An amusing news story yesterday caused some discussion. These seem to pop up every year or so and are generally used as a way for academics to bash their latest not-a-leftist target. Eight straight years of “see, Bush is horrible!” followed by eight straight years of “Obama is dreeeeamy!” sort of triggered my cynicism meter. Of course, the inclusion of presidents still in office is de rigeur for sending the desired signals, and putting Trump on the list after barely a year in office is reminiscent of Obama’s affirmative action Nobel Peace Prize, just before he started six new wars and began drone-killing Americans.
Likewise, historians love presidents who were incredibly active, preferably ones who killed a few hundred thousand people. The bias that “doing something” is better than “leaving us alone” is a powerful means of slanting the ratings. So given OUR biases as libertarians, how would you rank our presidents?
My own personal feeling is that there’s probably 5 or six great ones, five or six horrendous ones, and most of the rest form a blob in the middle and ranking them is useless.
My Top Five:
- Calvin Coolidge- did a wonderful job of leaving us alone, and look what happened. Economic boom time, which only ended when a more activist president and congress decided to start meddling.
- George Washington- for doing what every president ought to do: serve his time, then go home and shut up. I put him here in the top 5 because he wasn’t John Adams.
- Grover Cleveland- someone whose first instinct is to avoid federal action unless specifically demanded by the constitution ought to get more libertarian love. And he had a wonderful way of phrasing.
- Bill Clinton- wait, what? His arrival here wasn’t due to anything he deliberately did, but what he managed to do accidentally was totally tie the government into knots so that they were too busy with perjury and blowjobs to fuck things up. Economic boom, balanced budgets, only minor wars, who can complain?
- William Henry Harrison- for the obvious reason.
My Bottom Five:
45. Richard Nixon- the guy who came close to killing a million, brought us the War On Drugs, the EPA, wage-and-price controls, “Affirmative Action,” decoupling of currency from hard assets… he was a fucking disaster, top to bottom.
44. Lyndon Johnson- easily the most corrupt and murderous human to ever occupy the Oval Office. Besides killing millions, he halted the progress of black Americans and destroyed their next several generations.
43. Woodrow Wilson- it was hard to not rank him the worst, and I think a good argument could be made for that. Besides getting us into a world war and setting the conditions for an even bigger one, he was famous for his intense racism, his love of eugenics, his complete disregard for the constitution, and… well, I can think of absolutely nothing in the favor of that disgusting piece of shit.
42. James Buchanan- sometimes the historians are right.
41. John Adams- the Alien and Sedition Act and the Quasi War sent the US in the wrong direction from which we still haven’t fully recovered.
I have not towed the libertarian lion of putting Lincoln in that bottom five, mostly because (unlike the guys there) he was a mixed bag and besides the obvious evil, accomplished some great things as well (like Amendment XIII). And FDR came oh so close to the final cut, and I would not argue about his inclusion…
OK, my droogs, discuss.
Comments
267 responses to “Who Wants To Be President?”
What did you call me?
Also, don’t tell me what to do.
“Grover Cleveland- someone whose first instinct is to avoid federal action unless specifically demanded by the constitution ought to get more libertarian love. And he had a wonderful way of phrasing.”
I was reading Rothbard’s book “Banks, Wall Street, and American Foreign Policy” and I was surprised by the criticism leveled against Cleveland. His administration specifically opposed the interventionist wars that were all the rage at the time.
Also, George Washington is underappreciated
My family and I did well under Clinton, I was able to raise my kids in some Comfort,
And Here We are….
under Clinton
Phrasing!
I was a Huge Rush Fan and quiet Partisan, But We didn’t play at War too much (Bosnia),
and the work was steady as a rock,
Worst , FDR
Second Worst, Wilson
What Yusef said. What a couple of pieces of shit.
I firmly believe that Obama was worse than Nixon.
In terms of foreign policy, maybe. But, in terms of domestic affairs, Nixon greatly expanded the federal government in ways that President Obama could have only imagined
I remember sitting in line at Dawn waiting for Rationed Gas with Grammy
Nixon was destroyed by the rule of law. Thanks to Obama we are dangerously close to no rule of law.
Is it time to add plate armor to my truck? Please say it is.
Not quite, but you might consider fitting your electric guitar with a flamethrower.
There is no way this can turn out bad!
/rushes off to buy copper tubes
Plastic is cheaper!
I don’t want to look like some hillbilly when I fire up my flamer guitar.
We Really did Ration Gas in the early 70’s, odd/even Plates is how
The best way to stabilize prices is to destroy price signals. I know, because we have anti gouging laws.
It’s always time to add armor and weapons to your vehicle.
these guys are who i’ll go to for my front and rear bumpers.
as for weapons… what should we put in?
A million dead Vietnamese and 2 million dead Cambodians might vote for Nixon as being worse than Obama. But of course they can’t, being dead and all.
Also not merican!
Ike, JFK, LBJ, Ho, VC, the USSR, Mao, et al bear some responsibility in that total too.
I did put Johnson in the bottom-5 mix. Nixon turned it to 11. Kennedy might have made it, but he had the good manners to have his brains blown out before he could fuck things up even more than he already had.
I’m not quite following how Nixon is more to blame than Johnson for Vietnam/Cambodia. I’m not trying to defend the largely indefensible Nixon, but Johnson escalated US military action in Vietnam while Nixon reduced it, albeit slowly over the course of several years.
I’m not claiming Nixon was more to blame for Vietnam than Johnson- they’re both in my bottom 5- but Nixon expanded the war to Laos and Cambodia, dialed up the carpet bombing, and tried to have my own personal ass shot up. They’re both shitstains whom the world would have been better of if they’d been aborted.
