Historians, has there been a worse President than Bush II?

[Onlooker]

I'm no historian, but I feel pretty certain you'd have to go back to at least Harding to have even a contender. For a long time, I believed Reagan was worse (because of his racism), but Bush's combination of corruption and incompetence is more destructive. Hoover was bad, but also a victim of the times. Coolidge, from the little I know, was simply bland and unambitious, sort of like Ford.

So, history buffs, who was the worst President in the last 240 years?

[unblock]

1. i think you'd get agreement about shrub, harding, and buchanan

as the top 3 contenders.

non-historians often point to hoover and the great contraction, but that was really the work of harding, coolidge, and hoover combined with some bad banking practices. a bit too hard to pin just on hoover, although that hardly excuses his virtually complete lack of response to the crisis.

just how awful shrub is will not be apparent until a democrat gets in power and unearths more of his crap.

[Warpy]

11. Yeah, but Stupid gave us the worst of Harding, Buchanan, Polk,

and Truman in one fetid package. Plus he's done something no other sitting president has managed to accomplish: destroy alliances that have held since the country was founded.

And yes, it will take decades of digging to find out just where all the money came from and where it all went, along with just who was ultimately responsible for dismantling the oldest democratic election system in the world.

I just hope I hang in there long enough to see the Karma start to hit.

[unblock]

12. polk and truman are both WAY to good to be compared to shrub

say what you will about polk, but he ledthe country to a huge expansion, which may be controversial today but was the mark of success at the time. truman saw the end of wwii again, not without controversy, but you have to give him that; plus, he has a great reputation as a tough, no nonsense guy with integrity.

shrub has NOTHING positive to balance his horrors.

[MADem]

2. Well, the nitwit's ancestor was no prize

Franklin Pierce...which tells us that blood will, indeed, tell (he is related to him through his Mama, Barbara Pierce Bush). Ole Franklin was from NH, but thought slavery was grand, is widely blamed for causing the Civil War, and was a drunk who died from liver failure. He was a grand bullshitter and back slapper, though, which is how he got the job in the first place.

Does this sound at all familiar?

I'm sure old Franklin is smiling in hell, though--his descendant is doing a 'heckuvajob' in getting him out of the Presidential Fuckups anchorman position!

[ixion]

3. scroogle 'worst us president'

and at the top of the stack you will find numerous articles stating that * is by far and away the worst us pRez.


Historians, in particular, have never been too fond of der chimpenator.

Here's a history specific link to an article written when the chimps alleged approval was still above 50.


Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.


http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

[ClintonTyree]

6. I'm willing to wager.........

that the 8 out of 10 number has increased of late. Bush has been a total, abject failure and the history books will not be kind to the spoiled frat boy.
I remember about a year or so ago someone on that stupid right-wing web-site that derides us so much said that they were "looking forward to the time when bush's face was carved into Mount Rushmore". :eyes: This person said this in all seriousness. If "stupid" was a disease, 90% of bush backers would have died from it long ago.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. Not since Rome fell.

[Journeyman]

5. Molly Ivins wrote today that several great minds were asked. . .

to help think up interview questions for George W. Bush. She liked, "Are you the worst president since James Buchanan, or have you never heard of him?"

[rogerashton]

7. I still think Buchanan was worse.

But * keeps narrowing the margin.

[merbex]

8. Many historians believe by their INACTION certain Presidents

get relegated to the worst category

Think of the ones leading up to the Civil War

Also sometimes one action can forever tarnish a President's reputation:John Adams and the Alien Sedition Act

That being said B* is going to OWN the top spot of worst President EVER (hopefully for a good long time because I don't see how we could handle another like him any time soon)

Compare where we were as his questionable right off the bat administration started:

budget surplus
peace
economy doing pretty well with people having good jobs and good wages

Look at us now:
I could fill this page and sit here typing ALL DAY and STILL NOT GET TO COVER HOW BAD IT IS IN EVERY AREA


All because of his direct actions and political philosophy he holds so dear

B* wins hands down

No question about it

[Clintmax]

9. I believe so!

This is just one example of why:

[H2O Man]

10. That is a good question.

Being a terrible or fantastic president means more than personality coming into play. There has to be conditions that create an opportunity to do great good or great bad; more, there has to be the means .... in other words, the role of the other branches, the economy, foreign affairs, and many other factors come into play (or, in this case, the congress and courts willing accept a supporting role) .... allowing the executive the ability to do that great good or bad. In that sense, there seems to be no doubt that Bush is the worst US president in history, and that he will be recorded as one of the very worst leaders in world history.

[mwb970]

13. No other president has had the opportunity to be this bad.

Someone has suggested that Bush is the most hated human being worldwide in the history of the human race, and I believe it. Hitler may have come close, but (1) there were fewer people in the world then, and (2) his actions did not affect everyone on the planet the way the chimp's do. Who else could compete?

There have been very few if any humans who have even been heard of (much less hated) by enough people to contend.

Bush won't have a legacy, he'll have an aftermath. A long one.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Its subjective, esp now, there can be no definitive answer

History is clearly one of the academic fields were personal views greatly influence professional work. The "liberal" academics will condemn Bush II, the "conservative" ones will name others. The reality is that those of us in the midst of it are not really in a position to judge in real time, regardless of degrees or position. When we are in selected groups (such as DU) its easy to see one view resonate. Some will take that as "the truth", but it will by no means be universal.

Some time back I participated in an exercise where each of us undertook to write why a certain president was the best in history and then why he was the worst in history. We were each assigned a name. Results were startling and one of my take aways from it was that all men have feet of clay.

Declaring this president or any other as the worst in history is nothing more than giving vent to emotions, which while valuable has no bearing on reality.