• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who was the Worst Democratic President?

Who is the worst democrat president?

  • Jimmy Carter

    Votes: 16 41.0%
  • Lyndon B. Johnson

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Harry S. Truman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Andrew Johnson

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Grover Cleveland

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • Total voters
    39
What do you mean ******d out???

Wilson tried to jam the 14 points down the throats of Clemenceau and Lloyd George. They both saw him as little more than a naive boy to be entertained while the adults discussed the important things, and were not pleased by this. As the discussions stalled, he began to realize that everyone didn't share the same ideals as he did. He eventually got impatient and decided to give up on several of his most important points. The result of this? The people of Europe felt betrayed - the bold leader Wilson who had promised them their freedom was backing down. The leaders of the Allied nations had their suspicions confirmed. The American public was confused and angry that things hadn't worked out the way he had said they would, and leaned toward rejection of the treaty.

It still could have been salvaged, had Wilson not resorted to his trademark move of ignoring all his advisors, firing those who tried to help, and taking his message to the people (in a cross-country tour that ended up killing him).

He took the idea of a league of liberal democracies, put in 95% of the work, causing immeasurable ill will in the process, and then ended up with nothing to show for it with nobody to blame but himself.
 
Wilson tried to jam the 14 points down the throats of Clemenceau and Lloyd George. They both saw him as little more than a naive boy to be entertained while the adults discussed the important things, and were not pleased by this. As the discussions stalled, he began to realize that everyone didn't share the same ideals as he did. He eventually got impatient and decided to give up on several of his most important points. The result of this? The people of Europe felt betrayed - the bold leader Wilson who had promised them their freedom was backing down. The leaders of the Allied nations had their suspicions confirmed. The American public was confused and angry that things hadn't worked out the way he had said they would, and leaned toward rejection of the treaty.

It still could have been salvaged, had Wilson not resorted to his trademark move of ignoring all his advisors, firing those who tried to help, and taking his message to the people (in a cross-country tour that ended up killing him).

He took the idea of a league of liberal democracies, put in 95% of the work, causing immeasurable ill will in the process, and then ended up with nothing to show for it with nobody to blame but himself.

I really don't see how he can be blamed for Congress's failure to ratify the 14 points.
 
Re: Who was the Worst Democrat Candidate?

history

But a great book (doesn't go into the accusations of FDR over Pearl Harbor) is the Roosevelt Myth, which details much of that list and more and outlines FDR's treasons quite well. It too has a long list of documentation, and is probably one of the best sources for an unbiased look at FDR's presidency.

Well, since you could not provide a source other than your say-so, I'll take your first assertion and look at that as representative.

"Forced closure of banks so people could not access their savings."

When FDR took office in 1933, the nation was in its 4th year of the worst depression of all time, with no end in sight.

From BEA.gov:

year - Real economic growth
1930 -8.61%
1931 -6.42%
1932 -13.00%

The US economy decreased by a staggering 25% in just three years. By contrast, in the so-called Clinton recession in 2000, the economic in inflation adjusted terms increased .7%

Unemployment was at 25% (versus 4.5% in 2001) and the stock markets had declined 80% (versus about 25% in 2000-01).

There had been plenty of bank closures before then during the do-nothing Hoover Administration. 10,000 of the nations 25,000 banks had closed permanently, by 1933. Bank Failures Cause the Great Depression.

These were real bank closures, where people could not access their money permanently. There were runs on banks and panic in the banking system.

Inhereting this terrifying situation, Roosevelted acted. As to the banking system:


Roosevelt took office amid a terrifying bank crisis that had forced many states to suspend banking activities. He acted quickly to restore public confidence. On Inaugural Day, March 4, 1933, he declared that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The next day he halted trading in gold and declared a national “bank holiday.” On March 9 he submitted to Congress an Emergency Banking Bill authorizing government to strengthen, reorganize, and reopen solvent banks. The House passed the bill by acclamation, sight unseen, after only 38 minutes of debate. That night the Senate passed it unamended, 73 votes to 7. On March 12 Roosevelt announced that, on the following day, sound banks would begin to reopen. On March 13, deposits exceeded withdrawals in the first reopened banks. “Capitalism was saved in eight days,” Raymond Moley, a member of the president's famous “brain trust,” later observed.