Well, he expanded American involvement to Cambodia and Laos. I’m not sure it would have mattered much in the end had he not, at least as far as the dead Vietnamese and Cambodians are concerned.
The North Vietnamese expanded the war to Cambodia and Laos.
Blaming it on Nixon is like blaming FDR for expanding the war with Germany to Belgium and France.
Nixon ended the war in Vietnam by taking advantage of the split between China and the Soviets. His foreign policy was more thoughtful than the haphazard nonsense under President Obama’s term
Well, let’s see. Nixon had Kissinger. Who did Obama have?
Anyway, for the purposes of this list it doesn’t really make a difference because Nixon was awful for so many other reasons.
Who picks Sec State?
Swiss …um, Pol Pot?
Indeed. Being dead does not stop you from voting Democrat.
Better answer:
Really? I thought dead people always voted for Chicago Democrats?
Soooo, how’s that edit button coming along?
Even Republicans vote Democrat after they die.
Obama brought Daly-style machine politics to DC, specifically in a couple of ways:
(1) The weaponizing of government agencies to be partisan enforcers.
(2) The laundering of federal monies to favored groups.
Right now, I think we are teetering on the edge of having a permanent, and permanently unaccountable and uncontrollable, Rule by Agency. It may already be too late. Yes, yes, its been a trend long in the making, but the Obama administration did a lot of things to greatly accelerate the trend, and may have pushed it over the edge so it can’t be reversed.
Obama did more to destroy the American Government and the social norm than any president I can think of. I think we may never recover from him.
The only reason he didn’t kill millions in foreign wars is because the shooting wars he inherited were mostly contained. He had to satisfy himself with drone-murdering brown people in small groups. That, and social warfare at home was more important.
Obama did more to destroy the American Government and the social norm than any president I can think of.
Only if we do not count FDR or LBJ. FDR inverted the role of American government, cementing a change that Wilson started but that was partly reversed by Harding and Coolidge. LBJ then took the welfare-warfare state and turned it into a spoils system. In terms of structural changes in government-citizen relations, Obama was two-bit pretender next to Roosevelt and Johnson.
I wouldn’t put Nixon in the bottom 5. He inherited a bad war and turned it into a victory (which the Democrats in Congress eventually turned into a loss). He had some decent foreign policy wins. And when a fairly minor scandal blew up on him, he had the decency to resign and leave town.
Well, there is also this against Nixon. I mean I would have ended Bretton-Woods too, but in the other direction, giving the value the same backing for private citizens as governments.
I don’t like Nixon – I just think he’s nowhere near as bad as FDR who should be #1.
He installed the unaccountable rule-making agencies that have done so much to impede progress in the country. Drug War, price controls, turned on the paper money printing presses to full blast…
One step forward, 3 steps way back.
And when a fairly minor scandal blew up on him, he had the decency to resign and leave town.
The only reason it can be called a “minor scandal” is because he didn’t get away with it. Nixon did the same kind of shit Obama did; spy on your opponents, try to sabotage them, use the bureaucracy to stymie and penalize them, not to mention running a slush fund to pay for illegal activities and cover ups.
“Dirtier than Nixon. Dumber than Carter.”
I won’t argue about which power-mad scumbag is scummier. They both infinitely suck.
Woodrow Wilson was far worse than John Adams. If anything, Wilson should be ranked last. Remember, Congress passed the Alient and Sedition Act- Adams shouldn’t get all the blame for that piece of legislation. Wilson unilaterally re-segreated the federal workforce and instituted prosecution of war dissenters.
Well as a non american I would go for Woodrow as worst because I am of the belief that there is a chance the world may have been better if US unambiguously stayed outside WWI. And yes I know the issues with the militarist German ruling class, but I still feel there is a chance the war would have been ended earlier and beret. Buchanan clearly bad
Best? I dunno although cant argue with William Henry Harrison. Cleveland and Coolidge sound good. Maybe Thomas Jefferson? Yes he was a slave owner but I like his writing, lowerd debt, cut some government etc. and Louisiana Purchase was not that bad in hind sight.
“And yes I know the issues with the militarist German ruling class”
Yeah, like when the Germans fully mobilized their army on Russia’s border, thus escalating a regional conflict into a global war. Or when the Germans used the invasion of Belgium as an excuse to involve themselves in a war.
Oh wait, that wasn’t the Germans. But, it’s good to see that this propaganda about a German “military ruling class” (that none of the other Western nations suffered from, of course) has outlived that stupid conflict
Meh the Germans had a more militaristic ruling class than others.. But I believe the war would have ended beret without US.
The Prussians were militaristic but also fairly sensible. They had survived as a small nation in a bad neighborhood for centuries by not getting involved in fights they had no chance of winning. Their downfall was obeying an Austrian Corporal who had no such restraint.
Without the US, it probably would have ended in favor of the Germans
Probably. The French would have sued for peace as the Germans approached Paris. At that point the Brits would have bailed. France pays the Germans to leave, maybe gives up some ships and colonies. The English tell everyone to sod-off.
Frankly, a German victory would have been better for everyone in the long-term
As long as they fixed that problem they let loose in Russia.
Probably not – by the time the US got involved in any numbers, the Germans had already bled themselves out. We shortened it, but didn’t end it.
The US were instrumental in delivering a relatively sudden, decisive victory.
It’s very difficult to predict what might have happened with a long, drawn out bleeding-out of all the combatants. Something as peripheral as the death of a pivotal politician, or another wave of Spanish Influenza could have been the decider.
