Depending on how the next four years go I’m on the fence between Bush Jr. and Trump but I’d like to hear from you
Edit:
Top 10 suggestions so far (unordered):
- Andrew Jackson
- Andrew Johnson
- George W. Bush Jr
- Ronald Reagan
- Richard Nixon
- James K. Polk
- Woodrow Wilson
- James Buchanan
- Franklin Pierce
- Donald J. Trump
Ronald Reagan did more damage to this country than any president before or after him.
I’m continually shocked by how often I learn of some structural systemic issue, pull the thread to see where it started and- oh, surprise, it was once again Reagan.
It’s no coincidence that Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had such a close relationship - they thought alike.
In Britain, Thatcher is still reviled by many for sweeping changes. Killed the coal industry without giving support to the many thousands employed there and put the North into recession, took milk away from children, depowered the unions (which were too powerful at the time, tbf) and generally put the Tory Party on the London & Banks first mantra that they’ve been on ever since.
Most of Reagan’s agenda came from the heritage foundation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eeCPRD0Hgg&t=0
The capital class controls the heritage foundation and through their countless think tanks, lobbyist, donations, SuperPACs, etc they control the Republican party and even a large part of the Democratic party.
Marx was correct when he argued that economic democracy was necessary for political democracy. When the wealthy get to own the economy they have the entire country by the balls.
Marx was correct when he argued that economic democracy was necessary for political democracy. When the wealthy get to own the economy they have the entire country by the balls.
Funnily enough even Adam Smith warned about that even before capitalism went in full swing.
Adam Smith: you gotta bust up monopolies because competition drive’s innovation
the rich: you heard the man! all the wealth has to be consolidated with us! greed is good!
Just wait until the turd tanks the economy 1920s style.
While W. sucked in many ways, there is no way he is the worst. Off the top of my head I can easily think of four better contenders: Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan (both guilty of pro-slavery fuckery before the Civil War), Andrew Johnson (fought to let the Confederates off the hook after the war and opposed the 14th amendment), and Donald Trump (first president to be impeached twice, first to be convicted of a felony, and may be remembered by future historians as the spark that ignites the next Civil War).
donvict ain’t done yet, either. i think the damage and legacy he leaves behind, leaking out that giant diaper, will be the worst of the bunch.
It’s tempting to pick someone recent, but the real answer is probably Andrew Jackson. He successfully engineered a genocide, trampled the Constitution and human rights, and was actively hostile to limits on Presidential power.
We’ll see if 47 surpasses him. He’s set up to do so. It’s going to be wild to see what happens when Trump order troops to fire into crowds of American citizens.
We always seem to get this crazy hyperbole that Trump is going to be some competent fascist that’s going to perform some great coup that will end the US, but in reality it always seems the real damage he does is the evil bureaucracy that erodes rights and liberties while exacerbating things in foreign policy.
Jan 6th was very flashy, but comparatively speaking, nothing really happened.
I’m not afraid of Trump’s competence. I’m afraid of Trump’s cult of personality and the competent people that are now handling him. We didn’t elect Trump, we elected Project 2025.
Handling is a somewhat strong word here though. For better and worse, he’s very impulsive and egotistically sensitive. His last administration left a huge wake of people that haven’t been rehired and likely won’t be.
Even if we assume his new lackeys care enough about the Heritage Foundation to attempt to implement their plan, I’d be amazed if they could corral his attention long enough to get him to sign anything in.
Have anyone but him and Biden overseen genocides?
overseen? Yes.
With Jackson, it’s not overseen, it’s orchestrated
Just wondering if you had a few other overseen examples off the top of your head since you seem knowledgeable on this.
Pretty much all of them actively participated in various genocides and massacres, either directly like native genocide or Philippines or all the aerial massacres of XX and XXI century (even the one who was president for a month), or indirectly like even the “most peaceful president” Carter supported the massacres in Indonesia.
Every president since the 70s has overseen genocide, even ignoring the one you’re likely alluding too.
Christ. most of them.
