source

Is George Bush The Worst President -- Ever?

PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..."

But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out.

"No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with."

Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times.

But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual.

Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property.

He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents.

There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

• He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;
• He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
• He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;
• He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;
• He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (
• Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
• He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
• He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
• He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney.

" It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. "

No. No. I think the right time was a year and a few weeks ago. But we fucked that up.

This is garbage. Obviously not very objective.

No, no ...He's the best! yes the best!
Can I have more Kool aid please?

There must have been a half a dozen or more just as bad. It's not like scruples are historical powermonger traits.

I'll stand up for the dude. He's not worse. Bad has always been around.

Agreed, the Gilded Age Presidents were just as foul, inept and corrupt as W. We can only hope for a Teddy Roosevelt to clean up this mess.

I'd vote for about any chump with a big fat moustache or even a sweet 8-inch long beard.

...throw in a rotund beer belly and I'm in.

CHET ARTHUR IN '08!

Yeah, ever watch that American Presidents series on the History Channel? There were some real pieces of garbage. I know its the historian in me, but lets slow our roll a bit.

GBW is far from great but lets let history be the ultimate judge. People openly hated Lincoln and wanted Truman to be executed for treason.

But big ups for reactionary judgement. It DOOMED Carter and has cost Clinton at least a 25 year period before his presidency can be judged effectively (or 25 years from the moment when rad-rights stop using him as a scape-goat--probably January 20, 2009)

I also like how the original article uses "widely believed to be a homosexual" to be evidence of Buchanan's failings. Even credible historians who belive Buchanan to be gay say that his sexuality is pretty much impossible to prove at thsi point.

No, he was a gay.

GRID

Right on with Clinton.

The reason why Clinton will never be regarded as a great president and people will continue, for decades to come, to dissect the Bush administration is a tragic event (no need to mention which one). Clearly, any president deemed "great" was either assassinated or had to deal with a tragic and or cataclysmic event.

Not necessarily. I don't have any major beef with Clinton, but out of 42 presidents, if you consider the top 10% as "Great", then that leaves four. Lincoln? Washington? FDR? Truman? Jefferson? TR? Even after them there's Polk, Jackson and racist-ass Woodrow Wilson without even digging too far.

Modern presidents like Clinton, Reagan or Bush can't hang with those guys. It's that whole bell curve thing. Most of the presidents are gonna fall in the middle. Great presidents don't come around every four or eight years.

10% seems high, but considering the names you mentioned, you could easily pick 4-5 from that list and tag them as "great."

10% seems too many to consider great, or too few?

Washington: Obviously the creme de la creme of Presidents. He not only personified the title but he created a very high standard for the rest.

Lincoln: He had different presidency than Washington but brilliant nonetheless. The whole slavery/emancipation issue, in my opinion, has been completely misinterpreted.

FDR: Very pragmatic, something most presidents lack and sorely need more of. But ideologically he was very wishy-washy earlier in his political career and for the most part lacked any real political ideas that where his own. However, two World Wars and the Great Depression, nuff said.

Teddy: I'm partial, he was one of the coolest presidents ever. The fact he strong-armed corporate america proves his coolness.

The other spots are for grabs.

The number seems too high, but with the names you mentioned I can easily agree with 10%. It just seems hard to imagine that 10% of the presidents were great.

My rotating Top 4 would probly go:

1. Lincoln

2. Truman

3. FDR

4. Jefferson

Mr. James K. Polk, Napoleon Of The Stump

Right. That's why I find it pretty historically irresponsible to consider recent administrations like Clinton, Reagan or Bush as great. Most people & presidents are just average. But writing a news story on mediocrity just don't pay the bills.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty much along the same lines as you and Bloor regarding the greats. And of the six mentioned, hell, seven if you throw in Polk, they all took some rather unprecedented liberties with The Constitution and American tradition.

Yeah, hindsight is 20:20, and all. But 50 years from now, if W., Truman and Lincoln are considered equals, I'll eat my Depends.

well here goes the canadian edition:

1) lester pearson

introduced universal health care, student loans, bilingualism, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada's flag. oh yeah, and won the fricken nobel peace prize.

2) john a macdonald

father of confederation, built the cpr, killed louis riel (but we forgive him)

3) wilfred laurier

prime minister for 15 years, led during a time of huge growth and prosperity, resolved the manitoba schools problem, where french students could get french language schooling

4) mackenzie king

canada's crazy prime minister (he consuled often with the spirits of leonardo da vinci, louis pasteur, and his dog, pat). led canada through WWII. introduced old aged pensions.

5) pierre trudeau

an enormously controversial figure. he gets in because he gave us our own constitution and bill of rights (the act that made canada, the bna act, was enacted by the british parliament)

why are we including polk in this conversation?