I agree with those, but I would add Carter for his absolute incompetence. He shows the results of the "Liberal" answer to the pressing questions (Socialist). Nixon and LBJ should definately be included too.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Lincoln was most certainly the worst, by far. He set the pattern for the excesses that have followed, all the way to the current president.
FDR was second worst.
I classify both the above as catastrophic failures as President.
Adequate Presidents would include Martin van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Borderline Presidents would include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson and Eisenhower. For the most part, the remaining Presidents, including the current one, are solidly in the failure category. Couple of the 18th century Democrats not listed above I might classify borderline.
But only Lincoln and FDR truly deserve their deplorable ranking.
Mark B.:Lincoln was most certainly the worst, by far. He set the pattern for the excesses that have followed, all the way to the current president. FDR was second worst. I classify both the above as catastrophic failures as President. But only Lincoln and FDR truly deserve their deplorable ranking.
How the hell could Wilson not make the cut? No way.
And to call any of the men "failures" is a gross perversion of language. They succeeded in their statist objectives much more effectively than any freedom-minded president ever has. Failures? No. Evil? YES. Calling them failures is like saying OJ Simpson tried not to kill his ex wife, but failed.
I am not letting Wilson off the hook by any means. He was a very horrible President. I categorize Lincoln and FDR in a category by themselves, because their effect and destruction of the original constitutional republic was far more evident than other Presidents. Also, Lincoln made the abuses of Presidents such as Wilson possible.
My use of the word "failure" certainly is open to semantic disagreements. I use the word "fail" in the meaning that they failed in living up to their oath of office and they did not stay within the boundaries of Article II of the Constitution.
I used adequate, borderline adequate, failure and catastrophic failure.
By adequate, they stayed within their oath of office and Article II and did no damage. Borderline adequate meant that they did stray slightly, but the damage done was modest and not long lasting. Failure meant that the strayed grossly and damaged this constitutional republic. Catastrophic failure meant they strayed EXTREMELY grossly and did extensive damage.
Anybody listed as a failure or catastrophic failure by me is evil and I certainly view them as evil, take no doubt in that.
Abe Lincoln for centralizing power, FDR for utilizing that centralization of power to ruin America with the welfare state, LBJ for perpetuating and spreading the pestilence and poison that FDR started, and Jimmy Carter for being an incompetent boob and an ass to boot(another mark against him was the Noble prize). Bill Clinton would be included if he had been able to accomplish anything that he wanted to accomplish. Ah hell, go ahead and include the horndog in chief into the list. That will be my top 5.
As a recap:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin D. Roosevelt
3.Lyndon B. Johnson
4. Jimmy Carter
5. Bill Clinton
Drop Jimmy and Billy and add Woodrow and Theodore.
Peace
If I was to do an ordinal list of worst.
Truly evil
#1 Lincoln - His crimes are too many to list.
#2 FDR - The New Deal,WWII, Intimindating the Courts, among other things.
Now for the rest of them.
#1 Wilson - Chief crimes were WWI and creation of Federal Reserve
#2 Theodore Roosevelt - He really initiated the whole "Progressive" i.e. "Socialist" trend in government, most notably "trust busting"
#3 Herbert Hoover - Truly a f***up as President, turned an ordinary panic into a catastrophe, and set the stage for FDR.
#4 LBJ - "The Great Society", nuff said
#5 <not quite sure, McKinley, Truman, Nixon and the current President are in the running for this slot>
The Best
Best being defined as they did no damage and honored their oath of office and obeyed Article II of the Constitution
#1 Grover Cleveland
#2 Martin van Buren
#3 Calvin Coolidge
#4 Warren G. Harding
followed by a group that for the most part honored their oath's, etc, yet had serious incidents
#5 Jefferson <foreign policy problems>
#6 Madison <foreign policy problems, War of 1812>
#7 Jackson <brutal treatment of Indians>
#8 Eisenhowever <foreign policy problems>
#9 Washington <suppression of Whiskey Rebellion, Bank of United States>
Jason Dean:The big three are fairly obvious: Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. It is very difficult to rank them, but I think I have to put Wilson at the #1 worst. The income tax and the Fed made possible FDR's schemes more so than anything Lincoln did made Wilson's possible.It is sort of funny that no one mentioned LBJ until recently. Not as surprisingly, Nixon hasn't been mentioned (that I've seen). He does not rank with Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, but he's certainly on par with LBJ. Not just Watergate, etc., or even the lies and bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia, but let's not forget the price and wage controls, affirmative action, the EPA, etc., and of course, the final severing of the gold standard. That's all pretty bad stuff!
