The Worst President, your thoughts?

[Admiral Shran]

You're right, sorry about that. But I still don't see how that makes Harding one the worst presidents in U.S. history since he wasn't personally involved in the scandal and didn't even know about it until three weeks before his death.

 

[HoneyBLilly]

Because he allowed shady people into the White House.

Hoover is the fourth worse president on my list, while I don't totally blame him for the build up to the recession. It was his fault it got much worse.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Every president has allowed shady people into the White House. I don't think that should qualify someone for a place among the worst. Even Abraham Lincoln appointed corrupt people.

 

[HoneyBLilly]

True. Just his shady people are probably the more famous ones.

 

[Franklin]

You're right, sorry about that. But I still don't see how that makes Harding one the worst presidents in U.S. history since he wasn't personally involved in the scandal and didn't even know about it until three weeks before his death.

To me, it would be the same principle that makes a captain responsible for all that happens on board his ship. The fact that he didn't know about it or didn't find out until it had been going on for some time right inside his administration is damning, too.

Further, it shows he made some very bad choices of people to serve in his administration. To that extent, he was responsible for what happened.

The rest of the arguments about whether or not he's a "bottom five" president rotate around his politics, so of course, those are debatable. Things like favors for big business and supporting their anti-union drives over labor. The administration was so unabashedly pro-business, even The Wall Street Journal said it was fused to business.

History may become more sympathetic to him, however, because compared to the caculatingly bad presidents that followed, like Nixon and probably how G.W. Bush will be seen, he was "innocently bad."

 

[bigdaddy]

Who would you say are the worst Presisents, top 3,top 5,top 10 doesnt matter. I will give my top 3. Hoover. He pretty much allowed the depression to happen. Although it wasn't really his fault, Hoover just screwed up big time. W. He forced us into Iraq and allowed Dick Cheney and Carl Rove dictate policy. Lastly Grant, not only was his admin. corrupt, but he was the President that mostly oversaw reconstruction, probably the worst thing to ever happen to the U.S. As a matter of fact I would put Grant above Hoover.

Wow... That is a horrible list.

You forgot Buchanan who let the Civil War happen and didn't bother doing anything to stop it because he hated being president so much. Can't blame Grant without blaming the man that started the Civil War.

And my answer would be every president besides those on money that people care about.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

History may become more sympathetic to him, however, because compared to the caculatingly bad presidents that followed, like Nixon and probably how G.W. Bush will be seen, he was "innocently bad."

See, I almost think innocently bad is worse. At least a nefarious purpose implies strong leadership. Innocently bad means you were flat out unqualified to hold an important position even if you had the best intentions in the world and worked really hard too.

 

[Sector 7]

#1 For the quoted reasons:

George W. Bush

Bush's presidency was one of the worst of all time. The most obvious reason is that he invaded another country for no legitimate reason and enmeshed the U.S. in a costly militaristic quagmire and civil war. But that is not the most important reason. Worse, Bush tried to expand the powers of an already imperial presidency to a breathtaking extent - severely undermining the balance of power among the branches of government enshrined in the Constitution and riding roughshod over the civil liberties of American citizens and foreign nationals alike. In addition, the increase in domestic spending during his term was the largest since Lyndon Johnson.

He advocated bad policies and demonstrated horrendous operational incompetence. The disastrous and expensive (in casualties and money) nation-building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan were only exceeded in catastrophic results by Bush's expansion of executive power and theft of the civil liberties that make the United States unique. Bush had almost no accomplishments to offset such policy foibles. Bush was thus one of the nation's worst presidents. But he was not the worst president the United States has ever had because James Polk, William McKinley, Harry Truman, and Woodrow Wilson presided over wars or Cold Wars with even more pernicious and dangerous effects.

Bush's gargantuan bailout of the financial industry, which could cost taxpayers 2.3 trillion dollars, entailed unprecedented government intervention in the country's financial system and another expansion of executive power. It brought the U.S. closer to socialism - the nationalization of private companies during peacetime - and Mussolini-style corporatism - with the government owning shares in the troubled firms. Lastly, the bailout involved welfare for the rich, as the government acquired the authority to buy bad debt en masse. Like Herbert Hoover, Bush flooded a market replete with credit with even more credit. This move will likely exacerbate and deepen the global financial meltdown that was caused by many financial institutions' risky loans, and which were encouraged, among other factors, by earlier bailouts.

