Neat chart flagged by Tapped today - look at the approval ratings of every President since Truman, throughout their term.
Fun fact: Reagan's has a similar slide to Obama's in the same period. Almost like nasty recessions are bad for it.
Neat chart flagged by Tapped today - look at the approval ratings of every President since Truman, throughout their term.
Fun fact: Reagan's has a similar slide to Obama's in the same period. Almost like nasty recessions are bad for it.
Bush's was eerily similar to that of the Stock Market.
Nice link - thanks for posting it.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
Man, even after reading biographies of Truman, it's still kinda shocking how totally unpopular he was while in office. In fact, he looks a lot like Bush Jr., but worse. I read a lot of editorials and news columns, etc. from those days when Truman was in office (no, not first hand, I'm not THAT old!) and the thought that he would be considered a great president and someone highly regarded was about as laughable an idea back then as the thought of Bush Jr. being held in high regard years from now.
Horribly botched wars will do that to you. Plus there was that Who Lost China silliness, which was an enormous, now-forgotten deal.
Thats why you dont judge presidents as worst, best or any crap like that right away. I always laugh at the people who were calling Bush the worst president in US history while he was still in office. Now I will agree he wasnt a great president, but I can easily pick a number of presidents who were worse.
Your first sentence would like a word with your last sentence.
No I was more speaking to the idiots who even if they want to make the mistake of judging Bush already as the worst president ever I can find a number of them who are worse still worse.
Such as?
Van Buren
Grant
Buchanan
Nixon
Took me about 5 seconds to come up with that list. Others can be argued in my opinion, but these I dont see where there is much of a discussion.
I'm not sure "worst 20th century President except for Nixon" is much better.
That's a good point. The China lobby was incredibly powerful and could really set debate in Washington.
Van Buren established the second party system. You don't get Jackson without Van Buren and between the two of them they did a good job holding the Union together and suppressing sectionalism. He wasn't a very successful president but that also has a lot to do with his small government ideology which didn't go over well in the middle of an economic panic.
Last edited by Incendiary Lemon; 11-20-2009 at 11:23 PM.
Others can be argued, such as Carter, Coolidge, and Hoover, but I was setting out the clearest example first.
Also you might want to look at your statement as Bush Jr. was never president during the 20th century.
Last edited by Brettmcd; 11-21-2009 at 12:24 AM.
Why Grant, exactly? I'm just wondering if you have a specific reasoning behind that one (or Van Buren or Buchanan for that matter). Grant's reputation has been somewhat changed by recent biographies that point out his presidency was rather ordinary in most regards but that his negatives have been overly hyped by later historians who attacked his presidency because they couldn't attack his Civil War record.
If you don't see how there can be much of a discussion about Bush versus those presidents, then you should read more from Bush's opposition.
Grant from everything ive read had one of the most corrupt administrations to that point in US history. Many of his cabinet members were caught up in scandals that he did little to try and get to the bottom of.
As for Buchanan I would put him by far as the worst president in American history for his actions leading up to and allowing the civil war to happen while doing nothing about it. When your presidency leads up to the splitting up of the nation, its hard to top that.
Nixon gains his place for being the only president to have to resign for his own actions else be removed from office.
There was a documentary on Grant's presidency on PBS a few years ago that points out that Grant's presidency was not particulary corrupt compared to those of his time. Most early biographies were written by historians who displayed a pro-southern perspective and saw attacking Grant as president as a way of going after someone who was largely untouchable in most of the country because of his Civil War reputation. That created a perception among many that Grant's presidency was particularly corrupt. It has only been recently that a more balanced look at Grant has emerged.
That's not to say that Grant didn't make mistakes. But the same documentary pointed out that Grant tried, to a degree anyway, to enforce civil rights in the southern states long after Congress was willing to support such measures. He also was involved in a post-presidency scandal in which a partner ripped off thousands of people in an investment scheme and left Grant holding the bag. Despite offers from wealthy friends to cover the obligations Grant felt to the investors, Grant insisted on selling his personal possessions, including irreplaceable Civil War awards, in order to pay people back. He wrote his memoirs while dying of throat cancer so his family would have something as all his assets were gone.
Again, my point is not that Grant was a great president. My point is that he probably wasn't one of the worst presidents of all time.
Yeah, uhm, Bush Jr wasn't even the worst president in my lifetime. Carter absolutely runs away with that award.
Ok, ill have to read up more on recent things about Grant, I wasnt aware that histories opinion of him has been changing that much.
I don't know if I'd go that far, even though some of Bush II's positions will be hard to judge for a few years, but I agree that Carter is worthy of some serious criticism.
Someone reminder me what Carter did again that was bad? I mean he wasn't exactly effective, but I can't think of anything on the order of the Iraq debacle.
Iran hostage crisis? Double-digit inflation? Stagflation? The Oil Crisis?
Dude was horrible. He wasn't dealt a good hand to begin with, but he played it about as badly as it could be played.
Consider this, Jason: He was bad enough to make America forgive the Republicans for Nixon, and set up a run of 12 years straight of GOP presidents. Oh, this is even better: He got the South to forgive the GOP for Reconstruction. His presidency completely and irrevocably altered the political landscape, to where certain things the Democrats should have been able to take for granted were lost. He sent voters back to the Republicans in such numbers that it would take them over a decade to recover.
Remember how in 1988, Bush Sr was able to use "Liberal" as if it were a dirty, slanderous word, in reference to Dukakis? You have Carter to thank for that.
1) Not his fault. Unless you're going to blame him for the Desert One fiasco?
2) Not his fault. Hell, he was the guy who fixed this, by appointing Paul Volcker to the fed. The dude should get credit for that.
3) again not his fault. See #2.
4) How is this even remotely his fault?
Carter was mostly ineffectual, absolutely. That's about the worst you can say for him. As far as I can tell none of this is on par with plunging us into a war under false pretenses, and presiding over the actual collapse of our economy (as opposed to the aftermath of said collapse).
That's a load of bullshit. Carter was simply too decent for the country he was leading. You tell me how many other presidents would have tried, for instance, a bold hostage rescue and then apologized publicly when it went awry. Carter should not be blamed for the runaway mendacity of the modern GOP. Their product sells because of these same voters whose tastes you laud as some kind of gold standard.
The amazing thing about Carter is that he was elected at all, since scumbag motherfuckers outnumber men of principle in politics like a million to one. His election (which did come at a terrible time for any president) is proof of the discontent with America's direction while being run by criminals, and his quick replacement an indicator of how quickly Americans forget any shred of self-respect the moment their wallets are hit. He wasn't a failure as a president, rather he was a failure as a politician and salesman.
No one in American government (in a historical sense) should ever be forgiven for *ending* reconstruction. The narrative that it was a failure pure and simple is southern revisionism at its worst, right alongside other popularly marketed stories like Carter the fool. And the white south never had to forgive or forget, they simply had their slightly marginalized concerns brought front and center by the radicalized GOP that modern conservatism wrought. It's different.He got the South to forgive the GOP for Reconstruction.
Brought to you by the Georgia Council for Reparations For Saying Nasty Things About Carter Without Really Thinking About What I Was Saying With The Same Care I Would Have Lent An Older Presidency. (GCFRSNTAWRTAWIWSWTSCIWHLAOP)
Yeah, Carter has been made into the punching bag of the right wing. His actual presidency was nowhere near as bad as they like to make it out to be. In addition to the points made by jeffd and Lizard_King, he was the first President to make serious attempts to move towards energy independence. If the nation had followed that path, we'd be in a much better position today, and crackpot middle eastern regimes would have much less influence.
I think you're confusing Carter with Johnson.
While Carter drives me crazy a lot these days, I will say that I believe some of the core of what LK is saying.
I don't think he gets a free pass for 18% mortgages and a simply horrific economy any more than any president gets a free ride for the economy in their time. But he was a genuinely good, honest man who wanted to simply do what was best for the country in a city/system that does not welcome such people. He pissed Congress off from the very beginning by refusing to play the back-scratching game, and at that point neither side was going to work with him.
Let's not forget the situation in the Middle East when he came in. Egypt and Israel were poised to go to war yet again, and many were extremely afraid of what that was going to turn into. I can remember my dad (Air Force) talking to other people he worked with, in our den back then, wondering if this was going to end up being a WWIII situation, who would take sides and in what manner, etc. Carter getting Sadat and Begin talking, shaking hands, and making peace was one of the best diplomatic accomplishments of our time, IMO.
Hell, he was the punching bag of the left wing for a long time. Democrats refused to let Carter, a former President, get anywhere near their conventions and distanced themselves as far from him as they could get.
The Civil Rights Act in 1964 started that, and the GOP 'Southern Strategy' took advantage of it. Both were before Carter's term.
Well, I can't argue with that... I just chalk it up to them being terrified of the anti-Carter PR campaign. The Democratic Party was pretty spineless in the 1980s.
I don't think you can say that Carter wasn't responsible for the Iranian hostage crisis. His attempts to factor human rights and other issues into US foreign policy decisions was commendable, but he then threw that all away in a very misguided decision to continue US policy to support a horrendous regime in Iran. He then agreed to allow the exiled Shah to come to the US for medical treatments even when he was warned that revolutionary Iran would not take that move kindly. Finally, he decided not to remove the staff members from the embassy in Tehran. That whole series of decisions resulted in not only the Iran Hostage Crisis but also has lead to 30 years of poor US relations with the country that is arguably the most strategically important (outside of Israel) in the whole region.
I'll give him a pass on other things, but not that.
If that's not Carter's fault, then no president can be blamed for anything.
The hostage crisis is a symptom. You can knock his decisionmaking leading up to that moment, but revolutionary Iran (the non spectacle, real problem) was coming a long time before that largely as a result of the ignominious tradition of botched western intervention. Like 9/11, it is interesting and important to focus on the incident that draws everyone's attention, but it is a mistake to make it it the crux of the argument even if you want to narrow it down to just US/Iran relations. Iranian leadership didn't break with the US because of Jimmy.
It's not a question of blame so much as relative importance. The Iranian hostage crisis is important and should not be neglected in an assessment of Carter, but it is not the same sort of deal breaking that, for instance, Watergate offers about Nixon's presidency. It's not an oval office blowjob, by any means, but it would be a mistake imo to make it the focus of the discussion.If that's not Carter's fault, then no president can be blamed for anything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote