Best President

[T.hill]

Along with voting for best president from those listed on the poll, if ya want to, post a personal list of the best president to the worst.

I don't really know where to post this, so if it's in the wrong forum, then move it.

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.whyeverypresidentsucked.com/

[helmuth_hubener]

Samuel Johnston. First man elected as President under the Articles of Confederation.

Refused to serve.

How terrific is that? Epic!

Fewest days in office = best possible President.

[Smart3]

Harding is included but Adams is not? Dafuq?

[ghengis86]

William Henry Harrison

[T.hill]

Harding is included but Adams is not? Dafuq?

Adams? As in John Adams, 2nd president?

[Smart3]

William Henry Harrison
I believe Tecumseh would disagree.

[KEEF]

Where is G.W. Bush? /Joking/:D

[Cutlerzzz]

Harding is included but Adams is not? Dafuq?

Harding pardoned the people Wilson imprisoned for speaking out against the government.

Adams put people in jail for speaking out against the government.

Any argument in favor of Adams over Harding is invalid.

[ghengis86]

I believe Tecumseh would disagree.

Savages aren't people; they're savages.

[ghengis86]

Adams? As in John Adams, 2nd president?

Maybe forgot the "Quincy"?

[green73]

Samuel Johnston. First man elected as President under the Articles of Confederation.

Refused to serve.

How terrific is that? Epic!

Fewest days in office = best possible President.

William Henry Harrison will have to do. Oh wait, he's not in the poll either.

[Smart3]

Adams? As in John Adams, 2nd president?

No silly, the champion against slavery, JQ Adams.


Savages aren't people; they're savages.
I don't appreciate you referring to the Shawnee as savages. I also don't think the Oneida (who were on our side) would take kindly either, as by implication all of the tribes at that time were savages.

and keep in mind, I take Ayn Rand's approach to this issue.

[ghengis86]

No silly, the champion against slavery, JQ Adams.


I don't appreciate you referring to the Shawnee as savages. I also don't think the Oneida (who were on our side) would take kindly either, as by implication all of the tribes at that time were savages.

and keep in mind, I take Ayn Rand's approach to this issue.

Sorry, should have used the /sarc tag. I was doing my best 'murican impression, which I now know is spot on

My apologies

[Smart3]

Sorry, should have used the /sarc tag. I was doing my best 'murican impression, which I now know is spot on

My apologies

Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive. Don't get me wrong, many of the native groups were savages. Just many were fairly civilized and in some cases ahead of most European countries. The civilization that was the first victim of Anglo Imperialism, the Powhatans strongly resemble European nations like France around the time of Capet. We should have seen them as allies, not enemies. There were plenty of inhabitable places elsewhere. Imagine if we had assimilated the Powhatan rather than dismantling them?

[Qdog]

I voted for Jackson because he killed the bank, and was the last president to pay off the national debt. He also dueled people that pissed him off.

[ghengis86]

Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive. Don't get me wrong, many of the native groups were savages. Just many were fairly civilized and in some cases ahead of most European countries. The civilization that was the first victim of Anglo Imperialism, the Powhatans strongly resemble European nations like France around the time of Capet. We should have seen them as allies, not enemies. There were plenty of inhabitable places elsewhere. Imagine if we had assimilated the Powhatan rather than dismantling them?

No, you're not. I was using it as a pejorative intentionally.

I've often wondered the same; instead of killing most of them why could we just find a mutually agreeable solution? But then again 'we' were pretty ignorant and arrogant.

[ghengis86]

I voted for Jackson because he killed the bank, and was the last president to pay off the national debt. He also dueled people that pissed him off.

We should definitely bring back the duel.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ron Paul's Favorite President: Grover Cleveland (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339169-Ron-Paul-s-Favorite-President-Grover-Cleveland)

[Warlord]

I voted for Jackson because he killed the bank, and was the last president to pay off the national debt. He also dueled people that pissed him off.

He was a bad ass. Also the first president to face an assassination attempt. The assailants gun cocked and Jackson beat him with his cane.

[Scrapmo]

I didnt see a Rosevelt or Wilson up there? What gives? /sarc

[TaftFan]

Where are MVB and Tyler?

[dillo]

He was a bad ass. Also the first president to face an assassination attempt. The assailants gun cocked and Jackson beat him with his cane.

Jackson tends to drop far on historical list because of the trail of tears episode, however

The assassin actually had 2 guns misfire back to back

Andrew Jacksons parrot had to be removed from his funeral because of it swearing repeatedly in the church

[TaftFan]

Jackson tends to drop far on historical list because of the trail of tears episode, however

The assassin actually had 2 guns misfire back to back

Andrew Jacksons parrot had to be removed from his funeral because of it swearing repeatedly in the church
I drop him because of the nullification crisis as well.

[MaxPower]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

[dillo]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

Why is McKinley lower than Reagan

or JFK for that matter

[Warlord]

Jackson tends to drop far on historical list because of the trail of tears episode, however

The assassin actually had 2 guns misfire back to back

Andrew Jacksons parrot had to be removed from his funeral because of it swearing repeatedly in the church

I just love the story of the assassination and a tall Jackson beating him with a cane. He was getting off a ferry or something with his crew. Bad ass.

[kcchiefs6465]

I just love the story of the assassination and a tall Jackson beating him with a cane. He was getting off a ferry or something with his crew. Bad ass.
Andrew Jackson was something else. I don't know how much to attribute to legend or truth but as tales go he took a ball to the chest and leveled the man he dueled.

My favorite president and truth be told he is insulted on the fiat twenty.

Trail of tears was despicable though.

Reminds me of me. Actually paid the national debt. (I know....) I don't like a lot about his presidency but I still salute him.

I'm a special sort of asshole.

[kcchiefs6465]

And him drinking and smoking and beating his wanted to be assassin makes me like him more.

Lead ball in his chest, a man to his dying day.

Trail of Tears was despicable.

[opal]

*would have been a much easier choice if Ron Paul were on that list*

[green73]

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/d/dancing/graphics-dancing-517489.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBmDcgTKP3Yhttp://www.animationplayhouse.com/chick_dance.gif

[Marky]

No silly, the champion against slavery, JQ Adams.


I don't appreciate you referring to the Shawnee as savages. I also don't think the Oneida (who were on our side) would take kindly either, as by implication all of the tribes at that time were savages.

and keep in mind, I take Ayn Rand's approach to this issue.

Ayn Rand was a true savage. Her philosophy is essentially Satanism minus the magic and ritual. She looked down her nose at other people, while her own heart was as black as coal.

[oyarde]

Savages aren't people; they're savages.

Thank you for my reprieve .

[oyarde]

I didnt see a Rosevelt or Wilson up there? What gives? /sarc

Wilson makes my top four worst easily.

[oyarde]

Well , most of the good ones are on the list , Coolidge, Cleveland and the last guy who spent less than what came in , ( Ike) . I may have to take Coolidge as a more modern example of what the Fed role of govt ought to be closer to ........

[Smart3]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

Your list confuses the hell out of me. Buchanan was our worst President and he's not even in your bottom 5! Dwight Eisenhower should be higher.


Ayn Rand was a true savage. Her philosophy is essentially Satanism minus the magic and ritual. She looked down her nose at other people, while her own heart was as black as coal.
On behalf of Ayn Rand and Satanism, what rock did you just come out from under? Seriously? Satanism?

Go read what Ayn Rand wrote and then learn about Satanism. Satanists are good people.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I only have two options.

1.) Jefferson Davis - First President of my occupied homeland

2.) Ron Paul - The man I currently recognize as MY President.

I see neither so I did not vote.

[Smart3]

I only have two options.

1.) Jefferson Davis - First President of my occupied homeland

2.) Ron Paul - The man I currently recognize as MY President.

I see neither so I did not vote.

Jefferson Davis? Isn't his modern-day ideological descendants people like Rick Santorum?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Jefferson Davis? Isn't his modern-day ideological descendants people like Rick Santorum?

He was not perfect and would not be like Ron but he did a fine job with very little to work with and I have studied his life extensively and have a great admiration for him.