I don’t know about that. The British and French were just as exhausted. Remember, the Germans had just knocked Russia out of the war, thus being able to concentrate all their forces on the Western Front. The entry of the US ensured that the allies would soon have fresh troops. Had the US not entered the war and the Germans were able to bring in their troops from the East at a reasonable pace (rather than hastily moving them to the West before US troops arrived), I think there is a better than even chance that they would have broken through and captured Paris
Anyway the real problem was that bloke Archie Duke killing an ostrich cause he was hungry
Propaganda
“Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German.”
The German military and aristocratic class furiously masturbated over the idea of armed conflict, and Wilhelm II was the most masturbatory of all (driven by massive insecurities from his childhood).
If Frederick III had been in charge WW1 would have looked a lot different.
Yes, it was the Germans who started World War I. This is known, even when the facts contradict this point
You forgot to bellow that I’m a neocon in your childish strawman Just Say’n, you’re slipping.
God forbid someone actually read about the values and beliefs of the German aristocratic and military class before they open their mouth.
Yes, only the German aristocracy actively promoted war. The British were the most peaceful country in the world before the evil Hun made them defend poor Belgium (“won’t anyone think of Belgium?”).
Even Naill Ferguson, who is of the neocon persuasion, has admitted that this fanciful notion that the Germans were predisposed to make war doesn’t match with reality
Yes, only the German aristocracy actively promoted war.
Well it’s a good thing I didn’t say that then. Reading comprehension Just Say’n, you fail at it.
Of course actually analyzing the cultural influences within the German aristocracy of the period, what with their high focus on romanticism, German mythology, Nietzscheanism and odd views on masculinity that glorified war to an extent greater than the other powers is really just demonization.
Nuance is for those filthy neocons. It’s better to just say that everyone’s culture was completely equal and the same.
You literally wrote this: “The German military and aristocratic class furiously masturbated over the idea of armed conflict”
So, all I was saying is: are you suggesting this was not true for the ruling classes in the UK, France, and Russia? The British probably had the weakest argument for getting involved in the war.
Sometimes your love of the British is a downside
So, all I was saying is: are you suggesting this was not true for the ruling classes in the UK, France, and Russia?
To a far lesser extent than the Germans. Asquith, Lloyd George and George V didn’t think they were feminine nanny boys if they didn’t view warfare as the highest expression of masculinity, Wilhelm II did.
And that’s the problem. I can’t agree with the notion that there was a psychological reason for Wilhelm and the Junkers to provoke war, when they didn’t behave that way in the lead-up to World War I. The Germans only mobilized when the Russians had fully mobilized on their border.
Further, I find it really hard to believe that the British, French, and Russians (who were the instigators for the bulk of the European conflicts since the 1700’s) were somehow more reserved in the build-up to war. The French were looking to avenge their loss in the Franco-Prussian War and the Russians were needlessly inserting themselves into a regional conflict to bolster their image as ‘defender of the Slavs’ (which is, by the way, the lamest moniker in world history)
I can’t agree with the notion that there was a psychological reason for Wilhelm and the Junkers to provoke war, when they didn’t behave that way in the lead-up to World War I. The Germans only mobilized when the Russians had fully mobilized on their border.
Maybe you need greater insight into the mentality of the period then ‘the Germans didn’t expect Russia to mobilize’.
Again, you seem to think that I’m framing the Germans as evil baddies and the Entente as pure and good. There was plenty of imperialism and militarism within the Entente, particularly the French, but the ‘warrior culture’ fetishism within the German nobility was almost an absurdist parody.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/116866.The_Pity_of_War
Unfortunately the French and British ruling class were in the same boat.
All sides ignored the lessons that were evident in the Crimean, 1st Sino-Japanese, and later parts of the US Civil War.
How dare you impugn the war hungry British ruling class! Only the Hun can be chastised
*nods in agreement*
/Belgian
How dare someone recognize negative cultural practices within a specific group rather than spew apologia for them!
I just don’t think that the ethnic background of a people suggests that they are predisposed to make war, especially since this is applied haphazardly, or are we going to pretend like France and Britain were not the impetus for the bulk of European wars throughout the 1800’s?
Again, you really need to learn basic reading comprehension. I said culture, not ethnicity (and I even specified German aristocracy, not even the necessarily the layman). Cultural backgrounds absolutely pay a massive role in whether groups are predisposed to wage war.
So you are saying that the Junkers were predisposed to make war and what I am saying is that if that is true, than we must accept the fact that they were no more predisposed to make war than the British, French, or Russian ruling classes.
All of the wars of the 1800’s were instigated by the British, French, or Russians. Not the Junkers and the Prussian state (who waged two wars of unification and cannot be faulted as the sole aggressor in either conflict). If you can explain that away then maybe I may warm to your idea
I’m saying that contextually, at that point in time, negative cultural trends with the German aristocracy favoured aggressive military action. Which is why I specifically said that if Frederick III was in power WW1 would have been different, because he was a reformer and far less predisposed to aggressive military fetishism than his son.
All of the wars of the 1800’s were instigated by the British, French, or Russians.
Nations that have the ability to power project do so? What a terribly insightful statement. Because you are not interested in context or nuance, and are instead interested in pushing your foreign policy views, you take a statement about the specific actions of people in a specific time and situation and explode it into a “OH YEAH WELL HOW ABOUT ALL THIS OTHER CONFLICT OVER A HUNDRED YEAR PERIOD HUH”. Which doesn’t actually address the military fetishism of the German upper class leading up to the war, but it makes you feel good about your beliefs.
