Jump to content

Menu

Who was your least favorite President, *not* including the last few?


poppy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am seeing a lot of "I loathe Obama" posts on my Facebook feed. I remember just as many ones against George W. Bush.  Both men are flawed, no question. But, historically speaking, I doubt either would make the bottom five.   I'm curious to hear who your bottom pick would be.  Let's keep it to before the modern era, so....... pre-Reagan.

 

Hope this can be answered In the spirit of "US History is VERY interesting!" (as opposed to, let's fight about politics.)

 

I'm going to go with Andrew Jackson.  The Indian Removal Act.  How is this man on our twenty dollar bill?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Coolidge, Harding, and Fillmore are all blech at best. Wilson is a total mixed bag for me; some really good things happened during his presidency. Some craptastic things did as well.

 

Jackson, that man just might be bottom of the heap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if I can only choose one.

 

Nominated:

 

Herbert Hoover. Cranky, bad at politics and hello worsening Depression while fighting truly pointless diplomatic battles? Honestly, he brought us pretty close to the edge of people's tolerance for "The American Experiment".

 

Warren Harding

 

Ulysses Grant

 

Andrew Johnson

 

James Buchanan

 

Pierce/Fillmore/Tyler oh, I'll just throw in Taylor and Polk. Because the decades long lead in to the Civil War was the worst game of hot potato and kick the can ever played by any group of politicians in the last 300 years. And it was sooo not all on Buchanan. Though he was pretty darn bad.

 

Of course the other Andrew of the Jackson variety. That was a seriously scary dude and not in a good way, though he was politically talented in some ways. Jackson definitely is the creepiest President we've ever had.

 

Picking one and one alone, I'm gonna have to say Hoover. The only nice thing I can recall reading about Hoover doing off hand was taking his newly awarded presidential pension because he didn't want Harry Truman to be embarrassed and Truman all but needed it to eat. Obviously that was AFTER he left office. Not a good sign.

 

But Buchanan and Johnson are right there with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nixon is the only post WWII president that political historians consistently put somewhere in the top (bottom?) 10 worst. Honestly, I probably feel about Reagan the way conservatives tend to feel about Carter and to a lesser degree FDR, but seriously in the league of lasting ill impacts of crappy presidential decisions, the second half of the 20th century ain't got nothing on middle swath of the 19th century or the lead up to the depression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Johnson. Possibly because my favorite president is Lincoln, and one cannot help to think how dramatically different our world would be had Lincoln not been shot, or if Johnson had one ounce of Lincoln's character. Our country need not only a true leader, but a leader with a vision and a heart at that time. I am afraid Johnson did not display either. His politics and response to reconstruction set the south and ultimately the country on a back. It was a time to heal and move forward. 

 

Andrew Jackson was disgusting as well; so many evil cartoon characters remind me of how he must have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nixon is the only post WWII president that political historians consistently put somewhere in the top (bottom?) 10 worst. Honestly, I probably feel about Reagan the way conservatives tend to feel about Carter and to a lesser degree FDR, but seriously in the league of lasting ill impacts of crappy presidential decisions, the second half of the 20th century ain't got nothing on middle swath of the 19th century or the lead up to the depression.

Yeah, I am baffled by the Carter nominations. I mean , Reagan was a dirty word in my house growing up, I get childhood animosity being strong. But Carter? He was annoying and had a crappy economy. He was not actively treasonous. He was not a criminal . He did not commit genocide. And for the economy , I can't think of reason anyone would pick Carter over- say - Hoover.

 

But I'd be curious to hear anti-Carter arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buchanan

 

Yes, but he was our first gay President....and for that, he gets moved up a notch or two.  Apparently, it was not that much of a secret, yet he was elected regardless.

 

I'm not a fan of Jackson, and I lived in Jacksonville.  I will say, though, he has fab hair...or appears to at least on the $20.

 

Can we include Reagan?  Does he count as recent? His economic policies have proven disastrous long term (trickle down does not work).  He started the whole Welfare Queen myth which still perpetuates.  He cut taxes for the wealthy, increased the debt, his foreign policy was abysmal (Iran Contra, funding Taliban/mujahidin, etc.)   And he eliminated the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am baffled by the Carter nominations. I mean , Reagan was a dirty word in my house growing up, I get childhood animosity being strong. But Carter? He was annoying and had a crappy economy. He was not actively treasonous. He was not a criminal . He did not commit genocide. And for the economy , I can't think of reason anyone would pick Carter over- say - Hoover.

 

But I'd be curious to hear anti-Carter arguments.

 

A prof once said to the class that Carter only served one term because there wasn't enough dirt on him.  Other politicians don't trust those in their circle when they have no dirt to hold over their head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this Andrew Jackson chatter reminds me of the rock musical "Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson" in which this least favorite president is transformed into an emo rock and roller.

 

Yeah, I am a bit baffled by Carter too but then I was a student during his administration so I call him "recent". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to wonder what the argument is for Carter being the worst president.

