Worst President Ever?

[Lemur]

It's one of those President Bush v. Historians kinda things.

A Pew Research Center poll of 109 leading historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

So what do the Orgahs think? As Colbert would say, great President, or the greatest President? Just to give some context, here's an article about the ten worst Presidents, as tallied by US News. Some stiff competition in there. I am as unhappy with the Bush administration as any American, but I'm not sure it qualifies for "worst" without some serious discussion.

-edit-

A little more context might be called for. Here are Wikipedia's rankings, with a heavy bias against recent Presidents, as you will note. Here's a longish 2006 article by a respectable historian arguing for George W. Bush's last-place finish. Here's another '06 article arguing that President Bush is, in fact, only the fifth-worst President of all time.

[Fragony]

Too bad it's american presidents only because I happen to be thinking about someone.

[KukriKhan]

Despite your excellent links, Lemur, I think it's too early to tell. The final year of all 8-year reigns prompts thoughts of legacy, and many of them do things (and take bigger political risks) then, to establish what they hope is their legacy.

I guess I could back that belief up with sources, if necessary; but for now: let's just say it's been my observation that "lame ducks" usually try pretty hard, especially on foreign policy where they don't have to consult congress beforehand, to make a final lasting impression. And we have 9 months until he moves out of 1600 Penn. Ave.

[seireikhaan]

I think its too early to declare Bush the "worst ever", as many of his decisions have not yet reached full fruition. I'd put Buchanon and Harding as the worst two. Its more than a bit unfair to judge a president's legacy before he's even left office.

BTW, that Washington post article was a load of BS in terms of its argument against Madison. The war of 1812 had to be fought against the British, they still had forts on US soil, which is rather problematic. We needed British influence OUTSIDE of the US boundaries, not IN it. He's in no way in the bottom five.

EDIT: I forgot Grant, he was a pretty abysmal President as well. Much worse, imo, than Madison.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What about the Presidents who declared the western Hemisphere the essential backyard of the United States or declared war on the U.K. and its colonies in 1812? What about James K. Polk who went to war with Mexico in order to conquer their land? Madison, Monroe and Polk were excellent Presidents. Why?

It is foolish to label Bush as one of the worst presidents 1) because his term is not over and it remains to be seen what kinds of ramifications our near eastern incursions will have. 2) By other standards throughout history he really isn't that bad at all.

He invaded Iraq and doesn't defend his successful positions adequately.
He increased spending but lowered taxes. He got half of it right. What did you want from the guy? Has he really butchered the Constitution? What has he done? The Patriot Act?

If anything more people are able to openly mock the president and his family than ever before. Are we becoming less free?

[Boyar Son]

People still complain about Bush? No one should be surprised if he does something dumn anymore.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People still complain about Bush? No one should be surprised if he does something dumn anymore.

dumb.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know, I kind of like him recently - not necessarily his agenda, but the fact that he seems genuinely undaunted by the challenges ahead, although he has made some good decisions more recently. Whatever his politics, he strikes me as someone who'd be great to talk to over some beer. In particular, the interview by BBCs Matt Frei caught my eye.
Interview pt. 1
Interview pt. 2
Commentary

Is he lonely? Is he worried about his legacy?

And the man himself on the subject...

We are still arguing about the record of the first president called George, and that was a couple of hundred years ago. I'm sure they will take their time when it comes to judging my record.

[Marshal Murat]

Some of the 'ten worst' were really bad submissions.

Zachary Taylor, because he was 'forgettable'?I didn't know that you had to be memorable to be good. To be put on the list because he was forgettable, pfff.

William Henry Harrison, because he died of pneumonia? I'm sorry that getting sick is something that you shouldn't do as president.

I could understand some of the presidents (Harding, Grant). Others (Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan) don't really deserve to be on there, in my opinion. They couldn't really do anything to solve the problem, and the compromises were the best anyone could really do. To say that they were responsible for the Civil War is laying it thick on some men who were trapped in a position between the North and South.

Personally, I would say
1. Van Buren - Depression follows his name, he just disconnected with Americans
2. Cleveland - Dawes Act, one of the worst legislations affecting Native Americans, ever.
3. Kennedy - While he was very telegenic, his domestic programs were a failure, he deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and while he did negotiate the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', it obscures his 'Bay of Pigs' assault. A man who died a 'martyr' but whose actual accomplishments had no or a negative impact, overall.
4. Jackson - His brutal removal of the Cherokees from Georgia-Alabama.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thin that Grant and Harding are the only presidents that should be dragged through the mud.