Not really. I just don’t find psychological evaluations of long since dead foreign leaders as being particularly insightful, especially when they were first proposed by the victors after the conflict to justify their notion that only one country bore responsibility for World War I.
I prefer to look at what the chain of events were and they don’t paint the Allies in a very good light. And that’s probably why the psychological explanation took hold among the victors, because they couldn’t assign blame on Germany based upon the chain of events.
And yes I know the issues with the militarist German ruling class, but I still feel there is a chance the war would have been ended earlier and beret.
I’m by no means a fan of the Bismarkian state. But, I really think the Prussian military types have gotten a retroactively unfair assessment. They weren’t Nazis. They were conservative Junkers. There’s not really a whole lot of reason to think they were terribly worse than any other country’s leadership class. Just Germany’s coming into existence meant there was inevitably going to be a big war.
But they did have an extra stiff war boner.
Plus, if the U.S. stayed out of the war even if the axis powers still list the treaties likely wouldn’t have been as severe. So the treaty of Trianon would leave the Szekelers in Hungarian territory. Sure, Romania would be smaller, but you wouldn’t have to deal with their rabble rousing.
honestly in my view of history the best thing would have been to be somehow spared of communism and probably Nazism,. Besides that I am no nationalist so I don’t care weather Romania would be smaller especially if all Eastern Europe was spared commie shit. Imagine Poland Check Republic Hungary Romania etc with no communism. And the extra economic prosperity world wide. Fewer commies in Asia and Africa. Also without communism probably less social democracy in the West. Now would no involvement by US – including no cash or aid – in the war have brought less communism? Hard to say. Maybe, depending how the war would have ended.
No. The key to staving off the commies would be Nick II getting out of the war before Russia fell to shit and returning to the reforms he’d started before all that mess.
Now would no involvement by US – including no cash or aid – in the war have brought less communism?
Unless the Germans or the Entente pivoted immediately after the end of the war and intervened heavily in Russia, noooooooope. And given that the lack of the U.S. would have probably resulted in a grinding, exhausted ceasefire an intervention was not in the cards.
In the case of a German victory? Maybe.
grinding, exhausted ceasefire – there is some speculation that actually the war would have ended earlier. There would have been more incentive for peace of Britain didn’t think they were getting help. And if war ended earlier maybe Russia would have been different. I don’t know. I am speculating. I do know my country was devastated by the 2 wars and communism to the point it may never recover.
I think Germany is the bigger factor than the U.S. Despite the treaty of Trianon being more economically punishing than the treaty of Versailles, at least Germany retained most of their territory and seaports, Hungary actually did fairly well in the interwar period. I would assume that an unbroken Austro-Hungarian empire would have done better. Combine that with a Germany that didn’t fall to national socialism as a counter to Russian communism, and eastern Europe would have likely been in a position to hold the Soviets to the Russian borders. Asia is still a crap shoot, as well as Africa, but Europe would have been much better off. I’d take a smaller and healthier Romania over a larger communist one.
I don’t see how you can keep FDR out of the bottom five. Putting U.S. citizens in concentration camps, trying to pack the supreme court, shredding constitutional limits on federal power…as my boss says, it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
I didn’t know FDR started Jelly of the month. Oh, now I really hate him.
Fuck that guy. If I could go back in time and kill just one person I’d leave Hitler, Stalin,and Mao alone and take FDR on half of a helicopter ride in a heartbeat.
This. Throw both him and Hoover inside the dam named after one of them.
I don’t recognize the authority of any president! I am a free man!
/rends garments
*laughs, releases Rover*
I’ll say what no one else has the courage to say, Jaws 3 was a good movie.
but only when properly seen in 3d
Sharknado or GTFO.
Correct.
Top – Silent Cal. To wit –
Worst – Tied: Wilson/FDR. Slavers, both of them. LBJ and Nixon can be their cabana boys in Hell.
I Bow to your Wisdom O Swiss one!
Total agreement!
HUZZAH!
read that as tweet. What would Cal have twitted?
That character count limit wouldn’t have been an issue.
There is another apocryphal Coolidge story wherein a reporter cornered “Silent Cal” at a function and said, “I have a bet that I can get you to say three words tonight.” Supposedly Coolidge smiled at him and said, “You lose.”
I also like the story of how he announced his effective retirement from politics.
The one about Christopher Lee is more fun, though. He famously was fairly tightlipped about his experiences as a clandestine operative during WWII despite being asked about it frequently by interviewers. So, supposedly he once replied to another query about his wartime exploits by leaning in close to to the interviewed and asking “Can you keep a secret?” When the reporter said yes, Lee replied “So can I.” and would say no more about it.
Depending on – well – a lot of variables – he was very wise to do so.
The OSA has no sunset provisions, and once you’ve acknowledged that you are subject to it, there’s no expiry date.
One of my favorite things, ever.
Agree on Wilson/FDR.
Obama can’t really be in the conversation because he failed at most every bad idea he tried. Loser.
Oh, and Cal turned a four week vacation in the Black Hills into a four month one. That’s the kind of dedication I want in a President.
Obama, I doubt anyone even remembers him. SAD!
My family didn’t. When they asked “Since when could Americans go to cuba” I told them Barry did it. It took several tries to get them to recall who he was.
Did you refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, PBUH? Maybe that’s how they know him.
You might also try “Anointed One,” or “Lightbringer.”
I always use The Chocolate Jesus. People usually blow something out of their nose and know instantly who I mean.
Chocolate Nixon is still my favorite.
I put that quote up on my Facebook page in the days when I was still on Facebook. It caused a remarkable amount of indignation.
