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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Cal

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

I've NFI what the US electoral attitude was to the First WW.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Traveller87

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.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by phatmastermatt

I wouldn't really consider McKinley for the 20th century since he wasn't around for long.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Gechmir

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by TheReverend

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 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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

As well as "free trade" access for United Fruit of course......

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)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

You tell me.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by ramoth

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

You are dumb.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

IT'S ALIIIIIVE! MY CREATION! IT's ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE! AHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Araes

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.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?