The next president inherited one hell of a mess to clean up. His legacy will haunt more than one future president.

#2: Richard Milhous Nixon
One of many examples is his retaliation whenever he did not get his way. Dick Cavett later discovered that his entire staff had been audited per Nixon's orders. Many of them suffered greatly because of those audits. [I just watched Cavett's interview on The View where he recounts this and refers to the YouTube video.]

 

[J.T.B.]

It wasn't necessary to hit Japan with those Two bombs. They only hit civilian targets, and Japan was already on its way to surrender.

Civilian targets? Hiroshima was the headquarters of and the major logistics hub for the army that would defend southern Japan from invasion. Nagasaki was a major shipyard and manufacturing center. Both were valid strategic targets. And "already on its way to surrender" is simply not historically supportable.

That invasion was never likely. All the generals were against it.

Please, who were "all the generals" who were against it? And why was Operation Downfall so thoroughly planned and why were preparations for its supplies and logistics so advanced if it was never likely?

Anything about your post above sound a little strange to you like. A million lives would be lost and stick and stones would do it. Cutting off japan from its supply would have done it.

You understand what "cutting off japan from its supply" means, don't you? It means starvation for millions of Japanese, which was well underway in mid-1945. I will never understand how that kind of slow death is more moral or ethical than killing civilians with bombs.

Critics of the a-bombings today frequently use a lot of hindsight rather than what was known, or even could have been known, at the time. Sorry, but you seem to have little understanding of the strategic situation, Japan's internal state, and the knowledge that Truman and his advisors had in 1945.

--Justin

 

[KJbushway]

And then they would have flung themselves at the Allies in a desperate banzai charge and been annihilated.

Look i like you. I think you're a cool guy, but in this matter, you really don't know what you're talking about.

For the sake of argueing. I actually know more than you think. Either way Wether it was by bomb or By allied Fire, Japanese lives would have been lost. The millions lifes arguement given to the president at the time was talking about American Soldiers, not Japanese citizens. The Japanese army was dis-organized, no command structure. Its the same way with the Japanese people, students may have been being trained, but it was more likely that they would have surrender. There was no need to drop two atomic bombs on the civilian center, which is what it was, seeing as we contuined to bomb japanese military bunkers once we captured the islands around Japan. Had we cut off the Japanese from supplies, they would have eventually surrendered. Their military was no creditable threat, to anyone.
However, the real reason why this tatic was choosen was a a fear tatic, look at what the U.S has, it was our own safety net, to show what happens when somebody attacks us. We wanted to show just how much bigger our things were, that was all. Our allies even told us this was a bad idea, they were against it.
Even the pilot of the Enola Gay, was excited at first, but when he say the damage, he regretted it, he said he would live with the nightmares of what he had done, he was ashamed of himself.

 

[KJbushway]

It wasn't necessary to hit Japan with those Two bombs. They only hit civilian targets, and Japan was already on its way to surrender.

Civilian targets? Hiroshima was the headquarters of and the major logistics hub for the army that would defend southern Japan from invasion. Nagasaki was a major shipyard and manufacturing center. Both were valid strategic targets. And "already on its way to surrender" is simply not historically supportable.

That invasion was never likely. All the generals were against it.

Please, who were "all the generals" who were against it? And why was Operation Downfall so thoroughly planned and why were preparations for its supplies and logistics so advanced if it was never likely?

Anything about your post above sound a little strange to you like. A million lives would be lost and stick and stones would do it. Cutting off japan from its supply would have done it.

You understand what "cutting off japan from its supply" means, don't you? It means starvation for millions of Japanese, which was well underway in mid-1945. I will never understand how that kind of slow death is more moral or ethical than killing civilians with bombs.

Critics of the a-bombings today frequently use a lot of hindsight rather than what was known, or even could have been known, at the time. Sorry, but you seem to have little understanding of the strategic situation, Japan's internal state, and the knowledge that Truman and his advisors had in 1945.