The big three are fairly obvious: Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. It is very difficult to rank them, but I think I have to put Wilson at the #1 worst. The income tax and the Fed made possible FDR's schemes more so than anything Lincoln did made Wilson's possible.
I thought this was: Who was the worst president?
Thus I only differ with you in my ranking FDR the top worst.
Gotta love your way of explaining what a "failure" would mean as applied to FDR, for example. LOL. Agree. Evil, evil presidents, and evil human beings. Not failures.
tylerturtle: As a recap: 1. Abraham Lincoln 2.Franklin D. Roosevelt 3.Lyndon B. Johnson 4. Jimmy Carter 5. Bill Clinton
I am utterly shocked that someone could exclude Wilson on the worsts list. And Bill Clinton? Worse than Wilson? Bill Clinton may have been really horrible if he had been given a chance -- but he wasn't. In fact, I would argue that his presidency was one of the least bad (i.e. best) ever. I think he's closer to 5th best president -- which is an indictment of the office, not a celebration of the war-criminal / draft-dodger Slick Willy -- than he is to the 5th worse.
What did Clinton do on par with lying us into WWI, unconstitutionally installing the Fed, and presiding over the adoption of the 16th amendment? Even on a personal level, Wilson was worse. He was a notorious racist, a former Klansman, and as president, he re-segregated D.C., undoing one of the only positive legacies of the Republican domination of the post-War Between the States period.
Mark B: Could you please explain your "less-than-great" status attributed to Jefferson? I am not challenging you; I'm seeking insght into your opinion of him as a president.
As far as national defense and warfare is concerned, I follow the Chicago School of econo-political thought, so I have no problem with Wilson for the war. I have issues with his creation of the Fed, which led to the Great Depression. Bill Clinton, if it weren't for the Republican dominated House and Senate, would have gone further in destroying the economic freedom that we once had, as well as taking away our liberties. If I remember correctly, he promised to raise taxes. If he had been given free rein, he would have turned the country into a socialized state with Hillary running your health care. Yeah scary. The Clinton's are socialists and they actually surrounded themselves, like FDR, with other socialists and Communists. I don't have any regrets for my # 5
I forgot about Wilson. Put him as number 5. I was just looking at the date of the 16th amendment. Yeah, forget Bill. Wilson did start the country on the road to socialism. Lincoln gave them the tools by centralizing, Wilson started the government invasion, and FDR finished it. I do, however believe that if Clinton had been able to do what he wanted to do, we would be totally socialized a la Europe.
Lincoln was quite bad for all the reasons listed above. He did, however, get his comupence in the end.
Wilson's foreign policy did great harm. America's entrance into WWI, along with his views on economic sanctions, qualify him as one of the worst. The Fed stuff wasn't good, but I find it more disturbing that he made people believe that killing foreigners was a moral obligation of the United States.
I personally dislike LBJ. I would rank him as one of the worst.
1. Woodrow Wilson - Insane elitist *** that instituted the Fed by signing the Federal Reserve Act.
2. Abraham Lincoln - War to eliminate slavery? Suspending habeas corpus? Expanding the breadth of the Federal Gov't? WTF Talk about neoCON.
3. George W. Bush the II. - Enough Said.
- Sir John David
tylerturtle:I follow the Chicago School of econo-political thought, so I have no problem with Wilson for the war.
Thanks for reminding me why the "Chicago School" is nothing but a semi-moderate brand of socialism.
