Who was worst US president in the 20th and 21st centuries?

[Paixao]

Harding, without a doubt. Maybe Wilson, too.

Surely Hoover was worse than Harding?

Why Wilson? Too idealistic?

[Hollorous]

Not quite sure where all the hate for JFK is coming in...

He was the first president to realize there actually was an environmental problem, passing the Clean Air Act as well as a few others to. Apart from that he put down the foundations for the civil rights movement that LBJ passed through after his death, playing the 'honor his last wish' card on Congress to get it through. He started up a social campaign that (although uninformed and not on-the-whole terribly successful) again laid down the foundations for much of what Johnson would achieve.

Much as people criticize him for Cuba, he was half of the deal that stopped us from nuclear annihilation, better for America to have backed down than for the world to have gone nuclear. The Berlin gaff, was just that - not a big deal - gave the Germans a laugh

On the whole he wasn't amazing, but far from the WORST in the 20th Century.

Sure, he was half of the deal from preventing nuclear annihilation, but he had a large hand in creating the situation that made nuclear annihilation possible. It should never escalated to that point in the first place. YMMV, as to whether it was simply inevitable though.

[Serrland]

Harding, without a doubt. Maybe Wilson, too.

Surely Hoover was worse than Harding?

Why Wilson? Too idealistic?

Coupled with his horrendous racism.

[Free South Califas]

Because Jimmy Carter was teh ebul! Why couldn't he control OPEC? Why was he such a pussy, giving the Panamans back their land, which was Colombian, until we split them off so we could build ourselves a goddamn canal.

No, he wasn't evil.

He was, however, put in very tough situations. Reagan is considered good by many because he simply wasn't Carter. I should point out that I'm not posting my personal opinion, only the popular opinion of the time.

Among capitalists and/or pro-capitalists, maybe. That's like saying NAFTA was popular with workers because your buddies at Goldman Sachs liked it at the time. Get your head out of the sand.

George W Bush and Woodrow Wilson (whose handling of international affairs left us with the Treaty of Versailles which, in turn, culminated in Nazi-Germany). Wilson also imposed an undemocratic and an equally unconstitutional Sedition Act which was used against union organizers, socialists (Does Eugene Debs ring a bell?) and pacifists. He was also a man of the rich (the Federal Reserve anyone?). Morgan and Co were never happier.

If anything, Wilson is one of the country's better Presidents because of the Federal Reserve.

Why do you hate freedom? Totally serious question.

I can only pick one?!
Okay, Carter - I'll have to say that he's a really nice guy, but I think that was the problem - Too nice.

What an utterly vapid criterion. Besides, Carter was attacked by a crocodile and killed it. Or do you mean to refer to some actual policy?

and Obama - How can he NOT understand that spending money that you don't have gets you deeper in debt. (Adding negative numbers just makes a bigger negative number)

Maybe if you think the president does "NOT understand" something that seems to you like common sense, it's not actually correct, useful or relevant. Obama knows that social spending (infrastructure, etc.) is actually the way out of a recession. His stimulus package was weakened by Republicans who wanted it to fail; a second stimulus was also necessary, but Republicans would have never gone for it.

How about this: How can Republicans NOT understand that you can't just half-ass the recovery?

Yeeees.....because Obama had to cure the $1.3trn deficit Bush left him the very day he entered office, whilst dealing with what could have been the Second Great Depression, of course!!

/sarcasm

Yeeeees.....because solving a lack of money is by spending more that you don't have.........right..... (verbal irony)

Read economics and/or history sometime.

Surely Hoover was worse than Harding?

Why Wilson? Too idealistic?

Coupled with his horrendous racism.

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

[Dyakovo]

What good did Reagan do?

He pushed America to its foreign policy heights. Though it did have some negative repercussions.

Some?

[Dyakovo]

What good did Reagan do?

-Good for the economy¹
-Created jobs²
-Decreased inflation³
-Berlin Wall⁴

...he loved America and was a great man.⁵

1: Not really.
2: Again, not really.
3: Had nothing to his policies
4: Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin Wall.
5: He might have loved America, but he certainly was not a great man.

[Virana]

Coupled with his horrendous racism.

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

Couldn't you then say the same about Abraham Lincoln?

Yet everyone tends to like him.

(btw I know it's a 20th & 21st century thread, just mentioning a blatant fact).

[New Chalcedon]

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

Couldn't you then say the same about Abraham Lincoln?

Yet everyone tends to like him.

(btw I know it's a 20th & 21st century thread, just mentioning a blatant fact).

