No. Carter called out W for fucking up the country's image. That's what needs to be kept in perspective. Carter himself complaining doesn't tarnish the country's image. It hasn't been "bitching" and there's nothing wrong with viable criticisms of the Bush Administration. If anything, he's showing more respect to the office by not keeping mum. Besides all that, it's been done before, by TR calling out Taft. By your reasoning, Teddy Roosevelt should be voted the worst. There is no code of silence. This is politics.

Pretty stalinist mindset, Gech. All this figurehead, national self-esteem, public image talk leads me to think Americans want a hereditary monarch (or Eternal Premier?) presiding over the US instead of any secular, democratic office. People consent to an unspoken personality cult around the office instead of the official when they ascribe all these roles as 'essential', or performance in such roles as beyond criticism, because it's all vewy vewy harrd

Whether every successive president hung shit on the former or not, it wouldn't make any difference to global public opinion. The personage of the US president matters only to Americans.

All that aside, it is pretty important to have a president who instills confidence in a populace. Confident people tend to invest more, take more risks, yaddy-yadda.

I'm not saying it wasn't. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying we could've gotten what we wanted from the Filipinos if Commodore Dewey hadn't pissed them off in the first place. Ending all Filipino-American cooperation. The war, occupation, and resistance was largely unnecessary/unintentional because America's primary corporate/imperial concerns were fulfilled with the bases. Which the Filipinos willingly seceded upon independence.

That's not the same as intentionally butchering them like the Spanish or Japanese did. Even though, yes that's what it ended up as.

No, I'm just not to keen on reflecting massacres or genocide. Past or present. Kinda like how everyone is okay with talking about the holocaust, but nobody wants to talk about what happened to the tribe that occupied their land 400 years ago.

Which is also why I chose to use the Guano War example as opposed to say the War of the Triple Alliance where Paraguay lost between 75%-90% of their total population. No government or corporate intervention needed. The "Free Market" took care of everything, or rather everyone.

The War of the Triple Alliance was more complicated than simple Imperialist ambition anyways. Paraguay got too big for their britches, for instance.

Gerald Ford. Was Vice President and got the head position because of Nixon's resignation. His presidential pardon for Nixon wasn't the greatest idea either.

I have the feeling that a number of people who voted for George Bush in this poll are mistaking the Sr. for the Jr. I don't see how such a high number of people could honestly think that Bush Sr. was that bad of a President.

Understatement of the New Year. None of the H. W. voters are what I'd call particularly observant. Add onto that the fact that this thread is about 20th century presidents.

While my knowledge of US Presidents is fairly limited, I know enough about most of them to label Lyndon B. Johnson as my least favourite. It wasn't that weirdass JFK conspiracy video I watched which implied that LBJ organised the assassination, rather his poor decision-making and unlikeable personality. Not an affable man or President in the slightest.

Plus, LBJ's "The Treatment" shit pisses me off.

Voting for Hoover. I think the Great Depression speaks for itself, largely.

FDR
 

I would have to say Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I agree with TheReverend about Social Security and (partially) on deficit spending. Social Security gave people the impression that once they retire, they can rely on the government to pay their way, giving people no incentive to save for their retirement.

Originally posted by phatmastermatt
It seems that this reasoning is begging the question, because you assume that an old man without a family will necessarily need social security. And since you agree that it is not other people's job to be helping others at all times, why should the government, being of, by, and for the people? I think social security is basically theft, because it takes money from productive people and gives it to people who are either unproductive or who did not take the time to invest their money and think about their retirement. The government should not be rewarding stupidity.

However, I think that if people want to donate money or help someone is destitute (from an debilitating illness or accident) that they can do it of their own free will.

I think personally that the whole philosophy of FDR was that the people are too stupid to know what to do themselves, and this was one of the reasons why he was such an enemy of industrialists. He also was the enemy of so many economists because he had a rudimentary understanding of financial markets and the economy. The market has an ebb and flow, but when an institution (like the government) attempts to lessen the impact of the downturn, the market is unable to correct itself.

The perspective from which we approach 20th century history in my class is apparently quite different from what's on the boards...

I tossed my vote in for Truman. I'm not entirely sure how history has judged him, so I say that based on my ignorant knowledge. It just seems that the policies of containment and the response to the Berlin Blockade only served to further increase tensions leading up to the Cold War. Keeping an American presence in Berlin seemed more like an act of bravado to ensure reelection than acting in the most reasoned manner.

As opposed to withdrawing from Berlin, which would have signaled a surrender to the Soviets for America as well as Britain and France, who would have been compelled to withdraw from Berlin along the U.S., and been an unacceptable blow to Western prestige. This would have in turn emboldened the various Communist groups around Europe, who were already causing problems for the West.

A withdrawal would also have effectively blocked change in Western occupation policy in Germany, which had begun to shift away from the Morgenthau plan towards letting German industry rebuild. The Soviets disapproved, and to force the question blockaded Berlin.