Jason Dean:
My viewpoint of Jefferson is actually mostly positive. The reason I drop him into the borderline category is because of a rather unwise foreign policy that favored France over Britain, and that also ultimately led to the War of 1812. Of course, he shares responsibility for this with Madison. That, in itself, might not have removed him from the top category. What tipped the scales, in my view, is that he failed to abolish the Bank of the United States and failed to abolish the Federalist tariffs, while in office. Had he done even just one of those two things, I would have rated him in the "best" category.
Overall, a very good man, I would rank him #5 overall as President.
FDR, seven couplets
The mythic surface of his fame in broad
Suffusion offers universal fraud.
In factious efficacy, mythic japery
Provided FDR electoral primacy.
The mythic dominance of Roosevelt
Profuse remains, in false desert misdealt.
The falsest dominance of fame befits
A Roosevelt who feigned his benefits.
In factious efficacy mythic wonders,
Reflecting Roosevelt, reveal no blunders.
A mythic rifeness Roosevelt maintained
Who backward obviations forward feigned.
Diseased elation, loathing sanity,
Elected Roosevelt in jubilee.
In governmental heaven Washington Would grow as a divine phenomenon.
Mark B.:Jason Dean: My viewpoint of Jefferson is actually mostly positive. The reason I drop him into the borderline category is because of a rather unwise foreign policy that favored France over Britain, and that also ultimately led to the War of 1812. Of course, he shares responsibility for this with Madison. That, in itself, might not have removed him from the top category. What tipped the scales, in my view, is that he failed to abolish the Bank of the United States and failed to abolish the Federalist tariffs, while in office. Had he done even just one of those two things, I would have rated him in the "best" category. Overall, a very good man, I would rank him #5 overall as President.
As I understand it, Jefferson didn't have the support in Congress to do those things, and instead let what he could expire.
I'm surprised no one objects to the Louisiana Purchase.
First of all, you misquoted me, just like the media. Always obsessed with the soundbite. Of course you pick the soundbite that is damning to me. Hell, you didn't even post the entire sentance that your "soundbite" came from.
Jason Dean: tylerturtle:I follow the Chicago School of econo-political thought, so I have no problem with Wilson for the war. Thanks for reminding me why the "Chicago School" is nothing but a semi-moderate brand of socialism.
I follow that school of thought only on the issue of national defense, not because I am some closet socialist hippie (which if you knew me, you would find that I am farthest from), but because I feel that war is a necessary evil including offensive wars. Wilson was a terrible president, but not for the war. The Federal Reserve proved to be a disaster pretty quickly. There are plenty of reasons why he was a bad president, just like there are plenty of reasons why this president is a bad president. One thing that doesn't go into my determinations is whether or not they avoided war.
I would also add to tylerturtle's defense that George Reisman, a student of Mises, had this to say about Pinochet:
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/12/general-augusto-pinochet-is-dead.html
I would not classify him as a dictactorship sympathizer because of these views.
tylerturtle:One thing that doesn't go into my determinations is whether or not they avoided war.
But I still have some reservations about this. Could you elaborate?
tylerturtle: follow that school of thought only on the issue of national defense, not because I am some closet socialist hippie (which if you knew me, you would find that I am farthest from), but because I feel that war is a necessary evil including offensive wars. Wilson was a terrible president, but not for the war.
You are a socialist.
How do you think wars can be funded? Only with fiat money. Hippie? I wish. No, you're a bloodthirsty statist animal; the enemy of civilization. Hippies are just peaceful isolationists.
Find me a war that can be funded without debasing the currency and your point was still be without merit, but less so. War is the health of the state, and warmongers like you are savage animals; the scum of the Earth.
Well, could we try Washington on for size?
If memory serves me right, Washington was duped by some New England speculators in government debt to come to the Annapolis convention, wasn't he? The Annapolis convention would not have gone over without his participation, would it? Didn't that coup, get the whole sordid consolidated government ball rolling, which led to all the other murder and mayhem? Perhaps he was the classical example of good intentions paving the road to hell,
maaku:
You do have a point there.
However, I was basing my evaluation on the individuals performance WHILE PRESIDENT. I cannot rightfully rate his performance as President, by an act committed before he became President.
If I was evaluating the totality of Washington's life, then yes, I would rate the Constitutional Convention as a mark against him.
