Who are your top 5 worst presidents (must be 20 years removed)
- Thread starter 81usaf92
- Start date
Yeah but the counter is always “well NAFTA was Reagan’s plan even though Clinton stood by when the most damaging parts were being passed”. It was still the Congress passing it pretty much without a hitch.
My central point in this is that I think people tend to give a president way more credit and blame for the economy than they probably actually deserve. By a logical standpoint that means that ANY president after that president has the ability to instantly change the economy. I mean let’s seriously ask the question “if the middle class was killed by Reagan then why was nobody complaining about jobs under Clinton?” It seems either Reagan killing the middle class is a vast over exaggeration or Clinton cured the economy. In any event the Reagan administration economy is not directly affecting us now.
Now I will say that you could say most of the current GOP operates under Reagan’s economic policies, but he himself isn’t currently haunting my pocketbook.
We probably could better define who was a good president v bad president by assessing the relative success of their 2nd term where re-election is not an option and the decisions made in the first term start coming home to roost. No 2nd term by default puts you in the bad category.
From this vantage point does it change anyone's ranking?
From this vantage point does it change anyone's ranking?
Here are two examples of why Wilson was such a bad president.
'
Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States. (NY: Columbia University Press, 1908.
p. 70. “The president is at liberty both in law and conscience to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit. If Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution. It will be from no lack of constitutional powers on his part but only because the president has the nation behind him and Congress does not.”
(The president can do just about anything he wants.)
Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, Jun., 1887, pp. 197-222:
p. 213. “Administration lies outside the proper sphere for politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices. Let me say, large powers and unhampered discretion seem to me the indispensable conditions of responsibility. Public attention must be easily directed in each case of good or bad administration to just the man deserving of praise or blame. There is no danger in power if only it be not irresponsible. If it be divided, dealt out in shares too many, it is obscured, and if it be obscured, it is made irresponsible.”
(Here is the Progressive view of the administrative state. Tell the bureaucrats what you want done, and then back off and let them do it. I do not think members of the Federal bureaucracy are nearly as wise and virtuous as the Progressives thought they were. And it is the nature of bureaucracy to diffuse and obscure power, in order to avoid blame when things inevitably go wrong.)
'
Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States. (NY: Columbia University Press, 1908.
p. 70. “The president is at liberty both in law and conscience to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit. If Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution. It will be from no lack of constitutional powers on his part but only because the president has the nation behind him and Congress does not.”
(The president can do just about anything he wants.)
Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, Jun., 1887, pp. 197-222:
p. 213. “Administration lies outside the proper sphere for politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices. Let me say, large powers and unhampered discretion seem to me the indispensable conditions of responsibility. Public attention must be easily directed in each case of good or bad administration to just the man deserving of praise or blame. There is no danger in power if only it be not irresponsible. If it be divided, dealt out in shares too many, it is obscured, and if it be obscured, it is made irresponsible.”
(Here is the Progressive view of the administrative state. Tell the bureaucrats what you want done, and then back off and let them do it. I do not think members of the Federal bureaucracy are nearly as wise and virtuous as the Progressives thought they were. And it is the nature of bureaucracy to diffuse and obscure power, in order to avoid blame when things inevitably go wrong.)
Since Mr. Self asked about Harding, here are some snippets from Harding's Inaugural address.
... The recorded progress of our Republic, materially and spiritually, in itself proves the wisdom of the inherited policy of noninvolvement in Old World affairs. Confident of our ability to work out our own destiny, and jealously guarding our right to do so, we seek no part in directing the destinies of the Old World. We do not mean to be entangled. We will accept no responsibility except as our own conscience and judgment, in each instance, may determine. …
Our eyes never will be blind to a developing menace, our ears never deaf to the call of civilization. We recognize the new order in the world, with the closer contacts which progress has wrought. We sense the call of the human heart for fellowship, fraternity, and cooperation. We crave friendship and harbor no hate. But America, our America, the America builded on the foundation laid by the inspired fathers, can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority. …
We are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference, for counsel; to seek the expressed views of world opinion; to recommend a way to approximate disarmament and relieve the crushing burdens of military and naval establishments. We elect to participate in suggesting plans for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and would gladly join in that expressed conscience of progress, which seeks to clarify and write the laws of international relationship, and establish a world court for the disposition of such justiciable questions as nations are agreed to submit thereto. In expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and its hatred of war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national sovereignty. Since freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what we are. …
We must understand that ties of trade bind nations in closest intimacy, and none may receive except as he gives. We have not strengthened ours in accordance with our resources or our genius, notably on our own continent, where a galaxy of Republics reflects the glory of new-world democracy, but in the new order of finance and trade we mean to promote enlarged activities and seek expanded confidence. …
We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity, with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future. ..."
That strikes me as skeptical of foreign entanglements, but not isolationist. The US started the process of the Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty under Harding's Administration and shortly after Harding's death, the US negotiated the Dawes Plan to refinance Weimer germany's debt, so the US was not isolationist.
