Worst President of the 20th Century
 

Who do you think was the worst US President of the 20th Century? Please disclose your reasons for believing so.

Although Wilson seems to be the doctrinal genesis of so much of why people detest the modern US government, surely he achieved things domestically?

Ronald Raygun, though. War on Drugs, Central America, supply-side economics, SDI, deliberate hamstringing of the conservation movement, wanting to test a nuke in the Tasman. Massive faggot. The shitcunt grin never helped either.

Wilson tends to get a free pass for Women's Suffrage but among the things he accomplished domestically included firing blacks from Federal positions and imposing full segregation in DC. Of course, hardline racists didn't like Wilson because he didn't oppress blacks enough, and Wilson ended up being the classic example of the overt racist with black friends.

He also repressed free speech through the Espionage and Sedition acts in unprecedented ways to help fight a war we shouldn't have been in.

Lots of presidents have had terrible foreign policy, but I don't think anybody can claim to have damaged international relations for eight decades like Wilson did.

Yeah, I recall reading of unprecedented interracial tension during his government. Didn't lynchings shoot right up throughout the '20s to numbers that hadn't been seen for decades?

Wilson and the Espionage/Sedition Acts reminds me of Billy Hughes and conscription, actually. The zealotry of their interest in Europe's war not tempered even by the prospect of career destruction... Or perhaps it wasn't as big a threat in Wilson's situation; I've NFI what the US electoral attitude was to the First WW.

It was also what sparked the tremendous resurgence of the Klan, and while Wilson stated publicly that they were annoying, he didn't do anything to stop them, of course.

Leading up to the war attitudes were divisive, but once Wilson framed it as a religious war for the security of Democracy, legislators who opposed the war were accused of being traitors.

Wow all those comments about Wilson sound eerily familiar.

I really can't comment on worst president of the 20th century because I'm not at all that familiar with many of them. I guess I could go with Richard Nixon for the usual reasons.

You mean resumed good relations with China, established a peaceful period during the Cold War with detente, pulled us out of Vietnam with reasonable success, established the EPA and OSHA, and successfully enforced school integration in the south?

That bastard.

Well, there was also the whole bombing Cambodia thing and starting The War on Drugs, but I wouldn't really call Nixon the worst president either. Watergate was what really sank him.

How in the HELL can you say Ronald Reagan is the worst president of the 20th century? The man is easily in the Top 3 (FDR and Eisenhower the only ones I could conceivably put ahead of him).

With that said -- Jimmy Carter has to be the worst president of the 20th.

People inclined toward the left often do. Foreigners of that inclination even more so.

That said, I'm inclining towards Lyndon Johnson in this poll. Vietnam figures prominently, in that Johnson both got us heavily involved in that war, and then managed to lose it by halting the pursuit after Ia Drang, overruling his commanders. This let the Communists get away without suffering further casualties. It also, by allowing them to escape into Cambodia, established that country as a safe haven and set Nixon up for all kinds of hell when he tried to do something about it years later.

He was also responsible for the expansion of federal power over domestic policy that the Great Society brought.

Carter has basically gone completely insane and said terrible things in public while in far-away countries about the country he formerly served. That, right there gentlemen, makes him incredibly worse than anyone else on the list.

Despite all his bullshit, *at least* Nixon went to China.

(I'm not sure about Johnson. I think its a bigger error to not know when to leave a war than it is to get involved. He certainly did some things I don't like, but that can be said about practically every president I know anything about - save Roosevelt.)

I can't decide between Bush or Reagan. I voted for Bush; I suppose I'm biased, though, because I have a more vivid impression of the presidents who were in office during my lifetime. Truman is in the race as well, since he eventually made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Yeah no shit. Bush was one of the least eventful Presidencies in history, Gulf War aside.

This is perfectly understandable. My point wasn't that he got us involved, per se, but that he (with no small amount of assistance from Robert McNamara) set us up for failure in Vietnam and all the misery that resulted from it. If you're going to do something as important as fight a war, do it right.

(Yes, this same criticism can and should be leveled against George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.)