FDR gets my vote, too. Expanding the scope of government like it was going out of style. I need to brush up on my presidents, though. You guys are smart. I am not so smart.
This is a really hard question because when you look under each rock, all sorts of uglies crawl out. Should we ask the people of East Timor? Or Genada? or Panama? Guatemala? Columbia? -- well you pick the place. (US Report Card - Does not play well with others)
Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Bush I, Bush II
Who can say worst.
How about Harry Truman for having dropped the big one and for getting us embroiled in Korea. Those two things aside, what positive contribution can you give him credit for?
I'lll say Lincoln, that should get me some brownie points with Lew.
Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman
Yep.
“We ought to obey God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29.
"Slaves before God, free before all others." -Boer Motto.
I'd give my vote to FDR and also make mention that he is probably one of the most overrated presidents, too.
It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression. It's impossible to have an honest debate with anyone about FDR who hasn't looked into the true causes Depression or else just plain waxes nostalgic about the socialist heavy-handedness of FDR's rule.
Can I change my vote to All the Above?
George Washington, a tyrant and a traitor to the American Revolution.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
jdunbar3:It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression.
It's a shame that in the standard curriculum today we are all taught how FDR "saved" us from the Great Depression.
I just had a holiday gathering with my wife's side of the family. Her grandfather is a WWII vet, a POW returned by the Germans.
I asked him who was the worst president in his life. Being in his late 80s, he couldn't come up with enough memories to voice an opinion. Then I asked him "what about FDR?"
He said, "Well, FDR really did help us out of the depression." He went on to say that his mother, while his family was in great need, learned that there were good-paying new jobs created in his community by the New Deal. So she went down to apply for one, and the local officials asked her about her party affiliation. She said she was a Republican, and they said "we'll call you if something comes up."
The aspiration toward freedom is the most essentially human of all human manifestations. -Eric Hoffer
FDR was the worst for Libertarians, he was a full out dirtbag, but at least he wasn't Huey "Screwy" Long. His assassin is a hero. I can defend Lincoln somewhat, yes, he did the greenbacks and everything else, but weren't the slaves freed, and if I get a response to this, I can bring up how the Confederates were self righteous oppurtunistic hypocrites that tried to use Federal heavy handed tactics before the Republicans organized(i posted in free trade and slavery thread). FDR-WILSON-TRUMAN-JOHN ADAMS-and just to piss people off, Ronald Reagan for being an overrated, self godifying, military industrial and national debt making machine.
1.Woodrow Wilson
2. FDR
3. LBJ
4. tie: Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 - the reason I have these 3 after my "big 3 of statists" is because they each oversaw conflicts in which depleted uranium (which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years) was used en masse. Because of these 3, Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan will be still be irradiated when our great-grandchildren are long dead.
You say Lincoln caused 600,000 deaths? FDR fire-bombed dresden? Truman dropped 2 a-bombs (which were crude compared to todays tactical nuclear weapons and cannot even approach the initial or long-lasting destructive effects)?
There is no way to estimate how many people will die or have the length and/or quality of their lives diminished dramatically because of this policy.
Sorry for getting all science-y in an economics forum, but if you want to talk about legacies, 4.5 billion years is a long time...physics, chemistry, foreign policy and economics are the pillars of my intellectual interests. And before you even ask the question, I'll answer it: yes, it does drive the ladies wild.
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." - Mikhail Bakunin
Could not a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln be defended by the Pinochet reasoning?
John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, FDR.
WARREN G. HOMEBOY:Could not a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln be defended by the Pinochet reasoning?
I don't see any relevance for George Washington. As for Lincoln, it is too bad there wasn't a "Pinochet" in the Union Army to bring him down. Actually General McClellan talked of dictatorship, but it turned out to be all bluster.
Allthough my knowledge of the american presidents ain't very wide I think my vote will go to the hero of the Great Depression - FDR. I'm pretty sure that some of my not-so-high-feelings towards him are caused by how he gets taught in the history books around the whole world. I knew there had to be something wrong when I was taught how good and heroic he was during the GD and now, after becoming familiar with the austrians, I finally know what it was.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!