Bulleye quotes like that one…also one of my favorites…often do. I tried to get a relative to read Atlas Shrugged. Half-way through the first chapter the book came back.
“What didn’t you like about it?”
“I dont know. Something about it made me feel uncomfortable”
*mumbles under breath “So, a mirror” *
he failed at most every bad idea he tried.
That remains to be seen. His weaponized agencies are still pretty much running loose, and his laundering of various pots of government money to his favored groups is also pretty embedded.
This truly is the skinniest kid at Fat Camp rating system.
William Henry Harrison- for the obvious reason.
His eloquence in public speaking?
I’m off to do some H down in Ontario, it seems She has no Blower motor,
Ironically for Today, Herbert Hoover (Former Vacuum Cleaner Salesman) had the first A/C system installed at the White House, Pretty Cool.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/keeping-cool-in-the-white-house
It’s the capacitor.
I’ll let you know in the PM links
Flux or electrolytic?
If you’re gonna ride, ride the white horse?
I can’t stomach Clinton because of the AWB and bombing the Balkans; doesn’t mean he belongs on the list of “worst” but I think it precludes him from “best”. Everyone else is pretty good.
Though, I would put Obama as an honorable mention in the worst column not because the stuff he did while in office was uniquely bad relative to others, but because of all these ROOSKIES! shenanigans he did while a lame duck. Using the apparatus of the State against a fairly elected successor to try and sabotage said successor’s presidency before it even starts is Police State, Banana Republic stuff and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. His extreme overreach with DACA, rewriting Zero-care on the fly and EPA nonsense is pretty shitty too.
Both Roosevelt’s are in my bottom 5 along with Woody, LBJ, and Adams.
Yeah, my worst: LBJ, Woody, FDR, Adams, Nixon. Basically all Big Government shitstains.
Honorable mention: Obama for the reasons above.
I’d also put Reagan, if not in the top 5, at least the top 10 because of his stance against the Soviets and for bringing low tax conservatism back into the national conversation. He also oversaw FOPA which is huge to me.
See my article about a year ago on St. Ronald and his supposed low tax policy.
What I never understood about Obama was not just his mendacity, pinko bonafides and slick-shit salesman personality but his popularity despite his obvious contempt for Americans and all of the horrible things he did just to cause pain. The idiots just kept voting for him. My God, who takes STDs off of the list barring immigrants from entering the country at a time when those bugs are increasingly antibiotic resistant? He spent 8 years giving the finger to the country and they just kept applauding. WTF?
Adams one saving grace: his refusal to go to war with France like most of the Federalists wanted him to. Effectively ended his chances of a second term.
The thing that occurs to me about these “Best/Worst President” lists is that they can only ever be terribly ill informed. Even if you go by the “national daddy” standard the authors usually employ, the perfect president would look incredibly boring and unimpressive.
If you had this hypothetical “perfect president”, he’d be abundantly skilled at anticipating problems and resolving them before they became actual issues. You wouldn’t have “the great war president” because he’d have put the potential adversary in check before adversary even made it into the news. You wouldn’t hear about the wonderful things he did for the country’s less fortunate because he’d preside over a period of strong and broadly based economic growth. You wouldn’t hear about his wise and astute handling of Constitutional crises because the crises wouldn’t have happened; they’d have been prevented in the first place.
In short, he’d look a lot like Coolidge. But, from these historians’ perspective there’d be nothing to see here. They’d look at him and say he was fortunate enough to be in office during good times and didn’t really do anything with it.
No love for Buchanan? I wonder what, exactly, the historians expected out of him? Start the Civil War four years earlier?? Sure, he kicked the can of slavery down the road, but so had every president before him.
Wilson tops any worst presidents list. Other Presidents may have created regional problems for their successors, Wilson created global problems that have haunted the modern political order to this day.
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that had Wilson not intervened in the war, and especially had he not botched the conditions of the German surrender, Fascism and Nazism never really get legs and the Bolshevik revolution never occurs.
By January of 1918, the Cheka was already in operation, and Lenin was in control of the state. While the Russian civil war would not be resolved until 1922, Wilson’s actions were not as influential in aiding the Reds or hampering the Whites.
The ‘laid the groundwork for the next war with German’ point is a big one, but there’s a ton of little things that came back to bite them in the ass that Wilson was directly involved in. Disillusionment of Japan with the Western global political order. Disillusionment of China with Western democracy and other concepts after they handed German Chinese territories off to the Japanese. Handing off parts of Turkey to the Greeks. Helping to promote conflict within Pan-Arabism. Various land swaps in Eastern Europe that were mostly corrected by the next war. Seriously considering recognizing the Soviet Union early on. Refusing any notion of a racial equality clause in the League of Nations concept.
Hell, Wilson explicitly rejected the idea of a Kurdish state in the peace talks because he saw them as racially degenerate. That hasn’t had any outcomes.
Also, what other president has a biological clarion call to promiscuity named after him?
Grover Cleveland?
No, the obvious answer is Hitler.
That’s where the Cleveland steamer comes from!
“Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?”
“Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!”
I’m going to go with Washington since that’s the epicenter of everyone’s daily ass fucking.
That’s not promiscuity, that’s buggery.
+1 Coolidge Effect
Why do I only get five? There is such a rogues gallery to choose from.
OMWC I only disagree with you on one. FDR. Put him on the list.
FDR was the absolute worst – everyone else is competing for second. His endless administration was an orgy of socialist fascist experiments and the ensuing recessions. He was the Great Depression.
Jefferson and Madison did so much to form the very notion of America before they ever became presidents that I tend to gravitate towards them even if they did things while president that weren’t good.
Yes, that’s why Jefferson didn’t make my Top 5; Jefferson the political philosopher >>> Jefferson the president.
What did Jefferson do to be disqualified?
Slaves, Derick.
well I mean yeah but it was 1810
The way he handled the Louisiana Purchase was blatantly unconstitutional, he even admitted such. When someone as pivitol to our ideas of restraining government does such things, it tends to knock them down more than a person you’d expect to do such things.
Not sure about a DQ but his support for the Embargo Act had some negative consequences.
Interestingly, Jefferson himself claimed he wanted to be remembered for three things: Declaration, Act for Religious Liberty, UVA.
Also, depending on how one feels about foreign intervention, there is Tripoli
Tbf, protecting trade routes from piratical kingdoms openly attacking merchant ships flying your flag isn’t really interventionist.
I’m sure Paul Johnson has his reasons for glad-handing Harding–in the context Johnson gives him, Harding contrasts rather favorably against the ascendant Fascist leaders of the era–but I can’t help but like the man as depicted:
He went on to correct the sharp recession of ’20, cut Wilson’s previous budget by 40%, pardoned Eugene Debs, “freed twenty-three other political prisoners the same day, commuted death-sentences on the ‘Wobblies’ (Industrial Workers of the World) and before the end of his presidency had virtually cleared the gaols of political offenders.” But of course, he’s remembered chiefly for the sins of his subordinates, one of whom (Charles Forbes) Harding summoned to the White House, “shook him ‘as a dog would a rat’ and shouted ‘You double-crossing bastard’.” Two others implicated committed suicide; one fled to Europe, and one was jailed. None were convincingly tied to Harding, but his sin, I suspect, in being a genial do-nothing cost-cutter, is why he’s blithely written off by historians as one of the most corrupt politicians of a very corrupt century.
And he had the good sense to choose Coolidge as a running mate.
Chosen for him, actually.
Which was the style at the time.
True, although Harding & the bosses wanted someone else and there was a minor rebellion on the convention floor.
Teapot Dome seems like a quaint misdemeanor these days. Harry Reid and family did an act for act reenactment of it and didn’t get so much as a hand-slap.
I wish the idea of being shamed into shooting or hanging yourself still prevailed. If you’re going to bilk taxpayers, at least have the courtesy to turn off the lights on your way out.
Speaking of “Silent Cal”
Supposedly, when Dorothy Parker was informed of Coolidge’s death, she responded by asking, “How can they tell?”
*appy polly loggies if somebody beat me to that
“Nine-tenths of a president’s callers at the White House want something they ought not to have. If you keep dead still they will run out in three or four minutes.”
I thought that was Alice Roosevelt?
Here’s a ding against Washington. I see the Whiskey Rebellion as the poo in the pudding, so to speak, of both Washington’s bona fides as an advocate for liberty and the notion of an American nation that is fundamentally different from others. Here it is not ten years following the end of the American Revolution and a sitting President is in the field leading an army against his fellow citizens to force them to pay federal taxes on liquor. No Taxation Without Representation…unless we’re doing it, in which case it’s alright. I think there’s a straight line from the reasoning behind the suppression of the rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts that Adams will later sign into law.
This brings me to my nominee for one of the best: Thomas Jefferson. Yeah, he’s not perfect, but he checks a lot of boxes for a libertarian/classical liberal. He signed a federal ban on the importation of slaves, an important first step towards ending slavery. The Louisiana Purchase notwithstanding, he tended away from engaging in foreign politics. And, he fought the Alien and Sedition Acts, most of which were repealed during his presidency.
FDR can certainly be on the list of the worst, but if you have to drop someone to put him on, make sure it’s not Adams. Adams created the template for “Nixonian” politics. The Alien and Sedition Acts were tyrannical, flew directly in the face of the Constitution, and in the Alien Enemies Act provided the legal authority under which Italian, German, and of course Japanese Americans were interred during WW2.
What happened to the peoples who would take up arms against the state over taxes and booze?
No Jimmy, no craft beer renaissance
God Dammit
Now we just need to get home distilling legalized. I’m seeing more and more of the homebrew shops selling stills (ostensibly for water and essential oils).
Can you point me to one – my tap water is too full of crap and I’m not sure if it’s cheaper to keep getting new filters or to just distill it.
Most likely it’ll be cheaper to get filters. The one that really prompted this was seeing an Air Still at a homebrew shop. The box specifically mentioned making spirits, which requires a special license in the US (unless something has changed in the past couple of years). There’s also the Pico Still which also has other brewing equipment, and is partially owned by ZX Ventures (ABInBev’s venture finance arm).
Or, if you really just want to distill water, just make a peaked lid out of tin foil, and boil water underneath of it. Have the peaked foil lead into a smaller pot, and you’ll distill water. Most of the other equipment is to separate something else from water (alcohol, oils, etc.).
Depends what kind of crap is in the water. If you’re worried about sediments and organics – and frankly, most heavy metals) we use one of these at our hill residence.
All done with almost no interference.
Now, my take is that it’s probably not so great for nitrates and sulphates, but that’s not a problem we have with the supply.
I have friends that run brew shops. When an individual buys one of these stills, they are required to fill out a lengthy form which also requires them to allow the feds to inspect the still at any time they choose. These forms where never used for much, and everyone treated them like a minor inconvenience — until the Obama administration.
I remember hearing about raids on people a couple years back. It just seems… ill-advised to me to sell a product that’s blatantly labeled for use in something illegal. Most of the equipment I had seen in the stores before only talked about water, essential oils and the like… sort of like all the head shops that sell tobacco accessories.