The others did what they could - led us to glory when they could and tried to kept things civilized... to a point. None have really gone out of their way to destroy the basic tenets of the Constitution - except the two jerks previously mentioned.

People need to lay off of Bush - he is nowhere near as bad as people wish that he was.

[seireikhaan]

What about the Presidents who declared the western Hemisphere the essential backyard of the United States or declared war on the U.K. and its colonies in 1812? What about James K. Polk who went to war with Mexico in order to conquer their land? Madison, Monroe and Polk were excellent Presidents. Why?

It is foolish to label Bush as one of the worst presidents 1) because his term is not over and it remains to be seen what kinds of ramifications our near eastern incursions will have. 2) By other standards throughout history he really isn't that bad at all.

He invaded Iraq and doesn't defend his successful positions adequately.
He increased spending but lowered taxes. He got half of it right. What did you want from the guy? Has he really butchered the Constitution? What has he done? The Patriot Act?

If anything more people are able to openly mock the president and his family than ever before. Are we becoming less free?

You answered your own question, imo(bolded parts). Also, I'd put in No Child Left Behind right alongside the Patriot act as well in terms of bad policy.

And don't forget that congress actually were the ones who declared war in the 19th century, Tuff, so bashing them(or congratulating them) based on the decision to go to war is quite thin. Obviously, it depends mostly on what the outcomes of the war itself. Iraq has bogged down for a much longer period than Americans wanted, and thus, as President, Bush gets the blame. Not to mention our failure to capture Bin Laden back in '02.

[woad&fangs]

If Bush was assasinated in mid 2002 then he would have gone down as one of the greatest presidents of all time. However, he was not assasinated so he will go down in history as one of the worst. However, Hoover, LBJ, Kennedy(everything good he did was really controlled by Robby), Harding and a few others might be worse than Bush.

[LittleGrizzly]

I did find it quite funny that the one guy got in the list for dying, seems a little harsh, or did he manage to make some really bad changes in those 30 days ??

I would say that modern day presidents have big advantadges over previous ones, Modern day presidents have expert advice on hand, huge budgets and rule the most powerful country in the world. Taking all this into account would make me think that the worse leaders are going to come from the past, a president trying to do something that would harm the country would have a lot more difficult time of it these days.

I do think the presidency of Bush has been bad for america, from foriegn policy and relations to the growing defecit, i now we can't judge fully now until we see the results of his presidency but i think history will judge Bush to have been one of the worst modern day presidents.

[Kralizec]

I agree with TSM. Our preceptions are inevitably tainted, ironicly, by beling alive when all these things happened. Let the generation after us make historical judgements about GWB.

I would say that modern day presidents have big advantadges over previous ones, Modern day presidents have expert advice on hand, huge budgets and rule the most powerful country in the world. Taking all this into account would make me think that the worse leaders are going to come from the past, a president trying to do something that would harm the country would have a lot more difficult time of it these days.

Modern presidents have these things because the world is immensely more complicated then it was 200 years ago. One could even argue that these days it's even harder to select the right data and make an informed decision.

[LittleGrizzly]

Modern presidents have these things because the world is immensely more complicated then it was 200 years ago. One could even argue that these days it's even harder to select the right data and make an informed decision.

The world is obviously more complicated now but looking through that 10 worst presidents list a few were on there for things to do with slavery and the native americans, No modern president would be allowed to make those decisions. So for bad moral judgements modern presidents have an advantadge of being judged by our modern day morales.

The reason the world is a lot more complicated these days is down to human intelligence (or one of the main reasons) so a modern day president has his own smarter brain and some of the worlds brightest people around him to advise him, im struggling to think of an example but if bush was thinking about doing something to help boost the economy, if it was a really stupid idea and obviously unworkable if one of his advisors didn't pick up on it congress or maybe the media would, whereas 100 years ago a president could possibly pass his own stupid idea because of less expertise and less people able to get hold of the deatils to judge it for themselves.

[Geoffrey S]

The world is obviously more complicated now but looking through that 10 worst presidents list a few were on there for things to do with slavery and the native americans, No modern president would be allowed to make those decisions. So for bad moral judgements modern presidents have an advantadge of being judged by our modern day morales.

I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

The reason the world is a lot more complicated these days is down to human intelligence (or one of the main reasons) so a modern day president has his own smarter brain and some of the worlds brightest people around him to advise him, im struggling to think of an example but if bush was thinking about doing something to help boost the economy, if it was a really stupid idea and obviously unworkable if one of his advisors didn't pick up on it congress or maybe the media would, whereas 100 years ago a president could possibly pass his own stupid idea because of less expertise and less people able to get hold of the deatils to judge it for themselves.

