Worst President of the 20th Century

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Moreso than Watergate itself?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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.

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.

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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)

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

the United States as an imperial, or interventionist global power, which set the tone for T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Cold War.

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?

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

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

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. 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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?

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So you're saying that it was ok that we murdered Phillipinos because we wanted their stuff?

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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)

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....

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by RABicle

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

"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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.