The end result of Truman's actions, however, was a net boost to Western prestige. The Allies' position in Berlin was maintained, and the Four Powers Agreement with it. German perception of the West was also improved; an essential component to Truman's response to the Berlin Blockade was the Berlin Airlift, and the food provided kept west Berlin alive. It also allowed the reconstruction plans to go forward, allowing for Germany's economic revival.

I can understand damning Truman for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I reject the argument, but it makes sense. I cannot, however, understand damning Truman for finding a better option than either giving in to the Soviets or watching Berlin starve to death.

I'm tied between Johnson and Carter, but ultimately I went with Carter.

I believe he is a good man, although that's not the point here. The Carter Presidency was a failure of vast proportions. The Man from Plains came perilously close to losing the Cold War and his reluctance to confront Soviet aggression or the sort of vile anti-Americanism that we fight today is as much a root cause of our present war as one is likely to find.

The domestic policy of Carter was just as awful. Energy policy? Wear a sweater. Want consumer confidence problems? Then have the President of the United States get on television and chat to the American people about a future of dwindling wealth and bleak prospects. Carter did not just mangle the economy, but he almost destroyed our will to create wealth. Interest rates were above 20%, and many people holding solid careers went bankrupt. Carter could have reached out to Republicans on tax simplification and reduction or on welfare and social security reform, and gained strong bipartisan support.

He lied on television, etc, but I don't think that alone is what makes him a bad president.
The failures and the flaws of Jimmy Carter as president are water under the bridge. What Jimmy Carter has chosen to do with all the residual goodwill from Democrats and Republicans like in his post-presidential years, however, is a grand disappointment to all good people and all serious citizens. Carter is also the dear who put social security into the general fund to balance his budget. Social Security has been going down hill ever since.

I pitched my vote to Woodrow Wilson, Why? For setting the ground work for would eventually become a massive failure that was the League of Nations (which in turn inspired the modern day equivalent, the UN, coincidentally another relative failure as well). He was able to pitch and sell the idea to the world but he couldn't pitch it to the legislature of his own nation (granted at the time the numbers in Congress at the time were against him). His insistence on his 14 points during the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles left everyone feeling angry and very unhappy, the same grievances would come back later to help set the stage for WW2.

A very glib and ignorant post. Not being elected wouldn't make Ford, or any man under the same circumstances, the worst.

Ford pardoning Nixon saved the nation from years of dealing with legal bullshit that would simply have kept eroding the nation's morale. Ford took a very big hit for his own character and reputation, allowing the country to move forward in the process. He could have handled the pardon in a better way so as to not make it look like some sort of political collusion, but ultimately he made a very ballsy choice: short-term harm for long-term health.

You are dumb.

addenda: blaming Hoover for the Great Depression is pretty dumb. Nigga built a dam and he gets no love?

@potentiality:

So... basically, you would be A-OK with the people who had 401K retirement plans in Enron being screwed without Social Security?

Don't get me wrong, you're right. People should save up and invest in their retirement plans. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out like you want it to, and Social Security is a buffer. I think that it's the wrong way of going about it, and that it's a problem, but removing it completely is tantamount to condemning millions of people to poverty.

Of course, I couldn't imagine Social Security sustaining anything other than poverty. The point of the program is that it's supposed to help, not prop up retirement. If we wanted to do that, there'd be a national pension fund, and really it'd be a pretty keen idea so long as you don't mind a government or government-chartered agency managing a massive influx of taxation capital on world markets. :)

*shrug* I'm no expert on Social Security, and I can't be fucked to do the research to win an internet fight, so I'll just say that I have no idea as to the proper solution, but even my limited expertise can say definitively that removing it outright is nothing short of catastrophic.

Calvin Coolidge was the worst because he failed to do anything about the depression.

That may have had something to do with him not being President anymore when the Depression hit.

Just a note that the Stock Market crashed on Tuesday, October 24, 1929. Which was 7 months into the presidency of one Herbert HOOVER. Coolidge was gone before the depression started, and had no depression to do anything about. He left office with the country thinking it was pretty well off. Of course, it was mostly a facade, but I fail to see how it's his fault. You can blame Reagan for a lot of the current economic hell thanks to doing his best to repeat Coolidge's failed laissez-faire policies, but while Reagan should have known better and learned from history, Coolidge could claim to be naive, idealistic, and just like all other economic libertarians throughout the course of time.

Shit, sorry, that was my mistake. I knew Herbert Hoover was President. It was a typo on my part.

Yes, I stick to what I said.

Herbert Hoover was worse because he failed to do anything about the depression.

How much control did Hoover have over the depression? The British Empire jumping off the gold standard in '31 and the failure of German/Austrian banks in '32 prevented any chance of an American economic recovery.

Really, the only thing I can blame Hoover for is blocking progressive efforts like unemployment insurance which only would've provided temporary relief and/or the Bonus Army fiasco.

There's no magic wand. :rolleyes: