Friday, a gold-speculation financial crisis in September 1869, set up by Wall Street manipulators Jay Gould and James Fisk. They tried to corner the gold market and tricked Grant into preventing his treasury secretary from stopping the fraud. The most famous scandal was the Whiskey Ring of 1875, exposed by Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin H. Bristow, in which over 3 million dollars in taxes were stolen from the federal government with the aid of high government officials. Although Grant himself did not profit from corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a firm stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. Grant’s career is also marred by rumors of anti-Semitism due to his involvement with the infamous General Order Number 11.
4. Andrew Johnson 1865 – 1869
Johnson succeeding to the presidency upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Johnson vetoed the first civil rights bill, stating that it gave “a perfect equality of the white and black races in every State of the Union.” In a letter to the governor of Missouri he wrote: “this is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” The Republicans in congress overrode his veto (the Senate by the vote of 33:15, the House by 182:41) and the Civil Rights bill became law. Johnson tried to remove Edward Stanton as Secretary of War directly violating the Tenure of Office Act which Johnson had vetoed. He was impeached (and is the first president to be so) but found innocent by only one vote.
3. Franklin Pierce 1853 – 1857
Two months before assuming his place as President, Pierce watched his son die in a train accident. He took office nervously exhausted. The most controversial event of Pierce’s presidency was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and reopened the question of slavery in the West. The Act also caused widespread outrage in the North and spurred the creation of the Republican Party, a sectional Northern party that was organized as a direct response to the bill. Pierce is ranked among the least effective Presidents as well as an indecisive politician who was easily influenced. He was unable to command as President or to provide the required national leadership. Pierce is the only elected president (as of 2007) not to be renominated by his party for a second term.
2. James Buchanan 1857 – 1861
In his inaugural speech, Buchanan stated that the slavery issue was of “little practical importance” because the Supreme Court was about to settle it. Two days later they announced the Dred Scott decision in which it ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. Buchanan was widely believed to have been personally involved in the outcome of the case. Additionally, Buchanan’s administration was troubled by the Panic of 1857 – a sudden downturn in the US economy. Before Buchanan left office, seven slave states seceded, the Confederacy was formed, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter and two remote ones), and a fourth of all federal soldiers surrendered to Texas troops. Historians in 2006 voted his failure to deal with secession the worst presidential mistake ever made.
1. Warren G Harding 1921 – 1923
Harding’s term as president was beset with scandal – both personal and political. Albert B Fall, Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, became the first member of a presidential cabinet to go to jail for his role in the Teapot Dome affair. When Harding was elected, he raised many of his friends (known as the Ohio Gang) to prominent political positions. Some of these appointees used their power to rob the government. Harding is reputed to have said: “I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, my God-damned friends… they’re the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!”
Afterword
In the original list, William Harrison ranked 5th worst, but as his term was so short I do not think he can be fairly included. Additionally, James A Garfield ranked at number 9, but with the second shortest presidential term (6 months) I have also excluded him. As a result, Nixon, at number 11, moved in to 10th place, and Coolidge, at number 12, moves in at position 10.
As he is not on the list, I am sure you are all eager to know how the current President, George W Bush, fared. He ranked at number 21 worst, followed closely at 22nd worst by Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter ranked at 14th worst.
George W. Bush is not included in the list??!!
bucslim: How is a time of war a tough time to be president? You get to the bottom of a threat on our country and go to war with whomever was involved, hopefully coming out a hero. What you do NOT do is go to war with someone who is not involved. You also do not take away some of the basic freedoms of the people in America (Patriot Act) for no reason, essentially for oil, just like your daddy did. You don’t condone torture either. I know I’m missing things.
Also, I thought Nixon should be higher on the list.
Miss_ali, its because of people who think like you that wartime is a hard time to be a president. I agree with you to an extent about bush JR. but Bush SR had good reason to go to war, why do you thinkthe rest of the world backed him up?
I miss President Bartlett…
The others may be forgotten, or forgiven fot their misdeeds, but the 5 worst presidents really are:
5. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Bush
3. Warren Harding
2. Richard Nixon
1. George W. Bush
And the best 5 are:
5. Thomas Jefferson
4. Andrew Jackson
3. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
1. John F. Kennedy
As far as the list goes, I found it to be very interesting. I will admit to not having the most knowledge about these former leaders, so one take on them was intriguing.
As far as some of the comments, personally I think that I would rather have a horny president as opposed to one who can’t even articulate a proper English sentence. But that is only my opinion. If you don’t like it, so be it. I don’t ask anyone to agree with me.
GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH!!!
did i mention GEORGE W BUSH!?!?!?
Unfortunately, GEORGE W. BUSH! Was not anywhere near the worst president of the US.
I thiink that Andrew Kohnson should be #1!!!!
Everybody who says the Bush is so bad, what exactly would YOU do in his place? Leaving Iraq now would be like leaving in the middle of a surgery in which you are extracting a bullet from an infected wound in a patients leg, but have not finished removing it and haven’t closed the wound up, either. What exactly do you think will happen?
This list blows where is that wimp Jimmy Carter?
In the aftetrword it says nixon moved to 10th and coolidge moved to tenth
the women of the world were asked if ‘they’ would sleep with Bill Clinton.
80% responded…”What, again”
Lyndon Johnson should be on this list, it’s his fault we went to Vietnam.
