Worst President of the 20th Century

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

How in the HELL can you say Ronald Reagan is the worst president of the 20th century?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I think its a bigger error to not know when to leave a war than it is to get involved.

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.

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by The_Griffin

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?

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

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Vestin

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.

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

Originally Posted by Araes

The impeachment of Nixon, on the other hand

never happened, because Nixon resigned before it could.

Jam it back in, in the dark.