[Occam's Banana]

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/d/dancing/graphics-dancing-517489.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBmDcgTKP3Yhttp://www.animationplayhouse.com/chick_dance.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9dtldk_qo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9dtldk_qo

[Smart3]

He was not perfect and would not be like Ron but he did a fine job with very little to work with and I have studied his life extensively and have a great admiration for him.
So do I, but he wasn't one of us. Being a good leader doesn't make up for one's failings. There was this Austrian guy not that long ago who also was a great leader but you don't see him praised by many.

[trey4sports]

does anyone have a recommendation for a book that talks about each president and his accomplishments/failures? I love the subject but im afraid i wont find a book from a libertarian perspective on the issue. God forbid im not going to waste my time with lincoln worshiping fools.

[Christian Liberty]

Harding pardoned the people Wilson imprisoned for speaking out against the government.

Adams put people in jail for speaking out against the government.

Any argument in favor of Adams over Harding is invalid.

This.

Adams wasn't the worst by any means, and he had a lot of things worthy of respect. But in the grand scheme of things, he was still pretty bad in the White House (Probably above "average" but still bad.)

I was refreshed to NOT see Lincoln on this poll, but was disappointed to not see Van Buren (Rothbard's favorite) or John Tyler (Ivan Elend's favorite, as well as mine.)

I love Cleveland and like Coolidge a lot, but neither is my #1 so I can't really vote.

Andrew Jackson kind of sucked. Not the worst by any means, but in spite of his rhetoric, he still acted a lot like a King. I'd probably rank him on par with Adams, if not a little worse.

Jefferson was good, but he was a hypocrite in the White House. He was my favorite of the Founders, but in the White House he wasn't wonderful. Far better than Adams or Jackson, but not great.

I really want to know why Kennedy is on the list. If you're going for the "He died before he could screw the country up" line, William Henry Harrison is far better for that. I agree with Ivan Elend that Presidents like him who died super fast shouldn't be ranked at all, and the ones that actually kept their nose out of our lives for the most part over a longer stretch are the ones we should really admire. However, I know some people take "He who rules best rules least" extremely literally and so would pick Harrison for that reason. Considering Harrison existed, I don't see why any libertarian or constitutionalist would pick Kennedy.

Madison was justified to go to war in 1812, but it wasn't exactly smart because frankly, we were outgunned. He did manage to fight the war without any serious civil liberties violations, and though perhaps foolhardy, it WAS justified. So I'd rank him pretty high, but still not anywhere near the #1 slot. I think the #1 slot should be reserved for someone who managed to avoid war entirely.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about either Monroe or Harding.

Eisenhower kinda sucked. I remember someone saying Ron Paul spoke favorably of him, if he did, I believe he's off his rocker on this one. He "Balanced the budget" with a 91% top marginal rate and he institutionalized the liberal "New Deal" programs for all time, going so far as to say that people who wanted to repeal social security were "Stupid." I get that he did talk about the military industrial complex, although he also jump-started Vietnam. He wasn't the worst by any means, but there's no way he belongs on this poll. I'd probably rank him well outside the last 20. Heck, I could even possibly go so far as to say he was worse than EVERY pre-New Deal President besides Lincoln and Wilson...

Now, by post-New Deal standards, he was pretty good, but that's a ridiculously watered down standard.

All that said, I think Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Jackson don't really belong on this list (The rest you could probably make a case for even if I disagree). Van Buren, William Harrison, and John Tyler really need to be on the list. As it stands, I can't vote since "His Accidency" isn't on the list.

[Christian Liberty]

Samuel Johnston. First man elected as President under the Articles of Confederation.

Refused to serve.

How terrific is that? Epic!

Fewest days in office = best possible President.

He didn't even serve at all. So he was never President.

That said, I don't see refusing to take the job as a huge virtue. I'd rather him have taken it and left us alone.


http://www.whyeverypresidentsucked.com/

I read John Tyler's and I guess I'm not really convinced that failing to convince other people in the government that government is bad is really a bad thing. Government thugs generally can't be convinced. Its true that Tyler was a flawed man (He did support slavery, after all) but Tyler was more Jeffersonian than even Jefferson himself in office, and he did the best he could. He did actually veto the bad legislation rather than signing it.

I'd say Tyler was the best, and he's one of the few I genuinely admire rather than just saying "He sucked less than the other guy."

[Christian Liberty]

Also, that link really has to dig deep to find flaws with some of the earlier ones. For instance, they accused Cleveland of regulating transportation. I agree, that was bad, but you've got to put things into perspective. Even some libertarians want the government to own roads these days (I don't, for the record.)

That's a hugely minor issue when compared to something like they said about, say, Lincoln.

No President was perfect, but some were clearly far, far better than others.

I'd pretty much agree everyone after Coolidge deserves nothing but ridicule (Or Nuremberg for the ones still breathing) but some of the early ones had relatively limited flaws. Not perfect, but there are at least four or five that I'd be THRILLED to have in office today.

Of course, Ron Paul would be #1 if he became President now...

[Galileo Galilei]

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

[T.hill]

The 91 percent rate was filled with loopholes, no one paid even close to that in taxes. He was very good in terms of pre new deal presidents and JFK was also significantly better than every single president subsequently after him.

Eisenhower especially is underrated, history deserves to be observed relatively as well as objectively. Some unfairly judge those who were racist or treated native americans inhumanely. Well racism was a universal attitude that was continued generationally through the Old World. Skin color and culture were unfortunately factors in judging superiority by many races.

Some on these forums are also just closed-minded and excessively cynical.

[T.hill]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

[Christian Liberty]

does anyone have a recommendation for a book that talks about each president and his accomplishments/failures? I love the subject but im afraid i wont find a book from a libertarian perspective on the issue. God forbid im not going to waste my time with lincoln worshiping fools.

Ivan Elend's "Recarving Rushmore." I've only read half (Up to Cleveland) but its excellent so far. He's definitely libertarian leaning, I'm not sure if he's a hardline libertarian but that's definitely the direction he leans

Minor Spoiler Alert About Lincoln (Ignore the underlined text if you don't want to know) (I've never tried using spoiler tags on here, so I don't know if it works.)







He rates Lincoln #29 out of 40 (He does rank William Harrison or Garfield because they died too quick, or Obama because he hadn't been elected when the book was published.) He does have some negative things to say about the CSA, some of which I didn't agree with, and he's a little bit softer on Lincoln than I would be, but he doesn't blindly worship at all. He does reference Dilorenzo's book in a relatively favorable light although he says he doesn't completely agree with him.



I'd recommend the book.

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

James Madison was pretty good, but I believe the Presidents who avoided war entirely were better than those who simply were successful in their wars.


The 91 percent rate was filled with loopholes, no one paid even close to that in taxes. He was very good in terms of pre new deal presidents and JFK was also significantly better than every single president subsequently after him.

Eisenhower especially is underrated, history deserves to be observed relatively as well as objectively. Some unfairly judge those who were racist or treated native americans inhumanely. Well racism was a universal attitude that was continued generationally through the Old World. Skin color and culture were unfortunately factors in judging superiority by many races.

Some on these forums are also just closed-minded and excessively cynical.

I don't really view history as relative, it is what it is.

Although our modern leaders do far worse to EVERYONE than most of the early ones did to the Indians. Despite his Indian policy, I still admire Van Buren.

I know Reagan's free market credentials were overrated but I don't know to what extent. I can't imagine anyone else since Kennedy beating him.

That said, being the best of post-New Deal Presidents is NOT the same as being the best. Kennedy isn't even close to being the best. No 20th century President is anywhere close, except Coolidge, and even then, he's probably somewhere in the upper single digits, not #1.

[Christian Liberty]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

I blame LBJ for most of it, but I still didn't like the fact that Eisenhower started any level of intervention there.

That said, his foreign policy was mostly OK, its the domestic that was not.

[Southron]

Calvin Coolidge. "There is no surer road to destruction than prosperity without character."

It's hard to imagine anyone like him emerging from Massachusetts today.

[dillo]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.


Didnt Eisenhower get us involved in Korea?

[oyarde]

Didnt Eisenhower get us involved in Korea?

Truman got us in (1950) , Ike got us out ( elected1952 , truce signed July 1953 )

[oyarde]

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

I admire him . I did not make a selection in the poll , would like to have someone more modern to select :) , but pickings are slim and faults are great....

[Rocco]

Why is JFK on the list but Ronald Reagan, who is by far a superior president to JFK, is not?