Wow…reading all the comments about Bush show that the liberals haven’t learned anything from history. It’s gonna be funny when/if a democrat gets in and the war doesn’t suddenly come to a stop. And unfortunately, Mr. Bush is indeed a lot more intelligent than 99.9% of the people who criticize him on the safe haven of the internet.
Geez, you guys, what’s with the Lincoln bashing? The man himself hated slavery and campaigned for the 13th amendment during his terms. The E. Proclamation, whatever its political motivations (which I believe were mainly good, but feel free to read revisionist historical accounts) was a momentous occasion in U.S. history. So he wanted to keep the country together and stamp out slavery – wow, what a jerk! *rolleyes*
“The man who signed the 16th ammendment and gave us personal income taxes (which is against the Constitution)?”
Holy… are you really that stupid? An AMENDMENT to the Constitution automatically becomes a part of the Constitution on the same level as the original document, and it automatically nullifies any contradictory passages in the original. That’s why amendments were made possible – because the founding fathers, unlike you, understood that a stoic and unchanging document, like a similar government, could not fully serve its people over time. Hence the ability to make CHANGES to it, through a ratification process difficult enough to make it rare.
Complain about income taxes all you want, lazy rich kids, but the 16th amendment MAKES them Constitutional. Libertarians usually aren’t ignorant enough to use that tired and entirely false argument, so I’m surprised to see it came up at all.
Plus, Wilson didn’t sign anything. No president ever signed an amendment. It’s entirely ratified by Congress and State Conventions. Which just further proves your hilarious ignorance. I’m no fan of Woodrow – too racist for my tastes – but c’mon now.
And in case anyone is curious, this is the average historical ranking of the ten best presidents compiled from that same Wikipedia page mentioned above:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Andrew Jackson
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. James K. Polk
Why you skip the name of Bush. Remember, during his era of Presidency the whole world is fired with the blood of humans. Being a human, no one notice his bad policies. Even some presidents helped him to make his bad policies.
I think his name should be placed top of the list.
Thanks.
you forgot George Walker Bush…..
don’t wait for the historians to come to that conclusion….
truman LBJ clinton JFK FDR jackson
In the words of Sir Stephen Colbert,
“George W. Bush, great president or greatest president?”
too early to tell for GWB.
whole ranking please
1-Jimmy Carter- All roads to 9-11 starts with the Master of Malaise- The Shah, The Ayatollah, Russians in Afghanistan, the Hostage Crisis and the Misery Index
2-James Buchanan-Failed to head off the Civil War
3-Franklin Pierce-Ditto
4-Woodrew Wilson-A sanctimonious bigot who give America WWI, the income tax, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the League of Nations
5-Rutherford Hayes- Short-circuited Reconstruction for almost a hundred years and damaged race relations
6-Lydon Johnson-Vietnam & the Not So Great Society
7-Richard Nixon- Watergate, Impeachment & Resignation
8-Bill Clinton- Monica Lewinsky, Impeachment, Perjury, selling of Pardons, Hotel 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and overall general sleaziness
9-Herbert Hoover- Botched the Great Depression (see Smoot-Hawley)
10-George W. Bush- Won the War, lost the Peace
First of All, anyone that says Lincoln is a bad President is either from the South or an absolute moron devoid of intelligence, or both. He is virtually always in the top 3 BEST Presidents by most lists, and is often considered #1.
Thankfully, the leading minds in history are smarter than many of the people commenting on this page. Carter? Clinton? Woodrow Wilson? A grand display of ignorance. Wilson is one of the better Presidents and Clinton & Carter are no prize champions, however they had some brilliant achievements that trump the other notable failures. Same could be said of LBJ, who failed at Vietnam, yet succeeded at passing more legislation than any President other than the four terms of FDR.
Secondly, I’ve seen this list before, it is not by any means definitive. Many lists find Clinton & Nixon higher and W. and his father lower.
While the jury is still out on W., The Washington Post is reporting that a majority of 109 leading historians find him to be the “worst President in U.S. History”. So it doesn’t look too good for ol’ W.
The story is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802255.html?nav=rss_email/components
Anyone that thinks George W. Bush is the worst President of the United States has either not studied American history at all, or they only studied what their 2nd grade teacher told them about the Revolution and the Civil War. There are so many presidents that are worse than him. About every president after Jackson and before Lincoln were 10 times worse. They failed to address the issue of slavery, plunging the nation into Civil War. Buchanan let 7 states secede.
Grant’s presidency was plagued by corruption and Carter didn’t do anything positive except make Egypt and Israel talk.
Bush has kept this country going after terrorist attack, and there hasn’t been another since 9/11. I’m surprised the economy isn’t worse after 9/11. Things aren’t that bad. Less Americans have died in Iraq than in the Mexican War, or even on one side of the battle of Antietam.
Frankly, you’re all a bunch of spoiled brats. Foreigners don’t hate us because of our wars or policies, they hate us because we live in the greatest country on the planet, and all we do is ***** about it.
Before you start saying Bush is the worst president in history, study history.
No way in hell Lincoln even comes near this list!
W. is definitely the bottom of the barrel. As the previous comment says, Bush’s legacy is so bad, historians can conclude he’s terrible before he’s even left office. That’s really saying something. It usually takes a few years to judge.