The Civil War was forced on Lincoln, and it was a fight for the every existence of the USA. The US entry into WWI was by choice, and was far from being an existential conflict. Does this necessarily justify it? No - but it does indicate that different levels of actions are appropriate.

[Paixao]

Coupled with his horrendous racism.

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

Wasn't aware of that I had only cursory knowledge of him to be quite honest.

[Paixao]

Couldn't you then say the same about Abraham Lincoln?

Yet everyone tends to like him.

(btw I know it's a 20th & 21st century thread, just mentioning a blatant fact).

The Civil War was forced on Lincoln, and it was a fight for the every existence of the USA. The US entry into WWI was by choice, and was far from being an existential conflict. Does this necessarily justify it? No - but it does indicate that different levels of actions are appropriate.

Lincoln was still an all our racist, no doubt about it.

I agree with you that the repression was the right choice, though.

[Grave_n_idle]

I mean, other Presidents did some shitty stuff, don't get me wrong. Watergate, internment of Japanese Americans, Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs... but Reagan is the President that instigated war between Americans and their government.

(emphasis mine)
This only supports your point (and is a reason that many people, including myself, really dislike Ronald Reagan's presidency), but Iran-Contra was under the Reagan administration. I'm sure you know that, but just correcting the (I assume) typo.

Yeah, it was a list of the 'shitty' things Presidents did, I guess it's badly worded. The point was supposed to be that all Presidencies probably have these crappy things, but Reagan made government the enemy.

[Free South Califas]

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

Couldn't you then say the same about Abraham Lincoln?

In what universe is he a 20th or 21st century president?

Yet everyone tends to like him.

1. What nonsense logic is that? People are woefully underinformed about both, and both are better known for their rhetoric than their actions. Of course both were awful in their own ways. Also, Wilson can't be associated with ending a racist, violent and authoritarian practice, nor with uniting the country--just the opposite. Those things tend to make Lincoln look better, and with some justice. Also, being assassinated makes the public memories of a president somewhat softer, and exerts another strong effect in the direction of remembering rhetoric over action. (See how people overlook the imperialistic nature of the Peace Corps, for example.)

2. You have an odd definition of 'everyone'...

(btw I know it's a 20th & 21st century thread, just mentioning a blatant fact).

I think you mean an irrelevant fact and a bizarre non sequitur masquerading as an implied conclusion.

[The Black Forrest]

The Civil War was forced on Lincoln, and it was a fight for the every existence of the USA. The US entry into WWI was by choice, and was far from being an existential conflict. Does this necessarily justify it? No - but it does indicate that different levels of actions are appropriate.

Lincoln was still an all our racist, no doubt about it.

I agree with you that the repression was the right choice, though.

Racist? Ok let's see some examples.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

What good did Reagan do?

-Good for the economy¹
-Created jobs²
-Decreased inflation³
-Berlin Wall⁴

...he loved America and was a great man.

¹ Sure, if increasing the national debt is your cup of tea.

² Unemployment at the end of his term was the same as at the beginning. Not really "creating jobs".

That, and wealth increases were primarily for the rich alone. Red line = richest 1%, blue line = middle quintile.

³ That's nice. However, as stated, he increased the deficit substantially. Well done Reagan.

⁴ The ending of the Cold War had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan, given that it was Gorbachev who ordered Honecker not to use tanks in 1989, not Reagan.

Now that's that dealt with - let me ask you, how is a man who sold weapons to Iran and funded a group of terrorists who were condemned by Human Rights Watch a great man?

Reagan gets my vote for worst President of the 20th century.

[Arkinesia]

Coupled with his horrendous racism.

There's also the whole suspended free speech and brutally repressed democracy thing. Frankly, anyone who doesn't hate Wilson, I question their commitment to democracy.

As do I. Wilson was an abominable President and is definitely in my running for worst of the 20th century. An easy top three pick.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Lincoln was still an all our racist, no doubt about it.

I agree with you that the repression was the right choice, though.

Racist? Ok let's see some examples.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

[Arkinesia]

Racist? Ok let's see some examples.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Betcha didn't see that part in the major motion picture.

[Demara]

Yeah, it was a list of the 'shitty' things Presidents did, I guess it's badly worded. The point was supposed to be that all Presidencies probably have these crappy things, but Reagan made government the enemy.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. My fault for misreading then. I'm on the same page now.

-Good for the economy¹
-Created jobs²
-Decreased inflation³
-Berlin Wall⁴

...he loved America and was a great man.⁵

1: Not really.
2: Again, not really.
3: Had nothing to his policies
4: Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin Wall.
5: He might have loved America, but he certainly was not a great man.

