Worst Modern US Presidents

Worst US Presidents in history

Published on May 25, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Worst Modern Presidents in my opinion and why:

#1 Johnson. He created the "Great Society" which resulted in a massive entitlement culture that has created multiple generations of dependents and an ever increasing drain on society with little to show for it. He also got us into Vietnam with a strategy that makes Iraq look like a masterpiece.

#2 Carter. Incompetent on so many levels. His handling of the domestic economy showed a complete lack of understanding of economics. His foreign policy was a disaster -- every time we hear about a nuclear Iran, think Jimmy Carter. It was his decision to not support the Shah that we have the Iran we have. His handling of the hostage crisis was demoralizing. And like many American liberals, he believes in showing his own principle by having othres sacrifice such as his boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics.

#3 George W. Bush. Incompetent to the extreme. The man with no ideology. It's as if that lazy sales guy you know somehow managed to become President. Inept and inarticulate. He has wrecked the Republican party for the forseable future. More prone to croneyism than any modern President. Encouraged reckless spending in congress while still managing to get no credit for being "compassionate" even as he expanded entitlements, supports amnesty on immigration, and bloated up the EPA and Education budgets. Too stupid to manage foreign policy, he ignored advice from people who actually know what they're talking about to stick by his buddies who took a successful liberation of Iraq and turned it into a mess.

#4 Woodrow Wilson. The racist, elitist, knows-better-than-you President got the US into World War I, a war in which the US had zero interest in and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Anyone who thinks Iraq was something we shouldn't have been involved in and mourns the 3,000 American dead, then you should really despise Wilson.

#5 Warren G. Harding. Having him on this list is like shooting a fish in a barrel. Of course he was awful but he didn't really do any serious damage either. He was just a petty, corrupt, blah blah blah. But he corruptness didn't result in 117,000 American deaths like Wilson's did or set up his country for long-term economic disaster like Johnson or destroy his political party like Bush. So while Harding was a bad President, he was mostly harmless.

Comments (Page 2)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

there is certianly a good case to be made for each. and a counter argument for each of course.

i would probably move johnson down the list at least, because of his civil rights work. but, overall, he wouldn't move down very far.

the one i believe was missed in this list was president tyler. john adams tried to have him impeached for misusing the veto. the effort did not succeed. but that wasn't the worst of it. tyler, a former us president...committed treason by joining the confederacy. he was elected to the confederate congress in 1861 after being instrumental in the succession.

he was never taken seriously as president, often beign called the "acting president" or "his accidency." he was expelled by his own whig party cause he was such an ass. and in my mind, makes a few of the guys on this list look good.

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2007

john adams tried to have him impeached for misusing the veto.

I think you mean Quincy. JOhn Adams was dead. But this was the first, not the last time, that congress tried to usurp the powers of the presidency in violation of the constitution.

I would not put Tyler last, but not at the head either. After all, anyone who can piss off congress just doing their job cant be all bad.

drmiler

on May 25, 2007

1 johnson got us into vietnam not to win but to test weapons. which is shy nixon had to go when he got us out of vietnam

Better do a little homework danielost....

The Vietnam War (also known as the Second Indochina War, the American War in Vietnam and the Vietnam Conflict) occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The war was a successful effort by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and the indigenous National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, (also known derogatively as the Việt Cộng, Charlie or VC) to reunify Vietnam under a communist government. To a degree, the war may be viewed as a Cold War conflict between the U.S., its allies, and the Republic of Vietnam on one side, and the Soviet Union, its allies, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on the other. Others, however, viewed the conflict as a civil war between communist and non-communist Vietnamese factions.[3]

The U.S. deployed large numbers of troops to South Vietnam between the end of the First Indochina War in 1954, and 1973. Some U.S. allies also contributed forces. U.S. military advisers first became involved in Vietnam in 1950, assisting French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisers assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. President John F. Kennedy increased America's troop numbers from 500 to 16,000. Large numbers of combat troops were dispatched by President Lyndon Johnson beginning in 1965. Almost all U.S. military personnel departed after the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. The last American troops left the country on April 30, 1975.[4]

We started in Vietnam long before LBJ became president. Although our involvement did increase under LBJ.

Courageous Dageous

on May 25, 2007

Mr. Connors . . .

Draginol stated Modern US presidents. I think that's why Tyler is not on his list. Granted, my grasp of US history is a bit more tenuous than some (being a foreign-born resident of the US) but "modern" to me would mean more like 20th century.

adnauseam

on May 25, 2007

Warren Harding was probably the worst President the US had seen in 200 Years. Reagan was one of the best and I doubt whether we'll see another Ronnie in the near future!

danielost

on May 25, 2007

by vetoing all motions in the League to do

kind of hard for the usa to veto anything in the league we were not members

President John F. Kennedy

was assainated becouse he wouldn't increase troops to what johnson did

and his brother was assainated becouse he was going to win the presidency and he made it clear he was going with draw those same troops

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

Mr. Connors . . .

ist,,,if yer gonna bother to address me like that, at least have the decency to spell my name right.

Draginol stated Modern US presidents

read the subtitle.

one more note...if we're gonna skewer carter, who is still the only president to broker a peace deal with isreal and anyone (which still stands today with egypt) then ya can't let hoover off the hook. he was the steward of the great depression. and blaming the shah thing, on carter is nonsense. islamic fundamentalists overthrew the shah, as he represented the west...since it was the west that installed him and forced him on the iranian people where he was a brutal dictator. we could have done anything and everything to stop the overthrow, and it still would have happened. those people were sick of the west telling them how to live.

now granted, he handled the hostage crisis with little skill (anyone remember the botched resuce attempt?) but he traded off relations with egypt and sadat and encouraged their continued cooperation with isreal and sided with them and the rest of the sunnis in saudi arabia. that was our choice. we went with the sunnis and attempted to isolate the shiites. the russians allied withthe shiites. that's the way it was in the cold war. we picked a side, they picked a side. that policy was continued thru reagan and further. till the sunnis, led by osama bin laden, turned on us after we had no more use for his "freedom fighters" as they were called back then, in afghanastan.

Courageous Dageous

on May 25, 2007

ist,,,if yer gonna bother to address me like that, at least have the decency to spell my name right.

Wow. No need to get all mad - you've got an odd spelling of a common name. You'd think you would get used to it after a while . . .

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

Wow. No need to get all mad - you've got an odd spelling of a common name. You'd think you would get used to it after a while

that wasn't anger. just a request. and conners (and the other derrivatives) with an "er" is not exactly rare. plus, you were addressing me directly, so spelling my name right would be simple common courtesy regardless of what it was.

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2007

ist,,,if yer gonna bother to address me like that, at least have the decency to spell my name right.

Wow. No need to get all mad - you've got an odd spelling of a common name. You'd think you would get used to it after a while . . .

Welcome to the dog pits!

bakerstreet

on May 25, 2007

"one more note...if we're gonna skewer carter, who is still the only president to broker a peace deal with isreal and anyone (which still stands today with egypt) then ya can't let hoover off the hook."

Walter Cronkite had about as much to do with that. Carter was in the right place at the right time, and didn't deserve the credit for it, as evidenced by his flaccid diplomatic record since. People try to cast him as another Nixon in terms of ex-president international handshaking, and he couldn't even climb up to where Nixon stood, imho.

It isn't diplomatic to sell out to evil people. I don't see an unabashed ability to shake hands and broker deals with the lowest forms of political life to be something admirable. Anyone who can downplay real genocides and then play Iraq of as if it is one isn't honest, nor diplomatic.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

Welcome to the dog pits!

"ruff-ruff"

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

Walter Cronkite had about as much to do with that. Carter was in the right place at the right time, and didn't deserve the credit for it,

walter cronkite didn't get them both to camp david and put them in a room and didn't let em go until they agreed on a peace pact.

i know you can't give carter credit for anything baker. but he does deserve credit for that. no one else has done it. that's a fact. and that has nothing to do with measuring him up with nixon. i never even mentioned him, it is you making that "strawman" argument.

bakerstreet

on May 25, 2007

No one else has done what? I seem to recall Arafat smiling a goofy smile and shaking hands at the white house a few years back. History is full of empty, garbage moments like that, usually one side smearing the blood of innocent people on whatever worthless document they are signing.

How about Carter on... cambodia? Central America? How about, say Mugabe as a Carter legacy? This is a man who says that Palestine is as bad as the Rwandan genocide. This is a guy that has no problems supporting Chavez's dirty elections or creating terrorist propaganda in terms of Israeli actions in Palestine. Most of what Reagan gets lambasted for started in Carter's stinkhole administration.

Frankly, there isn't a dirty ass in the world that Carter wouldn't lick to put a new bullet point on his "peacemaker" legacy. You may find that admirable. If, and it is a big if, there were ever any RESULTS from that, maybe I could see it. Feel free to list me the lasting, positive effects of Carter's "diplomacy" since he left office, or even while he was president.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 25, 2007

again...how much conflict has isreal and egypt had since the agreement?

zero...case closed.

argue all you want...i still see carter's initiative as a great achievement. and his agreement happened and was followed up and honored where everyone else's (like oslo) fell apart shortly after the public "hand shaking" your so fond of and erroneously put on the same level.

that doesn't mean i wouldn't move carter off this list. i'm just not going to damn him and twist where he did some good. it's called giving credit where it's due. and carter deserves that credit, despite your poo-pooing of it.

but don't let me stop you from hauling off on your favorite whipping boy. be my guest...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!