Johnson also made the mistake of appointing Ramsey Clark as Attorney General.

That's pretty shaky reasoning; by that logic, Clinton should be on your list, too.

I wouldn't really consider McKinley for the 20th century since he wasn't around for long. Regardless, I would probably say the presidents that were around in the 20s, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were probably some of the worst presidents of the 20th century. I would put them along along with Carter and probably Johnson as well, though Johnson did pass some good civil rights legislation. Oh, and yes Wilson was a racist, but he was still a progressive that cracked down on trusts and so forth, and he had some good ideas too, like the League of Nations.

He was still technically a 20th Century president. Not only that, but the Spanish-American War sparked the beginning of the United States as an imperial, or interventionist global power, which set the tone for T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Cold War.

Truman's choice was either drop the bomb or invade Japan. While only estimated, the fact that the Japanese army would've surely "dug in" on their home turf would have extended World War II for much, much longer and it's been estimated another 500,000 to over a million more American soldiers would have been lost - God only knows if the Japanese culture would be alive today if the invasion happened, given the fanatacism of its people.

The point of the bomb wasn't to kill people, but scare the government into surrendering and saving far more lives - which it did.

You forgot to mention it also inadvertantly inspired one of the greatest rock anthems of all time - "Crazy Train".

Wilson cracked down on trusts, but not any more significantly than Taft or Roosevelt. In fact, Taft was the one who extended trust busting across the board while Roosevelt simply targeted trusts he thought were illegal, so he should be your boy.

It's also easy to say that the League of the Nations was a good idea without also considering the fact that it was a disaster which amounted to a First World Boys Club.

I always saw Harding as the worst president. The man himself questioned how the hell he got elected (there's a quote of it somewheres), and he was just charismatic. People liked him, but in those days, folks didn't have such extensive access to the president's every move like we have today. Let's not forget the Ohio Gang's crookedness and what-not. Briberies, kick-backs, corruption, and crony-ism galore.

But Carter is also high up on the list of my most disliked presidents. Smart man, but the presidency requires a number of attributes beyond just that.

Traveller87 --
In regards to the criticism surrounding the usage of Little Boy and Fat Man, you need to take a number of things in to account. Firstly, our firebombings of Tokyo amassed far more deaths than the two bombs combined, but those are swept over in most peoples' minds. Let's also think about how the Japanese were treating the Chinese in the territories they had occupied during the war. Add the high possibility of an invasion and the subsequent aftermath that would've come, should the Russians have tried making a land-grab at Japan amid this chaos, things could've ended up as one huge clusterfuck.

Plus, even if we had a supreme tactical advantage in every battle and obliterated the Japanese forces, the Japanese people would've most likely taken their own lives as we had seen previously in the war.

Most folks don't like hearing it, but the usage of those two bombs were the best possible choices. They were a slap in the face and a reality check. Exactly what the Japanese needed.

These don't actually excuse the use of atomic weapons, but people should bear in mind that the terror bombing criticism also applies to FDR, who also has the little (big) concentration camp fiasco.

I'm actually going to have to vote for Ford in this regard, simply because I believe that his pardoning of Nixon for Watergate has done more than any one event to create the distrust and apathy for federal government that we have today.

I also fully expect Lord Styphon to prove me wrong immediately.

Moreso than Watergate itself?

I vote for Reagan. Because I'm a leftist leaning foreigner.

Also because the war on drugs and Reaganomics... Do you have any idea how much those idiotic concepts have hurt you in the eyes of the outside world? And come on, hurt the environment and drained money on godawful, stupid programs. Absolute rubbish.

Hey, all that wasted money scared the shit out of the Soviets, so bite your tongue, commie. :9/11:

I think you've got the wrong Bush, if your birth date is any indication of how old you really are.

At any rate, I'm going with Johnson. I am a faggot for Texas but he stunk.

I still want to vote for George W.

I mean, he was alive during the 20th century, and I think that qualifies him plenty enough.

Nonconsecutive posts arguing for the inclusion of Grover Cleveland based on this logic to follow.

Herbert Hoover, for watching the Great Depression happen and doing little.