What exactly is the purpose of this post? You haven't provided any basis, reasoning, warranting, evidence, really, anything at all to back up your claims. The post you're respond to did in fact do that, though in a manner that was not particularly in-depth or well-developed. If anything, all you've done is said "no. Nope. Nope." which is neither responsive nor conducive to discussion, argumentation, or greater knowledge. The depressing part is that it's not particularly difficult to post "because of ___" or "[citation here]" or "___ is my reason". The more depressing part is that doing so wouldn't even be very good argumentation anyway; it takes a while to develop intelligent points, but "Not really. Again, not really" is so far in the opposite direction from that that it makes one want bad argumentation!

I happen to agree regarding Ronald Reagan's record, but posts like this don't go any further to explaining or answering the flaws in that record.

[The Black Forrest]

Racist? Ok let's see some examples.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Well 1858 is a long time before the so called "great emancipator" You don't think he could have changed his viewpoints? Especially after meeting with Frederick Douglass many times; seeing what black soldiers did in the war?

If he was such a racist, why would he address a crowd saying it was time to support enfranchisement? The very speech which Booth heard and said “That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.”

So I will agree with you that early in his life he held rather racist views. I will suggest he changed his opinions and suggest he is a little more complicated then a simple reference to a speech......

[New Chalcedon]

Yeah, it was a list of the 'shitty' things Presidents did, I guess it's badly worded. The point was supposed to be that all Presidencies probably have these crappy things, but Reagan made government the enemy.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. My fault for misreading then. I'm on the same page now.

1: Not really.
2: Again, not really.
3: Had nothing to his policies
4: Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin Wall.
5: He might have loved America, but he certainly was not a great man.

What exactly is the purpose of this post? You haven't provided any basis, reasoning, warranting, evidence, really, anything at all to back up your claims. The post you're respond to did in fact do that, though in a manner that was not particularly in-depth or well-developed. If anything, all you've done is said "no. Nope. Nope." which is neither responsive nor conducive to discussion, argumentation, or greater knowledge. The depressing part is that it's not particularly difficult to post "because of ___" or "[citation here]" or "___ is my reason". The more depressing part is that doing so wouldn't even be very good argumentation anyway; it takes a while to develop intelligent points, but "Not really. Again, not really" is so far in the opposite direction from that that it makes one want bad argumentation!

I happen to agree regarding Ronald Reagan's record, but posts like this don't go any further to explaining or answering the flaws in that record.

I notice you ignored the post which did all of these, in favour of bashing an off-the-cuff remark.

Well done.

[Laerod]

1: Not really.
2: Again, not really.
3: Had nothing to his policies
4: Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin Wall.
5: He might have loved America, but he certainly was not a great man.

What exactly is the purpose of this post? You haven't provided any basis, reasoning, warranting, evidence, really, anything at all to back up your claims. The post you're respond to did in fact do that, though in a manner that was not particularly in-depth or well-developed.

Don't lie. The post quoted doesn't back up its claims and everyone knows it. Besides, Reagan not being responsible for the fall of the Wall deserves repeating.

[Demara]

I notice you ignored the post which did all of these, in favour of bashing an off-the-cuff remark.

Well done.

That's *why* I ignored it? If you notice, I happen to agree with the substance of that post (the last sentence in my post)...

EDIT: In re-read, that may have been unclear. I apologise about that - basically, my point was purely with the (lack of) substance with the post that I quoted, not the overall message, with which I agree. In that context, quoting the other post you mention makes no sense, I think.

[Demara]

Don't lie. The post quoted doesn't back up its claims and everyone knows it.

Oh, certainly. In that context, I meant "backing up" only in the context of "providing a warrant", though the warrants provided were, basically, inaccurate and badly explained. The only point I was attempting to make is that providing a reason why one holds an opinion is preferable to providing no reason at all, which isn't really excused by one or another opinion being wrong.

EDIT: apologies for the double-post

[Laerod]

Don't lie. The post quoted doesn't back up its claims and everyone knows it.

Oh, certainly. In that context, I meant "backing up" only in the context of "providing a warrant", though the warrants provided were, basically, inaccurate and badly explained. The only point I was attempting to make is that providing a reason why one holds an opinion is preferable to providing no reason at all, which isn't really excused by one or another opinion being wrong.

Fairy nuff.

[Post War America]

Hoover, did jack shit to stop the depression, and then continued to do jack shit when he realized it was happening.