[Ender]

Why is JFK on the list but Ronald Reagan, who is by far a superior president to JFK, is not?

Reagan is not superior to JFK.

Reagan was a charismatic neocon puppet; JFK was a rich spoiled playboy, who woke up from The Matrix.

[Rocco]

Economic growth rates would disagree.


Reagan is not superior to JFK.

Reagan was a charismatic neocon puppet; JFK was a rich spoiled playboy, who woke up from The Matrix.

[Galileo Galilei]

I admire him . I did not make a selection in the poll , would like to have someone more modern to select :) , but pickings are slim and faults are great....

If you want modern, JFK is easily the best since the pre-civil war era. Unlike other good presidents like Coolidge and Cleveland, JFK was dealt a really bad hand.

BTW - here is an almost unknown but great factoid about JFK; JFK pardoned so many people convicted in the Drug War, that he made the narcotics act of 1956 (signed by Eisenhower) almost inoperable. He did these pardons in the flow of his term, and never got the chance for mass pardons at the end of a term:

John F. Kennedy


Democratic President John F. Kennedy pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 575 people during his term.[12] Among them are:

First-time offenders convicted of crimes under the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 – pardoned all, in effect overturning much of the law passed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the _President_of_the_United_States

[Ender]

Economic growth rates would disagree.

From Murray Rothbard:


Reaganomics is largely monetarism.
The monetarist view is that the Fed must only very, very slowly
reduce the rate of counterfeiting, and thereby insure a gradual,
painless recession with no unemployment or sharp readjustments.
The hoax of Reaganomics was that the phony "budget cuts"
and "tax cuts" were supposed to provide the razzle-dazzle
to give gradualist Friedmanism the time, or the "breathing
space," to work its magic.

Instead, gradualism has led to the present shambles of Reaganomics. The
rate of counterfeiting declined, enough to bring about our current
recession, but not nearly enough to end inflation. Since
November, in fact, the Fed, stung by the deep recession and by
political urgings to expand the money supply, has increased Ml
by a startlingly high annual rate of 13.7%. Panicky, the Administration
is fighting amongst itself. Secretary Regan blames the Fed for
looming re-inflation and higher interest rates since November;
Fed Chairman Volcker lashes back by blaming Reagan and Regan'
s enormous deficits for the fear of Wall Street and higher interest.
Both, of course, are right.

There were two fundamental reforms the Reagan Administration could have
proposed to end our Age of Inflation. First, either the abolition
or the brutal checking of the Fed. Nothing was done, since monetarism
wishes to give all power to the Fed and then navely urges the
Fed to use that power wisely and with self-restraint. Second,
the Administration could have followed Reagan's campaign pledge
and reinstituted the gold standard. But the Friedmanite monetarists
hate gold with a purple passion and wish all power to government
fiat money.

When the Reagan program lay in shambles by the end of 1981, the Reagan
Administration briefly flirted with the supply-side notion of
instituting some form of phony gold standard, where the dollar
would not really be convertible into gold but would cloak its
decaying corpus in gold's well-earned prestige. For a while, it
looked as if a phony gold standard would be the Reaganite diversion
from the realities of grinding recession, zero economic growth,
high interest rates, almost double-digit inflation, and huge $100
billion deficits. But this was not to be, and Reagan has clearly
given the green light to the packed Friedmanite majority and staff
on the U.S. Gold Commission to reject the gold standard out of
hand and to continue the monetary status quo.

Instead, Ronald Reagan has found another diversionary tactic, another razzle-dazzle
hoax with which to bemuse the media and the electorate: the "New
Federalism" (see Part IV of this article).

Not only the gold standard, but all fundamental reform has been rebuffed
by the Reagan Administration. The National Taxpayers Union's balanced
budget amendment – as namby-pamby as it is – has been spurned by the
Reagan Administration, as has the Friedmanite Tax Limitation Amendment,
even though that would only freeze the status quo.

All of this raises the dread spectre of Thatcherism, of going down
the disastrous route blazed by Mrs. Thatcher. More and more it
looks as if the Reagan Administration, despite the warning signals
sent up by the Thatcher experiment for the past several years,
is going down the Thatcher trail. That is, to ignominy and disastrous
defeat, and more important, to the discrediting of the free-market,
hard-money cause by employing its rhetoric while thoroughly betraying
it in practice.

[Wisent]

My favorite 18th century President - George Washington. 19th century President - Grover Cleveland. 20th century President - Calvin Coolidge. 21st century President - Rand Paul:)

[wormyguy]

Write-in: Van Buren (Rothbard's favorite). Grant (Rothbard's second favorite) might be a good "unconventional" choice too, since he's typically viewed in an excessively unfavorable light both by conventional historians and "conventional" libertarian students of history.

[dillo]

Truman got us in (1950) , Ike got us out ( elected1952 , truce signed July 1953 )

true on Korea but


Ike was present for installing the shah of Iran

[oyarde]

true on Korea but


Ike was present for installing the shah of Iran

That is correct , but that was a done deal by 1951 , MI5 & CIA , if it had not been for BP , MI5 should have been too busy in Ireland.

[Ender]

We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again

The popular 1970s television series “All in the Family” had a cute theme-song sung by Archie and Edith at the beginning of every episode. One lyric was: “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” Well, the show was great fun, but the liberals who created “All in the Family” got their history wrong. Herbert Hoover—who interfered with and ruined the American economy more than any president before him (a distinction he held for only a few years, since FDR soon surpassed Hoover’s folly)—was a presidential disaster.

What we could use today, instead of another Hoover or Roosevelt, is a president like Warren G. Harding (1865-1923). President Harding, who served as president from 1921 until his death in 1923, perennially finishes near the bottom of most historians’ ranking of presidents. According to conventional wisdom, Harding was a corrupt president, an amiable, poker-playing loafer with no notable achievements. That’s an odd characterization of a president whose death triggered the greatest outpouring of national grief since Lincoln’s assassination.

Let’s examine the corruption charge first:

Like several later presidents, Harding’s moral integrity was compromised by an extramarital affair. Unlike his adulterous successors, though, there is no evidence (merely salacious allegations) that he engaged in such behavior while president or that he was a serial adulterer.

But was President Harding a crook? The Harding administration has been permanently tainted by the Teapot Dome scandal. The corruption, though, was not Harding’s. The crooks were two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Harry Daugherty and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall. Their insider-dealing violated their fiduciary responsibility to the American people and the trust of the president who had appointed them.

Harding didn’t make a penny from his lieutenants’ thievery, yet he has been condemned as corrupt. Contrast that with later presidents who are fondly remembered despite having knowingly, deliberately rescued congressional allies from IRS probes of tax cheating, or gave pardons in exchange for sizable donations to pet causes. These days, politicians go to Washington and quickly become multimillionaires. Warren Harding is held to a higher ethical standard than later politicians.

Allegation #2: Was the 29th president a lazy dolt? Deeply conscious of his duty to his country, President Harding worked long hours, striving valiantly to master and fulfill honorably his weighty presidential duties. Journalist William H. Crawford (a Democrat) shadowed Harding in 1923, and calculated his work-week to be 84 hours long. Harding literally worked himself to death early in his third year in office. Lazy? Not a chance.

Finally, and most importantly, to claim that Harding accomplished nothing as president requires almost a willful blindness to the historical record. It is necessary and expedient, though, for the left to perpetuate this myth.

Harding was the first president to champion civil rights for blacks. As a senator, he had voted for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in 1920, and as president, he publicly denounced lynching. That seems unremarkable today, but in 1921 it earned him the undying enmity of southern Democrats, the defenders of that era’s institutionalized racism. As further evidence of his humanity and broad-mindedness, Harding supported women’s right to vote, and as president he released the famous socialist antiwar activist and political prisoner, Eugene Debs—a magnanimous gesture, since Harding was diametrically opposed to Debs’ socialistic beliefs.

Harding’s handling of the Depression of 1920-21 is the primary reason why he is universally denigrated by devotees of Big Government. Upon taking office, Harding inherited an economy that was reeling from dislocations caused by World War I. In a few months, wholesale prices collapsed by more than 40 percent. Production plunged over 20 percent. Unemployment zoomed from under 3 percent to over 11 percent. 1920-21 saw the most rapid, severe economic downturn our country has ever experienced.

Harding’s response was to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments. He didn’t “do nothing,” as President Obama implied when touting his “stimulus” plan; rather, he cut taxes and slashed federal spending 10-20 percent per year. Prices were allowed to fall, supply and demand readjusted, and by 1922 the depression was over. During the next few years, unemployment dove while production soared 60 percent. Harding presided over one of the greatest economic success stories in American history.

Harding convincingly demonstrated that government intervention is NOT the solution to economic downturns. His policies were the polar opposite of FDR’s depression-lengthening interventionistic blunders. That is why those who perpetuate the myth of FDR as economic savior also strive to preserve the myth of Harding as failure.

If there is any justice, future historians will acknowledge Warren G. Harding as having arguably the best fiscal and economic record of all 20th century presidents. Warren Harding wasn’t perfect, but at a time of severe economic crisis, his policies turned hardship into booming prosperity.

RIP, Mr. President. You helped your countrymen big-time when it counted most. Mister, we could use a man like Warren Harding again.

http://www.visionandvalues.org/2009/08/we-could-use-a-man-like-warren-harding-again/

[MaxPower]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.


Why is McKinley lower than Reagan

or JFK for that matter
McKinley was one of the biggest champions of protectionist tariffs in U.S. history, got the U.S. politically involved in the Spanish Civil War and pushed Congress for the declaration authorizing the Spanish-American War, launched a unilateral military intervention in China, and was an early philosophical proponent of U.S. foreign interventionism in general.

Reagan was not a good president (oversaw a sizable increase in the national debt, CIA abuses abroad, Grenada, etc.), but he did cut taxes and reduce domestic regulations, was actually relatively reserved in terms of foreign policy compared with the other presidents of the last 50 years, and does deserve some credit for avoiding outright war with the Soviet Union and allowing it to collapse under the weight of its own economic failure. Kennedy was also not a good president (a lot of corruption in his administration, the Bay of Pigs debacle, pushed for various forms of federal intervention that were later followed up on by LBJ, etc.), but he did oversee significant tax cuts, was relatively restrained in foreign policy compared with most presidents from the middle of the 20th century onward, and supposedly intended to pull out of Vietnam before he was assassinated.

I don't feel that either Reagan or Kennedy was worlds better than McKinley, but I don't think they were quite as bad-- and there isn't much difference between 26th and 31st in my presidential rankings, insofar as I'm concerned.

[oyarde]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

LBJ was an evil man , but we were boots on the ground with kill teams in Laos before Ike.

[oyarde]

These were run out of the CIA , with guys recruited out of the 82nd Airborne ( still slotted there ) and other places .

[goRPaul]

A poll for best president is like having a poll for best pimp- they might have their charming moments, but they all smacked you around and whored you out.

I voted Cleveland because of the vetoes and the mustache, despite the weirdness with his wife. He quite literally robbed the cradle.

[Galileo Galilei]

I vote for Antonius Pius as the greatest Roman Emperor.

[Christian Liberty]

Write-in: Van Buren (Rothbard's favorite). Grant (Rothbard's second favorite) might be a good "unconventional" choice too, since he's typically viewed in an excessively unfavorable light both by conventional historians and "conventional" libertarian students of history.

What was Rothbard's issue with Tyler?

Cleveland was also rock solid other than the road building, but as I said, even some libertarians are in favor of government doing that. Roads aren't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Christian Liberty]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

I'd love to see the whole thing but I definitely have a few specific questions.

Why is elder Bush so low? Granted, I know he sucked, but I don't see how you can put him in the same ballpark as Lincoln. Let alone worse. Heck, I don't even know if younger Bush really reached the level of tyranny that occurred under Lincoln. Mind you: I get that modern Presidents have more technology, and therefore it may well be "worse" to be around now, but tech also goes both ways, I don't really think you can factor that in. The bottom line, at least Obama and Bush are incompetent tyrants. I absolutely quake in fear at the thought of another Lincoln.

Also, I feel like Wilson was worse than FDR. I get that there are some valid questions to be asked about World War II, but that war was at least arguably justified. World War I clearly was not. And FDR didn't arrest his critics like Wilson. So even though I do feel like FDR was a tyrant, I'd rank him one spot above Wilson, who I'd put at the bottom.

Why is John Tyler so low? And why the heck is Cleveland higher than him? The roads was a relatively minor thing, but I still think its enough to knock him out of the top spot when you've got Tyler or Van Buren...

[Galileo Galilei]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

nice to see some love for James Monroe. There's a reason he had the most overwhelming re-election in the history of the US.

[Christian Liberty]

I feel like I'd rank Reagan higher than Jimmy Carter, although I know Elend disagrees with me and I'm willing to be talked out of that stance. I'm not exactly a Reagan fanatic but as MaxPower pointed out, Reagan was pretty solid domestically and relatively reserved on foreign policy. I'm not a Reaganist, if I follow anyone politically its Ron Paul, not Ron Reagan, but overall I think putting Reagan in the top 20, and Carter clearly not, is probably reasonable.

Which is to say, still bad. I'd never vote for him. But I'd prefer him over Carter.

Why on Earth does Taft do so well? You're confusing Robert and William Howard, I think. Robert was the conservative, and never became President. William H. was such a "trust buster" that even the fascist TR criticized him for going too far. Near the bottom: IMO.

I don't really have a fully fledged ranking system yet. I could maybe split them into tiers later, but I don't think I could really go from 1-44 with any accuracy.

[BamaAla]

Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive. Don't get me wrong, many of the native groups were savages. Just many were fairly civilized and in some cases ahead of most European countries. The civilization that was the first victim of Anglo Imperialism, the Powhatans strongly resemble European nations like France around the time of Capet. We should have seen them as allies, not enemies. There were plenty of inhabitable places elsewhere. Imagine if we had assimilated the Powhatan rather than dismantling them?

Except that Powhatan and the Powhatans wanted to assimilate the Europeans and refused to be assimilated themselves. The folks at Jamestown were no angels, but to suggest that the Powhatans were is poor revisionist history.

Andrew Jackson gets my vote.

[dillo]

I feel like I'd rank Reagan higher than Jimmy Carter, although I know Elend disagrees with me and I'm willing to be talked out of that stance. I'm not exactly a Reagan fanatic but as MaxPower pointed out, Reagan was pretty solid domestically and relatively reserved on foreign policy. I'm not a Reaganist, if I follow anyone politically its Ron Paul, not Ron Reagan, but overall I think putting Reagan in the top 20, and Carter clearly not, is probably reasonable.

Which is to say, still bad. I'd never vote for him. But I'd prefer him over Carter.

Why on Earth does Taft do so well? You're confusing Robert and William Howard, I think. Robert was the conservative, and never became President. William H. was such a "trust buster" that even the fascist TR criticized him for going too far. Near the bottom: IMO.

I don't really have a fully fledged ranking system yet. I could maybe split them into tiers later, but I don't think I could really go from 1-44 with any accuracy.

I think Taft was opposed to the Federal Reserve, which is why TR ran as an independent to split the vote and let Wilson win.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Taft was opposed to the Federal Reserve, which is why TR ran as an independent to split the vote and let Wilson win.

If TR wanted a Federal Reserve, he had 8 years to do it himself.

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison was pretty good, but I believe the Presidents who avoided war entirely were better than those who simply were successful in their wars.



Remember FDR badgering the Japanese? Well, the British Empire badgered the US for 30 years. Finally, the Congress declared war. Madison did us a favor by setting important war precedents.

Among them:

1) the congress declares war, not the president.

2) war must be deliberated for many years by congress before it is declared.

3) the Constitution must be followed to the letter during war.

4) no military draft needed to win a war, nor a central bank, income tax, espionage laws, secret courts, etc.

5) freedom of speech preserved during war.

6) a short war with low causalities.

Thanks to Madison, there has been over 200 years of peace with Great Britain. Unlike many treaties, the treaty of Ghent produced a lasting peace.

For the US, it produced the greatest economic expansion by far in all of history over the next 100 years or so, with free trade opened on the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic ocean, West Indies, and Mediterranean Sea.

[Uriah]

I believe Tecumseh would disagree.

Whoa, I just mentioned him http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420659-Video-This-One-Time-At-Anarchy-Camp post 17.

I thought the same thing.

[green73]

Outsiders looking at this poll must trip a little. Kudos RPF.

[green73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9dtldk_qo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9dtldk_qo

OWNED

[Alex Libman]

Whoever voted JFK (who was never even elected president) must have obtained 100% of their knowledge from government schools...

[TaftFan]

Whoever voted JFK (who was never even elected president) must have obtained 100% of their knowledge from government schools...

Not sure what you mean never elected. Regardless, those who believe he was against "the bankers" are mislead.

[Henry Rogue]

My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.
I don't see obama on the list. Did you forget him or leave him off on purpose? I did not vote in the poll. I think serious flaws could be found in each of their presidencies. Some more than others, which is why i understand the ranking. I would like to see a poll for the worst. wilson & fdr are good choices, but there are so many bad ones. Threads like this are moments i wish some of the banned and missing were here. You all know Travylr would have something to say.

[green73]

LOL. 3 for JFK, the one world government guy! Bless, we've got the full spectrum here at RPF.

[Galileo Galilei]

LOL. 3 for JFK, the one world government guy! Bless, we've got the full spectrum here at RPF.

JFK was eliminated by the one world government. SO was RFK. And there's a reason they never bothered to off EMK.

[green73]

JFK was eliminated by the one world government. SO was RFK. And there's a reason they never bothered to off EMK.

So he's the greatest president because he got offed for standing up to TPTB. Ok. I retract my derision.

[Galileo Galilei]

So he's the greatest president because he got offed for standing up to TPTB. Ok. I retract my derision.

No, James Madiosn is the greatest president. JFK is the greatest since Andrew Jackson. JFK ended the federal drug war with hundreds of pardons.

[green73]

No, James Madiosn is the greatest president. JFK is the greatest since Andrew Jackson. JFK ended the federal drug war with hundreds of pardons.

OMG. Harrison is obviously the best. He died before he could do any damage.

[Galileo Galilei]

OMG. Harrison is obviously the best. He died before he could do any damage.

Harrison never pardoned anyone. JFK pardoned hundreds of people in the federal war on drugs and made the Narcotics Act of 1956 inoperable.

[green73]

Harrison never pardoned anyone. JFK pardoned hundreds of people in the federal war on drugs and made the Narcotics Act of 1956 inoperable.

Yay!

[Galileo Galilei]

Yay!

List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States

William Henry Harrison


President William Henry Harrison was one of only two presidents who gave no pardons. This was due to his death shortly after taking office.

John F. Kennedy


Democratic President John F. Kennedy pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 575 people during his term.[12] Among them are:

First-time offenders convicted of crimes under the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 – pardoned all, in effect overturning much of the law passed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the _President_of_the_United_States

[green73]

List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States

William Henry Harrison



John F. Kennedy



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the _President_of_the_United_States

So? Tons of prezzies pardoned more than that.

[green73]

FFS, Harrison died after only a month.

[Galileo Galilei]

FFS, Harrison died after only a month.

JFK was shot after less than 3 years. Most pardons come at the end of a term. Just imagine how many pardons JFK could have done had he had his full 8 years? And then RFK, who was the real force behind the pardons, would have continued for another 8 years. The war on drugs would have been eliminated.

Now you know why he was killed.

[green73]

Now you know why he was killed.

He was killed because he wanted peace.

[green73]

He was still a horrible statist.

[Galileo Galilei]

He was killed because he wanted peace.

That's another reason, he wanted peace in Vietnam, he wanted peace in the Drug War.

I thought I'd bring up the drug war pardons because no one seems to know about them.

[green73]

He once infamously said that all businessmen are sons of bitches.

[green73]

That's another reason, he wanted peace in Vietnam, he wanted peace in the Drug War.

I thought I'd bring up the drug war pardons because no one seems to know about them.

That's the reason.

eta:
That and being general refusinik to the CIA/MIC. Maybe it included drugs. Not read up on that bit.

[Galileo Galilei]

He once infamously said that all businessmen are sons of bitches.

JFK also cuts taxes on businessmen.

What you do is more important than what you say.

[green73]

JFK also cuts taxes on businessmen.

What you do is more important than what you say.

Like how he threw the whole weight of the federal government at the steel companies after they raised their prices? Including, Bobby going after their execs with bogus investigations?

[Ender]

He was killed because he wanted peace.

JFK was killed just a few months after he signed EO 11110

President Kennedy, The Fed And Executive Order 11110

Executive Order 1110 gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. ...
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment.

http://rense.com/general44/exec.htm

[Galileo Galilei]

Like how he threw the whole weight of the federal government at the steel companies after they raised their prices? Including, Bobby going after their execs with bogus investigations?

No, JFK used personal persuasion with the steel companies. That's what a libertarian is supposed to do. He did not use the force of government.

[green73]

No, JFK used personal persuasion with the steel companies. That's what a libertarian is supposed to do. He did not use the force of government.

Whatever.

[Galileo Galilei]

Whatever.

Tell me what force of government JFK used? Be specific.

[TaftFan]

THE JFK MYTH
Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
© 2000 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2006 December 13

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth

[dillo]

JFK also made AIPAC register as a foreign government which would have made them unable to legally contribute to political campaigns. He also pissed off the CIA, Powerful Mafia bosses, Powerful Union Reps, the Military Industrial Complex and im sure many others.

I generally assume that any president that was killed by corrupt powers was clearly doing something right, although he definitely wasn't perfect.

[TaftFan]

JFK also made AIPAC register as a foreign government which would have made them unable to legally contribute to political campaigns. He also pissed off the CIA, Powerful Mafia bosses, Powerful Union Reps, the Military Industrial Complex and im sure many others.

I generally assume that any president that was killed by corrupt powers was clearly doing something right, although he definitely wasn't perfect.

Source?

[Galileo Galilei]

THE JFK MYTH
Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
© 2000 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2006 December 13

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth

There are many reasons JFK was killed. The Fed is just one of many. I'd be wary of any title like what you put forward. Its common knowledge that Vietnam was a big reason why JFK had to go.

[TaftFan]

There are many reasons JFK was killed. The Fed is just one of many. I'd be wary of any title like what you put forward. Its common knowledge that Vietnam was a big reason why JFK had to go.

Are you familiar with G. Edward Griffin?

Or Tom Woods? http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/

[Galileo Galilei]

Are you familiar with G. Edward Griffin?

Or Tom Woods? http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/

Yes, they have some good points. But they also fail in many cases. Have you ever read Woods book on Galileo? Its is filled with establishment bs and pro-state apologies. It is obvious that Woods has never read any of my books or letters.

[heavenlyboy34]

OMG. Harrison is obviously the best. He died before he could do any damage.
FTW!!!

[wormyguy]

What was Rothbard's issue with Tyler?

Cleveland was also rock solid other than the road building, but as I said, even some libertarians are in favor of government doing that. Roads aren't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Tyler helped to provoke the Mexican-American War (and by extension the Civil War) by agitating for the annexation of Texas. Also, Rothbard thought he might've had William Henry Harrison killed (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard67.html). His biggest issue with Cleveland was the Interstate Commerce Commission (and a libertarian can think of others; the income tax, nearly provoking a war with Britain over Venezuela, sending the army to break the Pullman strike, etc.).

[heavenlyboy34]

Why JFK sucked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CX9FbsvJfd4 (this guy's vids give me giggles. :D )

[TaftFan]

Yes, they have some good points. But they also fail in many cases. Have you ever read Woods book on Galileo? Its is filled with establishment bs and pro-state apologies. It is obvious that Woods has never read any of my books or letters.

Which book is that? And Woods is an anarchist.

[Galileo Galilei]

Which book is that? And Woods is an anarchist.

The one on the Catholic Church.

[dillo]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Zionist_Council

[Aratus]

i voted for w.g harding but perhaps
i should have voted for j. monroe...

[MaxPower]

I don't see obama on the list. Did you forget him or leave him off on purpose? I did not vote in the poll. I think serious flaws could be found in each of their presidencies. Some more than others, which is why i understand the ranking. I would like to see a poll for the worst. wilson & fdr are good choices, but there are so many bad ones. Threads like this are moments i wish some of the banned and missing were here. You all know Travylr would have something to say.
I've been waiting for his presidency to play out before adding him to the list. Since he has now "served" for more than a full term, I suppose I could put him in. If I did so, rest assured he would be near the bottom-- around 40th.