While Watergate did do a lot to hurt the federal government's rep, Ford also had a chance to undo some of the damage and start restoring the government's credibility by letting Nixon's trial go forward. Instead, he pardoned Nixon, not only denying the US that chance, but also further damaging the government's credibility.

From the breakin to Nixon's resignation, Watergate had been doing damage the government's credibility for over two years. Putting Nixon on trial would have dragged it out for many more years. Are you suggesting that in all that time, and with whatever would have been entered into evidence, the government's reputation would not only have escaped further tarnishing, but recovered?

By pardoning Nixon, however, Ford let the matter stop doing damage. It may have cost him a full term in 1976, but it meant that the damage ended with his presidency. Carter effectively started with a clean slate.

In essence, yes, I was suggesting that. I suppose, though, in this case, it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ford either could have let the trial go forward, letting everything be bared and (admittedly) tarnishing his and the government's rep further to eventually have closure and a public that knew that justice was done, or pardoned him and put a stop to the entire thing.

I also wonder if the damage DID end with Carter's presidency, since there are a fair few votes for him as well.

Fuggit, I'm just sitting back and reading from now on.

I'm gonna say FDR, and I'm confident that I'll be blasted for it.

Here's the deal though. FDR first brought two things to our government that I see as being what will finally break our country. 1st, Social Security; 2nd deficit spending. Although the second is a good thing, as it is now, it's a really, really bad thing. And the first really is something i think the government should never be involved with, and the care of elderly and the infirm should be left to the families.

Needless to say, the guy did a damn good job with the great depression in the short term. I think that what he started, potentially is the beginning of our downfall.

And just so you know, it's just my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert or particularly intelligent in the political/government world, so what the hell.

FDR isn't high on my list either, but in regards to Social Security, LBJ's Great Society reforms is the real demon making it in to a back-breaker. FDR's initial SS program wasn't as much of a crutch as the Great Society made it in to. Social Security was fine and dandy for the Great Depression and aiding in the poor and what-not, but it should've been removed. Instead, it was vamped up courtesy of Johnson.

I contend that William Howard Taft was the worst, because he did a crummy job of succeeding Theodore Roosevelt, ended up pissing Teddy off, caused the formation of the Bull-Moose party, and then split the Republican vote, causing Woodrow Wilson to be elected.

Also, Taft was a fatty.

I would agree with you that deficit spending is useful at times, but never in excess, for it leads to too much inflation (which is happening now). I have to disagree with you on the Social Security aspect though. What if an old man has no family? What if he has no community that will assist him? People are generally good, but it's normally not their job to be helping others at all times. Granted there are organizations, but these are not guaranteed universally. It's easy to criticize the government for being inefficient at times, but that comes from a lack of accountability and it is undue to mistrust it in everything it does. Social Security is not ruining the country, the contradictory fiscal policies of deficit spending and tax cuts are what is ruining our economy.

And as for FDR on other accounts...I think he did a brilliant job with World War II, with a few mistakes here and there, one notably being his acceptance of Soviet presence in Eastern European countries at the last meeting they had before the war ended. And come on...he just kicked ass in every sense of the word manly...same goes for Truman. Have you heard some of the stuff they said? Every President has blunders...one needs to look at the politician as a whole and not knit-pick one or two policies.

There's a lot of lackluster candidates there, and I almost chose Harding for being such a damned layabout, which I feel is strictly worse than a president who actually tries yet still fails, but in the end I chose Lyndon B. Johnson.

Johnson was a stubborn bastard and didn't pay heed to the advices he was often given. He also had some questionably bad faith in several of his aides. In the end, Johnson contributed to a large socio-political mess that continued to have negative repercussions years after he left office, and whose failures dramatically worsened the domestic state of the U.S. as well. Those who succeeded him in the presidency had their work cut out and many took the blame for what were, essentially, Johnson's oversights and failures.


And for the record, Reagan may not have been the icon of restraint but he was certainly what America needed in 1980, from a morale perspective. Reagan's presence restored America's faith in itself, no small feat. I don't condone all of Reagan's policies and decisions but he was charismatic and familiar, and for a while, these traits carried the day.