What are the penalties for Home distilling for personal consumption?
By withholding it from interstate commerce you’re affecting interstate Commerce, and you thus owe taxes to the government. Being an interstate commercial distillery without a licence is a big nono, so we’re gonna have to take you to federal prison.
https://www.ttb.gov/spirits/home-distilling.shtml
felonies that are punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, for each offense.
Under 26 U.S.C. 7201, any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat any Internal Revenue Code tax (including the tax on distilled spirits) has committed a felony and shall be fined up to $100,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both, plus the cost of prosecution.
From the TTB. Lots of felonies with punishments of up to 5 years in prison and/or fines up to $10,000, including:
Looking it over, there’s some fun asset forfeiture in there as well. Per the Fed, it doesn’t matter if it’s for personal consumption or not, distilling at home is just wrong.
So…return the still I bought?
distilling at home is just wrong
The concentration of alcohol without a tax permit is wrong. Stills can be used for other legal purposes. But if you cheat and get caught, you can lose pretty much everything and spend some quality time in federal prison.
My understanding is that it’s highly illegal to distill alcohol for personal consumption. However, it’s totally legal to create fuel alcohol.
fuel alcohol requires atf permission as well IIRC
Malaise forever!
Is it artisanal malaise?
Cleveland is the most underrated president in history. You almost never hear anything about him aside from serving non-consecutive terms.
The last decent Democrat.
Calvin Coolidge FTW!!
An homage from a high school student (in CA, no less!)
His presidency also leads historians to demonstrate one of the logical fails (can’t remember which one). The argument is that Coolidge was a bad president because if he’d only “done something” in 1928 he could have prevented the crash.
FDR and Obama in the bottom 10.
If you did it by terms, FDR could possibly have all three bottom places.
And no love for Jimmuh?
There was a really interesting show on History a while back called The Hippies. They basically said the hippies gentrifying urban areas set African Americans back many, many years after the social strides they made post-enslavement.
That sounds as specious as Roosevelt apologists eliding all the economic dislocation he wrought by saying, “No, see, the crash in ’29 was really just that bad.”
I dunno – it was an interesting argument. You should check the show out. It wasn’t all “hippies are awesome”. It really showed the troubled side of that movement. There was a bit about how the communes all dissolved into infighting and politics.
Jimmy Carter appointed Alfred Kahn to the Civil Aeronautics board. He deserves credit for that.
Most of what Carter gets blamed for was Nixon’s fault.
And he de-regulated beer (not on principle, mind you – just for nepotism – but the result was a net good)
Yep. Jimmy tilts the scale his way for a number of things he did that people forget.
He was a dork and shit leader, but he laid the groundwork for a good many very good things.
Teddy Roosevelt, fascinating character that he was, deserves to be ranked really low on these sorts of lists.
He pretty much acted as though there were no Constitutional limits on the executive.
Dude was a fucking sociopath. He started a war so that he could go murder people “justifiably.” We talk about all presidents having sociopathic tendencies, but TR needed to be committed. If he were born 100 years later, he wouldve been a serial killer.
When I was doing online dating, I got in a conversation with this dude who switched military branches so he could go into combat. He wanted to go to war. He wanted to shoot a gun at people. I put the kibosh on that conversation immediately. That’s some fucked up shit.
When I was doing online dating
I can see exactly what you were doing wrong.
Dating?
Not really unusual for young males. The high T gives us the blood lust.
He was in his late 30’s, IIRC.
Definitely an honorable mention among the bad column, but yes, like so many other shitty presidents, gets lionized.
He’s on the top 5 for me because he was the original progressive on the national scale. He drew up the administrative state blueprint that Wilson and FDR used to pistol whip the constitution.
Top 5 evil, if that wasn’t clear from the context.
Don’t forget the beginnings of “world government”. Piece of human garbage.
OT, but I really love FEE.
Bastiat Knew the Proper Limits of Government Force
But then, of course, a lot of people would have to get off their lazy asses and get a real job. And property values around DC would crater.
OT: Soros is a hypocrite part eleventy zillion.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/george-soros-fossil-fuel-investments/
Why does this never get old for me?
https://twitter.com/MrT/status/966025783729778688
How unsurprising – John Roberts is a pussy, yet again
WHYCOME YOU LEAVE REAGAN OF YOUR LIST!!!111!!!
//Not serious
That could work for a prog or a conservative.
“Reagan was the greatest- he should be number one”
“Reagan was the original Hitler. He killed people by infecting them with AIDS or something”
Of all the days for my computer to crap out and require an OS upgrade…
I’ll let others quibble with the rankings, but for Nixon the wage-and-price controls are essentially the same policy as decoupling currency from hard assets. I’m sure he was advised that inflation would skyrocket if he decoupled and didn’t enact controls. He left that for someone else to clean up.
I’d put Ford in my top 5 only because he vetoed almost everything that came across his desk. (And he still didn’t veto enough.)
Plus the Whip Inflation Now campaign had some sweet merchandise
For the 70’s, that’s pretty lame. Where are all the oranges, browns, and yellows, and swoopy logos?
Something like this?
Oww…..that hurt my retinas.
YAS
I think slightly off topic but nonetheless interesting question is which president wins in a Knife Fight
My guess is the winner is a toss up between the sociopaths, T. Roosevelt and Jackson. Though I can see Nixon knifing the true winner in the back after pretending to be dead the entire time.
Jackson, absolutely. Dude willingly stood still and took a bullet to the chest just so he could slowly, carefully aim and kill his dueling opponent rather than rush a hurried shot. He was nuts and perfectly willing to absorb pain if it gave him a better chance to kill someone.