[MaxPower]

I'd love to see the whole thing but I definitely have a few specific questions.

Why is elder Bush so low? Granted, I know he sucked, but I don't see how you can put him in the same ballpark as Lincoln. Let alone worse. Heck, I don't even know if younger Bush really reached the level of tyranny that occurred under Lincoln. Mind you: I get that modern Presidents have more technology, and therefore it may well be "worse" to be around now, but tech also goes both ways, I don't really think you can factor that in. The bottom line, at least Obama and Bush are incompetent tyrants. I absolutely quake in fear at the thought of another Lincoln.
Bush I launched the undeclared, unconstitutional Gulf War, loudly promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign and then did an about-face in office, increased gun control, increased the national debt, etc. He was pretty roundly bad from a libertarian perspective.

On the subject of Lincoln, I am going to say something controversial on these forums: he did some good. Even though he had previously sometimes acted in ways that insulated slavery (as he prioritized "maintaining the Union" over fighting slavery) Lincoln was instrumental in the creation and passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished it, and began to publicly push for more legal recognition for blacks shortly before he was assassinated. Although he was undeniably ruthless and tyrannical in his prosecution of the Civil War, I do think he genuinely believed that his policies were only temporary "war measures" to be rescinded at the conflict's (well-defined, unlike certain more recent conflicts) conclusion; he actually was returning his usurped powers at the end of the war. After the South surrendered, he pardoned the entire Confederate army-- and before you scoff at this fact, understand that at that time, it would have been seen as perfectly normal and acceptable under the historical laws of war for him to have every prominent Confederate he could get his proverbial hands on lined up against a wall and shot. Frankly, I think many other presidents would have done even worse than Lincoln did in the same position-- Andrew Jackson, for example, who was shamelessly authoritarian in his use of the presidency, who seriously threatened to send the army to fight an attempted nullification in South Carolina, and who was a famously brutal and merciless operator, would probably not have shown even the limited grace Lincoln did. FDR might just about have taken the opportunity to outright declare himself Lord and King for life. Nearly all presidents, Lincoln not least, have been statists, and for a statist, an attempt to dissolve the Union amounts to the ultimate treachery and justifies virtually any action in combating it; if anything, Lincoln was more restrained and merciful, when he saw the opportunity to be, than many statists would have been.

Now, none of this changes the fact that he utterly desecrated the Constitution, violated the principles of liberty in a multitude of ways, and deliberately sanctioned war crimes against Southern prisoners and civilians-- hence the fact that he appears well toward the lower end of my list-- but he was not pure evil, and I do believe he had more going for him than a few of his peers in the history of the presidency.



Also, I feel like Wilson was worse than FDR. I get that there are some valid questions to be asked about World War II, but that war was at least arguably justified.
The war may have been justified, but FDR was certainly not justified in campaigning on the assertion that "Your boys will not be going off to fight in any foreign wars," all the while fully intending to send them off to do just that, and then, after winning reelection, seemingly deliberately baiting Japan into launching the Pearl Harbor attack so that he would have an excuse the public would buy.


And FDR didn't arrest his critics like Wilson.
He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.


So even though I do feel like FDR was a tyrant, I'd rank him one spot above Wilson, who I'd put at the bottom.
Keeping in mind the crimes I have already described, let us not forget FDR's illegal mass-confiscation of private citizens' and businesses' gold, underhanded bullying of the Supreme Court into accepting his unconstitutional, authoritarian, and economically-destructive New Deal policies (which prolonged the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history), saddling the country with the financial-nightmare-to-be that was Social Security, turning back shiploads of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, helping to mastermind and participating in the Dresden firebombing, which killed even more civilians than the Hiroshima strike, flaunting Washington's two-term precedent to give us four terms of his brutal, tyrannical "governance"... the list goes on. I say he was the worst.




Why is John Tyler so low? And why the heck is Cleveland higher than him?
He isn't exactly "low," but he isn't higher primarily because he pushed for the imperialistic annexation of Texas. He was also pretty pro-slavery, and signed a significant tariff increase. Cleveland, by contrast, honorably opposed and temporarily thwarted the US annexation of Hawaii, and fought attempted tariff increases. Cleveland was a true constitutionalist, a man of remarkable integrity and courage, reliably stood up for his principles in office (note his issuance of more vetoes than all preceding presidents combined, many of which were of pork-barrel spending and otherwise unlibertarian, authoritarian, and "progressive" measures). He has the most consistently pro-liberty and pro-peace record of any U.S. president.


The roads was a relatively minor thing, but I still think its enough to knock him out of the top spot when you've got Tyler or Van Buren...
"The roads"? Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Commission? If so, Cleveland did not (contrary to the "Why Cleveland Sucked" video someone posted in this thread) "make" the ICC; rather, he simply failed to veto it-- one of the few bad policies that made it past him-- likely because it stayed more or less within the bounds of the interstate commerce clause in its original form, though it subsequently ballooned into something significantly worse.

[MaxPower]

Your list confuses the hell out of me.
Is it beyond you to be polite?


Buchanan was our worst President and he's not even in your bottom 5!
Buchanan did not launch any unconstitutional, imperialistic wars, authorize any mass murders, aggressively imprison political dissidents or racial minorities, regiment the U.S. economy and pump it full of socialist and fascist-style government intervention, sanction torture and indefinite detention, or perform various other acts which mark the very worst presidents. He was not a good president, but he was absolutely not the worst.


Dwight Eisenhower should be higher.
The soaring tax rates, overseas CIA abuses, early involvement in Vietnam, and the like turn me off.

[MaxPower]

nice to see some love for James Monroe. There's a reason he had the most overwhelming re-election in the history of the US.
While I don't consider electoral popularity a reliable measure of quality in political leaders, I do think Monroe is woefully overlooked and underappreciated around these parts-- a corrupt, mob-affiliated big-government pawn like Kennedy receives three votes, but not a single one goes to this most exceptionally-libertarian and successful of executives.

[MaxPower]

I feel like I'd rank Reagan higher than Jimmy Carter, although I know Elend disagrees with me and I'm willing to be talked out of that stance.
I wouldn't put too much stock in Eland's position; he has some (in my view) positively absurd selections, like Clinton in 11th place-- and Jefferson in 26th. If I recall correctly, he also argued during the last election cycle that Gary Johnson was a better pro-liberty candidate than Ron Paul, suggesting that his liberty bona fides are less than stellar.


I'm not exactly a Reagan fanatic but as MaxPower pointed out, Reagan was pretty solid domestically and relatively reserved on foreign policy. I'm not a Reaganist, if I follow anyone politically its Ron Paul, not Ron Reagan, but overall I think putting Reagan in the top 20, and Carter clearly not, is probably reasonable.

Which is to say, still bad. I'd never vote for him. But I'd prefer him over Carter.
Carter ranks higher primarily because he didn't balloon the national debt the way Reagan did. Carter actually oversaw substantial deregulation himself, and may have had the very least abusive foreign policy of any president post-Coolidge.




Why on Earth does Taft do so well? You're confusing Robert and William Howard, I think. Robert was the conservative, and never became President. William H. was such a "trust buster" that even the fascist TR criticized him for going too far. Near the bottom: IMO.
Give me a little credit; you honestly think I went to the trouble of compiling this entire list and offering to defend my choices, but counted a Senator as a president? If Robert Taft had ever been president, he would almost certainly have placed much higher than 18th.

I don't think Taft really does especially "well" in placing 18th; frankly, I would only call the top 10 or so "good" presidents, and maybe the top 15 or 16 "decent." Ranking 18th out of 42 in a group as disreputable as the U.S. presidents is not a place of great honor. Taft ranks as "high" as he does primarily because he didn't oversee any major
unconstitutional wars, serious violent crimes, civil liberties abuses, corruption, etc. He had a few somewhat pro-liberty stances-- most notably, in contrast to his predecessor, Roosevelt, he had a reserved interpretation of presidential power (he held that "the President can exercise no power which cannot fairly be traced to some specific grant of power in the Constitution or act of Congress"), and he stayed admirably true to this stance while opposing and refusing to launch any unilateral foreign military intervention, which there was great pressure for him to do during an uprising in Mexico.

