Who is the worst president in history?

Taft. But only because he was eaten by wolves.

 

If memory serves, he was also so fat he is the only president to ever get stuck in the White House bathtub.

 

Does Al Haig count? (Remember he declared himself in charge when Reagan was in surgery and Bush 1 was out of the country.)

 

1:34 in.

We are the mediocre presidents,
you wont find our faces on dollars or on cents

 

Nah, actual presidents only, please.

 

Nope! That was Millard Filmore!

 

In staying with the original topic ... with Clinton & Bush excepted

1. James Buchanan. Did nothing to keep the country from falling apart, but then again, that was expected of the president at the time (the concept of the president as national leader didn't really begin until TR ... prior to him, Congress was seen as the branch with all the power). He gets "wrong place, wrong time" status. Taylor, Pierce & Grant were probably the worst of the 1800s presidents.
2. Warren Harding. Surrounded himself with a cabinet full of incompetent cronies. Created scandal after scandal.
3. Jimmy Carter. A good guy. An ineffective president. Did some interesting things in the Middle East, but also was unable to end the Iran hostage crisis, oversaw a period of double-digit inflation AND unemployment and did little about it.
4. Richard Nixon. Did a lot of good -- opening up diplomatic relations with the USSR & Red China, ending the Vietnam War -- but Watergate is a big, big stain on his presidency.
5. LBJ. Completely mishandled Vietnam from the start, the country got the perception that he wasn't telling the truth about the war, got suckered into the domino theory, and his domestic policy (minus the CRA-1964 & the VRA-1965) created a mountain of societal problems (notice what has happened to the marriage rates & out-of-wedlock birthrates, especially among the poor, when the government began taking responsibility for creating a safety net. The War on Poverty never ended poverty, but has instead created social problems, especially in inner cities, that have festered upon themselves). The Civil Rights Act & Voting Rights Act -- passed over the objections of many in his party -- save LBJ from being higher on this list.
HM. Johnson, for his soft policy on reconstruction, but his willingness to fight Congress on the (very unconstitutional) Term of Office Act and survive the impeachment trial puts him a little higher in my eyes.

I believe history will judge both Clinton & Bush better than they were judged during their presidencies (much like Truman, whose approval ratings were about as bad as Bush's are now through much of his 2nd term). Clinton was impeached -- like Johnson, the impeachment was politically-motivated -- but he was a very pragmatic president that put policy over ideology. He governed from the center, and some of his hallmarks were things that angered Democrats -- welfare reform, NAFTA. He worked with Congress (and used his line-item veto, which the SC has since taken away) to balance the budget. Bush has not done well domestically (and his horrendous public speaking skills makes him look a lot less effective than he really is), but the recent turn of events in the Iraq War could allow for a pullout of troops with the objectives being met. The troop surge -- while politically unpopular -- has turned out to be successful. The tax cuts helped stave off one recession. However, he's been the opposite of Clinton on spending -- he & Congress have conspired to let spending get out of control (especially on earmarks & pork). Neither will fall into the "worst 5," while I think many would have put them both there at some point in their presidencies.

 

What transfer of wealth? The wealthiest 10% pay 90% of the taxes. The wealthiest 1% pays 50% of the taxes in the U.S. today. Both are significantly higher percentages than were paid by both groups prior to 1980. Assuming the lowering of tax rates "transferred" wealth is essentially assuming that economics is a zero-sum game, which it is not (e.g., if I have money, you don't). Economics is dynamic.

The only transfer of wealth was a transfer from the government to the private sector, which has led to 25 virtually uninterrupted years of prosperity, as Reagan's policies were pretty much carried forth by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Not to mention, the Soviet Union went from a worldwide superpower to collapsing in 10 years. In 1980, we looked like the nation in the position of weakness in the Cold War. SDI, politically unpopular as it was, forced the USSR to ramp up its defense spending, which forced it to collapse upon itself. Gorbachev tried to get Reagan to take SDI off the table several times, Reagan refused to do it.

Ronald Reagan has been the best president of the last half-century. Granted, against the field, that's not saying much (Ike didn't do much except fight the Cold War, JFK didn't have enough time, LBJ brought us the nanny state & Vietnam, Nixon was corrupt, Ford did very little good or bad, Carter was awful, Bush I did very little -- raised taxes and brought on Desert Storm -- Clinton is No. 2 to Reagan, and Bush II is going to end up in the middle of that pack, largely due to his inability to fight off the most recent recession).

 

William Henry Harrison doesn't wear a jacket, NOW THAT GUY WAS ARROGANT.

 

let's not forget that carter inherited a ton of pure shit when he was elected.

 

Yes, but it stunk worse during the next 4 years .

 

Reagan's legacy would have been tarnished if his term had lasted a year or two longer, because the economy tanked in '89/'90. So much of it is timing rather than a president's actual influence (and, yes, Clinton benefited from good timing, too).

The other thing about Reagan is that he strayed so far from the conservative playbook when he met with Gorbachev and embraced the notion of arms control during his second term. Conservatives considered Reagan something of a turncoat for even talking with the Evil Empire, and only changed their minds in retrospect, when the Iron Curtain fell and they felt the need to lionize him to show (inaccurately) that their failed policies had "won the Cold War." (Read "U.S. vs. Them" by J. Peter Scoblic for an account of how conservatives turned on Reagan in that second term.)

Oh, and crimsonace, the notion that the Soviets ramped up defense spending during the Reagan era is flat-out inaccurate -- and this inaccuracy props up one of the great myths about Reagan. From a Foreign Affairs article in 1988:

"Relations with the military deteriorated, however, in the latter half of Brezhnev's rule as the rate of Soviet economic growth declined from four percent in the 1960s to a little more than two percent in the late 1970s. This slowdown accentuated critical resource allocation decisions and prompted the Soviet leadership to cut back on the rate of growth of defense spending. Whereas Soviet defense spending had increased at a rate of four to five percent in the period 1965-1975, it dropped to two percent from 1977-1983, with investment devoted to the procurement of new weapons showing no growth at all during the same period. During that period, by contrast, U.S. defense spending visibly increased, especially after the election of President Reagan in 1980."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19880601faessay7906/f-stephen-larrabee/gorbachev-and-the-soviet-military.html