In fact, the legal basis for the bank holiday was doubtful. The term itself was a misnomer, intended to give a festive air to what was actually a desperate last resort. Most of the reopened banks were not audited to establish their solvency; instead the public was asked to trust the president. Nevertheless, the bank holiday exemplified brilliant leadership at work. It restored confidence where all had been lost and saved the financial system. Roosevelt followed it up with legislation that did actually put the banking structure on a solid footing. The Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 separated commercial from investment banking and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee small deposits.


United States :: The first New Deal --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia

So yeah, I guess you could say he "closed" the banks -- though to claim it was so that "people could not access their savings" is misleading if not outright dishonest. They were closed for the purpose of reorganizing and restructuring so that the closures didn't continue to be permanent -- so that there would be banks there that people could access.

Among other agencies created by FDR -- the FDIC (insuring depositors) and the SEC (regulating the stock market) and the SS administration, providing basic incomes for millions otherwise unemployable. His acts also created huge government projects, which put millions of Americans back to work.

US History/Contents/Great Depression and New Deal - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks.

In WWII, Roosevelt wisely kept the US out of the European war, having the wisdom to know that committing Americans to a war they did not want would have been devisive and damaging to the nation's unity and purpose, just like the Vietnam war and Iraq war have been. After Japan attacked the US, FDR kept Americans out of major engagement with the Germans until 1944, when the Germans were largely whipped by the Russians. As a consequence, at the end of WWII, when the rest of Europe's economies were in shambles, the US emerged relatively unscathed, the undisputed power, with only the SU able to challenge it on the military front.

Roosevelt faced crises that were unheard of in American history. He inherited an America that was in staggering economic condition, faced the greatest war in the history of the world, and upon his death America was emerging as the world's undisputed economic and military powerhouse.

You may disagree with some of his policies, fair enough. In hindsight it is easy to do. But to call him the worst Democratic president of all time is an injustice.
 
Last edited:
I really don't see how he can be blamed for Congress's failure to ratify the 14 points.

A competent leader is aware of the political situation in his own country, and tries to work within it, instead of around it. Wilson was absolutely to blame for that, because a good president should be able to either convince Congress to go along with his agenda, or failing that, find an acceptable compromise with Congress.

Wilson, like Bush, was a stubborn idiot who saw Congress as an inconvenience, and as a result he got nothing.
 
Carter with Clinton a close second...........
 
Interesting list. Two of the worst Democratic presidents, ever are not on it...Buchanan and Pierce. Buchanan was certainly the worst Democratic President ever, and probably in the top three (along with Harding and Grant). Of the one's listed, Andrew Johnson is probably the worst.

FDR was probably the greatest President ever. Wilson was also an excellent President. Two things people must remember about him. Prior to his presidency, isolationism was a strong component of US foreign policy. He is the first president to, really, involve us in world affairs. Also remember that Wilson had wanted the Versailles Treaty to be less punitive, but European powers wanted to give Germany the full 'rack and thumbscrews treatment' and they paid for it 2 decades later.
 
Yes I think that's crazy. I think anything that believes there is one system of government that would work best for the whole world is crazy, I think any policy that claims to be the end of war is crazy, and I especially think it's crazy when people start suggesting war to be the means to bring about the end of war.

Well sir you would be most certainly wrong, if history has taught us anything it is that the swiftest and most lasting way in which to bring revolutionary change is through war and that Democracies (the liberal ones anyways) don't go to war with one another as we the people can find more amicable solutions to our conflicts than war, and further if you don't believe that pluralist democratic systems based on liberty, equality, and individualism are the best and quite frankly the ONLY hope for mankind then it is you sir who is crazy, and what's more if we wait until it is no longer the pluralist democratic systems which have the upper hand and are in the position to bring peace through strength then those tyrannies which have plagued the free world since time immemorial will use that upper hand to impose peace but rest assured it will not be through Democratization.
 
Last edited:
A competent leader is aware of the political situation in his own country, and tries to work within it, instead of around it. Wilson was absolutely to blame for that, because a good president should be able to either convince Congress to go along with his agenda, or failing that, find an acceptable compromise with Congress.

Wilson, like Bush, was a stubborn idiot who saw Congress as an inconvenience, and as a result he got nothing.

Bush like Wilson is now plagued with a contrarian congress, if Bush says up they say down, if he says left they say right, far as I can tell is that you people have a very distorted view as to the power of the Executive as if he can convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced in the first place.
 
