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

[Khodoristan]

Warren Goochtickler Harding.

[Zohai]

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

I have hoover on the list for the same reason, however it should be said that this was as much or even more a failure of the economic profession than hoover. You had all these respected economists arguing for austerity and shit, like hayek etc. Even today a lot of clueless people are obsessed with balanced budgets. As a result a lot of leaders implemented horrible economic policies, like brüning in germany.

[Farnhamia]

Warren Goochtickler Harding.

Gamaliel. President Harding's middle name was Gamaliel. Don't be rude.

[Free South Califas]

“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.

Actually, they reenacted the whole debate in the other one, Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

I'm bullshitting--I haven't seen it and likely won't.

[Grave_n_idle]

“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......

"Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolngreeley.htm

Nope. Lincoln was just as racist as ever. Freeing slaves was worth doing if politically expedient.

[Farnhamia]

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......

"Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolngreeley.htm

Nope. Lincoln was just as racist as ever. Freeing slaves was worth doing if politically expedient.

So what? If it gets the thing done, what matter the reason? Joe Biden's public statement of his support for gay marriage forced Obama off the fence. Good. I'll take it and I daresay the freed slaves weren't too broken up because President Lincoln supported their freedom for political reasons.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

George W. Bush. Just, Bush. He was the one responsible for this whole mess.

One word: Reganomics

[Serrland]

George W. Bush. Just, Bush. He was the one responsible for this whole mess.

One word: Reganomics

I still fail to see how GWB and Reagan are worse than the likes of Harding, Hoover, and Wilson. Is it just because they're more recent, maybe?

[Farnhamia]

One word: Reganomics

I still fail to see how GWB and Reagan are worse than the likes of Harding, Hoover, and Wilson. Is it just because they're more recent, maybe?

You could probably include Coolidge in that list but since he was the Clarence Thomas of Presidents, it's hard to know.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolngreeley.htm

Nope. Lincoln was just as racist as ever. Freeing slaves was worth doing if politically expedient.

So what? If it gets the thing done, what matter the reason? Joe Biden's public statement of his support for gay marriage forced Obama off the fence. Good. I'll take it and I daresay the freed slaves weren't too broken up because President Lincoln supported their freedom for political reasons.

Oh, indeed. I'm sure they were eager to see change come by any avenue. I'm not arguing with that - just with the idea of Lincoln as some kind of personal paragon.

[Serrland]

I still fail to see how GWB and Reagan are worse than the likes of Harding, Hoover, and Wilson. Is it just because they're more recent, maybe?

You could probably include Coolidge in that list but since he was the Clarence Thomas of Presidents, it's hard to know.

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

[Seleucas]

One word: Reganomics

I still fail to see how GWB and Reagan are worse than the likes of Harding, Hoover, and Wilson. Is it just because they're more recent, maybe?

I can't say that I like GWB, for instance, but I think it's a bit much to vilify him extraordinarily for Iraq and Afghanistan when there are other presidents who killed far more people (Americans and foreigners alike.) I imagine that over time, and details fall out of focus, a President's legacy will tend towards the mean. (Though there are exceptions; Coolidge and Harding were liked in their time, and Truman unpopular, but their perception has been inverted.)

[Farnhamia]

So what? If it gets the thing done, what matter the reason? Joe Biden's public statement of his support for gay marriage forced Obama off the fence. Good. I'll take it and I daresay the freed slaves weren't too broken up because President Lincoln supported their freedom for political reasons.

Oh, indeed. I'm sure they were eager to see change come by any avenue. I'm not arguing with that - just with the idea of Lincoln as some kind of personal paragon.

He was a man who overcame those reservations and prejudices to do the right thing. A lesser man might have let the southerners go. Douglas probably would have. If the secessionists had a brain in their collective heads, they would have pressed point with President Buchanan. He would have drafted the proclamation letting them go personally.

[Farnhamia]

You could probably include Coolidge in that list but since he was the Clarence Thomas of Presidents, it's hard to know.

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

Good grief. Epilepsy was poorly understood, of course, even then. James Abram Garfield, on the other hand, seems to have been a paragon of domestic and public virtue. Figures, the good ones always die young.