This article also puts Bush at the bottom of the list.
http://www.soapblox.com/index.php?p=166
Ryan,
You talk about history as if it were written on a bathroom wall. Its as if you just took a class in 19th Century America. You compare Iraq to the Mexican War? Wow. Apples and Oranges. A 19th Century conventional war vs. a 21st Century Guerrilla War are not comparable. You should compare it the Philippine-American War, oh but than the casualty rates would be considerably higher than the Philippines and on par with death rate so you wouldn’t be able to. Besides, the casualty rates for Iraq are quite high, well into the 30,000 range, its the advances in field surgery that kept death low at less than 10% of casualties. Also, comparing Iraq to Antietam is deceptive since it is the bloodiest day in American history, far bloodier than even D-Day. Different kind of war, different era. Besides that’s your argument? This war isn’t as bad as that war? I happen to believe 4,000 needlessly dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and many many more maimed and wounded for an unjustifiable cause is far too many. This was the first preemptive war in American History and it has proven to be a massive strategic blunder that made Iran more powerful, regardless of whether or not it is less bloody than other wars. Numbers do not make blood any less red.
Bush kept the nation together after 9-11?! LOL. How did you come to the conclusion that the nation would have fallen apart without the leadership of this chimp? He took 9-11 and pushed retro-active tax-cuts for the major corporations and squandered all the good will in the wake of the attacks like a gambler at the track. Good God, get a new argument already for the man fell asleep at the wheel and allowed us to get attacked in the first place.
Funny you mention Grant since Bush’s presidency is often compared to Grant’s not just for the spoil system (incompetent political appointees) and Bush’s scandals have been quite profound as well. Far more serious stuff than Clinton’s blow job, that goes to the root of Constitutional power in this country.
It sounds like you’ve never traveled abroad otherwise you wouldn’t sound like such a dolt on what foreigners think. Maybe you should go get some world experience, see how other people live, then conclude why they hate us, you’d be quite surprised how well many other nations have it. Until then, you should not put words in other peoples mouths and for your own sake, stop using the “greatest nation on the face of the Earth” argument. The era of simple minded slogans is coming to an end and you’re a relic of an age that looked at politics like a football game.
Maybe you think that things are so great, but maybe that’s because you’re actually the one who’s a spoiled brat, which is more likely the case. The past 8 years have seen an amazing downturn in American Power. Maybe you can stand back and do nothing, I sure as hell won’t. You must be one of the 20% that still think he’s doing a good job. LOL Makes sense. Do you think Iraq was behind 9-11 as well?
The above mentioned article clearly lays out that historians think Bush is the worst President in history. Your argument completely falls apart next to that. Especially since you are likely getting your history from books written by the very guys that think Bush is the worst President in History.
you cant grade bush yet but i will say that my top ten are
1) abe
2) andrew jackson
3) woodrow wilson
4) carter
5) harding
6) grant
7) hoover
8)jefferson
9) john adams
10) kennedy
BUSH……loves his oil…..and should be number 1 or at least make him a bonus
I’ve spent a lifetime reading biographies, historian’s offerings, political science, scriptures, newspapers, periodicals and now web sites. Nothing is more fascinating than reading expert’s “rankings” of people they have never met but on whom they consider themselves an authority.
Being guilty myself, I would like to proffer my nominee for the worst American President.
Included in my criteria for judging the performance of same are the following standards: 1. Did he meet the daily requirements of the job? 2. Did he honor the office of President and leave the office stronger than when he took charge? 3. Did he inspire the American electorate, American politicians and for that matter other nations to follow his exemplary leading? 4. Upon leaving office did he become an ambassador to the world that Americans can take pride in? 5. Upon taking office did he have a vision of where he wanted to lead America, was he able to project that unique vision to the American people and did he achieve at least some of what he set out to achieve?
My nominee for America’s worst President scored 0 on my test. There may be other Presidents that have scored 0 as well but the only way anyone could possibly be a poorer President than Jimmy Carter (I voted for him.) would be if they sold America lock, stock and barrel to the Arab nations or the Chinese. As a matter of fact we may have that guy running for the office of President of the United States as I write this.
WW:
I’m interested to hear how it is, based on your little system of criteria, that you feel Jimmy Carter is a worse president than Richard Nixon. Or for that matter Ulysses S. Grant, or Warren Harding.
Thanks for asking.
Make no mistake, Nixon was a seriously flawed man. Certainly much more so than Carter. I have never attended one of Carter’s Sunday School classes but I know someone who did and I’m sure I would enjoy it. I think Nixon did in fact have the “vision thing” for America. I’ve read his books and consider him to be one of the best “politicians” that America has ever produced, for what that’s worth. Nixon and Kissinger screwed around for ever in Viet Nam and deserve no credit for anything involving getting out of Viet Nam but it was under Johnson that this mess got started. As Junior Bush is finding out it’s easy to start a fight and not so easy to stop. I voted for Humphrey over Nixon by the way. I did vote for Tricky Dick the second time. I have to give Nixon a 1 and not a 0. He had some successes. (China, SALT, Law enforcement, EPA, Consumer Product Safety Act.) You have every right to disagree.
Harding as I have read believed in and preached racial equality. He received an honorary degree from the University of Alabama and told a segregated audience of 20,000 whites and 10,000 blacks “I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizenship…. We cannot go on, as we have gone on for more than half a century, with one great section of our population, numbering as many people as the entire population of some significant countries of Europe, set off from real contribution to solving national issues, because of a division on race lines.” Did anything get done? No! But it took guts to say this in that setting. If he hadn’t died in office maybe we wouldn’t have needed Martin Luther King and he would still be alive and preaching. I think Harding like Carter was a good guy that reached his position of incompetence. (Peter Principle)
Grant was a General that won. I think he was an honest man but like Carter way in over his head as a President. He certainly was no better than Carter and deserves a 0.