I'd like to think that is true, I really would. Yet the evidence of the last eight years, at least, speaks against such optimism.

[LittleGrizzly]

I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

As i was writing it i was thinking that, it seems basically unfair on the oldest presidents, they could be accussed of not being forward thinking enough and maybe even being a bad person but they could have been people who just fitted themselves around the common american morals at the time.

I think things like the economy, foriegn policy and domestic policys on crime and security are better standards to judge presidents by.

[Furious Mental]

I would say yes it does make sense because if you generally approve of how America has turned out it makes sense to rate its past leaders in terms of their contribution to its development into its present state. Going back further than the birth of modern civilisation you might have to apply a different standard but that doesn't apply to Presidents of the US.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well no American president before the one that freed the slaves freed the slaves, so thats 1 black mark, none of the presidents before women had the right to vote gave them the right to vote, thats another black mark. Even though they may not have supported these policys, unless they tried to change it they have 2 black marks on thier record that any modern president cannot have, so someone who was as bad as bush in every single way but in the past, would be a worse president than bush just because of those 2 black marks. Can you see my point ?

[Adrian II]

3. Kennedy - While he was very telegenic, his domestic programs were a failure, he deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and while he did negotiate the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', it obscures his 'Bay of Pigs' assault. A man who died a 'martyr' but whose actual accomplishments had no or a negative impact, overall.

I think the only use of this sort of lists is in comparisons of more or less similar problems which Presidents had to confront. Sometimes that is instructive. When it comes to Bush and Kennedy, I think it is.

Your evaluation of Kennedy is harsh. At least two of his accomplishments were lasting: his support (mostly through his brother Robert) for the civil rights movement, and the infusion of a new spirit of optimism into American politics after the Sputnik episode, resulting in, among other things, a spectacular space program.

One of his major failures was the introduction of the doctrine of 'limited war', mainly through McNamara. Limited wars as such were a real phenomenon at the time and there was nothing wrong with their conceptualization. But the sting of the new doctrine was in the notion that limited wars were a 'calculated risk' for both sides and that the use of force would be rationally managed by both parties. McNamara thought war, politics and the human mind were eminently rational. Not so!

This misunderstanding led to what you called 'the deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam'. I believe a similar misunderstanding has led to the deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq in 2003, a concept developed and practised by a latter-day McNamara, namely Donald Rumsfeld.

Both governments were mistaken in their trust in technology and calculated warfare, and both were mistaken about the nature of their enemies. Kennedy wanted to halt communism, but the force the U.S. was fighting, de facto, was Vietnamese nationalism. Bush wanted to halt terrorism, whereas the real U.S. opponent on the ground is Arab nationalism.

That doesn't mean that either Kennedy or Bush were stupid or malevolent. As Barbara Tuchman writes in The March of Folly, political foolishness is seldom a mere result of stupidity or 'wooden-headedness', it is just as much the result of power: 'We all know, from endless repetitions of Lord Acton's dictum, that power corrupts. We are less aware that it breeds folly; that the power to command frequently causes failure to think; that the responsibilty of power often fades as its exercise augments.'

Years later, McNamara acknowledged in his autobiography that he knew the U.S. could not win the war in Vietnam, no matter how much he tinkered with technology, management-based theories and counterinsurgency models.
Kennedy, too, knew that it wouldn't happen. Yet, he persisted.

There is a passage in Tuchman's book that is worth quoting extensively because of its parallel with Bush and Iraq.

Tuchman describes how, ten days into his office, Kennedy approved of a report by General Lansdale who wanted to introduce new 'advisors' to the South Vietnamese government, Americans 'who know and really like Asia and the Asians' and who would 'guide the South Vietnamese to American policy objectives'.

Not to their own objectives, mind you, but to American objectives.

Tuchman:

This flaw, too, with its implications, Kennedy recognized when he said: 'If it were ever to be converted into a white man's war, we should lose it as the French had lost a decade earlier.' Here was a classic case of seing the truth and acting without reference to it.

The American failure to find any significance in the defeat of the French professional army, including the Foreign Legion, by small, thin-boned, out-of-uniform Asian guerrillas is one of the great puzzles of the time. How could Dien Bien Phu be so ignored? When David Schoenbrun, correspondent for CBS, who had covered the French war in Vietnam, tried to persuade the President of the realities of that war and of the loss of French officers equivalent each year to a class at St. Cyr [the French West Point- AII], Kennedy answered: 'Well, Mr Schoenbrun, that was the French. They were fighting for a colony, for an ignoble cause. We're fighting for freedom, to free them from the Communists, from China, for their independence.'

Because Americans believed they were 'different' they forgot that they, too, were white.

It is hard to miss the obvious parallels.

[Vladimir]

Wait until he dies. Even Nixon somehow became a good guy when he did. Maybe a lot of people were just thankful.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about this title - "The Worst Generation's picks for Worst President"

[drone]

Not sure why Harrison is on the list. I've always thought that story is the best presidential anecdote ever. Give a long speech, in January, in the rain, die of pneumonia a month later. Lesson #1, short and sweet!

I'm sure if you really analyze all of the presidential terms, after all the facts come out, you can find faults and decisions that cause problems later. That's what fascinates me the most about 43, I can't wait for all the dirt that comes out once the new guy moves in. There is a lot that we don't even have an inkling of.

[Don Corleone]

I think terms like "Worst" or "Best" betray a very limited scope of thought on the issue of leadership. They present a list and don't even get into a definition of a highly ambiguous and abstract relative term such as 'good'. What is merit in this context?

With regards to the positive or negative benefit for the society at large of a presiden'ts legacy, it's impossible to judge current presidents versus past ones. There's a heuristic that says people tend to remember the good, forget the bad. Therefore, historical figures and ages always appear better than the here and now, where people obsess on the negative, particular in today's viewpoint.

There's a reason why historians traditionally used to wait 20 years before commenting on the legacy of a governing leader, and wise ones still do.

[HoreTore]

Two lost wars, an economy in pieces and a completely destroyed diplomacy. That's the legacy from Mr. Bush. Do you really have anyone who can top that?

[Vladimir]

Two lost wars, an economy in pieces and a completely destroyed diplomacy. That's the legacy from Mr. Bush. Do you really have anyone who can top that?

I know you didn't get senior membership for your insights in the Backroom. Perhaps you've topped him yourself.

[HoreTore]

I know you didn't get senior membership for your insights in the Backroom. Perhaps you've topped him yourself.

Well better ask the mods, but I rarely post outside the warm comfort of the backroom...

But I don't see how I'm wrong. 2 lost wars - Iraq and Afghanistan, they won't be won by the end of his term, and therefore they count as lost, especially since the timeframe outlined pre-war was like 2-3 months TOPS. So a defeat for Bush, maybe the next president can make it a victory for the US. Maybe not.

The economic crisis. It's already bad enough now, a lot of people predict that it will be worse. President Bush has been in power for the last 7 years - of course he is directly responsible for the crisis. If he had done his job, this wouldn't have happened.

The diplomacy. Let's turn time back to 2001. The world is united in sympathy and solidarity towards the US, americans and the president. Back in 2008, you rarely hear a good word about him outside some dictatorial palaces and the US. That someone was able to utterly destroy the ENORMOUS support Bush had after 9/11, is astonishing. It's a superb feat bad statesmanship.

So to compare him with other presidents - I see lots who have one, but I can't see anyone with all three failures.

A complete failure as a president - War, economy and diplomacy. There are no areas left for him to fail at, fortunately, his time is at an end.

[Lemur]

2 lost wars - Iraq and Afghanistan, they won't be won by the end of his term, and therefore they count as lost, especially since the timeframe outlined pre-war was like 2-3 months TOPS.

You realize that by your criteria, we also lost World War II? No, HoreTore, I fear you're indulging in hyperbole. A quagmire does not equal defeat. And failing to distinguish between the justified and necessary war in Afghanistan and the absolute waste of time and blood in Iraq weakens your argument.

I'm inclined to agree with those who say it's too early to judge the second Bush Presidency. But the mere fact that historians are already trying to rank it is interesting.

[Ronin]

Wait until he dies. Even Nixon somehow became a good guy when he did. Maybe a lot of people were just thankful.

read Hunter S. Thompson obit piece on slick willy....it´s a doozy

[Adrian II]

I'm inclined to agree with those who say it's too early to judge the second Bush Presidency. But the mere fact that historians are already trying to rank it is interesting.

Historians are not just desinterested observers, they are participants in today's debates and issues just like every other American. I think that on average this poll says more about them as a professional group than it says about any president of the United States of America.

It would be more interesting to compare a ranking made by historians, one by financial experts and one by, say, metal workers. Now that might tell us something interesting about the present state of the U.S. (though not about this President and previous ones).