I voted NIXON based on the many levels of embarrassment that exist around him, even after his death. I mean, no matter how corrupt any other president may or may not have been, this guy couldn't even hold the job.

THAT, and his bringing in the War on Drugs and, if I'm not mistaken, ushered in basically every other War on (something that is appearantly a problem).

Don't get me wrong, though, there are some other sad individuals on that list (I'm lookin' at you, Taft)

FDR is definitely one of the most overrated presidents, but the New Deal is far too complicated of an issue to paint in absolute terms of good or bad, even in the short term.

Even if Social Security ends up being a failure, it won't destroy the Republic.

Woodrow Wilson.

During the Versailles treaty negotiations he emphasized self-determination for small nations which created a mess out of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, as well as alienating the French and British Empires in the process. He should have been dealing with the war debt, reparations, and the war guilt clause.Wilson just had to talk crap about small nations and their right to exist in a world full of decaying empires.

Failure to emphasis those issues resulted in most of the Fourteen Points being rejected by the French and British. Along with the US rejecting the Versailles treaty. Which if ratified would've kept the United States involved in any sort of collective security arrangement that could have possibly stopped a second World War. The inability of the British and French to trust each other, (without having America hold their hands) and their unwillingness to negotiate with the Soviet Union sealed the deal for World War II.

You make that sound like a bad thing. I call bullshit.

Are you seriously saying that the world would be better off today under Soviet or Nazi hegemony, instead of American leadership/Empire?

I'd have to say Jimmy Carter. One of the worst presidencies this country has ever had to endure. But hey, you know, at least he went out and did something nice after he screwed stuff up. You have to like the guy even though he was a terrible president. He's just better at doing humanitarian stuff without being leader of the USA.

Specifically I'd have to call attention to how badly he botched up the Iran hostage crisis. Or the, you know, insane inflation that he was almost entirely responsible for. Or how he went on so much about human rights, but still tried to work with favorable trade conditions with China, which still is one of the worst human-rights abusing countries on the planet. Losing the Panama Canal, the whole bit in Afghanistan...his entire presidential story is nothing but a series of botch-ups.

EDIT: I don't know enough about a lot of the listed Presidents to say for sure which one I'd think is the worse. However, out of the Presidents I do know a fair bit about, my vote goes to Carter for the worse.

EDIT EDIT: As far as do-nothing presidencies go, you should probably take a look at the Eisenhower presidency. Honestly, whenever he gets mentioned, everyone is like "Isn't he the highway guy?" That's all he'll ever be remembered for. Building roads. He wasn't a bad president persay, just uneventful.

That depends on whether you think that history would have taken that turn with the absence of America on the world stage.

Of course, without American participation in the First World War, there likely wouldn't have been a second, or at least not one in which Fascism would come to the forefront. McKinley's expansion of US imperialism marred our history with the war in the Phillipines, which was definitely a bad thing, and even with the Soviets controlling Russia, there's nothing to suggest that at any point it would have been capable of expanding and controlling other nations in the way that the Great Patriotic War enabled them to.

Third, our policy of containment was sound in the sense of checking Soviet aggression, but our involvement in Vietnam specifically did not have anything to do with the Soviets or even the Chinese, since Ho Chi Minh led a movement of national communism in order to free Vietnam from French imperialism, which was another problem in part created by Wilson since once the chips were down he chose the maintenance of French and British empires over the self-determination of their subjected peoples, suggesting that in the end he only cared about the self-determination of whites.

And fourth, our strong-arming of latin American nations at the turn of the century is what led to their strong distrust of American power in the first place, and our support of kleptocrats is what led people to support communist movements which we later deposed, leading to further harmed relations, or do I have to bring up Iran-Contra and the College of the Americas?

Honestly, on what basis can you say that? Lack of American participation in World War I may have resulted in German victory, and through it prevented the rise of Nazism; these are reasonable assumptions. However, to say it would have prevented a second war and the rise of fascism is something else altogether.