WW:
I love the Peter Principle, one of my favorite faux-scientific psycho/social theories. I never cared if it was really supportable or not–it always made great sense that ultimately people rise to the level of their incompetence, if given a chance.
Certainly I agree with what you’ve said here, but nevertheless, I don’t find the logic in proclaiming Carter as the VERY worst president. Let’s remember that he inherited much of the grief that surrounded his administration economically, and it’s for that economic mess that he’s largely remembered (with shivers). On the other hand, his very existence took us, finally, away from the prickly memory of Watergate (in a way that Ford could not) and he DID manage the Camp David Accords.
I think you’re being a tad hard on the Carter. He and Gerald Ford were probably the nicest men to inhabit the White House in… oh, at least in this century. May not mean for much, and I certainly wouldn’t give Carter much more than a few decimal points above zero myself… but the absolute worst? Nah. There’s other candidates for that.
Randall:
To be honest I think the thing that sticks in my craw about Carter is that I did vote for him and I was wrong. I expected him to be an exceptional President and he ended up being an abject failure in everything he did. (My wife voted for Ford and hasn’t let me forget it. I lost a lot of credibility in that election.) What makes matters worse is he is still sticking his nose into areas he doesn’t belong. Remember the South American(?) election he was monitoring but he had to get back to Amy’s birthday party so he just said “Looks good to me” and left?
Anwar Sadat was the hero of the Camp David Accords as far as I’m concerned. Jimmy had little to do with it other than hosting it.
I’ll go with Jimmy being the worst President of my lifetime (66 years)and leave it at that.
I’m sure you would argue with my “favorite” President of my lifetime. Harry Truman! I think it is a shame that we will never have another Lincoln or Truman as President because we live in an age where the “most money wins.” We don’t elect Presidents anymore, we elect Prom Kings.
I was sort of surprised that Hoover wasn’t on the list. Unemployment skyrocketed when he was in office.
I don’t think I have read even one historian that has accused Hoover of being responsible for the Great Depression.
The only comment I would make about Hoover is that I sure wish he could run for President now. For that matter I wish he had been available to run in 2004 and 2000. Hoover, in my opinion, would have been a much better candidate than Junior Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. It just shows how far our Presidential pool has sunk. Hoover may not have been anything special but compared to our recent candidates he looks like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all rolled up into one.
Carter as worst? Don’t think so. He was no prized President, I’ll give you that, didn’t communicate with the Congress to get bills past, didn’t understand the game, carried forth Ford’s turnover of the Panama C*****, a Reagan rally cry, however he did bring stability between Egypt and Israel that has endured. In addition, it was his strategy in Afghanistan to invest heavily in the Mujahadeen that led to the Soviet’s demise, carried into Reagan years under Dem. Charlie Wilson. All Reagan did was throw billions down a drain to create a star wars system that couldn’t shoot down a bb gun pellet.
Hoover IS widely regarded as having a great deal to do with the Depression, but by no means responsible. Smith’s VP Robinson invented stocks on margin (which is one major factor), yet Coolidge and Hoover insisted on the WWI repayments from Europe in Gold, weakening the Euro markets, stopping expansion. Harding furthermore assured the big businesses to keep producing even though the demand was tanking. Hoover did nothing while the market headed for disaster, the stock market collapse was just reality setting in. Hoover continued to do nothing, insisting the market would recover. His handling of the Bonus Marchers alienated millions of WWI vets, further creating widespread instability and potential for much more. It was a highly turbulent time and could have gone anywhere, revolution was a possibility, many say fascism, others radical socialism or even communism. Thank God for FDR, that’s what people like my grandfather say! And even FDR faced a coup by the major corporations to establish an authoritarian regime with the help of Gen. Butler, who refused and went public. The Depression was a wild time and Hoover gets no points for sitting on his ass and letting it all burn down.
Only Republicans speak highly of mediocre failures like Hoover and Coolidge, because it’s all they got. The fact is most Republican presidencies have really no lasting legacy. Only Eisenhower (who debated running as a Democrat) proved to be great. Nixon had his moments but the good was so out-weighed by his failures. Reagan is highly glorified yet achieved very little but scandal, shrinking the middle class, withdrawing from Beirut disgraced, conquering Granada (what an accomplishment) and tripling the national debt. He sure did look good in front of the Statue of Liberty tho. lol Oh and you little righties reading this, Reagan did not win the cold war. I hate to break it to you.
And Abe Lincoln, worst? Wow, thankfully every intelligent association of historians and leading thinkers place Abe as first or in the top 3. He saved the nation from dividing (which proved more beneficial to the South), emancipated the slaves and began the end of an unjust and immoral institution and made strategic and tactical moves that are so brilliant they are unmatched by ANY president. That’s why he has a monument, holiday, his face on a coin and bill and sits on Mt. Rushmore, because uhm, that’s where our nations GREATEST Presidents go. Anyone who says otherwise is alone in their thinking.
Justin,
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. I suspect my father and your grandfather were about the same age. I remember very well the morning after Eisenhower beat Stevenson and the conversation my dad had with a friend of his. They were both FDR Democrats and of course had voted for Stevenson. I grew up 30 miles away from Stevenson’s home. There was absolutely no animosity toward Eisenhower. He had been elected fair and square and my dad’s candidate had lost. He felt that both were exceptional men and either would make a fine President.
I’m curious as to your opinion on what happened between then and now? I sense that you are angry and basicly despise anyone that disagrees with you. Republicans obviously fall in this category. You aren’t alone. Whether I am watching commentators on TV, reading the newspaper, reading blogs or talking to someone about “politics” it seems like everyone is angry to the point of being mean toward people that disagree with them.
I remember the Florida fiasco in 2000. I told my wife the best solution would be for George Bush to be a gentleman and concede Florida to Al Gore since it appeared that it was going to split the country right down the middle. She didn’t agree with me but in retrospect I think I was right.
Did the Viet Nam war do this? Surely not. You would have to be practically 50 years old to even remember the Viet Nam war.
In my opinion our candidates for President are getting weaker and weaker with every election and the American electorate is getting angrier and angrier with every election. Where do you think this is going to take us?
Re: Jimmy Carter
This is the image I have of the leadership skills of Jimmy Carter. It’s taken from Clark Clifford’s book “Counsel to the President.”
“… in July of 1979, President Carter retreated to Camp David for ten days and summoned a wide variety of national leaders and opinion-makers to offer him advice.”
Clifford says that at a meeting of some of these leaders at the Laurel Lodge “The President of the United States, in blue jeans and a polo shirt, sat on the floor, a yellow legal pad perched on his knees.”
Carter began the meeting by saying “I feel I have lost control of the government and the leadership of the people.”
Clifford then goes on to say “He invited comments on almost any subject. As he filled page after page with his own careful notes, I became increasingly disturbed at the formlessness of the exercise. Hugh Sidey captured my concerns in a thoughtful column in Time: “From such a mishmash of people, prejudice, and points of view,” Sidey asked, “could an executive distill any rational policy in so short a time?”
Clifford continues “Many of our comments were highly critical, but the man on the floor with the yellow pad never flinched, methodically taking notes as, one by one, most of his guests told him that the nation was drifting and disappointed in his leadership.”
To me, Carter the leader of the Free World, was prostrating himself before the most powerful men and women in America and telling them in effect that he was in over his head. Was it a humble thing to do? Yes. Was it what a strong leader would do? No of course not. I voted for him because I thought he would provide strong moral leadership to America. Instead he turned out to be a peanut farming Sunday School teacher. Nothing wrong with that in itself but there is a lot wrong with that when we were looking for a President.
I think Jimmy Carter should be in the bottom 5. And Tricky Dicky well, he should be in the top 3, mabye the worst. Peirce and Buchanan’s places should be swaped
WW,
The charge that I am “angry and basicly despise anyone that disagrees with” me is quite a mis characterization and must be answered. To put words in another’s mouth, especially words so inflammatory is unfair, and often a very deceptive deviation from the facts that lay at hand. It would be wise to allow my own words to speak for what I think. Furthermore, I AM a bit angry, however not with people I disagree with, as I agree with much of what you said of Stevenson and Eisenhower, and I disagree with you that candidates are getting weaker. It is more the decline of the 4th estate (the media) that is creating a dumbed down atmosphere in current politics, along with a half dozen other factors. I often find the “good old days” argument to be somewhat of a myth. The notion that things used to be great and have declined ever since is usually dramatized, if not a complete misconception. Read what Mark Twain says of politicians and you will surely see that they were no better 100 years ago.
What I am angry at is outright ignorance. People who think they know what they’re talking about because they still remember their textbook in highschool, or took a 100 level course in American History. While I find Republicans distasteful, there are a few arguments on the Right that I agree with. An intelligent conservative is fun to debate, despite the fact I disagree with them. LOL fun because they use talking points so much it makes them quite easy to turn in circles. They often raise their voices and yell like O’Reilly and turn red. It’s good fun. Many of the people posting here however, and I won’t name names, are as ignorant as they come, and I don’t mean they’re saying things I disagree with, they are saying things that would be outright laughed at if spoken in the presence of historians, like saying Abe Lincoln is the worst President (how can anyone be so naive?), or that Carter should be in the bottom 5, or that W is a good President by any measure. Carter made bad decisions, but they don’t compare at all to the men mentioned here in this bottom 10 list (who were corrupt, incompetent and achieved nothing but long-term damage), Ol Tricky Dick Nixon is not in this list because despite his enormous corruption, he achieved some important acts, like the China strategy and the Clean Air Act. While it is a little early to judge Bush, the outlook is NOT good when a majority of historians in a popular survey rank him as worst and only 2 believe he will be remembered fairly:
http://www.soapblox.com/index.php?p=166
These remarks are those of Partisan rank and file who just recite what they heard on Hannity this morning.
As a graduated and always ongoing student of history and political science, I see politics for what it is b*lls**t. The side I take is that of my country, and those who vote for values and partisan bickering as opposed to using their vote strategically are in dire need of education, they should start with the constitution.
People are angry because they have been stirred up on purpose. The “Culture War” is one of the greatest campaigns of distraction since the institutionalizing of Jim Crow in the 1890s. The Iraq War further divided the nation, as it reopened the wounds of the sixties, which indeed was one of the greatest cultural revolutions of our time (not just in the U.S. As Barack Obama said in his book, he sees the politics of today more a replaying of the Baby Boomer division in the sixties.
It’s easy for politicians to get nothing done, while driving around in fancy cars and enjoying the Franking Privilege when they have someone to blame, and the rank and file follow suit blindly, like a soldier earning more wealth for a powerful warlord. It is not until one side screws things up so bad, that they lose power, change can occur briefly until the cycle continues there after.
I don’t see the partisan battles continuing. The Republicans shot their wad and their time has come to an end. Even if McCain wins, the party will be thrust in a new direction. A great Progressive era is more likely than the alternative. It will be a time of reform and resurgence, where America will again find her confidence. The other alternative is too grim at this point for anyone to seriously consider, and a real long shot. America has problems ahead, and as new generations rise up, as hard economic times settle in, as the far reaching destructive arm of Bush continues to haunt us, as creating a sustainable economy continues to challenge us Americans will shed the decadence and look to rebuilding our dilapidated nation.
Than the cycle will start all over again, just as it has in the past and will continue into the future long after we are gone.
I sometimes write over at soapblox.com if you ever want to talk more politics.
Justin,
As I expected, an outstanding, well thought out response. Thank you.
I find it very encouraging to read someone as obviously bright and informed as you are that feels America “will again find her confidence.” Unfortunately I disagree but hopefully the reason is the difference in our ages. I’ve never been this old before. Maybe my feeling that America has run it’s course is because I am someone that has in fact ran their course.
I do agree with you that the Republican Party is dead. I think Nixon was waiving goodbye to it when he got onboard the Presidential helicopter the last time.
Bush is someone to blame of course and there always has to be someone to blame. I’m certainly not going to defend his policies but America’s future leadership is going to have to guide America through some very dangerous waters. Blaming previous administrations for their mistakes won’t cut it. Bush made a decision to invade Iraq. It certainly appears to be a stupid decision. Barack intends to pull the troops out of Iraq. That may also end up being a stupid decision. The point I’m making is that regardless of the political party, decisions have to be made. Some will be good, some will be bad and some we may not know whether they were good or bad for decades. (Even then we won’t really know.)
Lincoln made a decision too and a lot of our ancestors died because of it. Was it the right decision? I think it was but I didn’t have to fight for the Union. The Confederate states after much bloodshed on both sides were forced to rejoin the Union and free her slaves. Were African-Americans treated as “equals” from then on? Of course not. That took another 100 years and another “war” lead by Martin Luther King. (A war fought with a lot less bloodshed than the Civil War I might add.)
What if Lincoln had told Jeff Davis goodbye and good luck? Lincoln could have said to him “We don’t need you and eventually your black slaves will rise up and kill their masters anyway.” I’ll go out on that limb. I suspect that with the development of mechanical means to harvest cotton and political pressure from England and the Northern States of America slavery would have eventually been abolished in the Southern States of America without a war. I don’t know how long it would have taken African-Americans to achieve the equal rights the Constitution promises them but it sure couldn’t have taken any longer than the 100 years it did take.
In the final *****ysis what did America gain by it’s Civil War? Probably nothing. Yet you and I judge Lincoln to be one of our greatest Presidents if not the greatest. America lost a large per centage of it’s male population and a huge proportion of it’s wealth simply because Lincoln wouldn’t allow the southern states to succeed from the Union. Lincoln made a decision and 150 years later we say “good decision” because we were taught as kids that it was a good decision. I think you could make a pretty good case that it might have been as dumb as the Bush decision to go into Iraq because we simply don’t know what would have happened if we had taken the other path. Personally I don’t see how it could have turned out much worse for the African-Americans than it did. I further suspect that the south would have eventually decided it was in their best interests to rejoin the Union. Similar of course to East and West Germany. There isn’t any way we could know what would have happened if Lincoln had chosen the other path and the same is true with Bush. We think we know, but we don’t.
I’ll take you up on soapblox.com. I’ll look forward to seeing what you have to say over there. Thanks again for your response. I didn’t intend to put words into your mouth. My intent was certainly not to attack you but rather to provoke an honest response and you provided that.
I meant “secede” not “succeed.” I really am too old for this. For instance I have no clue what “LOL” means. (Lots of luck?)
where’s Bush?
Hey WW, LOL means laughing out loud.
I am not a Bush supporter. In fact, I dislike the man. But, at least he stands up for what he believes in. (Albeit wrong as far as most of my friends believe). The reason why he is so hated is because he actually stands up for what he believes in. It would have been nice if Clinton had done this. Clinton was a great politician, Bush is a better man. Clinton said what needed to get him elected. Bush says what he believes. While many don’t agree with him, at least he says what he believes.
WW,
I appreciate your response as well. You obviously do something many of our fellow countrymen do not, which is think. Like this “Let’s Be Honest” character above who believes that Bush is a better man than Clinton because he “stands up for what he believes in”. This sort of nonsense will not do in the future, as the masses of people who do not vote begin to do so, the whole idea that a politician who “stands up for what he believes in” will fade away for a time, as Americans awaken to the fact that a politician is not someone you should like or even respect, he/she is an instrument of power. Who’s power? That is where it gets complicated AND it is the hope of humanity for great change.
Politics is the art of cynicism, and apathy has an amazing way of evaporating in the face of a growling stomach. I know, because I, myself am struggling. I am educated, working 3 skilled jobs in a city with many opportunities, and yet, I am scrapping by. The one income household is dying off, and this is the core of our problems.
As America hurts, it responds. The very essence of the Revolution is evidence of this, so is the Civil War, the Progressive Era, The Great Depression, World War 2 and the Cultural Revolution of the sixties. In between, there is always a backlash, a return to Normalcy if you will, an age of Conservatism. It always dies off when the people realize they’ve been screwed over by the forces that control them. They fight a hard fight and get a little more, than seem to squander much of it away like a gambler at the track, voting in complete buffoons like Bush, misguided idealists like Reagan or lackluster middle Presidents like Clinton. Yet much like the Hegalian Dialectic, we slowly move onwards toward an increasingly better society, which ironically, leaves us working just as hard with more complications. Hell, at least we get air conditioning. LOL
I agree that it is, in the end, about decisions. Lincoln made some of the toughest decisions in the history of this country, as did FDR and Washington. It perhaps isn’t fair to rank them against men like Chester A. Arthur or even Bill Clinton, who were not faced with the same kinds of challenges.
However, in judging Lincoln, his success is not only in saving the Union. It is far deeper. The South was a rural economy. It could not survive on its own, which is the REAL reason they lost the war: small population, less economic resources. A Union blockade of Cotton finished them off pretty handily, along with Lincoln’s Emancipation, which convinced Europe to stay away, (a brilliant move). The South never stood a chance, really, since the North never committed its full industrial strength to the war (unlike the World Wars). Lincoln saved not only the Union but the United States. The North boomed economically, as war barons profited from salted pork barrels and railroads. In the long run, economically it was a beneficial arrangement for the North and South. Perhaps the South on its own would have faltered and begged to rejoin the Union or become a worthy trading partner, who knows. The loss of good, young men (and currently women) is almost never justifiable, yet it achieved the end of slavery, it made the United States a stronger nation economically as well as politically and set the stage for the American Industrial Revolution. This is at the core of what makes Lincoln a great President, and distinguishes him from lesser men.
The saddest part of all is that, to me, the Industrial Revolution was America’s downfall. We sowed the seeds of destruction when we put all our eggs into the basket of Industrial Lazes Faire Capitalism. It made us strong, however, now, it is causing our decline, as greedy industrialists move on to other nations to exploit their cheap labor. The saddest part of all is that the American People do nothing while their jobs disappear, health care system fails, education declines and strength diminishes. They fall for demigods that push immigration as our chief problem, while these same Republicans sit on the boards of corporations that profit heavily from the cheap labor. As but one example of the hypocrisy we face. It is nothing new from the problems of the 19th Century. Will this continue? I hope not!
The corporation is a non-sustainable, self-destructive machine and a relic of the 19th Century. If you are making money on something that is non-renewable, you will eventually run out, plain and simple, then what? There are newer ideas brewing that are more fair, sustainable and more economically viable. The Elite’s grand plan of a global free market will only make the Chinese more powerful and further the destruction on the planet that may consume us all. It will eventually fall to the people to make the choice. Will we return to a dark age and chaos? Perhaps. It is on the horizon. Will we avoid it?
I am not an optimist, I am actually a fairly cynical person. Yet I know my country, I have traveled across her vast fields of corn and seen much from the Golden Gate to the Statue of Liberty. I have spoken to many of my fellow citizens, like yourself and I see the strength of America, she will rise again, if only for the last time. Their is great trouble ahead, many challenges which will fall to a new generation and subsequently there after and so on. People like Bush will only be anecdotes in a nation with a great history. He has achieved nothing, and even set many things back, yet the country will move on, forget him. Just another brick in the wall of history, left to wither away in the rain, to be buried by the sands of time.
Just like the rest of us I suppose.
I hate how everyone gives Bill Clinton crap for what he did. The only person he hurt was Hilary, and she forgave him already! I’m not saying what he did was okay. But he apologized and Hillary forgave him. Besides, when Bill lied to the country the worst thing that happened was that he probably slept on the couch that night. When George Bush lied to the country, we invaded a country that never hurt us chasing after non-existent WMDs, and thousands of our soldiers died, plus tons of innocent Iraqi civillians. And to make matters worse, WE STILL HAVEN”T CAUGHT THE TERRORISTS THAT ATTACKED US!
Franklin Pierce is a babe.
“truman LBJ clinton JFK FDR jackson”
You have the right general idea. Put Woodrow Wilson in the # 2 slot, after moving the bungling socialist, interventionist FDR into the top slot and you’re on the right track. Jack Kennedy had the potential to be the worst ever, but, unfortunately he got shot before he could do as much damage as Roosevelt or some of the other Dem fools we’ve had. He was still godawful, though. Note: We’ve never had a president that was bad enough to deserve being killed, which is why I say that it was unfortunate that he was shot.
As much as I loathe Bill Clinton, there’s no way he’s as bad as the other Dems on the list.
Best 20th century presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
The criticisms of Abraham Lincoln on this thread are some of the most fatuous nonsense I’ve ever heard in my life. As nonsensical as the leftist hysteria currently being directed at George Bush.
George Bush is too liberal to be considered one of the best, but he’s better than anyone since Coolidge (Eisenhower and Nixon were pretty close…both also too liberal, but both got us out of senseless wars that the interventionist liberals bungled us into…at a cost of 100,000 American dead, way to go Truman/Kennedy/Johnson).
Best all time: George Washington by a wide wide margin.
Coolidge does not deserve to be on there. That betrays an obvious populist bias.
wow…you guys fight alot…
“Good God, get a new argument already for the man fell asleep at the wheel and allowed us to get attacked in the first place.”
LOL. Unlike the leftists’ great hero Roosevelt.
Of course, there are many differences between Bush and Roosevelt. Bush had been in office only a few months before 9/11, Roosevelt had been in office many years before 12/7. One president had virtually no time to prepare for a surprise attack, the other…well he had plenty of time.
Bush inherited ongoing wars in Iraq, and with terror groups like Al Qaida.