George Washington got to be in charge of a country that enshrined chattel slavery in its constitution for 20 years. Thomas Jefferson provided military aid to France’s efforts to quash a slave revolt in Haiti. Andrew Jackson personally orchestrated a genocide against the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw (all of whom were aligned with american interests). Zachary Taylor put a bounty on bison, in an effort to starve the native Americans of the great plains. Abraham Lincoln allowed his western military expeditions to do basically whatever to the native Americans. Andrew Johnson started the process of letting confederate leadership be who directed reconstruction rather than being punished for it.
And here we reach Ulysses S Grant. one of America’s favorite punching bag presidents because he got scammed rather frequently, but when you dig into why he was prone to getting scammed, it’s because he thought it was America’s duty to use its economic power to help the lowest people in society. it’s hard to be mad at a guy who was trying so hard to help people that sometimes he let someone con him into thinking they deserved help.
i can keep going on how a ton of our historical presidents have sucked. i’m still personally willing to say the top 3 are Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, and Donald trump
The genocide of the American Indians was a constant affair that persisted from this nation’s founding until, at the earliest, around the turn of the century. Some would say it’s still ongoing. Like how October 7th was not the start of a genocide against Palestinians but a pivotal moment in an ongoing genocide, the same could be said of the Indian Removal Act.
…you’re joking, right? It’s one of our main exports.
Reagan
deleted by creator
Reagan definitely deserves a top 5 spot.
I dunno, Nixon’s fuckery is downright provincial these days.
Don’t forget that the SCOTUS appointed by 47 ended the American experiment since Presidents are now effectively kings. Thanks to Presidential immunity, we no longer get to say nobody is above the law.
deleted by creator
I would hire nucular George every day for the next 4 years to get rid of the orange dipshit.
It is absolutely fuckin bonkers that Trump is so bad that a person can say they yearn for the good old days with Dubya without a hint of sarcasm
Dubya at least had a face of ‘compassionate’ conservatism, and believed in the rule of law. Yeah, he bent the law a lot, but he never outright broke it. He was incompetent–or, he was at least not up to the task of being a president–but not apparently malicious.
Pity that SCOTUS stepped in with the Florida recount, since it was eventually found that Gore should have won. I wonder where we’d be on climate change now if Gore had won? Oh well Florida, enjoy your flooding and hurricanes.
This question is too difficult, there are too many candidates…
andrew jackson (or johnson can never remember which) for the trail of tears. absolutely awful
Andrew Jackson was Trail of Tears, but I actually think Andrew Johnson was arguably worse. He was Lincoln’s Democrat vice president (he was brought on to help “balance the ticket” instead of sticking with his strongly abolitionist first term VP Hannibal Hamlin), who started dismantling reconstruction and giving the power back to the former slaveowners.
You can pretty much lay Jim Crow at his feet.
kinda hard to argue apartheid is worse than genocide imo
I’m not really trying to weigh and decide if 6000+ deaths and forcible removal of 100k+ people from their homes is better or worse than 100 or so years of systemic oppression followed by more, quieter oppression. Instead, I’m looking at this from the perspective of alternatives.
After the Civil War we very nearly had a moment when we could have maybe did something real for racial equality beyond anything we’ve seen even up to the present day. The Freeman’s Bureau was fighting for wages for former slaves, and was generally a force for working class empowerment. Black congressmen were already being voted into office rapidly. If it were left to do its work, it might even have helped to innoculate the Irish- and Italian-Americans against future union busting on Black/White racial lines a few decades down the line.
Instead, after only about a year, Andrew Johnson started fighting and dismantling the Bureau, placing the former slaveowners back into a de facto master/slave relationship with their former slaves, giving the old Southern Democrats back their political power, and generally restoring the status quo as much as possible. The Bureau itself lasted only 5 or 6 years, don’t remember. The KKK rose up because reconstruction wasn’t there anymore to prevent it, because the Democrats wanted so bad to just put all of the states back in the union and go back to bad old days, and so on.
That was never a realistic moment that I know of in American history where people against war with the native tribes of this land had outsized power and influence. Jackson completely ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling was awful, but while the ruling was grounded in good moral and legal principles, it was, like it or not, extremely unpopular. There wasn’t an entire party with a supermajority in Congress that could have kept up the pressure on this issue.
To only count the direct deaths of the forced march and not the deaths resulting in having your land stolen and along with it your ability to reproduce your society is straight up genocide denial.
After the Civil War we very nearly had a moment when we could have maybe did something real for racial equality beyond anything we’ve seen even up to the present day.
And this is absolving responsibility of all the people who maintained slavery, which one could argue is even worse than jim crow.
I think you’re reading more intent in my post than was actually present. I’m not denying we did genocide to 100 million natives. All I’m denying is that Jackson specifically is significantly worse than the historically reasonable alternatives to the position. Had (for instance) John Quincy Adams, one of the authors of the Monroe doctrine and a big proponent of western expansion, won the presidency, I do not doubt that a similar overall trajectory would have taken place. Maybe we wouldn’t have specifically had a trail of tears moment, but there’s more to the genocide of native americans than just the trail of tears.
And this is absolving responsibility of all the people who maintained slavery, which one could argue is even worse than jim crow.
How so? I believe you’re arguing in good faith, but I honestly don’t see how you come to this conclusion from what I wrote?
Trump is definitely in the bottom quintile, but also anyone putting him in the bottom 5 is just recency bias.
Most people who argued for Trump said it’s because of Jan 6th and his other felonies and that he was allowed to run again and became reelected (even tho a partition of the us citizens are to blame for the latter). I also think people already value him lower because of Project 2025 and out of fear what will happen during his 2nd term.
Does worst mean:
- least able to achieve their stated agenda, ie worst at their job. (Trump)
- worst vision for America, ie most evil (Reagan)
- worst overall impact to America, ie one you’d kill with a time machine (Bush Jr, but Trump might catch up in term 2)
- Worst for the world, ie the one I’d kill with a time machine (Washington)
Although I’m not American and don’t know your history that well.
Idk I think Jackson beats Reagan there. He was the trail of tears guy. He ran on genocide against the indigenous peoples of the continent and delivered
It’s Reagan or Nixon, no contest. Bush pales in comparison
Going for the low hanging fruit, huh?
I’m having a hard time deciding between grape and kiwi what about you?
Strawberry, for sure
Everyone loves strawberries
(But ngl I just really wanted to know what people would say. I find some answers very reasonable, others quite debatable. But I’d also be interested in what Lemmy thinks is the best president the US has ever had)
Sorry about that, I wasn’t trying to say the question wasn’t asked in good faith, it was meant light hearted what with the general tension with the recent election.
Which, I think that also points to the likely pick for me, though I’d definitely say that Johnson is a damn good bed example of a president. I mean, dude came in after a civil war and set back part of what was accomplished by playing wimp with the ex confederate states. He single handedly set up another century of oppression and strife.
Best though? That’s actually harder. To be the best you have to have done something that stands out, which means there has to have been something big during your presidency to give you that opportunity. It means that some of the good presidents might not have shown their greatness as presidents because they didn’t have anything to work on, or maybe didn’t have a Congress willing to work with them.
That being said, Franklin Roosevelt has to be an option for best. The man made plenty of bad choices, but he was the leader that the country needed at the time, and did his best at every step (even when it turned out less than stellar), and that is pretty much all anyone can do.
Lincoln is another pick for the same reason. Gets elected during the most turmoil ridden era, and manages to get the country back together during a war that could well have led to a permanent split.
- Lincoln
- FDR
- Washington
- Teddy Roosevelt
- Jefferson
- Eisenhower
- Truman
- JFK
- LBJ
- Obama
JFK would have been top 5 if he hadn’t been gunned down 2 years into his presidency 😭
I prefer talking about the best, talking about the worst just makes me depressed.
I prefer talking about the best, talking about the worst just makes me depressed.
Oh I totally get where you’re coming from. I usually use my lemm.ee account for when I’m stable enough for discussion (because lemm.ee is still federated with both hexbear and 'grad and .world and the more pro western servers which helps me train my critical thinking and arguing) but sometimes I just don’t want any more negativity or politicised battlegrounds and then I just use my .world account to spread the good vibes and enjoy the memes.
Regarding JFK I heard he was a bit of a “you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain” kinda case but I also heard that he would have been a good president so I’m kinda split. It’s similar with William Henry Harrison, who was president for 31 days before he died. As a slave holder he would have probably been a horrible president but he never really made any calls so he’s not among the worst candidates.
I definitely have to admit some pro JFK bias as an Irish American 😅
But I obviously also have rationales for why I think he was a great president. Foremost among them is that I feel he was a truly independent political force that was beholden neither to his party nor to external interests. His popularity, wealth, and personal relationship with the American people gave him the potential to do radical things against the wishes of the entrenched oligarchy, which is possibly why he was assassinated. He demonstrated a willingness and a capacity to upend the established order.
William Henry Harrison is often considered among the worst for the simple reason that he did die. Put on a coat mah boi, we didn’t elect your ass to get a cold and die instantly.
because lemm.ee is still federated with both hexbear and 'grad and .world and the more pro western servers which helps me train my critical thinking and arguing
I wish hexbear was more into debating and less into memeing. I find that they tend to run away from serious debate and prefer to troll. Honestly lemmygrad has seemed less annoying to me than hexbear lately because they seem more likely to take things seriously and make legitimate arguments. I don’t see too much of them because I’m usually on my main account and sjw blocks them.
I use my account at lemmy.myserv.one in a similar way to your lemm.ee account, but since I’m an admin here I end up spending way more time on this account.
Hell of a solid list. Might swap a few positions, but I wouldn’t argue about it at all.
I’d be lying if I wasn’t aware I was poking the beehive so no need for you to be sorry (or at least I should say that I am sorry too). Plus I could have made it sound less like I was turning the US into some sort of punching bag for bad emotions but to be honest I have to admit I wasn’t all too sober when I posted and whilst my main intention was curiosity I failed to phrase my question that way and I failed to filter my personal emotions so the question was negative. I’m yet another example why one shouldn’t be allowed to use social media drunk and I am sorry for that. :')
I agree with your picks for good presidents and your reasoning. Thank you for the added details :)
Wasn’t it Nixon who sold the americans out? Or Truman?
Plenty of choice. In my view, most presidents were rambling reeking right wingers in some way or other, save for FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, who were the two presidents I’d actually call capable and outspoken on civil rights (rather than just pragmatical like Lincoln). They did have their blemishes, but less than e.g. Andrew Jackson.
So many presidents were terrible for one people or another.
Andrew Jackson? Held hundreds of slaves and quite literally led an ethnic expulsion against Native Americans (the Trail of Tears).
Lincoln? Mostly good, but did not forbid slavery in the form of penal labour. If one were to abolish slavery, why not go the full mile?
Wilson? Rabid antisemite, pretty much.
Hoover? Might’ve tried to tackle the Great Depression – but did so by allying with large coorporations, effectively being corrupt and choosing bribery.
Truman? Dropped nukes and set the stage for “we support any government that hates people being remotely leftist”.
Nixon - corrupt and wanted to sidestep the rule of law, all for his own profit: to stay in power. Other than thaf, decent, but that’s a big “other than that”.
Reagan - enough said. Ultracapitalist, misleading, made the US economy far worse by accruing debt like there’s no tomorrow, and shoving it onto the poor – typical oligarch behaviour! Militaristic, power-hungry. And no, he did not end the Cold War: Gorbachov did.
JFK: socially pretty good, actually. But economically, the cutting of the top rates made the richest keep more money. At least it wasn’t down below 50%, but still. Had that happened, I think the tax rates would’ve allowed wealth accumulation.
And so on.
So, in my view, it’s hard to focus on who is the worse, and better to rather focus on what is the best. Ted would be my candidate. Not only social progress, but also economical, and in a way that favour the worker – and he also was environmentally aware. That is a good president.
FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, who were the two presidents I’d actually call capable and outspoken on civil rights (rather than just pragmatical like Lincoln). They did have their blemishes
Blemishes? FDR seized the property of 200,000 Americans and threw them into concentration camps because of their race. The guy’s bottom 10 if not bottom 5. He’s easily the worst Democrat of the last 100 years.
Agree with most of the comments about jackson being the worst, but I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Eisenhower and Hoover, who would easily go in the top ten.
I also wanted to throw Truman in the ring for signing off nuclear strikes on mainly civilian targets (i.e. cities) and for the American war crimes in Korea (but I mainly blame MacArthur for that) but he also fired MacArthur and roasted him and the other generals whilst doing so. So maybe somewhere in the top 15 to 25. If MacArthur’s run for president had succeeded tho we’d have another strong candidate.
