The 7 Worst Presidents of the Last 100 Years

[Mayhem]

If it is your belief that it is too early to include President Obama (I agree), then why would your logic allow you to believe that after only 1 year (2001-2009) is sufficient enough to place George W. Bush on that list?

It seems silly to try to evaluate presidencies in the past, where we were not only not apart of, but when all we have are opinions and historical events (which can be tainted) to base it upon...

So it makes sense that people hate Bush and Obama, because those are the contemporary presidents that we have in recent memory. I would say the worse era of presidents we had were the ones leading up to the Civil War. Those guys were idiots for letting a country destroy itself. Nixon was a crook, and is responsible for the miserable war on drugs.

Well, that's kind of the point. Leave it to our boy Dubya to knock the crap out of your very valid point. While some aspects of his presidency may stand up to long-term perspective, a whole bunch of it fell flat on its ass the moment he conjured it in his fuzzy little head.

1. His handling of Katrina was woeful (and I'm mentioning it first because that was the straw that broke the camels back for this former Bush supporter)
2. The formation of the hopelessly ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security. This point in history was the perfect time to give the CIA, FBI and Dept. of Defense the support that the Republicans had been whining about for decades (and me too), and he pisses it all away for a whole new bureaucracy. Coming from the Republicans, the small government party.
3. Government authorized illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Coming from the Repulicans, the freedom for all party.
4. Government authorized torture of prisoners, because it worked so well for the Gestapo.
5. Complete and total mis-handling of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Coming from the Republicans, the we're-on-the-military's-side party.

These will not wash out in the historical process. Dubya was a fool and a god-awful President. Today, tomorrow and/or a decade from now, George W. Bush was one of the absolute worst Presidents in history.

I say again, you made a very good argument. And he even managed to fuck that up.

 

[StanScratch]

^
Still no Dubya on a list? Nyet.

The original list did not include Bush, as he was still in office (in my opinion, the correct thing to do).
The second list had him very near the bottom - but did include Obama.
Yeah, and sorry, but any "worst of the century" list that does not have the name "Bush" in it is bush-league. His negativity will unfortunately be felt for years to come.

 

[CurtJa]

I love that the author acknowledges a particular bias, and then elects to inject an equal but opposite skew in his posting.

Also, as much of a slimeball and crook that Nixon was, he was still light years better from a policy standpoint than Hoover.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I think time will be much kinder to W. than someone like:

 

[Shindekudasai]

Hm, I won't offer an opinion on this (even though I have one as a scholar of American history) because I'm not an American and I'm kinda tired of getting into American political topics because my personal opinion will get attacked anyway (by some particular people probably just because of my nationality) and my professional opinion probably nobody will read. :horse: (Ha! What a great new smilie..smily?...smilie?...).

But a similar question came up last sunday on Rubicon (The worst five presidents in US history). And the answers by two people where:

Ulysses S. Grant
Warren G. Harding
James Buchanan


James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Warren G. Harding
William Henry Harrison
Franklin Pierce - Millard Fillmore - Ulysses S. Grant


(I know, both didn't name five, but those were the answers).


Do you know, what I find interesting, professionally. Everytime you read something like this, a topic of national or political history, be it the Pearl Harbor controversy, the Historikerstreit about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or LBJ's presidency, terms like "liberal historians" etc. surface. That is typical for a big part of the American (and also Japanese) political or historical science or at least the public debate over such historical topics.
What exactly is that term supposed to mean or do? I learned during my time as a student, that someone who builds his "professional" scholarly or scientific opinion around his personal opinion instead of historical evidence as well as proper methodology and theory is in fact not very professional. And the term "liberal historian" points out, that the signified person puts his/her personal political opinion before his/her professional integrity.
The least it does is discredit the person. And in the worst cases I'd even go as far as to say that the findings of such people, who are openly politically biased and build their research around it, are almost null and void.

 

[GregCentauro]

Republicans are inevitably ranked lower than they deserve

:rofl: They don't even deserve to be president.

 

[ForumModeregulator]

Well, that's kind of the point. Leave it to our boy Dubya to knock the crap out of your very valid point. While some aspects of his presidency may stand up to long-term perspective, a whole bunch of it fell flat on its ass the moment he conjured it in his fuzzy little head.

1. His handling of Katrina was woeful (and I'm mentioning it first because that was the straw that broke the camels back for this former Bush supporter)
2. The formation of the hopelessly ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security. This point in history was the perfect time to give the CIA, FBI and Dept. of Defense the support that the Republicans had been whining about for decades (and me too), and he pisses it all away for a whole new bureaucracy. Coming from the Republicans, the small government party.
3. Government authorized illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Coming from the Repulicans, the freedom for all party.
4. Government authorized torture of prisoners, because it worked so well for the Gestapo.
5. Complete and total mis-handling of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Coming from the Republicans, the we're-on-the-military's-side party.

These will not wash out in the historical process. Dubya was a fool and a god-awful President. Today, tomorrow and/or a decade from now, George W. Bush was one of the absolute worst Presidents in history.

I say again, you made a very good argument. And he even managed to fuck that up.

From an article explaining how people judge presidents,

"...weighed most heavily in determining the best presidents was whether they "took the side of progressivism and reform, as understood in their day."...The value placed on executive energy could be said to reflect a liberal bias, but it also reveals the influence of a less strictly partisan ideal of the presidency as a strong, activist branch of government. "If there is a common denominator in presidential assessments," argues Princeton's Greenstein, "it is a bias toward activism, unless the activism is viewed as misplaced, as in the instances of Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam and Nixon and Watergate." (lol Lyndon Johnson is a pornstar haha)



George W. Bush's own view of how history will treat him comes across in his frequent allusions to Harry Truman, another famously unpopular sitting president whose reputation rose sharply as scholars began to appreciate his role in laying the foundations for America's success in the Cold War. And if Iraq turns out to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East 10 years from now, there will be a lot of people eating crow.

Attempts to rate the Bush presidency are at best premature, but they do raise valuable questions about presidential ratings in general and failed presidencies in particular. It's simply too early to tell what will result in Bush's reign. I would say in 20 years or so, we can evaluate it, but until so all the events you list, could possibly end up being positive. I speak from an objective viewpoint, I neither support nor disapprove of Bush.

 

[LukeEl]

What did Calvin Coolidge ever do!?

 

[georges]

They forgot clinton.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

What did Calvin Coolidge ever do!?

C'mon man, cool was in the guys name. What else needs to be said?

 

[Kingfisher]

Both Bush's
Eisenhower
Ford
Carter ......hmmm, that's 5 already
Harding
Coolidge

That's my not-so-Magnificent 7. And I decided to do it before reading the article. 7 is a big number for 100 years though and I only put in Harding and Coolidge tacitly. Now, I'll see what the article says.

Thank you!!!

 

[1ManRevolution]

While list like this are high subjective. I do agree that Obama should not be on the list.

 

[BernieFrank]

Probably not fair to add Obama, since his presidency isn't over with. If he doesn't change his ways, he will definately own the number worst president spot, and he'll have no one to blame but himself.

 

[ManifestDestiny]

bravo. superb list.

 

[316sherm]

Republicans are inevitably ranked lower than they deserve

:rofl: They don't even deserve to be president.

Unless you are wealthy...then you really reap the benefits!
:yesyes:

 

[LukeEl]

Andrew Jackson was quoted at one time to say "I'd rather face the might of the British Empire then the Bell Witch."

 

[pete rose]

Probably not fair to add Obama, since his presidency isn't over with. If he doesn't change his ways, he will definately own the number worst president spot, and he'll have no one to blame but himself.

The guy is just trying to be "edgy." The smugness is palpable.