First, it should be noted that Fascism arose in Italy, which was one of the Allied Powers in World War I. The Italians felt they got robbed in the peace treaties, and were upset about it. (Whether they had any right to be is another question.) Given that, it's not unreasonable to assume that Italy would have still given us Fascism.

Second, Japan was still an aggressive, imperialist state, despite being an Allied Power in World War I. This was likely to produce another war regardless of what happened in Europe.

Third, there was Russia. Whether Germany or the Allies won the war in Europe, it still would have gotten shafted. This, combined with Communism, would have been ample breeding ground for a new war.

Finally, there are the Western powers that would have been defeated, in particular France. France already had experience seething for revenge following a decisive military defeat and humiliating peace treaty imposed by the Germans. In the timeline we have, they waited close to have a century to exact it; if it were forestalled by a second defeat, they could sit and brood more. While they brooded, France could have given rise to its own strain of militaristic fascism, much as Germany did following their defeat.

With generations of humiliation at German hands to avenge, you'd better believe that there would have been ample opportunity for a new war. They could even combine with the Soviet Union to crush Germany between them, like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did to Poland.

Oh my post was deleted. Fair enough.

I voted Reagan because he was completely out of his mind. The Contras, Star Wars and the secret early 80's plan to completely level the USSR that was only halted when NASA pointed out their best prediction was a nuclear winter plunging the US to a -20 July

Couple of points:

American isolationism was bound to be broken by Europe. They could just not go a generation without having a major war. Luckily the World Wars killed off or discredited the crazy/mean ones. Unfortunately this made America play the part of Rome bringing peace to the Greek City-States.

Trying to compare American abuses to Spain, French, British, or pretty much any other abuses committed by other Empires is laughable. American abuses were relatively mild. Genocide was never a policy. So if it did take place, it can easily be chalked up to unintended consequences of Filipinos resisting occupation. We only wanted the coaling stations and access to Asian markets anyhow.

By it's sheer virtue of resources, population, and potential industrial capacity Russia was destined to be a world power. It was just realized under the Soviets.

Eh, the Ottomans (Turks rather) were forced to come to an accord with the Kurds by some Wilsonian treaty. So it wasn't only about the whites. The fact the Turks pissed all over it doesn't make it any less of an annoyance for them to have to had deal with it in the first place.

I'm not even gonna touch the Vietnam was a mistake argument. That came way past Wilson and his bullshit. Had more to do with mistakes made during the Cold War.

Again, not that bad of a thing.

During the Guano War the Chileans happily told America to fuck off and mind our own business or they would send our Navy to Davy Jone's locker when we tried to mediate that war. They could've done it too. Since they had two modern warships and we still had a navy made of wood.

This event in itself might've inspired Theodore Roosevelt's actions with the naval fleet.

America only wanted to bring and maintain peace in our hemisphere. As well as "free trade" access for United Fruit of course...... In any case war is bad for business, and that's what Americans are good at.

I'm saying its doubtful that a second world war would have had fascism at the forefront. Had France lost the war, it's more likely that if a nationalist movement took control, it would be in the form of a communist one. As for France conspiring with the Soviets to crush Germany, an Imperial Germany would have been in a very strong position by the end of the war, and the defeat of Germany in an preceding conflict would be much more complicated than the manner in which the Nazis and Soviets crushed Poland, particularly considering France's severe lack of serviceable men, and the Soviet Union's inability to properly industrialize for a war state without the motivation of a fight for survival. The Soviets would have to have been in a very strong position to defeat Germany on the offensive, and I doubt it would happen without a defensive war.

While Japan likely still would have invaded China, the chance of it being involved in a European conflict is small, and with the UK staying out of any continental pissing matches, their involvement in Asia would have brought the full attention of the Queen's Navy.

Of course, with a loss in World War 1 there's also nothing to guarantee that conservative fears of communists and socialists wouldn't have given rise to a fascist movement in Britain.

So you're saying that it was ok that we murdered Phillipinos because we wanted their stuff? How is that any more justifiable than Churchill wanting to gas tribals?

White attitudes to Middle Eastern peoples tended to be widely different from their attitudes to blacks and gooks. At least in America, the fiction tended to treat Arabs with a romantic air, Robert E. Howard being a classic example.

And this is precisely what sticks in the minds of latin Americans, as well as US soldiers. It was no secret that they were risking their lives for corporate interests, and that would in turn certainly breed a resentment of capitalism and the attraction of communism. (in Latin America)

Those who voted for Reagan (if they thought it through) probably feel that the Soviets crumbled on their own and that Reagan himself didn't win the Cold War, plus he liked to spend, spend, spend, plus he was (at best) oblivious to stuff happening under his watch (Iran-Contra). Johnson did some good stuff, but dragged out Vietnam because "we couldn't afford to lose" which justifies all the votes he got, as long as it was because of that. Some of the comments of Carter basically being batshit or Anti-American are ridiculous. Yeah, apparently it's now un-American to call out Dubya and the current government for being crappy at foreign policy and alienating other countries after squandering the goodwill we had post-9/11. Carter's term had some pretty good foreign policy breakthroughs, including the promotion of human rights (normalizing relations with China isn't a negative; he attempted to use it as a gateway toward improving human rights [note: attempted]). Stagflation or not, I just feel it's stupid to vote him the worst in the 20th century where there have been worse.

It's also pretty stupid to vote Coolidge or HW Bush as the worst as well. Some of you either aren't thinking anything through or don't know anything about these other presidents.

Most of the other major vote-getters at least have some good things to at least notch something in the plus column. So does Harding, but he was by far the most inept and unqualified, by his own admission. By that reasoning, Harding's the worst for me. He was oblivious to corruption under his watch (Teapot Dome), and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff sewed some of the seeds of the Great Depression, With that said, I'm not gonna merely hone in on the worst traits a president had when compared to the legit achievements they were responsible for. Cheating on his wife and fucking up the English language long before Dubya made anyone laugh are bad traits, but didn't substantially affect his presidency AFAIK.

I'm really surprised Hoover didn't pick up more votes.

Liontamer --
Until Carter, there was an understood respect amid former presidents. After you've served your time in office, don't go out mocking the current president. They typically understand the stresses, the multitude of decisions required, and kinda go "well it probably wouldn't look too great under my watch, either". Carter broke that law by rather fervently undergoing a Monday morning Quarterback mentality. I don't despise him for critiquing Bush Jr, but for breaking that silent law. Now you'll probably see it as commonplace for a former president to be bitching about things.

It does bad things for imagery, particularly abroad. It's one thing for the voters to not like the performance, but if you've got one of the former figure heads mocking the government, then it gets serious. At least, that's my stance on the matter. Anti-American? No. But it's very damaging. The dumbass needs to shut his mouth and consider the impact he's having on the country's image.

DarkLink2135 --
You're forgetting the Space Race.

You tell me. The Philippines agreed to the naval base leases and trade treaty upon becoming independent of the US. That in itself made the made the Filipino-American war completely unnecessary.

That's really the only thing I can name that Wilson got right. Granting independence to the Philippines. Not enough to lose him my vote for worse president of the past century though.

That just serves to reinforce my point. The Turks pissed on the treaty and went to town on the Kurds. Still do to this day. Lotta good Wilson did there.

This comes way to close to modern issues then I'd like to admit or even really think about.

I'd rather like to think it's all in the past....:rolleyes:

"Nuclear Winter" is a joke. Nobody predicts that sort of thing would happen anymore. Reagen did do some pretty weird shit, but he did get us out of the tax nightmare that Carter had created. A missile defense system is actually a good idea (and i for one think it's preferably to have money going into defensive research rather than offensive research). I mean, OK, maybe the way he envisioned it was a bit ludicrous, but the concept was there and it isn't a bad one. I can't say he's the worst or even close, because he did fix quite a bit, and there's plenty of stuff he did right.

No. No it's not ok. It was possibly the worst war we've ever fought in terms of American brutality.

I'm just saying that Wilson's attitudes towards Kurdish independence doesn't conflict with the notion that he only cared about the self-determination of whites.

I bet you think you're real cute, huh?

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:

Damn, what a refresher on US History.

While I was only alive for two of these guys (and only good memories of one of them), I did pay attention enough in US History to remember some of these guys were douches. I don't know who was the bigger one--WW for the megafail described in these pages, Harding for just rolling in charisma and doing about nothing, or Hoover for not only doing nothing about the Depression, but being an arrogant assmonkey about it. I mean, fucking Hoovervilles?

I think I'll pick Hoover for now.

You're aware "Hooverville" was a term intended to insult Hoover, not something he coined himself, yes?

Dammit, knew I mixed something up.

I think the worst President is George H. W. Bush jonior
bomb iraq bringing troops inside iraq there still positive side in iraq war and that was killing sadam hussin
and there was the 9/11 that was horrible all bush falt

Jimmy Carter without a doubt. The energy crisis, inflation, signing over the Panama Canal, and unwillingness to attempt a feasible rescue attempt. Has any other president screwed up as much as he has?

I voted Reagan, but I think a lot of that's out of nostalgia. Those were the days! In Sweden (a very small country way up norht, somewhere over in Europe) we believed we had everything and knew everything and loved to expess our hybris in street manifestations. O, all the streets I've marched shouthing "US out of Central America!" :cussing:
:rolleyes:

Voted for Nixon due to a couple reasons.

First is the impeachment, which has been discussed significantly already. In the end, I think his public disgrace, rather than the actual actions leading up to it, has done more to harm the image of the United States and its leader than any other president's actions. And while there has been argument that image is only a minor factor, his impeachment has helped to create wide-scale pessimism for the idea of democracy itself, as the common view now is that all votes are for the lesser of two corrupt evils.

All this being preceded by the resignation of his Vice Pres. under a dark cloud didn't help.

Another strong factor is his handling of the economy during both terms, where he laid the groundwork for supply side economics, and helped fuel inflation which plagued the 80's through price fixing and heavy handed internal regulation / protectionism.

I personally also begrudge him for his handling of the space program, limiting NASA to orbital ferrying runs, rather than the grand dream of Kennedy.

Actually, with all the talk of Vietnam, I'm surprised there aren't a few votes for Kennedy, as he took us from 800 soldiers to over 16000 and set the path for further escalation.

No offense but that's really fucking stupid and ignores the image of America in anywhere that isn't Europe and Canada.

None taken. I included the effect of our image in other regions of the world when I made that assessment, which is why I arrived there. One of the main reasons I said this is that while there have been other events which have affected our perception among other nations, few have been so contained to a single presidency, and represented such a shift in such a short time. Most have instead led to a slow erosion of faith and trust in American government happening over decades or more. The impeachment of Nixon, on the other hand, is a single point that helped tip us from being perceived as a land of well meaning elected representatives, who sometimes do wrong, to one of morally corrupt bureaucrats, who only occasionally show their better natures. It also came at a particularly opportune time, right after a long and unpopular war, where his policies created a further perception of lying to the world.

While the immediate effects of this were felt internally and in Europe, or more specifically, our social and military allies, it has propagated into how people of all nations look at us and democracy. Since one of our main tools of conquest is social, the fact that our internal media now openly distrusts its government, means that this viewpoint is the first thing sent abroad. Our own distrust infects everyone our movies, television or print touch.

As one important end, this changes views on adopting democracy in other countries, particularly developing ones, as they start at a point where they already don't trust their leaders. How will democracy be better when it just results in a different breed of scum perverting the system and receiving no justice?

This is why I would also say that Ford did us no favor with his pardon, as it helped the perception that there are never consequences for the powerful, because we don't want to deal with the mess.

All our politics and trade relations are affected by these views, and the first thoughts are always "What does America have to gain?" and "How are they trying to screw us?" since we're now playing in the dirt with them.

never happened, because Nixon resigned before it could.

True, and my error of speech. More properly, the impeachment hearings, cover-up scandal, and eventual resignation of Nixon in the face of near-certain impeachment.

And with that, Captain Pedant had made the world safe again.

God bless you, Captain Pedant.