--Justin

This is for the last comment. It was planned, of course that was how our military did things back then, but what you don't know is that was planned from the very beginning, it wasn't planned later on. The Japanese were on their way to surrender. Both of those places were useless due to the bombing raids. Japan's internal state, was nothing. No threat. Starving was better than what happened. Your saying the japanese would have agreed that hundred of thousands of Civilians(non-military) died, and the aftermath was 60 years worth of birth defects, disease, radiation poisoning, and not being able to grow healthy food on that soil. It wasn't necessary and it wasn't more ethical.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Please, who were "all the generals" who were against it? And why was Operation Downfall so thoroughly planned and why were preparations for its supplies and logistics so advanced if it was never likely?

--Justin

I believe General Marshall was against it.

The minutes from a May 29, 1945 meeting of Marshall with Sec. of War Stimson and Assistant Sec. of War McCloy note that "General Marshall said he thought these weapons [atomic bombs] might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave - telling the Japanese that we intended to destroy such centers. There would be no individual designations so that the Japs [sic] would not know exactly where we were to hit - a number should be named and the hit should follow shortly after. Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill considered employment of such force." (RG 107, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Sec. of War Stimson ("Safe File") 7/40 - 9/45, S-1 folder, Memorandum of Conversation With General Marshall, May 29, 1945 - 11:45 a.m., National Archives).

 

[KJbushway]

Heres a list of poeple against it. Full of both Government, military, and scientist.
Dwight Eisenhower
Admiral William D. Leahy- Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman
Herbert Hoover
General Douglas MacAruther
Joseph Grew- Under Sec. of State
John McCloy- Assistant Sec. of War
Ralph Bard- Under Sec. of the Navy
Lewis Strauss- Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy
Paul Nitze- Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Albert Einstein
Leo Szilard- The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made
Ellis Zarcharias- Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence
General Carl “Tooey” Spaatz- In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific
Brigadier General Carter Clarke- The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors

 

[Franklin]

History may become more sympathetic to him, however, because compared to the caculatingly bad presidents that followed, like Nixon and probably how G.W. Bush will be seen, he was "innocently bad."

See, I almost think innocently bad is worse. At least a nefarious purpose implies strong leadership. Innocently bad means you were flat out unqualified to hold an important position even if you had the best intentions in the world and worked really hard too.

True, and I don't want to forgive ignorance. It's just that Harding at least never broke his oath of office and believed and acted as if he was above the law.
In terms of qualified, it's also true that no one (including Harding) ever claimed he was a man of great intellect. On the other hand, I've heard some assert Nixon was among the most intelligent and politically astute presidents we ever had.

 

[bigdaddy]

All of them.

Including the ones that haven't had the job yet.

This.

Note to all presidents past, present, and future: We didn't elect you because we liked you and your ideas, we just could not stand the thought of your opponent holding the office.

Andrew Jackson was in favor of a revolution every 20-30 years, we are 200 years over due.

 

[KJbushway]

I think the younger generation coming out to vote in the 2008 election, was a revolution itself, normally its hard to take us away from our cellphones and facebooks.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

All of them.

Including the ones that haven't had the job yet.

This.

Note to all presidents past, present, and future: We didn't elect you because we liked you and your ideas, we just could not stand the thought of your opponent holding the office.

Andrew Jackson was in favor of a revolution every 20-30 years, we are 200 years over due.

I believe it was Jefferson, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, James Madison argued that one justification for the ratification of the Constitution was the right of revolution (the Articles could only be changed by unanimous consent, while the new constitution was ratified in spite of at least Rhode Island absolutely opposing it. That was a peaceful revolution. Certainly, the change in government with the Civil War amendments were revolutionary (unfortunately, not a peaceful revolution). Arguably, any groundbreaking election is a revolution as well.

 

[KJbushway]

Yes, your right it was Jefferson.
Andrew Jackson was kinda of a president who was my way or the highway.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Personally, I find his handling of the nullification crisis to be the highpoint of his leadership. I think his bank policy was bad policy (although it did strengthen the office of the Presidency as far as the veto goes) and his use of the spoils system, although heavily influential, led to a lot of corruption and a Presidential assassination. His Indian policy wasn't exactly spectacular either. But I give him credit for taking a hard stance against nullification, but compromising on the actual tariff. He also refused to concede to sectionalism even though the south and west opposed the tariff.

 

[KJbushway]

It was becuase of this Indian and Slave treatment I named him in my worst presidents. He was a good military leader, up there with Washington. Frankly he should have stayed a military leader.