In olden times children would ask their parents, "How come there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but no President's Day?" And their parents would answer, "Why, every day is President's Day." Then the admen and calendar-makers of America declared an actual President's Day and that beloved family tradition dragged to an end, though officially the holiday is still called George Washington's Birthday.
Here, to mark the occasion, is the Hit & Run President's Day Open Thread. Chime in to answer any, all, or none of the following questions:
1. Who was the best, or at least the most tolerable, American president? (Reason staffers, contributors, and friends gave their an
swers to that query here.)
2. Who was the worst American president? (House rule: You can't say Bush, and you can't say Clinton. Exercise those history muscles, people.)
3. Who was our greatest ex-president? (The conventional reply is Jimmy Carter. While that answer has the advantage of annoying Alan Dershowitz, you should feel free to vote for someone more interesting -- Herbert Hoover, say.)
4. Who is your favorite vice-president? Alternately, what is your favorite vice?
5. In 1968, according to An American Melodrama, George Wallace asked Colonel Sanders to be his running mate. If the colonel had said yes, and if you were able to cast a ballot that year, would you have been tempted, if only for a moment, to vote for Wallace, just to get Sanders within a heartbeat of the presidency? Be honest.
6. Also in 1968, the Yippies nominated a hog named Pigasus to be president. Would you have liked to see Col. Sanders debate the pig? How about a pork-and-chicken taste test? Why isn't that in the Constitution?
None Dare Call It George Washington's Birthday
Comments to "None Dare Call It George Washington's Birthday":
Sir Disgrace | February 19, 2007, 11:23am | #
1. Calvin Coolidge2. Woodrow Wilson
3. Teddy Roosevelt, just 'cause he did badass things like spend years in Africa shooting big angry animals.
4. Clearly it's Dick Cheney. Anyone with no actual power who has the ability to piss off so many people is doing something right.
5. Damn skippy.
6. I sometimes dream about fried, breaded bacon. Mmmmmmm.
Best vice-president: Spiro Agnew. He proved that anyone, no matter what ethnicity, how crooked, or how poorly named, could be one accident away from being the president. Not only that, but he (or his speechwriters) really knew how to turn a phrase.
joe | February 19, 2007, 11:29am | #
1. FDR. Won World War 2, prevetned Red (or Brown, or Red/Brown) Revolution during the Great Depression, implemented the economic policies that permanently eliminated depressions from the American economy.2. Andrew Jackson. The genocidiest president we ever had, nearly eliminated the judiciary as a meaningful check on government power by ignoring the Cherokee decision.
3. John Adams. By agreeing to become the ex-president and ceding his office to the opposition party after an election - the first time in history a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces had done such a thing - when he could easily have held on illegally and called "minutemen" out into the streets, he cemented our democracy.
4. Al Gore, for being the first VP to accomplish anything meaningful while in office. Ending the Serbs' reign of terror; shrinking the size of the federal government through modernization, efficiency and technology; and putting the final nail in the coffine of Ross Perot and his anti-trade agenda.
5. Bobby used to love fried chicken. Sniff.
6. Running against Wallace/Sanders would have allowed the Yippies to coin the tagline "the other white meat" decades earlier.
monkeylicious | February 19, 2007, 11:30am | #
1)Grover Cleveland2)Woodrow Wilson
3)William Howard Taft
4)Alben W. Barkley. The "w" stands for "weed."
5)If given a chance, I would use a drumstick to beat Colonel Sanders within an inch of his life. Fried chicken shouldn't be corporate, man.
6)It wouldn't be fair to see Col. Sanders debate a pig; the Colonel is not smart enough. Also, the Constitution is a silly, outdated document--a fact that can be easily proven by its auspicious failure to adress fried meat in any way.
Ashish George | February 19, 2007, 11:32am | #
I'll have a go at two questions that weren't on Jesse's list but should have been: most overrated and most underrated.I think Reagan is a clear choice for most overrated. Conservatives won't rest until every fucking street and building in the country bears the guy's name, but while in office Reagan (1) supported the brutal Contra thugs against (the no doubt equally brutal but nonetheless popular) Sandinistas, (2) couldn't get enough of the War on Drugs, (3) pumped more money into the military budget, and (4) supported Saddam Hussein.
And I'll say Jefferson was the most underrated because, well, Jefferson is America.
Will Allen | February 19, 2007, 11:35am | #
George Washington was the best, simply for not attempting to maximize his power. Would the the thugs that followed him been similarly circumspect.kwais | February 19, 2007, 11:39am | #
Best president?Thomas Jefferson? Sounds good to me.
Worst president
FDR, LBJ, Carter.
Best vice president? really I am not that good at history, I'll take Dick Cheney for the reasons mentioned in the first post.
Gimme Back My Dog | February 19, 2007, 11:42am | #
shrinking the size of the federal government through modernization, efficiency and technologyWow, joe. I know you need attention, but try to be a little more subtle about it.
jimmy smith | February 19, 2007, 11:42am | #
Best is Bill Harrison. Anyone to leave the Presidency in as good a shape as he found it gets my vote.Jefferson, like Madison, was a truly great man whose accomplishments will live forever, but they did their best work before becoming president.
These questions are moot as I only recognize the sovereignty of Emperor Norton.
| February 19, 2007, 11:51am | #
"FDR...implemented the economic policies that permanently eliminated depressions from the American economy."It's only Monday but I don't think I'll get to read anything that funny for the rest of the week.
todd b | February 19, 2007, 11:52am | #
1. Best Prez - come on...Wm Henry Harrison of course...more presidents should follow his example.2. Worst Prez - FDR...the New Deal gift that keeps on giving...what's the fed govt. up to?...30% of GDP?
I thought Jimmy Carter and Colonel Sanders were the same guy?...either way, I vote for the pig because (insert any pork and federal government comment here).
75 years and counting. Depressions used to occur every 30-40 years, since the founding of the Republic.
Garth | February 19, 2007, 11:52am | #
John Hanson gets my vote: not only was he the real first president of the US (under the Articles), had he less mettle the government would have been overthrown. He established all the departments that Washington eventually inherited - adopted the seal still in use today and retired after only a year or so in office.He remained anti-federalist to his grave.
Abdul | February 19, 2007, 11:52am | #
Best vice/president is John Tyler. He whipped a school teacher for being overbearing when he was just a teenager (imagine what he'd do to the public education system today).For bad-ass points: he married a 24 year old beauty when he was in his fifties, and knocked her up EIGHT times! His last kid was born when he was just about 70. He was the 19th Century's J. Howard Marshall, only less rich and more virile.
On the downside--was a life-long slave-owner and died a member of the confederate government due to his strong belief in the "peculiar institution."
Hoover's been posthumously bleeding off cred because of Dinesh D'Souza's alliance with Sheik Omar.
John Birch | February 19, 2007, 11:55am | #
Worst PresidentsFDR - Commie
Trueman - Commie
Eisenhower - Commie Dupe
Nixon - Commie
Kennedy - Commie
Best President Ever
Ronald Reagan - True American Patriot!
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 11:56am | #
"Conservatives won't rest until every fucking street and building in the country bears the guy's name"Just wait till they start trying to name everything after Bush.
Cab | February 19, 2007, 11:58am | #
1. Jefferson2. FDR
3. JFK - myth is always better than reality
4 makes
5 no
6 difference
Mike | February 19, 2007, 12:03pm | #
1. William Henry Harrison -- shortest term2. Franklin Roosevelt -- longest term
3. Nixon -- because having him be ex-president was such a blessed relief
4. Henry Wallace -- even funnier than Quayle!
5. Tempted? I would have done it.
6. You betcha. And the taste test is in the Constitution. It's implied under the interstate commerce clause.
Incidentally, if you want to read about vice presidents (and why wouldn't you?) this book is a great place to start.
H-dawg | February 19, 2007, 12:03pm | #
"FDR...implemented the economic policies that permanently eliminated depressions from the American economy."I thought this was going to be a non-serious post, until I saw the rest of it. And later, the ex-post facto logic...schmoe
todd b | February 19, 2007, 12:04pm | #
joe,I'm pretty sure most economists now take the position that FDR policies had somewhere between zero impact and detrimental impact on the severity and length of the depression. It's only guv'ment historians who keep repeating the tired old FDR saved us from the depression story line.
Neu Mejican | February 19, 2007, 12:07pm | #
1. Let's go with the shortest...James Madison2. Bush (Iraq, Panama, and other cluster fucks).
No I didn't break the house rule.
Lost_In_Translation | February 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #
1. The original GW, the people that least want to be leaders are more often than not some of the best.2. For total effect, Carter
3. James Madison, great work before and after the presidency
4. I'm not up on my VP's, so I'd have to say "rum drinkin on a white sand beach"
5. KFC sucks
6. Sausage is better
Well, todd b one could argue that the FDIC did work to end bank runs which had happened on a regular basis and often resulted in serious economic downswings. And you could argue that the SEC et al have lessened the amount of fraud that takes place and provides for better investor protection, making the whole securities industry more creditworthy. That accounts for something
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #
1. Best: I'll also go with George Washington, for not expanding his power when he certainly had the chance.2. Worst: FDR. Allegedly manipulated US entry into World War 2, snuck in a Pink Revolution during the Great Depression, implemented and continued economic policies that prolonged and deepened the Great Depression, expanded size and perceived rightfol role of government, and gets fawned over for it.
3. Greatest ex: Lincoln.
4. Favorite vice: Alcohol.
5. Vote for Wallace to get Col. Sanders? I dunno -- I think the Colonel embodied the military-poultry complex in its most frightening form.
6. Not only would I like to have seen Sanders debate the pig, but with the proviso that the loser would be roasted whole and distributed to the poor and hungry.
Warren | February 19, 2007, 12:09pm | #
2. Who was the worst American president?FDR no question.
Lengthened and deepened the depression.
Instituted the New Deal, effectively turning the Federal Government an organized crime syndicate, and setting himself up as 'Godfather'.
Corrupted the SCOTUS, and ending all Constitutional limitation on government, and especially executive, power.
Drug the country kicking and screaming into WWII.
Climbed in bed with one of the most infamous tyrants in history, Joseph Stalin.
Japanese interment, Jewish immigration quotas and assorted other measures that cemented racism as official US policy.
Many other self-serving freedom crushing acts too numerous to list
There isn't even a close second
edna | February 19, 2007, 12:11pm | #
Jefferson, like Madison, was a truly great man whose accomplishments will live forever, but they did their best work before becoming president.much as i hate to agree with you, megadittos, joe!
best pres was clearly cal. second best pres is clearly jimmy carter for providing a stellar example for libertarians to use to make easy debate points. he continues to this day to help us make our point about the possibility of power being in the hands of a yutz.
Lucas | February 19, 2007, 12:12pm | #
FDR is definetly the worst president in history. The Depression began in the 20's with the Federal Reserve's credit expansion schemes. FDR's attempted policy to end the Depression was the NIRA, the forced cartelization of industries and a "partnership" between Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor.There may have been depressions before, but FDR's managed to last five times as long somehow.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 12:13pm | #
todd b writes: "I'm pretty sure most economists now take the position that FDR policies had somewhere between zero impact and detrimental impact on the severity and length of the depression. "But what about the depressions *since* the Great one, which would have been expected based on pre-FDR patterns, but never happened?
Eric Atkinson | February 19, 2007, 12:14pm | #
1. Tie FDR and Reagan.2. Tie LBJ and Carter.
3. Ford
4. Nixon
5. I love chicken, but not KFC.
6. The other white meat.
nota | February 19, 2007, 12:21pm | #
The best president would probably have to be Thomas Jefferson.The worst is a toss-up between Jimmy Carter, FDR, and John Adams. FDR's New Deal could be excused as a necessity of the time but we are still paying for the sins of that creation. Carter had too many fuster-clucks that he couldn't take into account. He failed to deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis, he failed to deal with the spiraling economy, and he may have told Americans to "bundle up" but that's not what they wanted to hear when they turned to him for leadership. And then there's Adams... who signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts that set the stage for future acts of tyranny and censorship from the government.
Favorite Ex-President? Any president who ends his tenure and simply fades into obscurity.
Favorite VP? This is going to sound strange but I'd have to go with Quayle for the simple fact that anything he did made the President that much more credible and important. Who would REALLY want to remove the elder Bush from office knowing full well who would be taking his place?
Eric Atkinson | February 19, 2007, 12:23pm | #
Boy I hate defending donks, but FDR was the right man for the job between 1938 and 1945.What? No Lincoln yet for worst President? I know it's not all that fashionable, but that guy pretty much destroyed the states' sovereignty and caused tens of thousands of deaths only to set the precedent that put him above the Constitution.
ed | February 19, 2007, 12:23pm | #
FDR no question. Lengthened and deepened the depression. Instituted the New Deal, effectively turning the Federal Government an organized crime syndicate...You forgot: married to ugliest First Lesbian ever.
joe | February 19, 2007, 12:30pm | #
Jon H,No one is ever going to answer your question.
Maybe some mumbling about "post facto," but that's about it.
D.A. Ridgely | February 19, 2007, 12:30pm | #
1. William Henry Harrison, under the principle that he who governs least governs best.2. FDR, same reason.
3. Any one of them who had the good graces to die in office or, at the very least, act thereafter as though he had died. Thus Carter is just about our worst ex-President despite having occasionally done a bit of good here and there. That any man whose presidency was so completely and utterly disastrous as his could then continue to inflict his sanctimonious twaddle on the nation for decades thereafter almost makes me want to make an “ex-President” exception to my opposition to capital punishment.
4. Obviously, John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, who saw the vice presidency for what it is. (N.B., it is rumored that the last word of his most famous quote was changed by reporters to read “spit.” If true, this only adds to my admiration.)
5. & 6. Pat Paulson, the Harold Stassen of stand-up comedy, also ran for president for the first time in 1968, with campaign slogans including “If elected, I will win”; “We can’t stand Pat”; and (my personal favorite) “I’ve upped my standards. Now, up yours.” Eldridge Cleaver and Dick Gregory also ran. (Take that, Obama!) One does have to wonder about Wallace’s apparently second choice for Veep, Curtis “Bomb them back into the Stone Age” LeMay. I mean, really! Wallace can’t manage to recruit “Kentucky Colonel” Harland B. Sanders and so he has to settle for Bombs Away LeMay? I smell an urban legend here and it doesn’t smell finger lickin’ good.
| February 19, 2007, 12:32pm | #
Truman has to be among the worst because he really believed all the economic claptrap that FDR mouthed because he thought it was what would keep him popular. Even LBJ does not seem to have been so economically illiterate.What's even funnier is that someone as anti-intellectual as HST is so loved by academics.
Warren | February 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #
Jozef,Whatever else, slavery was an American institution when he took office, and prohibited throughout the land by the time he got his brains blown out.
dhex | February 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #
i am reminded of a line from illuminatus! where simon moon describes the nomination of pigasus as "the most transcendentally lucid political act of the 20th century."i am tempted to agree at times.
Franklin Harris | February 19, 2007, 12:36pm | #
Worst president (tie): FDR and Lincoln.Dishonorable mention: Wilson.
Best president: William Henry Harrison. For obvious reasons.
Second Best: Grover Cleveland.
Best vice president: William Rufus King. Same as W.H. Harrison. Also, he was probably our first gay V.P., and that should be worth something.
Second best: Aaron Burr.
Worst vice president: Nixon.
| February 19, 2007, 12:38pm | #
It should be noted that that many of those presidents who were (or passed for) intellectuals were not much good either.Consider Wilson, Hoover and Carter, just for examples.
Last I heard, Washington's actual date of birth was said not to be well nailed down -- and not just a matter of confusion between Gregorian & Julian dates.
Fred | February 19, 2007, 12:42pm | #
W. H. Harrison fits so many of these queries, especially Most Tolerated...only in office a month; Worst...REAGAN (ha!), this fascist opened the floodgates for the massive, and expensive war on the citizens of the US (Drug War) combined with the complete integration of "newspeak" into the mainstream discourse ( in the eighties, special interest became citizens, and national interest became corporations ); greatest ex-...Harrison, he did nothing,further preserving our democracy by means of LEAVING US THE F*** ALONE!; skip the vices; honesty about Col. Sanders...racist slave owner ( see Kentucky Assoc. of Colonels, still holdin' on after all these years ) Sanders never served as a military man, "colonel" was a term given to the owners of the largest plantations in KY. Pigasus...would we be any worse off than Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II ? Would muslim extremist rhetoric espouse hate for America more or less if we had a real pig instead of capitalist pig for Pres.?Warren | February 19, 2007, 12:43pm | #
ed,Eleanor has her own sins to atone for. However, I don't give a flying flaming fuck or a rolling donut what she looked like or whom she slept with. Same holds for all White House denizens without exception.
Cab | February 19, 2007, 12:43pm | #
Jefferson, as President, slashed military expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey, reduced the national debt by a third, and had the forsight to purchase the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon.After his presidency, he created UVA.
Pretty good for someone whose best work was prior to becoming President.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 12:58pm | #
Wow, joe. I know you need attention, but try to be a little more subtle about it.My reaction to Joe's post was to wonder why he wasn't sharing his favorite vice - the one he had obviously taken a big hit of just before posting.
jp | February 19, 2007, 1:01pm | #
1. Best -- George Washington, for all the reasons given above.2. Worst -- I'm tempted to say Lincoln, but I don't think he was really the worst. The Civil War was inevitable by the time he came on the scene. Instead, I nominate Wilson. There was no reason whatsoever for the U.S. to get involved in WWI; it was just another European boundary dispute. If we hadn't enabled France and Britain to win, then there would've been no Treaty of Versailles, no onerous reparations, no rise of Hitler (and possibly no Hitler, period), no Great Depression, no WWII, and no massive federal bureaucracy.
3. Best Ex -- Grant. He went bankrupt and supported himself by writing -- on his own -- his excellent Memoirs.
My favorite vice is surreptitiously ogling women. And elevator music.
MarkV | February 19, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Q: Who are the only two individuals important enough to warrant getting official Federal holidays? (After the advent of P-day, of course.)A: Martin Luther King, Jr, and Jesus Christ
All others in our history only get honored with collective holidays. Interesting.
G. Bob | February 19, 2007, 1:12pm | #
The lack of love for James K. Polk is sad. Here was a grumpy bastard that nobody wanted who had some very clear goals. He wanted to fix the treasury system and expand American territory. He did both, then retired after only one term. Bonus points, he died a few weeks later making him best ex-president as well. Our nation was shaped by his four years of office, and he did it with a divided congress and few cronies.Worst? LBJ might be on that list followed by Millard Fillmore.
joe | February 19, 2007, 1:16pm | #
LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, despite knowing full well that it was going to hand the South (and the country) over to his political opponents, and chose to end his presidency when it became clear that his war was failing, and that he lacked the credibility to lead us out of it.So he gets some points for putting principle above his own political interest.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 1:18pm | #
Best: Washington and Coolidge - both showed that the office should never be considered imperial.Worst: Both Roosevelts - who were determined to be imperial.
Best-ex: John Quincy Adams - if you know your history you won't ask why, otherwise you should read more history.
[BONUS} Worst VP: Jefferson - they amended the Constitution after his service in the office.
Best VP: Gerald Ford - any man who can become VP without going thru the hassle of an election is going to win my admiration.
and finally,
"Pork chops taste gooood" -- Jules the hitman in Pulp Fiction
AC | February 19, 2007, 1:20pm | #
joe | February 19, 2007, 12:30pm | #Jon H,
No one is ever going to answer your question.
Maybe some mumbling about "post facto," but that's about it.
So when people say Bush's policies have prevented a second 9/11, that's valid logic?
joe | February 19, 2007, 1:26pm | #
AC,If the absence of terror attacks for five and half years was a novel event in America history - if it had been normal for a century and a half to experience major terrorist attacks every two years prior to George Bush's presidency - then it would be a credible argument.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 1:26pm | #
"So when people say Bush's policies have prevented a second 9/11, that's valid logic?"Maybe if there was a century-plus-long pattern of major terrorist attacks, and a 'terroristic cycle' concept akin to the business cycle.
Karen | February 19, 2007, 1:27pm | #
I'm limiting myself to presidents before 1960, simply because there's been enough time to really evaluate their policies, and because the social changes that boiled over during the 60's didn't have much affect on policy yet. Before Kennedy, even during the Depression, federal policy was mostly foreign policy protection of domestic industry. (Which, by the way, I wonder why no one has brought up whichever president established the Interstate Commerce Commission. You'd think the first national entity designed to regulate industry would generate some controversy around here. And no, I can't remember which wearer of high collars and heavy facial hair enacted that.)1. I'd have to vote for either Washington or Jefferson, with Lincoln a close second. Jeff because of buying Louisiana and send Lewis and Clark out to explore it; Washington for not becoming a despot, which he so easily could have. Lincoln gets props for changing the Civil War from one of preserving the Union to one ending slavery, and for having the gumption to go on with the Civil War, despite the costs and unpopularity it caused him at the time.
2. I agree with most historians here: James Buchanan. Buchanan caved to Steven Douglas on the Kansas-Nebraska act, making the Civil War inevitable. (Note: the first seven soon-to-be Confederate states seceded after Lincoln's election but before he took office, so I don't think he can properly be blamed for the Civil War.) More on Buchanan, however. He was a bachelor, and thought of as a sissy in a day when dandyism and lifelong bachelorhood weren't that uncommon. He dearest companion was the aforementioned William Rufus King. I wonder whether Douglas used Buchanan's homosexuality as a threat to get B. to cave on Douglas's pro-slavery positions, which, if true, would be a great argument for acceptance of homosexuality. Acceptance removes one more cause for blackmail.
3. Worst: John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner, but not for anything he did nationally. When he was in the Texas Legislature, Garner energetically opposed the adoption of the bluebonnet as our state flower, preferring the cactus rose, thus his nickname. Being a proud alumna of Bluebonnet Girl's State, and possesor of several pieces of bluebonnet-painted pottery, I am bound to dislike the man.
5. Probably not. Some things really are that serious.
6. I'll respond later, with a recipe.
Alan | February 19, 2007, 1:30pm | #
1. Jefferson2. Buchanan
3. Truman
most underrated? Monroe. Era of Good Feelings ftw.
Karen | February 19, 2007, 1:35pm | #
I deliberately failed to answer "best ex-president," under the theory that nothing one does afterward can either make up for the failures or tarnish the successes in office. Maybe if we'd ever had someone like Lloyd George, who ended an otherwise-illustrious career shilling for our enemies, I'd change my mind.As for most underrated, I'd have to say Chester A. Arthur, who bucked his own best friend to get rid of the spoils system, followed by Grover Cleveland for energetically and courageously opposing imperial expansion.
Lucas | February 19, 2007, 1:39pm | #
If you accept the left-liberal version of business cycle which changes periodically. Personally I prefer the Misesian theory. fact is, the Great Depression could have lasted 2 years like all of the other ones, instead, it lasted ten.Besides, can anyone think of a single policy of FDR which we still have that libertarians haven't fought to end? He gave us Social Securty (20% of the budget), which surely set the precedent for modern medical socialism. He gave us no-bid military contracting, starting the permanent military-industrial complex.
Besides, the utilitarian view that "he solved the business cycle, by any means necessary" makes it hard for libertarians to resist fully-socialized medicine (it would "solve" our half-socialized system) or any such thing.
Lucas | February 19, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Also I think there have been terrorist attacks on Americans every few years, though someone should check. Beirut barracks bombings, the first WTC attack, Iranian hostage crises, Iranian nationalization of American private property.Not that Bush solved any of this, but it could be used just like the business cycle to justify sweeping increases in executive power.
Mad Max | February 19, 2007, 1:45pm | #
1. Washington.2. Tie between FDR and James Buchanan. James Buchanan's activism on behalf of chattel slavery helped contribute to the Civil War, which is why I rate him this way. Some say that Buchanan was bad because of his hesitancy during the secession crisis of 1860-1861, but I don't think it's bad to be worried about plunging the country into a civil war. if only he'd taken steps to avert civil war by being more statesmanlike in his slavery policies.
3. John Quincy Adams.
4. Thomas ("five cent cigar") Marshall.
5. Given the survival rate of Presidents and would-be Presidents in that era, I'd have voted for Wallace hoping that he'd end up dead or resigned, so that we would have President Sanders.
6. The pig should have challenged Sanders to a debate, and when Sanders refused, the pig should have borrowed the line from *Spaceballs*: "What's the matter, Colonel Sanders? Chicken?"
joe | February 19, 2007, 1:46pm | #
If we're counting overseas terrorist attacks, Lucas, George W. Bush can be held up as the worst anti-terror president in history.We've have terrorist attacks against American interests overseas daily since April 2003.
I recind my earlier comment about ex-presidents and endorse Mad Max's position. John Quincy Adams's greatest accomplishments were as a Congressman and abolitionist, and they do eclipse his rather dismal career as president.
smacky | February 19, 2007, 1:48pm | #
However, I don't give a flying flaming fuck or a rolling donut what she looked like or whom she slept with. Same holds for all White House denizens without exception.That's right. He'll sniff all underpants without prejudice. (Hi Warren!) ^_-
I think this might be post #69. (Correction...I took too long to preview, and I lost my rightful place at that post.)
My favorite vice: bad jokes, probably.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 1:50pm | #
Not that Bush solved any of this, but it could be used just like the business cycle to justify sweeping increases in executive power.The problem I see with this line of argument is that it is less likely to cause a liberal to see the error in his view of FDR/economics and more likely to cause him to adjust his viewpoint of Bush. What is one more suspension of disbelief?
Charles | February 19, 2007, 1:52pm | #
Lincoln is not only our best president, he might be the best person (in politics) America ever produced. Only George Washington is the only reason this isn't a shoo-in.Worst president: nobody hates Polk? The man started an expansionist war solely for the purpose of satisfying the slave power. If Southerners thought they could have grown cotton in Oregon, he would have gone to war with Britain, too.
Mad Max | February 19, 2007, 1:54pm | #
Karen,Juris Imprudent beat me to it as far as John Quincy Adams is concerned, but thank you.
Lucas | February 19, 2007, 1:55pm | #
By no means am I holding up[ Bush as a "good president" in any respect. I'm just saying that he reacted to a disaster which predated him by over a decade by giving himself untold powers to prevent this sort of thing in the future.FDR did the same, and we get a slew of anti-individual-rights based legislature and tyrannical "alphabet soup" organizations.
In both cases, the problem got worse. FDR turned a recession into the Great Depression, and Bush turned an attack into the War on Terror.
Warren | February 19, 2007, 2:01pm | #
LBJ ... gets some points for putting principle above his own political interest.ROFL.
Most of the time the horror of joe's posts robs them of any comedic value, since I'm convinced he means what he says. But there's just no way anyone could read that with a straight face.
JimmyDaGeek | February 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #
I think this was inevitable:Best Prez / Vice combo: the current administration...
Only because of the endless Bush / Dick jokes that came from it :)
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:07pm | #
Yawn. "OMG, I can't believe he said that!" comments are boooooooooooring."FDR turned a recession into the Great Depression..."
FDR took office in January 1933.
todd b | February 19, 2007, 2:07pm | #
joe,I would apply the same logic to FDR's crisis (Great Depression) and Bush's crisis (9/11).
FDR arguably took measures in reponse to a crisis that deepened and lengthened the time of impact of his crisis without ever actually solving the problem.
Bush has turned a unique (and horrifying) event and turned it into a multi-year, multi-billion dollar quagmire that has cost thousands of additional deaths and also has not solved the problem.
Both cases did and will greatly enlarge the scope, and expense of government and the popular view of what is the appropriate role of government at the expense of free and autonomous individuals.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:12pm | #
todd b,I'm not talking about the effect of the New Deal on the Great Depression. I'm talking about the complete absence of subsequent depressions, and wholly-new experience in American history.
Syd | February 19, 2007, 2:17pm | #
1)Best President: Washington, followed by Lincoln and FDR2)Worst President: Buchanan. Pierce was awful too
3)Best Ex-President: JQ Adams, with Hoover 2nd
4)Favorite Veep: Gore
5)Since I'd have to vote for Wallace, the answer is no way in hell.
6)Wouldn't Pigasus be debating Nixon and Humphrey?
todd b | February 19, 2007, 2:18pm | #
joe,So are you saying that events such as the (world-wide) Great Depression were routine and cyclical before the 1930's?...I don't think you can make that argument. There have been recessions and downturns of all sorts since then, but not to that extent...even at that you can't assume any cause/effect related to government policy. Milton Friedman is dead, but Keynes has been much deader for quite a while.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:20pm | #
How about Best President-to-Be?Washington? Jefferson? Ike? Madison?
Hoover?
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:21pm | #
todd b,No, I'm saying depressions in general were routine and cyclical in America before FDR.
And absent thereafter.
Lucas | February 19, 2007, 2:22pm | #
There hasn't been an absence of subsequent depressions. What has happened is that our recessions and depressions have been smoothed into each other, since instead of a bunch of government controlled banks pumping in extra credit, we have one huge bank which does it as a single rate.One Fed policy is better than a bunch, but a free banking and currency system (which we've never had) would be better still. Before FDR, for example, all banks were limited to being in a single state. He removed that limitation, if ony to place them under the jurisdictin of the Fed.
Much like socialized medicine, the consistent socialist system is better than the hybrid, but still worse than freedom.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:29pm | #
I think it would be better to say, Lucas, that our depressions have been turned into recessions.Which ain't peanuts.
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 2:29pm | #
Although I am convinced by the arguments that FDR's policies worsened and lengthened the Depression (and Hoover's too -- Hoover started it), maybe more attention should be paid to the question of: Why no depression since?I don't know much about money, but how about these hypotheses?
Declining influence of unions and other protectionist forces to screw up trade as much as in the past?
Rise of government policy of "let's have it now, and pay for it ... er, one of these days"? E.g.: Social Security pyramid scheme? Keynesianism? Good old Republican deficit spending? ... money supply loose, people are provided with goodies without having to actually create the wealth to pay for it = deferral of economic corrections until the bill comes due, which is postponed (in perception) forever = generally sustained economic growth until the bubble pops?
Just throwing those out there; those who know more about finance and history can chew them over and reject them.
James | February 19, 2007, 2:31pm | #
It was Eric who said the obvious: if you want to call Bush the worst president in history without saying so openly, you bring up LBJ. I'm surprised he's not getting more hate.As for Teddy Roosevelt, he is probably the president most admired by president-worshippers. He is the one politicians who want to be president dream of emulating, which just about makes him worst in my book. Without Teddy R, Wilson would not have been possible.
Best president? Poor Jimmy Carter: he inherited a dismal economy, all of the foreign policy fallout from a disastrous war, an urban landscape swept with uncontrollable crime, and had to deal with the Soviet Union at the absolute height of its power. The "Reagan defense buildup" began under Carter. It was Carter that put Paul Volcker in charge of the Federal Reserve. Carter rejuvenated US foreign policy by pushing Israel to make peace with Egypt, a coup that everyone has become accustomed to, but which was almost unimaginable at the time.
Carter was thrown out of office for losing a battle: the failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. The voters were well within their rights to hold him accountable for the failure, just as they were well within their rights to punish the Republican Party for the disaster in Iraq. Given the enormity of America's hangover from the Vietnam War and problems he faced, Carter was often exhausted and harried. His much-maligned "malaise" speech sounds, in retrospect, like a cry for help.
So I'm going to advance the argument that Carter did much better than anyone else would in similar circumstances. Reagan had a little Carter momentum to help get him started. He was lucky he hadn't been elected in 1976, or he would have been a despised one-termer, too.
Gimme Back My Dog | February 19, 2007, 2:32pm | #
I'm not talking about the effect of the New Deal on the Great Depression. I'm talking about the complete absence of subsequent depressions, and wholly-new experience in American history.Unless you count the era between the founding and 1893?
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 2:32pm | #
joe: FDR took office in January 1933.And the economy hit the lowest point during FDR's first term. Lend/lease and then full-time war production did more to boost the economy then any of the federal make-work efforts.
The reason we haven't had a "depression" since the great one is that we renamed then to "recession", just as depression had replaced "panic". Or are you forgetting all the pain and suffering of the Reagan recession? Not to mention "it's the economy, stupid".
Noah Yetter | February 19, 2007, 2:33pm | #
1. Grover Cleveland2. tossup between FDR and Lincoln
3-6. who frickin' cares
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 2:34pm | #
"Declining influence of unions and other protectionist forces to screw up trade as much as in the past?"Unions weren't a factor in the numerous panics of the 1800's, so that's probably not it.
Incidentally, some of the depression-prevention regulation (including the Fed) was put in place in 1913, as a response to the panic of 1907.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 2:37pm | #
"Unless you count the era between the founding and 1893?"...while ignoring all the major crashes and panics through the 1800s, including the 20-year "Long Recession" from the 1870s to the 1890s, which was called the Great Depression before the, uh, Great Depression.
And before 1800 economic data is pretty sketchy, so it's not clear what was going on then.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:39pm | #
Stevo Darkly,1. FDR enhanced the power of unions.
2. Depressions pre-date protectionist forces. Depressions were a regular feature of the economic cycle througout human history, and have only ceases within the last few decades, in countries that have adopted modern welfare-state governments.
3. Serious deficit spending has been with us for decades, and hasn't launched us into a depression yet.
How about this: downturns turn into depressions when a large segment of the economy/population panics and pulls their money out at a loss, and the security provided by the New Deal (both for the population as a whole and for the financial system) has kept that from happening?
James | February 19, 2007, 2:41pm | #
Stevo: I think it's possible the lack of depressions since The Depression has nothing to do with any policies undertaken by the government and everything to do with the collapse of the British pound and the rise of the dollar as the world's reserve currenty. Simply put, the Depression was a liquidity crisis caused by a sudden drop in the value of assets. The aggregate of debts was greater than the aggregate of assets because people had borrowed money to buy overvalued assets.This hasn't happened since WW2 because of America's preeminent reputation as a good, safe place to put your money. Dollar-denominated assets became the safe haven that brought the wealth of the world to New York. Asset drops typically bring in a flood of new investment from abroad; the Fed has free rein to create liquidity without fear because the international markets support the dollar. These are circumstances that did not exist in 1929.
But these conditions are more fragile than they appear. Excessive debt, excessive spending, excessive wars, the horrors of Sarbanes-Oxley and the recent fad of arresting foreign businessmen passing through could provoke a capital strike. It may seem unlikely at the moment, but maintaining one's currency as the global safe haven requires cool, predictable, conservative policies, of which we have had far too little in the last six years, despite the assertion that the "conservative party" has been in power in America.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:43pm | #
juris imprudent,"The reason we haven't had a "depression" since the great one is that we renamed then to "recession", just as depression had replaced "panic". Or are you forgetting all the pain and suffering of the Reagan recession? Not to mention "it's the economy, stupid". Uh, no. A depression is a longer and deeper than a recession. Nothing that happened under Reagan, or at the beginning of the 1990s, is remotely comparable to the depressions we used to periodically experience.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"downturns turn into depressions when a large segment of the economy/population panics and pulls their money out at a loss, and the security provided by the New Deal (both for the population as a whole and for the financial system) has kept that from happening?"Widespread margin buying probably plays a role, though I could be wrong. That'd turn an investor's loss into essentially a bad loan. An brokerage providing funds for many customers who buy on margin could be in tough shape if they all go broke.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:44pm | #
ji,"And the economy hit the lowest point during FDR's first term." So? The decline has been going on for over three years.
"Lend/lease and then full-time war production did more to boost the economy then any of the federal make-work efforts." Agreed. The make-work efforts were a life preserver.
joe: your assertion that the welfare state immunizes against depression fails to account for the savage depression that crippled New Zealand for most of the Eighties. Just to give one example.
Some James | February 19, 2007, 2:45pm | #
I think there's a fair consensus that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was one of the worst contributers to the Depression, in addition to ensuring it was long lasting and truly global (due to retributive tariffs). And while FDR did plenty that can be criticized from today, I don't know that any administration could have survived doing much less (and if they did there'd be someone willing to do so and ready to replace them). Besides, wasn't it that free-market experiment known as WWII the event that finally brought about the end of the Depression?Okay, my list:
1. GW, for setting the right tone, all the reasons above.
2. I'll have to go w/ the trio of 1850's prezes (Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan). Each successive one's actions and inactions made it harder to deal with all the problems, making a violent outcome more and more likely. Wilson gets a dishonorable mention though.
3. JQA
4&5: Uhhh, sure.
Other things:
Overrated:
I'll agree with Reagan.
Underrated:
I'll give GWB credit for making me see the good sides of his father, Nixon, Ford and Carter.
Best Pre-president President:
There's no beating Jefferson and Madison.
Malaise Forever!
:P | February 19, 2007, 2:46pm | #
What was the original topic of this thread? Economics? Oh, no. It was Presidents. Yes, I believe that was it. Right?wayne | February 19, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Best President to be: Mitt Romney. It's about time we broke the Protestant/Catholic lock on the presidency.Best Prez: George Washington, we would have no United States if this man had wanted to be emperor.
Worst Prez: This is tough, we have had some real stinkers. FDR is probably worst of all because of his total disregard for the foundation of what makes America, America: the Constitution.
Best Vice President: Al Gore for inventing the internet.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Jon H,I was going to write about regulation of the financial sphere - from the Fed using monetary policy to fight the cycles to the rules limiting margin buying and everything in between - being the other half of the answer, but plumb forgot.
joe | February 19, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Aresen,Al Smith. Wet Catholic during Progressive-Era Prohibition. 'Nuff said.
wayne | February 19, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Best laugh of the day: "Depressions have been permanently banned from the economic universe."Gimme Back My Dog | February 19, 2007, 2:58pm | #
while ignoring all the major crashes and panics through the 1800s, including the 20-year "Long Recession" from the 1870s to the 1890s, which was called the Great Depression before the, uh, Great Depression.The Real Per Capita GDP of the United States grew seventy five percent between 1870 and 1890. None of the panics between 1800 and 1893 produced a downturn of more than 4 percent. These days, it would not be considered a depression. As JI points out, we still have these downturns in the business cycle, we just call them recessions now.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 3:01pm | #
joe writes: " has Britain had a depression since WW2?"Hm. I wouldn't actually be surprised if the post-war years came pretty close to a depression. At least I have an impression of a fair amount of.. not quite deprivation necessarily.. but sort of a national scrimping?
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 3:02pm | #
joe:3. Serious deficit spending has been with us for decades, and hasn't launched us into a depression yet.
That's what I mean. Could the deficit spending be masking the signals that perhaps might otherwise be triggering a well-earned panic, or at least a contraction in investment and spending?
Because almost nobody, really, has ever really felt (so far) that the bill actually will come due, or that they as individual citizens will be held responsible for tens of thousands of dollars as their share of the nation's unfunded liabilities? And we are behaving (so far) as if a massive amount of phantom wealth is real (that is, assigning a vastly inflated net present value to future wealth we won't actually have), thereby delaying an economic correction?
Alternatively, how about this as a possible factor? The post-WW2 technology boom, and ever-accelerating technology advances (the current accelerating tech boom really is unique in human history) are actually generating enough real increasing wealth to more than offset the factors that might otherwise trigger a depression?
PS: Even those of us who agree that FDR worsened and prolonged the Depression have to acknowledge that it started on Hoover's watch. IIRC, for example, a Hoover worried about the economy met with several business leaders and aske them not to cut their worker's wages -- which led to employees being priced out of the labor market, and an increase in unemployment. (Source: Vaguely remembered article in Liberty magazine.)
Warren | February 19, 2007, 3:04pm | #
James,Carter also deserves credit for transportation deregulation.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #
James & Joe,I would add 90's Japan to 80's New Zealand.
Joe: serious answer, Britain had very little prosperity until the Iron Lady.
The Germans, French (and Brits) tolerate staggering levels of unemployment in order to maintain "control" of their economies.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #
" The post-WW2 technology boom, and ever-accelerating technology advances"Hm. I dunno. Don't they generally *lead* to crashes?
New discovery -> investment boom -> overextended concept (Pets.com) or over-built capacity -> crash.
Gray Ghost | February 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Re: Britain and depression since WW2, if you define depression as a 10% drop in real gdp, then no. Although the period from 1944 to 1947 comes close. There have been several 3-5% recessions in the post-WW2 period. (numbers from http://eh.net/hmit/ukgdp/)I would answer Walker's questions, but you all have already touched on everything I was going to say. Great thread.
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 3:10pm | #
Note: I am aware that my previous note offers two contradictory factors for the lack a depression since WW2. I'm not looking for the answer, just throwing out possiblities for the better-informed to support or refute.It's also possible that both factors (and many others0 are simultaneously true, offsetting each other to some extent.
ed | February 19, 2007, 3:10pm | #
I'm confused, joe. One of FDR's legacies is the Social Security Act. That Ponzi scheme is untenable. Without much higher taxes, and soon, it's going to fail. How does laying the groundwork for a social program that's the economic equivalent of a ticking time bomb make FDR a great President?"This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness." -FDR, 1935
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 3:14pm | #
"How does laying the groundwork for a social program that's the economic equivalent of a ticking time bomb"Ticking time bomb! Holy Shit! We'd better torture somebody!
We can sort out that whole Social Security mess as soon as we put some electrodes on somebody's nuts.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 3:15pm | #
PS: Even those of us who agree that FDR worsened and prolonged the Depression have to acknowledge that it started on Hoover's watch.Blegch. Better to say that Hoover had the misfortune of being in office at the time. The roots of the thing run much deeper (and wider) then the Hoover administration. Thus, I tend not to blame FDR for worsening the situation. No administration controls the economy, anymoreso then it can control the weather. So when some idiot politician has the hubris to so claim... well I merely observe the Emperor's 'transparency'.
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 3:16pm | #
" The post-WW2 technology boom, and ever-accelerating technology advances"Hm. I dunno. Don't they generally *lead* to crashes?
New discovery -> investment boom -> overextended concept (Pets.com) or over-built capacity -> crash.
That might lead to widespread economic hard times if one specific technology was really predominant. But if you had a whole bunch of less-dominant "tech booms" going on all the time, in different technologies, it would keep a crash in one specific sector from effing up the economy as a whole. The net effect would still be boomy.
I think the closest thing we had recently to one technology that tended to dominate everything was the dot-com boom in the 1990s, and I still remember that as a bad thing that happened to other people, not to anyone I knew personally.
Some James | February 19, 2007, 3:17pm | #
juris imprudent-You wouldn't claim that the universally-beloved Calvin Coolidge bears some blame for the Depression, would you?!
keith | February 19, 2007, 3:19pm | #
Here's my guess as to why there hasn't been another Great Depression: the green revolution. If we experience a major multiyear crop failure in a regional breadbasket, I forsee that could trigger a depression.Though I am amenable to characterizing the net effect of the New Deal portfolio as a "dashpot", like we used to model in engineering diagrams.
On topic: whatever happened to the Presidents of the USA anyway? One day, the video for "Mach 5" was all over the MTV, and that VH1 90's flashback show had Sir Mix-a-lot's next project as a collaboration with the Presidents... and then nothing.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 3:22pm | #
"whatever happened to the Presidents of the USA anyway?"One of them, along with one of the guys from REM, and others, has been working with Robyn Hitchcock lately.
joe | February 19, 2007, 3:24pm | #
Stevo,We've had our periods of "contraction in investement and spending." No one's repealed the business cycle. What's different is that those downturns haven't caused panics and depressions.
Also, the technology boom after the Industrial Revolution and railroads was certainly no depression-free. Some would say that the massive booms and speculation that accompany such technological revolutions set the stage for recessions by creating bubbles.
j.i.,
There's a sharp distinction between extended sluggish growth and a depression.
ed,
If the American economy grows at an average annual rate of 3.3% over the next few decades, there will never - never, even to the infinite time horizon - be a Social Security shortfall.
Since the end of the Civil War - a period that includes the Great Depression - the American economy has averaged 3.4% annual growth.
Even the blogmeisters at Reason, who dutifully passed on the Republicans' panic-mongering when they thought Social Security privatization was afoot, were forced to admit by mid-2005 that the Social Security shortfall was almost certainly not going to happen.
juris imprudent | February 19, 2007, 3:26pm | #
You wouldn't claim that the universally-beloved Calvin Coolidge bears some blame for the Depression, would you?!Did Coolidge help craft the reparations part of the Treaty of Versailles?
Did Coolidge help craft Smoot-Hawley?
Did Coolidge put Britain back on the gold standard?
Did Coolidge cause the bad farming practices that resulted in the dust bowl?
C'mon, ol' silent Cal mostly minded his own business. A remarkable restraint that more leaders should adopt.
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 3:26pm | #
Juris -- While I agree that mere presidents cannot "run," "manage" or "fix" an economy, I do think they can do a bang-up job of making things worse. (Found a reference to Hoover's intervention in wages leading to worse unemployment.)joe | February 19, 2007, 3:32pm | #
keith,That's a good point, but most our our depressions weren't caused by agricultural collapse, as far as I know.
Jon H | February 19, 2007, 3:33pm | #
"Juris -- While I agree that mere presidents cannot "run," "manage" or "fix" an economy, I do think they can do a bang-up job of making things worse."Yeah, in modern, global, terms, there's always Robert Mugabe for an example of what can be done to an economy.
Basically, a president can only plead, wheedle, and cajole an economy to get better, all of which may be ignored. But making an economy worse is child's play. Probably doesn't even require anything more than talk in the most extreme cases.
Some James | February 19, 2007, 3:34pm | #
I know, juris, I'm just (obviously) being facetious. Still wasn't the Dawes Plan on during his administration? And I suppose it could be argued that he did nothing in the face of obvious (from hindsight) overlending, overfarming, et cetera, but that certainly wasn't Cal's style.Stevo-
All this brings to mind that in the 1932 election, I believe one of FDR's talking points was that Hoover's policies were dragging us toward socialism.
TWV | February 19, 2007, 3:41pm | #
Jesse, do you remember playing Greatest/Most Evil Presidents?1. Greatest: George Washington; 2nd: Grover Cleveland; 3rd: Warren Harding; 4th: Andrew Jackson.
2. Embraced Evil* and Pushed the Envelope of Same: Woodrow Wilson; 2nd: Abraham Lincoln; 3rd: FDR; 4th: Andrew Jackson.
3. Greatest ex: Thomas Jefferson. My hat tip to anyone who translates the work of a French Harmony School economist, in Jefferson's case, Destutt de Tracy (A Treatise on Political Economy).
4. Favorite Vice President: Aaron Burr, because he had better aim than Dick Cheney: his shot actually killed the man, and his target needed killing. Favorite Vice: Speculations in Alternate History, such as where Burr kills Hamilton after The Federalist Papers are written, but before George Washington is elected to the presidency.
5. The Col. Sanders question: I would have preferred him as Surgeon General. Better uniform. When I was a kid, the Colonel's chicken was a favorite of mine. Now it makes me vomit . . . as do most recent VPs, come to think of it. Especially the current one.
6. Pigasus vs. Col. Sanders . . . uh, I've got to stop here. My ability jump on the Absurdity Bandwagon does have its limits.
* Evil being defined, I suppose, as vicious principles and policies, often involving massive loss of life and property, usually (in cases 1-3) advanced under the illusion of those policies' Goodness.
[By the way, my Camino browser no longer seems to allow me to post to this forum; I'm back on Safari, now. TR is nowhere in sight.]
If you put Stevo and keith's ideas together, you get the theory that the diversification of the economy away from agriculture prevented problems in that sector from being a sufficiently-large drain on the economy to trigger a depression. Which makes sense.
Stevo Darkly | February 19, 2007, 4:02pm | #
Yay! I contributed to half an idea!Now I can knock off early today. And do some work.
Jesse Walker | February 19, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Was one of those Andrew Jacksons supposed to be Andrew Johnson?No -- my former colleague TWV and I are agreed that Jackson was both one of the best presidents (in many areas he made the country more libertarian) and among the worst (for his abominable Indian policies, his support for slavery, and his abuses of executive power).
What was the original topic of this thread? Economics? Oh, no. It was Presidents.
It's an open thread. You can talk about anything you like.
Wouldn't Pigasus be debating Nixon and Humphrey?
It's my hypothetical and I can do what I want with it.
Isaac Bartram | February 19, 2007, 4:07pm | #
Was one of those Andrew Jacksons supposed to be Andrew Johnson?Oddly enough, I can see where Ol' Hickory might appear on both lists.
It strikes me that the best presidents have had flaws just as the worst have had redeeming qualities (except for, as near as I can tell, Franklin Pierce and LBJ).
Thomas Paine's Goiter | February 19, 2007, 4:13pm | #
1. Who was the best, or at least the most tolerable, American president?The answer is either Washington or Coolidge, and I'm going to go with Coolidge because his presidency and policies were more meaningful. Yes Washington stepped away, but if stepping away is your greatness...
2. Who was the worst American president?
It's a tossup between Grant, FDR and LBJ. I'll go with LBJ.
3. Who was our greatest ex-president?
John Quincy Adams, if only for his advancement of anti-slavery positions from Congress. He set the policy that Lincoln followed in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln only had to write the words. Representing the Amistad in front of the Supreme Court doesn't hurt one's legacy either.
4. Who is your favorite vice-president? Alternately, what is your favorite vice?
Hannibal Hamlin. Poker.
5. In 1968, according to An American Melodrama, George Wallace asked Colonel Sanders to be his running mate. If the colonel had said yes, and if you were able to cast a ballot that year, would you have been tempted, if only for a moment, to vote for Wallace, just to get Sanders within a heartbeat of the presidency? Be honest.
No.
6. Also in 1968, the Yippies nominated a hog named Pigasus to be president. Would you have liked to see Col. Sanders debate the pig? How about a pork-and-chicken taste test? Why isn't that in the Constitution?
No, I hate southern accents.
7. Who had the biggest upside and worst downside as President
Andrew Johnson
Isaac Bartram | February 19, 2007, 4:16pm | #
Sorry, Jesse, I was composing my post while you made yours.You said exactly what I wanted to say about Jackson. I guess that's why you've got the writin' job.
Happy Jack | February 19, 2007, 4:16pm | #
That's a good point, but most our our depressions weren't caused by agricultural collapse, as far as I know.I'd agree. Most of the panics in the 1800's were railroad-related. You could ,though, place the 1907 panic on farms. England sucked up gold reserves, creating a shortage of currency here, preventing the harvest from getting to market.
Serious question: did the agricultural problems of the 20s cause the stock market to fall (setting off the Depression as over-leveraged yadda yadda yadda), or did we have the incredible bad luck of having two unrelated catastrophes happen at nearly the same time?
Someone has likely already mentioned him, but I will state that James Buchanan is the worst American President.
Mike Laursen | February 19, 2007, 4:25pm | #
1. Thomas J. Whitmore2. Tied for worst is Richard M. Nixon. Thread rules don't allow me to say to say whom he is tied with.
3. Umm...
4. Gluttony!
5. Not only would I not vote against Wallace, I'd have lunch at El Pollo Loco afterwards.
6. Yes.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | February 19, 2007, 4:26pm | #
7. Who had the biggest upside and worst downside as PresidentJackson runs a close second. Andrew's are bi-polar.
boredbyu | February 19, 2007, 4:26pm | #
"I don't think I'll get to read anything that funny for the rest of the week."This canned reply is getting awfully tiresome...
ed | February 19, 2007, 4:28pm | #
joe,Regardless of rosy GDP estimates, fewer and fewer taxpayers supporting more and more retirees means more deficit spending, a catastrophic national debt and a future implosion. There's no way to evade or avoid it. It's the classic definition of Ponzi scheme.
Bidnessman | February 19, 2007, 4:31pm | #
"For bad-ass points: he married a 24 year old beauty when he was in his fifties, and knocked her up EIGHT times! His last kid was born when he was just about 70."Well that explains it! I used to work for the Chaifman of a Fortune 50 company and every couple of years or so this guy would call up claiming to be Tyler's grandson. He'd ramble on and on about nothing. Never really said what he wanted...
joe | February 19, 2007, 4:32pm | #
ed,Actually, they're not "rosy" GDP estimates. They're low GDP estimates.
Anyway, the decline in worker : retiree ratios isn't happening as fast as the growth in workers' productivity. So it's all good.
Deshawn | February 19, 2007, 4:34pm | #
"Hoover's been posthumously bleeding off cred because of Dinesh D'Souza's alliance with Sheik Omar."No fuckin' way Larry Hoover was president.
That you Lil' Crack??
| February 19, 2007, 4:34pm | #
"This canned reply is getting awfully tiresome..."So is the endless recitation of fdr's "accomplishments".
Larry A | February 19, 2007, 4:35pm | #
In olden times children would ask their parents, "How come there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but no President's Day?" And their parents would answer, "Why, every day is President's Day." Then the admen and calendar-makers of America declared an actual President's Day and that beloved family tradition dragged to an end, though officially the holiday is still called George Washington's Birthday.Actually I remember that we used to celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday (February 12) and George Washington's birthday (February 22). Two holidays in February (a month too short to get any respect) was too much, so when the Federal holidays were moved to weekends we went to celebrating "President's Day."
Isaac Bartram | February 19, 2007, 4:38pm | #
Don't worry, ed, Social Security will be just fine as long as we can accept Swedish levels of taxation.Oh wait, even the Swedes are tired of Swedish levels of taxation.
tarran | February 19, 2007, 4:39pm | #
joe, they weren't independent events.The agricultural collapse occurred because the U.S. government tried to preserve the excess agricultural capacity in the U.S.
The stockmarket collapse occurred because the Federal Reserve printed banknotes for money that it didn't have.
Both of them were fallouts of WW I.
The agricultural business is quite straightforward: WW I took a great chunk of European farmland out of cultivation. This led to lower worldwide food production which meant that farmers could charge more money for their crop. then the war-ravaged areas started producing food again. Result, prices started to fall. The U.S. government then stepped in with increasingly stupid policies in an attempt to preserve production and price at WW I levels, which led to a glut in agricultural commodities, which eventually prompted the collapse of prices.
The collapse of the investment/financial system was due to another attempt to fight economic laws: both the U.S. and British governments had financed the war by printing bank-notes. Then Winston Churchill decided that for reasons of national pride, England would return to the gold standard at pre war prices. Of course, this meant that people now tried to trade overvalued banknotes for gold whenever they could, resulting in gold leaving England. The federal reserve, dominated by Morgan men, tried to staunch the flow of gold out of england by, in effect, running the printing presses here, resulting in a massive credit expansion.
Of course, all these newly printed federal reeserve notes were not backed up with actual money in anybody's vaults.
So it wasn't bad luck, per se, it was the collapse of World War I style central planning.
Today, lots of people claim that the Great Depression proved that the government is needed to manage the economy, when exactly the converse is true. government intervention created it, FDR's new deal lengthened it, and only when Truman refused to take FDR's policies to its logical conclusions and start shooting farmers and loosened the government's grip on the economy did things begin to improve.
R C Dean | February 19, 2007, 4:43pm | #
Ticking time bomb! Holy Shit! We'd better torture somebody!Got it covered. My paycheck gets tortured on a bi-weekly basis.
Serious question: did the agricultural problems of the 20s cause the stock market to fall (setting off the Depression as over-leveraged yadda yadda yadda), or did we have the incredible bad luck of having two unrelated catastrophes happen at nearly the same time?
More the latter, I think. And while we tend to look at the Depression as this monolithic non-stop nationwide period of suffering, it was actually pretty regional and episodic in a lot of ways.
Grotius | February 19, 2007, 4:45pm | #
Grotius,Our most tolerable President?
One "libertarian" answer might be William Harrison or "Old Rough and Ready" - since they served such short terms. ;)
For me the most tolerable President is JQ Adams.
JQ Adams is also our most successful ex-President. His - amongst other things - efforts to free the slaves of the Amistad puts him at number one IMHO. Serving time in the House and constantly fighting the "gag rule" should also bring him praise.
As to my favorite Veep, well that is Hannibal Hamlin.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | February 19, 2007, 4:48pm | #
Grotius, stop stealing my answers.James Kabala | February 19, 2007, 4:48pm | #
Larry A.: Some states had Lincoln's birthday as a holiday, but not all.I can't claim to have seen ads my every car maker out there, but in Rhode Island all the ads for American car makers call it Presidents' Day but the ads for Toyot