Worst President Ever?

[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.

[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).

[Devastatin Dave]

I would say Carter has got to be the worst and is continueing his failure in recent weeks hanging out with a multitude of terrorist. He should stick with building houses for worthless leaches.

[HoreTore]

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.

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.

As for Afghanistan, I'd say it's not won yet because of the Iraq war. If the resources for the Iraq war were to be spent in Afghanistan, I think it would've been successful by now. So it counts as a personal defeat for Mr. Bush too. The US itself, however, can still win the war.

Also, I didn't distinguish between the two wars because I didn't comment on whether or not they were just wars.

[Proletariat]

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.

Then you could have a loser and winner of the same war from the same side. Call the guy a moron or a war bungler or whatever, but he's not a loser yet. You don't call a runner in a relay race a loser if it's the next team mate who over takes the opponent.

Edit: Slightly on topic, there's little value in the list and ranking itself. Lemur and Adrian bring up the far more interesting topic of why this conversation has begun already