Who has been the worst president in our history???

[Destructo6]

Actually, he happened to be the guy standing watch when the cumulative efforts of lots of people who came before him finally bore fruit. Since it is traditional that, whatever happens on your watch, you get the credit or blame for it, I can see why you want to give him sole credit.

Actually, it didn't happen on his watch, but 2 years after he left office. As far as reaping the rewards for previous presidents' actions, I don't see it. JFK's presidency heated up the cold war. LBJ's kept it on the burner. Nixon cozied up with the ChiComs, which made the Soviets a bit anxious. Ford was a place holder. Carter did little. Nixon's presidency gave the greatest contribution, imo.

Reagan's steady opposition to Soviet communism and new Soviet leadership who realized that they couldn't continue huge military expenditures, much to counter Reagan's proposals such as SDI, while ignoring consumer goods were the reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[fix]

I'd say it's a three way race. FDR and LBJ are tied for second due to their obsession with socialism, but they are trailing slightly behind Bill Clinton due to his lying under oath as opposed to just lying. Funny thing is, given a choice of the three, I'd probably have to pick Clinton. :banghead:

 

[Joe Demko]

As far as reaping the rewards for previous presidents' actions, I don't see it. JFK's presidency heated up the cold war.

Short version: Harry S. Truman began the policy of containment toward the Soviet Union. Every president after him, including Ronald Reagan, continued that policy. Admire Reagan if you like, but do not give the man credit for more than his due. He drove the final nails into their coffin, but he didn't single-handedly build it, no matter what his hagiographers would have us believe.

 

[Bruce H]

Yes and Harry Truman gave us that quaint practice of not winning. There is no reason for two Korea's. Once people find out a countrys leadership is chickens**t the downward spiral starts.

 

[Cosmoline]

Wilson gets my vote. He was the worst combination of timidity and idealism. He got us involved in WWI, but waited too long to do it. Then he failed to keep France and the UK from punishing Germany. Instead he focused on the creation of the idiotic League of Nations, which eventually gave rise to the UN and all the horrors of internationalism.

FDR gets second place for creating the modern regulatory state. In fairness he always claimed these would be temporary agencies, and indeed he did close down quite a few when their justification was no longer present.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Harry S. Truman began the policy of containment toward the Soviet Union. Every president after him, including Ronald Reagan, continued that policy. Admire Reagan if you like, but do not give the man credit for more than his due.

Obviously, his policy of "containment" didn't work. It managed to break even in Korea and lose in Vietnam and China. The Soviet Union managed to to expand their sphere of influence from Truman through Carter (the invasion of Afghanistan, which Carter's solution was to boycott the Olympics). Reagan and his unflinching support of "Star Wars" killed the USSR.

 

[buzz_knox]

To add to what Hkmp5sd said, you failed to recognize that the Soviet Union, notwithstanding the failed policy of containment, was expanding its sphere of influence steadily. It was, in fact, winning the Cold War. What Reagan did was to step things up a notch and directly attack the Soviet economy in its weakest area: the fear of being outclassed by the US. The Soviets could not possibly match our military expenditures yet they attempted to do so. They were already bankrupt as an economy, but their efforts made it impossible to cook the books enough to conceal it or allow the system to function.

 

[Joe Demko]

Yep, you're right, now that I think about it. Through his dupe, FDR, Stalin took over the US in the late 1930's, followed by the rest of the world shortly thereafter. This dismal state of affairs lasted until Ronald Reagan descended from Heaven with his aspect and attributes upon him. He then slew the Great Red Dragon with his MX Sword and Star Wars Shield, ushering in the present Golden Age. At least that's the way I read it here sometimes...
There were a good many dedicated cold warriors in our government working against the commies while Ronald Reagan was still making bad movies and Death Valley Days. It is both disingenuous and disrespectful to discount all that those men and women did just to polish the myth of Reagan as the Man Who Killed Communism.
Did Reagan have anything to do with the development of atomic or nuclear weapons? No.
Did Ronald Reagan preside over the development and placement of our three-pronged nuclear defense program? No.
Did Ronald Reagan come up with the idea of MAD? No.
Did Ronald Reagan make the decision to fight the Soviets or their proxies in Korea, Southeast Asia, or sundry other garden spots from the 50's through the 70's? No.
I could go on here, but the bottom line is that Roanld Reagan did not single-handedly destroy the Soviet Union. They fell because of a combination of internal factors and the fact that the US over a period of decades outspent them. Reagan can legitimately claim credit for a chunk of that last bit and that should be plenty for those who are concerned that he have his deserved place in history.

edited for typos

 

[HankB]

LBJ - Vietnam expansion, over 50,000 dead Americans. Great Society & War on Poverty. We've spent somewhere around 6 trillion dollars on this garbage and still have the same poverty rate. (And did this while his two-faced wife was spouting "Beautify America" while making money as a slumlord.)

Truman - went out of his way to appease Red China, first by not selling munitions to Chiang Kai Shek, then by protecting Red Chinese soil from US air attacks when we were fighting Red Chinese troops in Korea.

Washington - used 15,000 Federal troops to collect taxes. (Whiskey rebellion.)

Carter - well meaning, but criminally inept.

Clinton - the best left wing, adulterous, draft dodging, pot smoking, tax evading, gun-grabbing, socialist liar we've had lately.

Bush 41: Three words: Read My Lips. Additionally, there were gun bans, an ivory import ban . . . a RINO to the core.

FDR: Began our trek towards socialism. Gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviets, causing untold suffering in E. Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, etc.