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, indeed. I'm sure they were eager to see change come by any avenue. I'm not arguing with that - just with the idea of Lincoln as some kind of personal paragon.

He was a man who overcame those reservations and prejudices to do the right thing. A lesser man might have let the southerners go.

By 'right thing', we mean 'Union at any cost'? There's no reason to suspect he 'overcame' his 'reservations and prejudices'. He just had an extreme agenda which subsumed any lesser concern.

If that meant he had to emancipate blacks, it was a price he was willing to pay.

[Grave_n_idle]

You could probably include Coolidge in that list but since he was the Clarence Thomas of Presidents, it's hard to know.

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

Putting a handkerchief over your wife's head when she's indisposed is hardly comparable to, for example, interning all Japanese Americans just for being Japanese.

[Farnhamia]

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

Putting a handkerchief over your wife's head when she's indisposed is hardly comparable to, for example, interning all Japanese Americans just for being Japanese.

Unless you were married to all those Japanese, you couldn't qualify for the Horrible Husband Award.

[Serrland]

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

Putting a handkerchief over your wife's head when she's indisposed is hardly comparable to, for example, interning all Japanese Americans just for being Japanese.

Of course it's not. I was angling more towards handling family affairs (as Farn picked up on with her comments on Garfield), but I should have made that clear.

Although, FDR wasn't exactly a stellar husband either, for that matter.

[R Ev0lution]

Putting a handkerchief over your wife's head when she's indisposed is hardly comparable to, for example, interning all Japanese Americans just for being Japanese.

Of course it's not. I was angling more towards handling family affairs (as Farn picked up on with her comments on Garfield), but I should have made that clear.

Although, FDR wasn't exactly a stellar husband either, for that matter.

As one of my History Professors always says, "For a cripple, FDR sure got around a lot."

[Serrland]

Or maybe McKinley (since he just barely saw the beginning of the 20th century). He definitely gets the Horrible Husband Award. I don't know whether it's apocryphal or properly verified, but it's said that he would put a napkin or towel over his wife's head when she would have a seizure (she was, iirc, epileptic).

Good grief. Epilepsy was poorly understood, of course, even then. James Abram Garfield, on the other hand, seems to have been a paragon of domestic and public virtue. Figures, the good ones always die young.

I recently read "Destiny of the Republic" by Candice Millard and really have a new-found respect for Garfield.

[Farnhamia]

Good grief. Epilepsy was poorly understood, of course, even then. James Abram Garfield, on the other hand, seems to have been a paragon of domestic and public virtue. Figures, the good ones always die young.

I recently read "Destiny of the Republic" by Candice Millard and really have a new-found respect for Garfield.

I read it this summer and yes, so did I. I should like to have dragged that doctor into an alley and given him a lesson in blunt force trauma. And I came away with more respect for Chester Arthur, too.

[Grave_n_idle]

Putting a handkerchief over your wife's head when she's indisposed is hardly comparable to, for example, interning all Japanese Americans just for being Japanese.

Unless you were married to all those Japanese, you couldn't qualify for the Horrible Husband Award.

True, but I was responding in general terms, assuming that the husband-y bit was only part of the post.

I'm not sure that handkerchiefs are worst extremes of Presidential spousal relations, even so.

[Serrland]

I recently read "Destiny of the Republic" by Candice Millard and really have a new-found respect for Garfield.

I read it this summer and yes, so did I. I should like to have dragged that doctor into an alley and given him a lesson in blunt force trauma. And I came away with more respect for Chester Arthur, too.

Yeah, although for me Arthur will always be an "adorable" type figure. Owning over 80 pairs of pants (which he'd change several times a day), taking an afternoon nap, etc. He's like a kindly old uncle in my mind's eye, as unfair as that may be.

[Azrael]

20th - Harding
21st - Bush

[Farnhamia]

Unless you were married to all those Japanese, you couldn't qualify for the Horrible Husband Award.

True, but I was responding in general terms, assuming that the husband-y bit was only part of the post.

I'm not sure that handkerchiefs are worst extremes of Presidential spousal relations, even so.

No, probably not. Jefferson had no wife, I believe, while president, nor did Buchanan (who was supposedly gay and involved with a Senator).