Roosevelt inherited an America that was neutral and at war with no one, and managed to bungle us into the second worst war in U.S. history, all by his lonesome. It was the Roosevelt administration’s policies that put us into conflict with Germany, Italy and Japan. Not so in the case of George Bush and our little mini-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Only about 4,000 Americans have been killed in wars that aren’t George Bush’s responsibility.
Around 400,000 Americans were killed in a war that was totally Roosevelt’s responsibility.
If left-leaning historians (which is just about all of them) applied the same standards to Roosevelt that they apply to Bush, then Bush would be rated far above Roosevelt…which is correct.
George Bush is ten times the president Roosevelt was.
“In addition, he [Nixon] had ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia.”
Crap.
“An official United States Air Force record of all American bombing activity over Indochina from 1964 to 1975 was recently declassified by President Clinton in the fall of 2000. The data reveals the true extent of the bombing of Cambodia, as well as Laos and Vietnam. According to the data, the Air Force began bombing the rural regions of Cambodia along its South Vietnam border in 1965 under the Johnson Administration.”–wiki
In fact, Nixon simply continued the policy begun by the liberal Democrats.
Like most “facts” presented in the list that heads this thread, the claim that Nixon ordered secret bombing in Cambodia isn’t a fact at all, it’s leftist propaganda. Whether you think that bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail was a good idea or a bad idea, it was a liberal Democrat idea not a Nixonian Republican idea.
well i hope that there will no more worst president then..no more 11th worst president…hummm this comming election hope that Obama and McCain wont be one of the US worst president…they should focus in solving the economic crisis..
The housing market crisis is a major issue in the upcoming US Presidential Election and has a significant impact for all Americans where Obama and McCain talk about in http://pollclash.com .just like soaring oil prices are affecting the costs of everything from food to gas and even houses rental. There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact. While there are many issues, we need to look at our next leader and determine which will have the best course of action going forward. Both candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama are attempting to address the issue and differentiate their positions from one another. And I think that everyone is missing the point of this. We need a new resource. We need a solution to this problem not another way around it…
try to see this http://pollclash.com/ maybe you can add some worst resident hehehehe
1.Jackson-Trail of tears. 2.Nixon-Watergate, resignation, the bombing of cambodia 3.Buchanan-Civil war 4.Bush Sr.-Gulf war 5.Harding-Teapot dome 6.Hoover-Great depression. 7.A. Johnson-Impeachment 8.F.D.R.-4 terms, WW2, new deal, pearl harbor. 9.Wilson-WW1. 10.Pierce-Kansas-Nebraska act
10 best- 1.Washington-Made a U.S. democracy. 2.Lincoln-Held the union together. 3.Jefferson-Louisiana purchase. 4.Reagan-End of cold war. 5.Kennedy-100 years ahead of his time & thinking of space exploration. 6.Clinton-Great economist. 7.T.Roosevelt-100 years ahead of his time & thinking of conservation. 8.Truman-ended WW2 9.Eisenhower-Interstate highway system 10.Bush Jr.-Made an iraqi democracy
I don’t think it’s fair to refer to Grant’s issuing of General Order No. 11 in the context of discussing his faults as president since that order was issued during the civil war, several years before he became president. And if you are going to refer to his alleged antisemitism out of context, why not also mention some of his many good qualities? In an age when racism was rampant, Grant was in many ways an enlightened man. In an 1853 letter to his wife, he wrote of the Native Americans: “It is really my opinin [sic] that the whole race would be harmless and peaceable if they were not put upon by the whites.” The Indian Peace policy that he introduced 18 years later as president makes quite a contrast to the Indian Removal policy of Jackson, one of your “outstanding” presidents.
avi – Your Best Presidents:
I think it’s too early to judge the presidency of either Clinton or W; Their supporters exalt them and their enemies malign them.
While I don’t want to exclude Clinton entire presidency based simply on him being charged and admitting perjury and obstruction of justice, he was, in fact, impeached. But there are many good qualities to his presidency; Signing the Brady Bill, enacting the Workforce Investment Act, the reform of Welfare, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, fighting Medicare waste and fraud, the elimination of 16,000 pages of Fed regulation, signing the National Voter Registration Act, etc.
But there were many questionable characteristics of his administration, such as the Mike Espy affair, Whitewater, the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the firing of the WH Travel office staff, etc. that bring a mark to his terms in office. Many people would point out, rightly, that Al Gore’s committee recommendations on air travel security and the subsequent buckling on it’s initiatives just days after large donations from the air travel industry could have prevented 9/11, but I don’t necessarily agree you can judge a presidency by what it didn’t accomplish, so much as what it fostered, such as economic growth.
Likewise on W. While it’s tenable to say W removed two of the most dangerous, backward, and repressive regime’s in the world, getting us into a quagmire in Iraq will leave his presidency scared, but by no means worse, I suppose, then LBJ’s Vietnam escapades.
My feeling is that it’s too soon to judge Clinton or W as the worst or best, because of the long term impact of policies they implemented that may not have come to fruition, as of yet.
Clinton’s ‘ECONOMY’ was largely the work of a Republican Congress and an aggressive, skilled Fed Chair. Remember, Clinton first vetoed a balanced budget and Welfare reform. Likewise, while W’s invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, his war in Iraq seems self-serving and poorly planned. While the outcome of a another democracy in the Mideast is indeed an accomplishment, many Americans question the timing and resources spent to achieve this goal. Only time will tell if Iraq will sustain it’s freely elected government.
Histories perspective on these two presidents will have to wait until the rabid dissenters and supporters interest wane a bit.