[Aratus]

after looking over the long lists again, as a rough rule of thumb, there is a war connecting
up to the terms in office for many of the POTUSes on the bottom half of the complete lists...
today i am in a very pacifistic mood and am in a funk of sorts. i looked at a video just now.

[Aratus]

was andrew johnson contrary or did he actually demobilize one of the largest armies in our history?



My latest draft:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Dwight Eisenhower
25. Andrew Johnson
26. Ronald Reagan
27. John F. Kennedy
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

If anyone should request exposition/discussion of my placements, I will happily oblige.

[wormyguy]

He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.

Of course FDR did arrest his critics and similar; look at the Great Sedition Trial, or the treatment of Father Coughlin, or his creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee (which was primarily used to slander his opponents), or other opponent-slandering like his smearing of Sen. David Walsh, etc.

[green73]

JFK was killed just a few months after he signed EO 11110

President Kennedy, The Fed And Executive Order 11110



Was JFK Assassinated Because He Opposed the Fed?
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/

[Alex Libman]

Not sure what you mean never elected.

Too many dead people (etc) voted in LBJ's Texas and Daley's Chicago crime syndicate. Like in 2000, it was a victory by intimidation (or prior agreement), not any accountable measure of vote majority.



Regardless, those who believe he was against "the bankers" are mislead.

Agreed.

[Galileo Galilei]

While I don't consider electoral popularity a reliable measure of quality in political leaders, I do think Monroe is woefully overlooked and underappreciated around these parts-- a corrupt, mob-affiliated big-government pawn like Kennedy receives three votes, but not a single one goes to this most exceptionally-libertarian and successful of executives.

In the 1800s, electoral success was accurate. In those days the people knew about the Constitution & Founding Fathers.

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't put too much stock in Eland's position; he has some (in my view) positively absurd selections, like Clinton in 11th place-- and Jefferson in 26th. If I recall correctly, he also argued during the last election cycle that Gary Johnson was a better pro-liberty candidate than Ron Paul, suggesting that his liberty bona fides are less than stellar.



I think his point was that Jefferson was there when the constitution was signed and so should have known better. That's a reasonable explanation but I don't go by that either.

As for Gary being "Better" than Ron, that is indeed a stupid position. Where did Elend say that?

Carter ranks higher primarily because he didn't balloon the national debt the way Reagan did. Carter actually oversaw substantial deregulation himself, and may have had the very least abusive foreign policy of any president post-Coolidge.


I didn't know Carter deregulated anything... I know taxes were high as heck back then, which Reagan reduced (Not enough, but he did reduce them.)


Give me a little credit; you honestly think I went to the trouble of compiling this entire list and offering to defend my choices, but counted a Senator as a president? If Robert Taft had ever been president, he would almost certainly have placed much higher than 18th.


I was kind of joking.


I don't think Taft really does especially "well" in placing 18th; frankly, I would only call the top 10 or so "good" presidents, and maybe the top 15 or 16 "decent." Ranking 18th out of 42 in a group as disreputable as the U.S. presidents is not a place of great honor. Taft ranks as "high" as he does primarily because he didn't oversee any major
unconstitutional wars, serious violent crimes, civil liberties abuses, corruption, etc. He had a few somewhat pro-liberty stances-- most notably, in contrast to his predecessor, Roosevelt, he had a reserved interpretation of presidential power (he held that "the President can exercise no power which cannot fairly be traced to some specific grant of power in the Constitution or act of Congress"), and he stayed admirably true to this stance while opposing and refusing to launch any unilateral foreign military intervention, which there was great pressure for him to do during an uprising in Mexico.

I'm with you on most Presidents sucking. But I remember Theodore being angry at William Howard because he regulated too much. I feel like anyone who TR is angry at for regulating too much is certainly pretty bad on economics.

And yeah, there's only a handful of decent ones.

[helmuth_hubener]

Cleveland was also rock solid other than the road building, but as I said, even some libertarians are in favor of government doing that. Roads aren't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Interstate Commerce Commission. That was Cleveland's big sin.

[Fredom101]

Who did the least while in office? That would be my pick. All are horrible but the one who did the least would be the best worst.

[Fredom101]

Thomas Jefferson got the US involved in an entanglement in the middle east (after speaking out against this type of thing). Look it up. Most of these guys were good bullshitters to get elected, but what they actually did was not at all pro-liberty.

[Galileo Galilei]

Thomas Jefferson got the US involved in an entanglement in the middle east (after speaking out against this type of thing). Look it up. Most of these guys were good bullshitters to get elected, but what they actually did was not at all pro-liberty.

James Madiosn un-entagled the US from the Middle East in 1815. He sent Stephen Decatur and all 4 major powers of North Africa signed fair peace treaties with the US:

The End of Barbary Terror
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Barbary-Terror-Americas/dp/0195325400

[krugminator]

I just got back from the future. The correct answer is Rand Paul.

[T.hill]

Bush I launched the undeclared, unconstitutional Gulf War, loudly promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign and then did an about-face in office, increased gun control, increased the national debt, etc. He was pretty roundly bad from a libertarian perspective.

On the subject of Lincoln, I am going to say something controversial on these forums: he did some good. Even though he had previously sometimes acted in ways that insulated slavery (as he prioritized "maintaining the Union" over fighting slavery) Lincoln was instrumental in the creation and passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished it, and began to publicly push for more legal recognition for blacks shortly before he was assassinated. Although he was undeniably ruthless and tyrannical in his prosecution of the Civil War, I do think he genuinely believed that his policies were only temporary "war measures" to be rescinded at the conflict's (well-defined, unlike certain more recent conflicts) conclusion; he actually was returning his usurped powers at the end of the war. After the South surrendered, he pardoned the entire Confederate army-- and before you scoff at this fact, understand that at that time, it would have been seen as perfectly normal and acceptable under the historical laws of war for him to have every prominent Confederate he could get his proverbial hands on lined up against a wall and shot. Frankly, I think many other presidents would have done even worse than Lincoln did in the same position-- Andrew Jackson, for example, who was shamelessly authoritarian in his use of the presidency, who seriously threatened to send the army to fight an attempted nullification in South Carolina, and who was a famously brutal and merciless operator, would probably not have shown even the limited grace Lincoln did. FDR might just about have taken the opportunity to outright declare himself Lord and King for life. Nearly all presidents, Lincoln not least, have been statists, and for a statist, an attempt to dissolve the Union amounts to the ultimate treachery and justifies virtually any action in combating it; if anything, Lincoln was more restrained and merciful, when he saw the opportunity to be, than many statists would have been.

Now, none of this changes the fact that he utterly desecrated the Constitution, violated the principles of liberty in a multitude of ways, and deliberately sanctioned war crimes against Southern prisoners and civilians-- hence the fact that he appears well toward the lower end of my list-- but he was not pure evil, and I do believe he had more going for him than a few of his peers in the history of the presidency.


The war may have been justified, but FDR was certainly not justified in campaigning on the assertion that "Your boys will not be going off to fight in any foreign wars," all the while fully intending to send them off to do just that, and then, after winning reelection, seemingly deliberately baiting Japan into launching the Pearl Harbor attack so that he would have an excuse the public would buy.


He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.


Keeping in mind the crimes I have already described, let us not forget FDR's illegal mass-confiscation of private citizens' and businesses' gold, underhanded bullying of the Supreme Court into accepting his unconstitutional, authoritarian, and economically-destructive New Deal policies (which prolonged the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history), saddling the country with the financial-nightmare-to-be that was Social Security, turning back shiploads of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, helping to mastermind and participating in the Dresden firebombing, which killed even more civilians than the Hiroshima strike, flaunting Washington's two-term precedent to give us four terms of his brutal, tyrannical "governance"... the list goes on. I say he was the worst.


He isn't exactly "low," but he isn't higher primarily because he pushed for the imperialistic annexation of Texas. He was also pretty pro-slavery, and signed a significant tariff increase. Cleveland, by contrast, honorably opposed and temporarily thwarted the US annexation of Hawaii, and fought attempted tariff increases. Cleveland was a true constitutionalist, a man of remarkable integrity and courage, reliably stood up for his principles in office (note his issuance of more vetoes than all preceding presidents combined, many of which were of pork-barrel spending and otherwise unlibertarian, authoritarian, and "progressive" measures). He has the most consistently pro-liberty and pro-peace record of any U.S. president.


"The roads"? Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Commission? If so, Cleveland did not (contrary to the "Why Cleveland Sucked" video someone posted in this thread) "make" the ICC; rather, he simply failed to veto it-- one of the few bad policies that made it past him-- likely because it stayed more or less within the bounds of the interstate commerce clause in its original form, though it subsequently ballooned into something significantly worse.

I agree with you Abe did do some good

[Christian Liberty]

Bush I launched the undeclared, unconstitutional Gulf War, loudly promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign and then did an about-face in office, increased gun control, increased the national debt, etc. He was pretty roundly bad from a libertarian perspective.


I'm totally with you. He's far from even mediocrity. But I don't see his Presidency as being as bad as what Lincoln did.

Don't get me wrong, I still oppose it, but I think a war to protect another nation from invasion is less bad than fighting a war to force citizens to remain within your empire. Tax increases: Lincoln did that too. I'm not aware of H.W. increasing gun control, but that just shows that you're more of a Presidential expert than I am. I'm pretty knowledgeable compared to anyone I know in real life (I've had the list memorized, minus Obama of course, since I was eight years old) but not compared to you or some of the others here. I knew Reagan expanded gun control but I didn't know that elder Bush had done that.

But yeah, I'm with you on H.W. being bad. But he seemed like a mundane kind of bad. The country has sucked since the New Deal anyways, and he mostly did what was expected of him. Unlike his son, he didn't do anything truly AWFUL (Again: not counting stuff that every post-New Deal Pres. has done.)

Lincoln, by contrast and as you said, outright destroyed the constitution. I'm almost tempted to put him at the very bottom of the list although I tend to agree with you on FDR being worse.

On the subject of Lincoln, I am going to say something controversial on these forums: he did some good. Even though he had previously sometimes acted in ways that insulated slavery (as he prioritized "maintaining the Union" over fighting slavery) Lincoln was instrumental in the creation and passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished it, and began to publicly push for more legal recognition for blacks shortly before he was assassinated. Although he was undeniably ruthless and tyrannical in his prosecution of the Civil War, I do think he genuinely believed that his policies were only temporary "war measures" to be rescinded at the conflict's (well-defined, unlike certain more recent conflicts) conclusion; he actually was returning his usurped powers at the end of the war. After the South surrendered, he pardoned the entire Confederate army-- and before you scoff at this fact, understand that at that time, it would have been seen as perfectly normal and acceptable under the historical laws of war for him to have every prominent Confederate he could get his proverbial hands on lined up against a wall and shot. Frankly, I think many other presidents would have done even worse than Lincoln did in the same position-- Andrew Jackson, for example, who was shamelessly authoritarian in his use of the presidency, who seriously threatened to send the army to fight an attempted nullification in South Carolina, and who was a famously brutal and merciless operator, would probably not have shown even the limited grace Lincoln did. FDR might just about have taken the opportunity to outright declare himself Lord and King for life. Nearly all presidents, Lincoln not least, have been statists, and for a statist, an attempt to dissolve the Union amounts to the ultimate treachery and justifies virtually any action in combating it; if anything, Lincoln was more restrained and merciful, when he saw the opportunity to be, than many statists would have been.

Now, none of this changes the fact that he utterly desecrated the Constitution, violated the principles of liberty in a multitude of ways, and deliberately sanctioned war crimes against Southern prisoners and civilians-- hence the fact that he appears well toward the lower end of my list-- but he was not pure evil, and I do believe he had more going for him than a few of his peers in the history of the presidency.


He was pretty much evil, but I don't disagree with what you say about his "Redeeming qualities." Ultimately it doesn't matter though. It would have been better for the country if he had never been born, and as it was, I view it as a good thing that Booth cut his tyranny short. I don't see how you can compare the relatively mundane bad of someone like H.W. that got out in four years and barely even made a difference to someone like Lincoln who completely revolutionized the country, and not for the better.


The war may have been justified, but FDR was certainly not justified in campaigning on the assertion that "Your boys will not be going off to fight in any foreign wars," all the while fully intending to send them off to do just that, and then, after winning reelection, seemingly deliberately baiting Japan into launching the Pearl Harbor attack so that he would have an excuse the public would buy.


I'm not even sure it was justified, as I said its iffy. I lean toward the position of trying to stay out of it, but then, I'm a hard-core noninterventionist. But I don't see how anyone sane could have supported the first world war.


He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.


That's true.

Keeping in mind the crimes I have already described, let us not forget FDR's illegal mass-confiscation of private citizens' and businesses' gold, underhanded bullying of the Supreme Court into accepting his unconstitutional, authoritarian, and economically-destructive New Deal policies (which prolonged the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history), saddling the country with the financial-nightmare-to-be that was Social Security, turning back shiploads of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, helping to mastermind and participating in the Dresden firebombing, which killed even more civilians than the Hiroshima strike, flaunting Washington's two-term precedent to give us four terms of his brutal, tyrannical "governance"... the list goes on. I say he was the worst.


I'm curious how Wilson's list would look, considering he and FDR were clearly worse than anyone else, even Lincoln, who I would put in the position of third worst.

He isn't exactly "low,"

Well, he's my #1 ATM so #10 seemed low to me.

but he isn't higher primarily because he pushed for the imperialistic annexation of Texas.

But did he actually do that? IIRC that was all Polk. So I don't blame Tyler for that, even if he did support it.


He was also pretty pro-slavery,

"Pro-slavery" is usually just codeword for supporting state's rights back then. Which he did. To my knowledge Tyler did not push slavery on any state that had abolished it. As President, that's all he was really authorized to do to begin with.

and signed a significant tariff increase

I thought Tyler opposed and vetoed tariffs? Perhaps I was wrong?


Cleveland, by contrast, honorably opposed and temporarily thwarted the US annexation of Hawaii, and fought attempted tariff increases. Cleveland was a true constitutionalist, a man of remarkable integrity and courage, reliably stood up for his principles in office (note his issuance of more vetoes than all preceding presidents combined, many of which were of pork-barrel spending and otherwise unlibertarian, authoritarian, and "progressive" measures). He has the most consistently pro-liberty and pro-peace record of any U.S. president.


Cleveland was pretty rock solid, definitely in the top three.


"The roads"? Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Commission? If so, Cleveland did not (contrary to the "Why Cleveland Sucked" video someone posted in this thread) "make" the ICC; rather, he simply failed to veto it-- one of the few bad policies that made it past him-- likely because it stayed more or less within the bounds of the interstate commerce clause in its original form, though it subsequently ballooned into something significantly worse.

He still should have vetoed it but I wouldn't crucify him over one policy.

[Galileo Galilei]

FACT:

President James Madiosn holds the record for presiding over the smallest federal government in US history. In 1811, federal spending was only 1.2% of GDP.

That would convert today to a federal government that spent only $165 billion per year.

Madison did this in a time when the US was surrounded by hostile Indians, the hostile British navy, the hostile French navy, the hostile Spanish navy, hostile pirates, and hostile wild animals like bears, cougars, and wolves.

[MaxPower]

Thomas Jefferson got the US involved in an entanglement in the middle east (after speaking out against this type of thing). Look it up.
No, not really. The Barbary pirates initiated aggression on peaceful, private U.S. vessels and demanded ransom/tribute money from the government. Jefferson reacted defensively and pretty minimalistically, and only after Congress gave him the go-ahead, first to direct a set of naval vessels, and then to act on a "state of war." I think he was perfectly faithful to the Constitution and to his espoused philosophy in this matter.

[Galileo Galilei]

No, not really. The Barbary pirates initiated aggression on peaceful, private U.S. vessels and demanded ransom/tribute money from the government. Jefferson reacted defensively and pretty minimalistically, and only after Congress gave him the go-ahead, first to direct a set of naval vessels, and then to act on a "state of war." I think he was perfectly faithful to the Constitution and to his espoused philosophy in this matter.

good post. I also want to add that the bill passed by congress was limited to clearing the Barbary pirates from the seas, and did not allow an army on the land, beyond marines in port cities to fight the enemy navy.

This is the textbook way the Founders wanted foreign policy to be done, not like it is done today.

[enhanced_deficit]

May I ask why Bush and Obama are not listed in this poll?

[nayjevin]

Is this thread about how awesome it is to be in a duel yet?