 

Maybe the rules should have been better defined -- name the worst president for whom you can list reasons for why he's the worst.

 

And I kind of count Carter as "recent" so that breaks the actual stated rules right there.  Recent: the guy is still around.  Or: People on this board could have voted for or against him.

 

If it's just "I didn't personally like the guy" then it's too recent to be part of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, I am a bit baffled by Carter too but then I was a student during his administration so I call him "recent". ;)

 

He is recent, but the OP said pre-Reagan so I guess he counts. For some on this forum, he's an historical figure. Just an old guy who used to be president. That's a scary thought to old folks like me.   ;)

 

He was the first president I voted for. I missed being able to vote in 1972, by one year, so had to spend three years as an eligible voter before being able to vote for a president. 

 

I'm baffled too. He was a bit incompetent, but much of that is his own party's fault. Their refusal to work with him was all about politics. He was an outsider. Politicians say they want insiders gone, but when an outsider actually comes to Washington it's not very Jimmy Stewart. 

 

Also Kennedy. Katie (Lucy) is right - He's very much overrated but not worst. He didn't have enough time in office to get to the bottom of the list. I suspect that had he lived and served his term (or terms if he managed that), he'd be in the mediocre group. IMO there wouldn't have been an American Camelot without his assassination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is recent, but the OP said pre-Reagan so I guess he counts. For some on this forum, he's an historical figure. Just an old guy who used to be president. That's a scary thought to old folks like me. ;)

 

He was the first president I voted for. I missed being able to vote in 1972, by one year, so had to spend three years as an eligible voter before being able to vote for a president.

 

I'm baffled too. He was a bit incompetent, but much of that is his own party's fault. Their refusal to work with him was all about politics. He was an outsider. Politicians say they want insiders gone, but when an outsider actually comes to Washington it's not very Jimmy Stewart.

 

Also Kennedy. Katie (Lucy) is right - He's very much overrated but not worst. He didn't have enough time in office to get to the bottom of the list. I suspect that had he lived and served his term (or terms if he managed that), he'd be in the mediocre group. IMO there wouldn't have been an American Camelot without his assassination.

I think Carter has done some great things as a former president. His Vaccinations for Kids program in Georgia has been a huge help with getting kids vaccinated at their own doctors without having to go to the Health Department for free vaccines. His work with poverty has been life changing for many people, both those living in poverty and those he has taught to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Carter has done some great things as a former president. His Vaccinations for Kids program in Georgia has been a huge help with getting kids vaccinated at their own doctors without having to go to the Health Department for free vaccines. His work with poverty has been life changing for many people, both those living in poverty and those he has taught to help.

 

Yes, he'd be at the top of my list of Best Behavior After Leaving Office presidents. He's a wonderful example of using his position and influence to do good things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing I would say Lincoln or Kennedy, but they were assassinated before they could be considered horrible; so, I will have to go with Roosevelt. I think he did the worst and most lasting damage.

Teddy was an imperialist but I do like having National Parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about anyone else, but both Kennedy and Carter make my list because of incredibly deleterious foreign policy issues and strategic weakness. Others on my list would be men like Lincoln and the shredding of the Constitution he did in not reconquering the South (which would have been perfectly legal ) and Grant for destroying much of the Reconstruction effort - the mishandling there arguably is what caused so many of the longstanding tension in the ex-Confederate states. Mismanagement, not a given.

 

YES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK was a genuine war hero and he gets a lot of credit from me in that regard.

 

For some reason people tend to forget that. Selective memory or the way history is taught? It's a sincere question. I really don't know. He wasn't "history" when I was in school, so I don't know how he's taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but he was our first gay President....and for that, he gets moved up a notch or two. Apparently, it was not that much of a secret, yet he was elected regardless.

 

 

No, no it doesn't. Nothing makes up for his incompetence as the Civil War started.

 

As for Reagan, I'm not a fan but I don't think he started the welfare queen myth. He perpetuated it and capitalized on it and was the most famous person to do so with the most memorable fake anecdote, but people wanted to believe that because they already did. I also think people could learn a lot from how he handled immigration and working with a Democratic controlled legislative branch. I do agree that his economic policies were not good ones. And the downturn we experienced in the late 80s and early 1990s should be more instructive to people who brought back those same ideas more recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK was a genuine war hero and he gets a lot of credit from me in that regard.

As a person yes. As a president? Not as much. The truth is that he was killed before we would have been able to see his major accomplishments and his hype after his death dwarfed the previous youngest president from wealthy family who looks like a movie star hype. Perhaps he would have been great, perhaps not. It is clearly an awful thing that we didn't get to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person yes. As a president? Not as much. The truth is that he was killed before we would have been able to see his major accomplishments and his hype after his death dwarfed the previous youngest president from wealthy family who looks like a movie star hype. Perhaps he would have been great, perhaps not. It is clearly an awful thing that we didn't get to find out.

 

I don't think anyone would put him on the 'best ever' list except maybe proud Catholic grandmas.  But worst, I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...