the worst President in history?

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I think it's still way too early to judge even Clinton from a historical perspective, much less GWB. Personally I think the President in question should be out of office at least 5 years and maybe even 10 years.

Carter, I don't know. He had a poor economy and a major international crisis to deal with. Either one of those would have confounded any President alone, but he had both. I agrew with What the Heck -- he's a nice guy, which I think it a detriment to being President. I was around 12 and 13 at the time, but I don't remember anything other than that rescue operation that crashed in the desert. I think most other Presidents would have used the military option in Iran to a much stronger extent than Carter did. (can you imagine if Theodore Roosevelt was President? He'd have been riding a tank into Teheran!!) Of course, this was not long after Vietnam, so I'm sure that would make many people gun-shy.

Nixon may have resigned while under fire from Watergate, but he had his successes such as opening relations with Communist China. Buchanan did nothing to prevent the Civil War from starting, but by the time he was in office I don't know if there was much he could have done. He was the 7th President in the 20 years leading up to the Civil War (compared to 8 from 1789 to 1840), so the Presidency wasn't the most stable office at the time.

I'd have to say the worst in history would be either Warren Harding, one of the most corrupt administrations in history, or perhaps Lyndon Johnson, who presided over a grossly unpopular war and whose social programs lead to the overinflated bureaucracy we have today.

 

[horsegirl]

I knew I liked rolling stone. thanks for the post. the article gave word to my exasperation and disgust over the state of the union......and this 'leader'

 

[Mugg Mann]

I think both Bush and Clinton will, in the long run, be considered among the worst presidents. Clinton will be relegated to obscurity (who was president in the late 1990's again?) and remembered for sex scandals and his failure to do anything about terrorism. Meanwhile, Bush will be remembered for his mishandling of terrorism and a lot of made up justifications for the Iraq war.

It is hard to tell how people will view the politics of our time in 50 or 100 years though. I was a history major in college and it was sometimes interesting to read history books written in different times and see how their views of historical events changed over time. History and historians are constantly changing.

Clinton certainly had his faults (including a loose zipper), but one thing that is strictly a right-wing smear is "his failure to do anything about terrorism".

There were two terrorist attacks in the United States during his presidency; the first was the 1993 WTC bombing attempt and the second was Oklahoma city. The masterminds of both of those attacks were caught and prosecuted. (Incidentally, the mastermind of 9/11 still roams free, but we can discuss Bush's ongoing failure to bring Bin Laden to justice in another thread.)

When you want to say that Clinton was ignoring terrorism, please remember the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. There's also the Clinton administration amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act to help the FBI investigate potential terrorists. Or how about how the administration authorized buying baggage-screening equipment, increasing staffing and training at the FAA and airports.

Here's a story about a speech Clinton gave, outlining an
approach to dealing with terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/gen.clinton.terror/index.html
But since he delivered it at some unknown school called Harvard that no
one's ever heard of, I guess that qualifies as "ignoring terrorism".

Here's a Washington Post story on Clinton's part in the hunt
for bin Laden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18
including stationing two Navy subs in the closest available waters to
Afghanistan so that they could lob a cruise missile at bin Laden if
they got a clear shot. But they didn't get him, so clearly Clinton was ignoring the problem.

Some information on the fates of a number of terrorists while
Clinton was in office:
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton asked Congress Monday
to put more teeth in a tough new anti-terrorism law, and won
broad agreement but no specific commitments from Republican
lawmakers."

Clinton seeks $1 billion to fight terrorism
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/09/clinton.aviation/index.html

Here's a summary of where that $1B went:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html

Then there was the freezing of $254 million in Taliban assets:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52702-2001Oct12

Here's a list of US antiterrorism laws and presidential directives:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/terrorism3.htm
which includes the Antiterrorism and Effective death Penalty Act of
1996, and 7 presidential directives signed by Clinton.

Is this the failure to do anything about terrorism that you were thinking of?

Now, let's discuss how the Bush adminstration was formally warned by the outgoing Clinton adminstration during the transition how Bin Laden was the biggest problem facing the United States from outside the borders. Why don't you do a little research and tell us how many meetings President Bush had concerning Bin Laden prior to 9/11?

Again, Clinton had many faults one could legitimately point to, but claiming that he failed to do anything about terrorism shows a reliance on right wing talking points instead of facts. I think when the dust settles, history will show just many people were fooled by right wing smears thinking it was fact.

 

[Teejay32]

I think when the dust settles, history will show just many people were fooled by right wing smears thinking it was fact.

You're probably right. The professor/author of this article isn't hard to find...

2000, Slate:

Last week, the Emergency Committee of Concerned Citizens 2000, an ad hoc group of intellectuals, entertainment industry figures, and others took out two ads in the New York Times concerning the post-election tumult in Florida...The ad campaign was the brainchild of Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton. Wilentz believed that the presidential election's failure to produce a clear winner threatened a constitutional crisis..

2003:

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to stay the California recall election makes clear as never before that the entire effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis can only be understood in light of the Florida recount struggle of 2000 -- and of the larger efforts by the Republican Party to undermine democracy in order to seize and control power."

and this amazing one from his testimony on Clinton's impeachment:

....if you believe they do rise to that level, you will vote for impeachment and take your risks at going down in history with the zealots and the fanatics.

If you understand that the charges do not rise to the level of impeachment, or if you are at all unsure, and yet you vote in favor of impeachment anyway for some other reason, history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.

"History will show" = we in the history department will teach it.

 

[lw49033]

All the warmongers are the worst: Jackson, Polk, McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon, and both Bushes. Alexander Hamilton deserves (dis)honorable mention for trying to get us into a war with France, even though he wasn't president.

 

[Teejay32]

Nixon?

 

[eclectics]

Lyndon Johnson as worst President? Did the poster forget the Civil Rights Act?

 

[dylansmom1]

As a Professional Historian I found this article quite interesting. I have to agree though with the other poster about Andrew Jackson. He has historically been considered the "worst" president.

I always consider myself a moderate. I'm neither a republican nor a democrat but lean toward more libertarian ideals. That being said, I can honestly say that in ranking order here is where I would put the top 5 worst presidents.

1. Andrew Jackson
2. George W. Bush
3. Warren G. Harding
4. James Polk
5. Jimmy Carter

I didn't put Nixon on the list, even though I probally should. Mainly because Nixon's Foreign Policy and ability to work with foreign nations was exemplar. As a man, he was paranoid sometimes delusional and had often had poor judgement on the domestic front.


Jane

 

[Planogirl]

History will remember wars not sex scandals. Kennedy (among others) had his share of trysts and most people don't seem to bat an eye. Lying about an affair being the worst thing to the public? Ummmm, OK.

 

[Charade]

I didn't even bother reading the article once I saw the cover. IMHO, it's hard to be objective about someone's opinion when they exit the starting gate with a caricature like that.

 

[Crankyshank]

I agree with the opinion of Andrew Jackson being the worst. His Indian Removal Policy alone negates anything positive that he might have done during his Presidency imho

 

[Disney Doll]

History will record his true worth.

Notice what a useful statement that is.

Thank you , Miss Manners.

 

[Disney Gator]

History will remember wars not sex scandals. Kennedy (among others) had his share of trysts and most people don't seem to bat an eye. Lying about an affair being the worst thing to the public? Ummmm, OK.

This was my point about Clinton. There was nothing really remarkable about him other than the sex scandals. He will be one of those presidents that kids of the future will have a hard time remembering.

I do think that Bush will be remembered as a bad president. Bottom 5, maybe bottom 10. The alternatives weren't much better though. Of course it's hard to speculate, but I think Gore would have been just as bad. It could just be that not enough time has passed, but I don't think we've had a really good president since Kennedy. Before that I would have to say Truman and FDR.

 

[lw49033]

I don't think we've had a good president since Grover Cleveland.

 

[bsnyder]

You're probably right. The professor/author of this article isn't hard to find...

2000, Slate:
Quote:
Last week, the Emergency Committee of Concerned Citizens 2000, an ad hoc group of intellectuals, entertainment industry figures, and others took out two ads in the New York Times concerning the post-election tumult in Florida...The ad campaign was the brainchild of Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton. Wilentz believed that the presidential election's failure to produce a clear winner threatened a constitutional crisis..



2003:
Quote:
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to stay the California recall election makes clear as never before that the entire effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis can only be understood in light of the Florida recount struggle of 2000 -- and of the larger efforts by the Republican Party to undermine democracy in order to seize and control power."



and this amazing one from his testimony on Clinton's impeachment:
Quote:
....if you believe they do rise to that level, you will vote for impeachment and take your risks at going down in history with the zealots and the fanatics.

If you understand that the charges do not rise to the level of impeachment, or if you are at all unsure, and yet you vote in favor of impeachment anyway for some other reason, history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.



"History will show" = we in the history department will teach it.

Thanks, Teejay. Obviously there's no agenda from this guy - just a hard-working academic doing his "job" as a historian.