I don’t know, anyone going up against Clinton might accidentally shoot themselves in the head with their knife.
… five or six times.
In this scenario, he won’t have Hillary to fall back on.
Knife fight? Old Hickory.
Put me in the Jackson camp for winning the knife fight. Why look at those beady eyes.
Lincoln. The guy has the best reach, and was crazy strong despite his lanky frame.
Yeah this one is Lincoln hands down.
The Guy was huge and had a reputation for being ridiculously strong long before he became President
dude lived for what, 8 hours, after being shot in the head?
Skinny guys fight till they’re burger.
Well…why not shoot a President?
You must be one ‘a them John Bulls
Great movie. One of my favorite cowboy movies
Because they keep making them?
from Used Cars:
Jeff: For Christ’s sake, we’re fuckin’ with the President of the United States.
Rudy: He fucks with us, doesn’t he?
Rudy: C’mon Jeff! You’ve seen how bad business is. Thanks to Fuchs, our name is mud! Look… we had nuns, protesting out front when I got here this morning.
Jeff: Nuns?
Rudy: Yeah. I had to have Jim turn the firehose on them.
Big Jim: [holds up the still wet firehose] And I knocked them motherfuckers right on they asses, too.
FBI Inspector: You want to give me that again?
Jeff: Uh, well, yes. As I say, Inspector, I heard this large explosion and I rushed out, I couldn’t tell what was going on. I saw the car over there in flames and all these strange little characters, you know, with towels on their heads, weird little goatees and stuff, running around yelling: “Ayatollah, Ayatollah.” Then they all got in a car and drove away. I guess it was Iranian students out to discredit the American way of life. I can’t imagine who else would do such a thing.
I love that movie.
I’ve never seen it, but I’m imagining Jeff in the voice of Ricky from TPB.
I used to be a huge rah rah rah Reagan fan – but time with you guys ‘n’ gals has tempered my enthusiasm.
But I still give him high marks for willing to take on the Soviets instead of appeasement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8
I think Andrew Jackson is a mixed bag. He was the only president to pay off the national debt and he ended the second bank of the United States, but he also floated the separation of powers by ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision with regards to the Cherokee nation (not to mention that he basically forced the Cherokee on a death march).
I think he should be ranked in the bottom ten
*ignored (I have no idea why my computer defaulted to ‘floated’)
I assumed it was autocorrect for “flouted”.
“Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”
“I assumed it was autocorrect for “flouted”.”
That would have made more sense
(1) Woodrow Wilson brought the US into World War I, following in the footsteps of McKinley and Roosevelt who wanted to make the US a premier world power
(2) The Russians began World War I by inserting themselves into a regional conflict in order to bolster their image as “defender of the Slavs” (which is also the lamest moniker in world history) and mobilized troops on the German border
(3) The British had literally no reason to involve themselves in World War I other than to beat back the growing power of Germany
(4) France is a pathetic nation
(5) One can have no love for the Kaiser or imperial Germany while also recognizing that they got the short-end of history with regards to who instigated World War I
OT, but when are we, as a nation, finally going to have an honest and open conversation about common-sense corndog control?
Waste of a good Lunch,
Sup Tres
It was the capacitor, wasnt it?
Hey Yusef!
No H is for Handyman today, I found a New Flame Sensor that was never Screwed Down, so it was never properly grounded.
She Told me she didn’t trust me, I told her what the problem was, fixed it and proved it to Her, I told her to have her Handyman look into it, Dumb Homeowner
You should have just said, “yep, you’re right, it’s the blower motor” and replaced it.
Ethics is doing the right thing when no one is looking, and I love humiliating Uppity People, Let her Fucking “handyman” fix it
Yusef is like an anti-Spiderman. He spends his whole life driving around to HVAC users, pranking them with their non-working equipment.
What a shitlord.
Be a Dick I’ll charge You more….
You didnt mention the fetzer valves and charge her for some 30 weight ball-bearings?
We use Kunugle valves now, Solid state
Do they work better than Honeywell Zone valves?
‘cos those bastards are real shit. I’ve had to replace 2 in the last 2 years. I’d be happy to try a Kunugle reciprocating valve or two if they didn’t seize up.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/374597-facebook-exec-apologizes-for-claiming-that-goal-of-russian-ads-wasnt-to
Facebook VP tells the truth about Russia Fever, only to be forced to apologize for questioning the narrative
The apology won’t cut it. Jesus fucking Christ, when will these people learn that leftists see an apology as an admission of guilt and nothing more?
This isn’t just the Left. This is everyone that wants the US further involved in Syria and Ukraine. This runs the gambit from ostensibly ‘libertarian’ people like Cathy Young and Matt “NATO is the best” Welch to neoconservatives from Max Boot to Bret Stephens
Agreed, I’m just busy and was overly brief.
It’s bigger than the foreign policy. If the Russia-colluded-with-Trump narrative collapses, then the behavior of the Obama Administration and the federal government toward the opposition party is indistinguishable from the one usually displayed in banana republics and places like… Putin’s Russia. And that is very hard for ostensibly “reasonable” people to swallow.
“”The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.””
no one contradicts this, but everyone is spinning FB ‘apology’ as tho its a retraction or rebuttal of this point.
The fact that the media narrative ignores this important point is yet more evidence that the Fourth Estate in this country is more of a Fifth Column more than anything.
“That’s anti-media and therefore threatens the First Amendment or some nonsense like that”
James K. Polk.
Nobody’s mentioned James Monroe.
Wasn’t He a Doctor?
Related: Who was Thomas Jefferson?