Nixon: I believe there was something other than Watergate which caused him to resign. Don't know exactly what - maybe some underhanded stuff with Red China. (Didn't he let the UN kick Taiwan out to make room for the Reds?)

Ike: Spent the presidency like he spent the war - on a golf course.

So many candidates . . . I'll make a decision, and just say the worst was LBJ. (Aside from Vietnam, note that what we've spent in the last 3+ decades on his social programs is eerily close to our national debt . . . )

 

[Mark Tyson]

Didn't he let the UN kick Taiwan out to make room for the Reds?

That was Carter.

 

[MicroBalrog]

We've spent somewhere around 6 trillion dollars on this garbage and still have the same poverty rate.

That's because they constantly change the definition of "poor".

 

[sumpnz]

Regards the comment on Lincoln (or the govt in general) buying all the slaves and setting them free, I've been reading a biography on Nathan Bedford Forrestt (I recently finished a bio on W.T. Sherman). Forrestt was a slave trader before the Civil War, and the prices quoted for what he sold slaves for was, on average, a little over $1,000 IIRC (more for women, less for men, depended on age, condition, etc). Even if you figure that the govt would have bought all slaves (for that price), considering the 1860 slave population was, what, something like 4 million (http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm), you're talking around $4 billion. Adjust for inflation to today (assume 3% annual, probably low, for 145 years) and that's something like $310 billion. Remember too that back then the govt was much smaller (esp. as a proportion of the overall economy) and that there was no income tax at that time (hence much lower revenues). Even if slavery still existed today as it did back then, I doubt enough people would want to spend over $300 billion to buy them in order to free them. And, compared to what our govt spends today, that would probably be more like $3 trillion (or more).

Just my $1.50 (equivalent to 2 cents in 1860)

 

[Art Eatman]

Golgo-13, Reagan gave us hope. He restored our belief in ourselves as can-do Americans. He created a mood that said there's a better future ahead, instead of moping around in a sweater in the White House with the thermostat turned down and telling us that less is more.

Reagan and his advisors gave us a change in economic policy which ended the horrible inflation of prior years, and his tax cuts set off an economic boom that lasted for quite a long time.

His economic doings did hurt me, though. I'd been doing well hustling in the insanity of "collectibles" and making a good living with little real effort. The return to normalcy during his tenure brought a real slowdown to the dramatic increases in demand for collector coins and guns and cars. Heck, I thought I was maybe gonna have to go back to work for a living!

, Art

 

[moa]

And if you freed the millions of slaves, just what was the Government going to do with them? Especially in the South where blacks were considered a political threat.

People used to free their slaves, but there were laws of manumission to control that so the ex-slaves would not be burden on society.

I know that blacks were freed after the Civil War, but that was when the South was under occupation by the US troops.

Lincoln had war forced up him. Lincoln was a racial supremacist, but did not believe slavery was a just and enduring social arrangement for America. At one point he toyed with the idea of deporting black people to Haiti.

Lincoln also believed there should be no retribution against the South once the war was won. There we those in his Cabinet who want harsh reprisals against the South. Lincoln's Vice President Johnson implemented Lincoln's policy. Johnson himself was a Southern.

So, Lincoln may be getting a bum rap here.

 

[Joe Demko]

Reagan gave us hope.

Art,

The exact same thing is frequently said about John F. Kennedy, a president who gets scant praise here at THR. For the matter of that, whether it was deserved or not, FDR was praised for giving people hope during the Great Depression. Giving the American people hope and energizing them to carry on is an accomplishment no matter who does it. IMO, that is a large part of what presidents are supposed to do. All I am saying is let us realistically give RR for what he actually did.

 

[palehorse]

moa
Senior Member

So, Lincoln may be getting a bum rap here.

Not to be misunderstood, freeing the slaves was not his downfall. It is the fact that he allowed the federal government to overide states rights, setting the precedence on a national level. It's a Catch 22 position for him, really.

 

[Bruce H]

FDR didn't give anybody hope. He tried to buy them off. When that didn't work he used the same old trick. Get into a shooting war.

 

[Destructo6]

Actually, he happened to be the guy standing watch when the cumulative efforts of lots of people who came before him finally bore fruit. Since it is traditional that, whatever happens on your watch, you get the credit or blame for it, I can see why you want to give him sole credit.

Reduction to absurdity undermines your argument. To reduce to similar absurdity, but in the reverse, the USSR died with Stalin, it just took them a while to figure it out and the west had nothing to do with it.

I could go on here, but the bottom line is that Roanld Reagan did not single-handedly destroy the Soviet Union.

Again, I believe you are the only one putting it in such terms.

During Reagan's watch, the USSR went from feeling fine to death's door. Simply because a concept or tool was developed under one leader does not mean that it was effectively utilized under the same man.

 

[MessedUpMike]

Kennedy, the worst in the century at least. Followed by FDR
FDR started the free handout mentality, but if the jobs had kept going it wouldn't be as screwed as it is now. He did at least kepp thing look like they were all together.
Kennedy however gets the golden goose egg. His failure to support the rebel insurgents at Guantanimo caused their defeat and gave the russians the nerve they needed to put nukes on our back door. This also gave the North Vietnamese all but the green light to come marching south, not that the puppet president he was keepingin power was doing much to win the hearts and minds in Vietnam.....
Kennedy in short did more to expand communism than any other person on "our" side

 

[Joe Demko]

And yet he still managed to do what Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter couldn't: defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot.

Would seem to give Reagan sole credit, presidentially speaking, for the breakup of the Soviet Union. This in response to:

Again, I believe you are the only one putting it in such terms.