Interesting list. Two of the worst Democratic presidents, ever are not on it...Buchanan and Pierce. Buchanan was certainly the worst Democratic President ever, and probably in the top three (along with Harding and Grant). Of the one's listed, Andrew Johnson is probably the worst.

FDR was probably the greatest President ever. Wilson was also an excellent President. Two things people must remember about him. Prior to his presidency, isolationism was a strong component of US foreign policy. He is the first president to, really, involve us in world affairs. Also remember that Wilson had wanted the Versailles Treaty to be less punitive, but European powers wanted to give Germany the full 'rack and thumbscrews treatment' and they paid for it 2 decades later.


FDR's legacy is the worst ever. The huge increase of the federal government was due to him. Of course if you are a welfare-socialist than FDR would be the greatest because FDR, and his judges, destroyed the Tenth Amendment
 
FDR by far was the worst president ever.

His statist policies worsened and prolonged the great depression. He's to thank for our huge federal government.
 
FDR by far was the worst president ever.

His statist policies .... .

"Statist" policies?

Sta´tist (~tĭst)
n. 1. A statesman; a politician; one skilled in government.
Statists indeed, And lovers of their country.
- Milton.
2. A statistician.

.... worsened and prolonged the great depression.

The data does not support this conclusion at all; quite the contrary.

Real GDP percent change from prior year:

1930 -8.61%
1931 -6.42%
1932 -13.00%
1933 -1.27% <-FDR takes office in Jan
1934 10.81%
1935 8.90%
1936 13.00%
1937 5.14%
1938 -3.45%
1939 8.07%
1940 8.77%
1941 17.12%
1942 18.52%
1943 16.41%
1944 8.12%

Source: BEA.gov
 
Last edited:
Carter with Clinton a close second...........

Carter gets a bad rap because he is associated with inflation, a recession in 1980, and the Iranian hostage affair.

Carter did not cause inflation, it was spiralling well before he took office as a result of an expansive monetary policy. To the contrary, Carter was smart enough to recognize that monetary policy focusing on employment or GDP growth was the root cause of inflation, and that that policy had to be broken. To that end, Carter appointed Vokler to the Fed in 1979 for that purpose. Vokler did that, and squeezed the money supply. The short term effect was predictable -- interest rates shot up and the economy contracted and caused a recession in 1980 and again in 82. But the policies worked, and by the mid-80s inflation was licked.

An uninformed public credits that to Reagan, but it is really Carter who should get the credit for appointing a Fed Chairman to attack the problem, even when it would cause economic woes in Carter's relection year that cost him the election.

Aside from that, the economy did pretty good during Carter's term:

1977 4.62%
1978 5.57%
1979 3.16%
1980 -0.23%

Despite the inflation busting drop in 1980 (unfortunately for Carter an election year), GDP average growth was 3.26%, far better than Bush1 or Bush2 and almost as good as Reagan (3.4%).

On the international side, Carter is crticized for his handling of the Iranian hostages. Perhaps warranted, but all the hostages came home, safe, alive .and war was averted.

Carter also brokered a lasting peace treaty between old enemies Isreal and Egypt who had been at war just a decade earlier, a major foreign policy accomplishment by any measure.

The conservatives have painted Carter with misleading mythology, but Carter is far from being the worst.
 
Last edited:
The data does not support this conclusion at all; quite the contrary.

Real GDP percent change from prior year:

1930 -8.61%
1931 -6.42%
1932 -13.00%
1933 -1.27% <-FDR takes office in Jan
1934 10.81%
1935 8.90%
1936 13.00%
1937 5.14%
1938 -3.45%
1939 8.07%
1940 8.77%
1941 17.12%
1942 18.52%
1943 16.41%
1944 8.12%

Source: BEA.gov

What do you think your GDP data is saying?
 
Originally Posted by Iriemon
The data does not support this conclusion at all; quite the contrary.

Real GDP percent change from prior year:

1930 -8.61%
1931 -6.42%
1932 -13.00%
1933 -1.27% <-FDR takes office in Jan
1934 10.81%
1935 8.90%
1936 13.00%
1937 5.14%
1938 -3.45%
1939 8.07%
1940 8.77%
1941 17.12%
1942 18.52%
1943 16.41%
1944 8.12%

What do you think your GDP data is saying?

It is not my GDP data; it is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis; Dept of Commerce.

I think it is saying that for the three years before FDR was elected, the nation was going through an economic collapse of staggering and terrifying proportions. FDR took office in Jan 1933 and immediately passed a number of laws that stablized the banking system and got people working and money into the system, and in that year the bleeding stopped and the following year the nation was growing again.