... The recorded progress of our Republic, materially and spiritually, in itself proves the wisdom of the inherited policy of noninvolvement in Old World affairs. Confident of our ability to work out our own destiny, and jealously guarding our right to do so, we seek no part in directing the destinies of the Old World. We do not mean to be entangled. We will accept no responsibility except as our own conscience and judgment, in each instance, may determine. …
Our eyes never will be blind to a developing menace, our ears never deaf to the call of civilization. We recognize the new order in the world, with the closer contacts which progress has wrought. We sense the call of the human heart for fellowship, fraternity, and cooperation. We crave friendship and harbor no hate. But America, our America, the America builded on the foundation laid by the inspired fathers, can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority. …
We are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference, for counsel; to seek the expressed views of world opinion; to recommend a way to approximate disarmament and relieve the crushing burdens of military and naval establishments. We elect to participate in suggesting plans for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and would gladly join in that expressed conscience of progress, which seeks to clarify and write the laws of international relationship, and establish a world court for the disposition of such justiciable questions as nations are agreed to submit thereto. In expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and its hatred of war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national sovereignty. Since freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what we are. …
We must understand that ties of trade bind nations in closest intimacy, and none may receive except as he gives. We have not strengthened ours in accordance with our resources or our genius, notably on our own continent, where a galaxy of Republics reflects the glory of new-world democracy, but in the new order of finance and trade we mean to promote enlarged activities and seek expanded confidence. …
We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity, with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future. ..."
That strikes me as skeptical of foreign entanglements, but not isolationist. The US started the process of the Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty under Harding's Administration and shortly after Harding's death, the US negotiated the Dawes Plan to refinance Weimer germany's debt, so the US was not isolationist.
Last edited:
Trickle down actually does work for some industries (not all). Architecture/construction relies heavily on banks or people with lots of money. If they aren't spending I don't work. There is no gray area here. That is fact. Everyone felt the 2008 recession, but it hit my industry 20 times worse. 300 person firms were reduced to 20 people and all because the money people weren't spending.
Certainly. Teapot Dome was bad, but it seems Harding was not aware beforehand of the corruption. I am not a twentieth century guy (I'm trying to keep up with the nineteenth), The scholarly consensus is that Harding was an ineffective manager for the same reasons Grant was: there was horrific corruption all around him but he has unaware and uninvolved.
I placed Lincoln No. 1, but his greatest asset was his pen. He wrote extremely well.
In 1864, Lincoln wrote this letter to a mother who had allegedly lost five sons in the war. This is beautiful prose.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln.
The problem is, as with many things related to the Lincoln myth, it was untrue.
Mrs. Bixby did in fact have five sons in the Union army.
Two deserted (including one who joined the Confederate Army), two died in the service (one on May 3, 1863 at Fredericksburg the other one on July 30, 1864 at Petersburg).
One survived the war.
There was a North Carolina family that had four brothers in Company G, 37th North Carolina Infantry. Three were killed in action on May 27, 1862 at Ashland, Virginia: William P. Robinett, Joel B. Robinett and John C. Robinett. One brother survived.
In 1864, Lincoln wrote this letter to a mother who had allegedly lost five sons in the war. This is beautiful prose.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln.
The problem is, as with many things related to the Lincoln myth, it was untrue.
Mrs. Bixby did in fact have five sons in the Union army.
Two deserted (including one who joined the Confederate Army), two died in the service (one on May 3, 1863 at Fredericksburg the other one on July 30, 1864 at Petersburg).
One survived the war.
There was a North Carolina family that had four brothers in Company G, 37th North Carolina Infantry. Three were killed in action on May 27, 1862 at Ashland, Virginia: William P. Robinett, Joel B. Robinett and John C. Robinett. One brother survived.
Was Lincoln aware that only three had died and two deserted?
I agree, Lincoln was an exceptional writer.
Started with Reagan and accelerated with NAFTA. Trump's tax cuts were a coup de grace of sorts
I doubt it. I think he was informed about that story by the Adjutant General of Massachusetts and he went with the story.
The only president better with his pen was Thomas Jefferson.
Bill O’Reilly examines each of the 46 presidents in his new book “ Confronting the Presidents: No Spin Assessments from Washington to Biden.”
In this episode, Bill O’Reilly breaks down who he believes are the five best and five worst U.S. presidents in a special report with Leland Vittert, host of NewsNation’s “On Balance with Leland Vittert.”
In this episode, Bill O’Reilly breaks down who he believes are the five best and five worst U.S. presidents in a special report with Leland Vittert, host of NewsNation’s “On Balance with Leland Vittert.”
I generally ignore any overtly political commentator's review of history. Rarely can the writers stop being partisan or see past their years of "my view is right" side of events. Just like I doubt you would read a partisan Clinton written history of America. Now if he produced this with a balancing personality to call out some of his one-sided arguments, I would be more likely to watch.
In 20 years, it wont take much of a historian to nominate Trump as the worst president in the history of our nation, provided there are historians left not nationalized to comment on such things...
but this time, he totally means it when he talks about the no spin zone /s
i think he will edge out w for worst. recent stuff has made it easy to forget how much of a non-stop crap show the w administrations were
TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!
Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.
Latest threads
-
-
-
Benificial Ownership Report - Filing Requirement- Started by TexasBama
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
CFN: Alabama vs Oklahoma Prediction, Game Preview, and Betting Lines
- Started by crimsonaudio
- Replies: 35