The complete opposing of the depression being prolonged and worsening.

What do you think the GDP data is saying? How was the depression "prolonged and worsened" when real GDP went from -13% to +10% within 2 years of FDR taking office?
 
It is not my GDP data; it is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis; Dept of Commerce.

I think it is saying that for the three years before FDR was elected, the nation was going through an economic collapse of staggering and terrifying proportions. FDR took office in Jan 1933 and immediately passed a number of laws that stablized the banking system and got people working and money into the system, and in that year the bleeding stopped and the following year the nation was growing again.

The complete opposing of the depression being prolonged and worsening.

One of the first things FDR did was buy food products and destroy them.

The thinking was that a shortage in food supply would generate a living wage for farmers. Buying a massive amount of food supply in the free market skews GDP numbers.

This wasn't the only program he implemented that skewed GDP - but didn't actually raise living standards.

The verdict is most certainly in and the socialists and their central planners lost.
 
One of the first things FDR did was buy food products and destroy them.

The thinking was that a shortage in food supply would generate a living wage for farmers. Buying a massive amount of food supply in the free market skews GDP numbers.

This wasn't the only program he implemented that skewed GDP - but didn't actually raise living standards.

The verdict is most certainly in and the socialists and their central planners lost.

Whatever the hell he did -- real GDP changed from -13% to +10% within 2 years of FDR taking office and to say his policies "prolonged and worsened" the great depression is just flat out wrong.

And I certainly dispute that the "verdict is in." IMO, the US has done pretty well over the past 70 years with some of the "socialist" programs FDR implemented.
 
Whatever the hell he did -- real GDP changed from -13% to +10% within 2 years of FDR taking office and to say his policies "prolonged and worsened" the great depression is just flat out wrong.

And I certainly dispute that the "verdict is in." IMO, the US has done pretty well over the past 70 years with some of the "socialist" programs FDR implemented.

Again buying food from the free market with the goal of destroying it will show a net gain in GDP. Do you think people were better of by destroying food?


ps - You really should look into 'whatever the hell he did" one of these days.
 
Again buying food from the free market with the goal of destroying it will show a net gain in GDP. Do you think people were better of by destroying food?

Again, if you want to present data showing how this or any other program "prolonged and worsened" the depression I'll look at it.

Otherwise I'll give it the weight that your "prolonged and worsened" assertion warrants.

ps - You really should look into 'whatever the hell he did" one of these days.

Does the author of that book think it's ridiculous to look at government published GDP data as well?
 
Again, if you want to present data showing how this or any other program "prolonged and worsened" the depression I'll look at it.

Otherwise I'll give it the weight that your "prolonged and worsened" assertion warrants.



Does the author of that book think it's ridiculous to look at government published GDP data as well?

What book? I have read numerous books on this subject. You have to really reach to find a leading economist that paints FDR in a favorable light.
 
Carter good humanitarian but very bad president.

Most members of the 1980 olympic team wouldn't consider him much of a humanitarian given the bullying and threats Carter subjected them to
 
As obviously that worked out so well in Iraq :roll:

25 million liberated Iraqi's and the newest Constitutional republic on the planet in which violence is now decreasing exponentially all at a relatively low cost in blood and treasure. Yep worked out pretty well so far.

Of course it sounds good in theory, the problem is when something that sounds good in theory, but ignores the fundamental conservative principle that tradition is of significance which human reason is incapable of fully accounted for, and as a product of which you wind up with a bunch of think tank intellectuals telling the military how to do its ****ing job sending them into God knows where to just completely overthrow their existing systems. This is the Great Leap Forward, the Year Zero Project, it's the exact same ****, something that sounded good in theory combined with people without the ****ing sense to see that it doesn't equate to good policy.

And what do you think is good policy? Propping up tyrants for the sake of regional stability or because it is in our short term interests when in reality it is very much against our long term interests and almost without exception comes back to bite us hard in the as$?
 
Carter good humanitarian but very bad president.

There have certainly been worse. The economy grew better under Carter than either Bush1 or Bush2; he appointed Volker to the Fed to be an inflation buster which stopped inflation; he did that while lowering the national debt relative to GDP; he brokered lasting peace between bitter enemies Israel and Egypt; and got all the hostages home safely after the Iranian revolution.

Discussed in more detail here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/658243-post45.html
 
Back
Top Bottom