Worst Presidents of all Time:

[Faun]

I voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)
Pierce (civil war)
Bush Jr.
Obama

It's ironic that our last two president both make this list.

Here, a real poll...

Quinnipiac poll: 41% say Trump worst president since World War II

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

1) TRUMP

2) W.

3) NIXON

No way Trump is ahead of W. or Nixon on the worst President list...

W nor nixon were putin's bitch.

Oh Lard!

Well tell me did Mueller tell you that, oh wait he said Russia did not do anything that would have changed the outcome of the 2016 election..

So your opinion is based on what Rachel Maddow tell you and not reality as usual.

Is Trump perfect?

No!

Now with that written it seem you prefer a President that lies you into war or one that allowed genocide of Cambodians over Trump and why?

MSM has convinced you Trump is Putin bitch...

Well then Obama was China, North Korea, and Iran bitch with the blessing of Putin and Hillary reset button...

Comey cost Hillary the election and not Putin nor Wikileaks...

 

[g5000]

Buchanan was the worst. Followed by Dubya.

FDR is third worst.

 

[g5000]

I voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)

Actually, Adams did exactly the right thing in the XYZ Affair. He refused to pay a bribe to the French to get them stop attacking our ships. Instead, he prepared for war rather than be cowed. Good for him.

As for the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 signed by Adams, that was to keep out Irish immigrants. Adams famously said, "When they send their people, they aren't sending their best. They bring crime, they bring drugs. And some, I assume, are good people."
\

 

[McRocket]

Where the hell is Trump on the list?

He is MILES the worst since at least WW2

 

[U2Edge]

John Adams? No.

John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.

ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.

Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).

Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

Irrelevant
They have strong criteria to judge on
If they are so biased, why would they rate Ike and Reagan so high?

It is our board conservatives who are obviously biased as they rate based on their partisan or libertarian views

Ike, was President 60 years ago. Reagan was President over 30 years ago. That's part of the reason they may get ranked higher. The distance from now allows for more objective views to creep in, even if the list is being put together by primarily registered democrats. As you get closer to the current time period though, you'll see more bias creep in. Another thing with Ike's time in office is that relative to other Presidential administration's, there was not a lot of conflict or division. You had the last 6 months of the Korean war and maybe the start of desegregation in the south, but it was mostly smooth sailing when compared to the past and the future.

Again, take 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

Then take 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

You will likely get very different results for Presidents over the most recent 30 years. Lets so it appears as you go further back in time based on some data I've seen.

 

[rightwinger]

John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.

ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.

Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).

Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

Irrelevant
They have strong criteria to judge on
If they are so biased, why would they rate Ike and Reagan so high?

It is our board conservatives who are obviously biased as they rate based on their partisan or libertarian views

Ike, was President 60 years ago. Reagan was President over 30 years ago. That's part of the reason they may get ranked higher. The distance from now allows for more objective views to creep in, even if the list is being put together by primarily registered democrats. As you get closer to the current time period though, you'll see more bias creep in. Another thing with Ike's time in office is that relative to other Presidential administration's, there was not a lot of conflict or division. You had the last 6 months of the Korean war and maybe the start of desegregation in the south, but it was mostly smooth sailing when compared to the past and the future.

Again, take 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

Then take 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

You will likely get very different results for Presidents over the most recent 30 years. Lets so it appears as you go further back in time based on some data I've seen.

Ask qualified hIstorians what they think

 

[U2Edge]

John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.

ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.

Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).

Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

 

[U2Edge]

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

Irrelevant
They have strong criteria to judge on
If they are so biased, why would they rate Ike and Reagan so high?

It is our board conservatives who are obviously biased as they rate based on their partisan or libertarian views

Ike, was President 60 years ago. Reagan was President over 30 years ago. That's part of the reason they may get ranked higher. The distance from now allows for more objective views to creep in, even if the list is being put together by primarily registered democrats. As you get closer to the current time period though, you'll see more bias creep in. Another thing with Ike's time in office is that relative to other Presidential administration's, there was not a lot of conflict or division. You had the last 6 months of the Korean war and maybe the start of desegregation in the south, but it was mostly smooth sailing when compared to the past and the future.

Again, take 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

Then take 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.

You will likely get very different results for Presidents over the most recent 30 years. Lets so it appears as you go further back in time based on some data I've seen.

Ask qualified hIstorians what they think

Again, we need to see their party registration first. Are they qualified historians who are registered democrats or qualified historians who are registered republicans. Historians often disagree on many things, and often some of these disagreements are rooted in political party identity.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists

 

[U2Edge]

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

The invasion of Iraq had heavy support from both Republicans and Democrats. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported the invasion. Overall public support for the invasion of Iraq prior to the start of the war was higher than support for the 1991 Gulf War before hostilities began.

In 1991, public support and support in Congress was much more divided about going to war at the time. In the aftermath, future presidential hopefuls like Senator Sam Nunn payed a price for not voting to support the first Gulf War.

Today, support for Operation Iraqi Freedom is split with those still supporting in the low 40s, and those against it in the high 40s. You get reverse results when you ask the veterans who fought in Iraq, with a very slight plurality or majority supporting it.

But that was the same with World War I and Korea. After those conflicts were completed a slight majority were against them for many years. But over time, the evolved into a majority saying involvement in those conflicts was a good thing.

Iraq will likely end up the same way. At the end of the day, there was nothing good about Saddam. He was evil and had caused everyone problems for decades. Few people will be willing to defend or stand up for Saddam in the years ahead. Iraq's standard of living is increasing, ahead of Morocco now. The murder rate in Iraq for 2018 was less than the murder rate in California for 1990. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are much safer with Saddam gone. People become frustrated with the unexpected cost and duration of the conflict at the time, but ultimately in the long run its likely most people will judge that It was worth it.

 

[U2Edge]

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists

Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.

 

[rightwinger]

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

The invasion of Iraq had heavy support from both Republicans and Democrats. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported the invasion. Overall public support for the invasion of Iraq prior to the start of the war was higher than support for the 1991 Gulf War before hostilities began.

In 1991, public support and support in Congress was much more divided about going to war at the time. In the aftermath, future presidential hopefuls like Senator Sam Nunn payed a price for not voting to support the first Gulf War.

Today, support for Operation Iraqi Freedom is split with those still supporting in the low 40s, and those against it in the high 40s. You get reverse results when you ask the veterans who fought in Iraq, with a very slight plurality or majority supporting it.

But that was the same with World War I and Korea. After those conflicts were completed a slight majority were against them for many years. But over time, the evolved into a majority saying involvement in those conflicts was a good thing.

Iraq will likely end up the same way. At the end of the day, there was nothing good about Saddam. He was evil and had caused everyone problems for decades. Few people will be willing to defend or stand up for Saddam in the years ahead. Iraq's standard of living is increasing, ahead of Morocco now. The murder rate in Iraq for 2018 was less than the murder rate in California for 1990. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are much safer with Saddam gone. People become frustrated with the unexpected cost and duration of the conflict at the time, but ultimately in the long run its likely most people will judge that It was worth it.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against an Iraq invasion.
That is an undeniable fact

Iraq was a decision of George W Bush
If it was a success, he would deserve credit. Since it was a dismal failure, he holds the blame

 

[rightwinger]

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists

Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.

Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam

That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives

 

[U2Edge]

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.

In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.

Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terror
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them

In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him

Iraq did have one of the most extensive stock piles of WMD in the world. They had failed to fully verifiably disarm of all this WMD per UN Security Council resolutions after the first Gulf War. In 1996 they began harassing UN inspectors so much that they functionally could no do their job. Inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 because they could not function under Saddam's restrictions. The United States had been bombing Iraq for violations and other reasons annually since 1991 through 2003. The reality is that the 1991 Gulf War never really ended. There was a ceacefire in March 1991, but this was broken multiple times over the next 12 years due to Saddam's violations. In March 2003, the United States and other coalition partners finally finished the job after failing to get Saddam to comply with 15 different UN Security Council resolutions over the past 12 years.

While evidence was not found that Saddam had built new WMD weapons, program related activities that were forbidden were found. In addition, bio/chem capable artillery shells over time were found all over Iraq during the occupation. At first, those found were just a trickle. But then it turned into a flood. Over 10,000 155 mm shells filled with sarin gas, likely produced and filled with sarin gas during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s have been found since the 2003 invasion. Some of these artillery shells with sarin gas have been eroded and their purity levels are not much of a threat. But some of the sarin gas in these artillery shells still have 90% to 95% purity. Just one 155 mm artillery shell filled with sarin gas at 90% to 95% purity could kill over a thousand people if used in an urban area.

In addition, sanctions and the weapons embargo meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming and rebuilding his military through sell of Iraq's massive oil reserves had largely eroded by 2002. It was only a matter of time at that point before Saddam would rebuild his capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Another reason that removing Saddam in 2003 was a necessity.

 

[rightwinger]

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.

In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.

Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terror
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them

In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him

Iraq did have one of the most extensive stock piles of WMD in the world. They had failed to fully verifiably disarm of all this WMD per UN Security Council resolutions after the first Gulf War. In 1996 they began harassing UN inspectors so much that they functionally could no do their job. Inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 because they could not function under Saddam's restrictions. The United States had been bombing Iraq for violations and other reasons annually since 1991 through 2003. The reality is that the 1991 Gulf War never really ended. There was a ceacefire in March 1991, but this was broken multiple times over the next 12 years due to Saddam's violations. In March 2003, the United States and other coalition partners finally finished the job after failing to get Saddam to comply with 15 different UN Security Council resolutions over the past 12 years.

While evidence was not found that Saddam had built new WMD weapons, program related activities that were forbidden were found. In addition, bio/chem capable artillery shells over time were found all over Iraq during the occupation. At first, those found were just a trickle. But then it turned into a flood. Over 10,000 155 mm shells filled with sarin gas, likely produced and filled with sarin gas during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s have been found since the 2003 invasion. Some of these artillery shells with sarin gas have been eroded and their purity levels are not much of a threat. But some of the sarin gas in these artillery shells still have 90% to 95% purity. Just one 155 mm artillery shell filled with sarin gas at 90% to 95% purity could kill over a thousand people if used in an urban area.

In addition, sanctions and the weapons embargo meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming and rebuilding his military through sell of Iraq's massive oil reserves had largely eroded by 2002. It was only a matter of time at that point before Saddam would rebuild his capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Another reason that removing Saddam in 2003 was a necessity.

WMDs were a fake issue
Still are

Bush lied about the threat to justify his invasion. A reason he is our worst modern President

 

[U2Edge]

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

The invasion of Iraq had heavy support from both Republicans and Democrats. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported the invasion. Overall public support for the invasion of Iraq prior to the start of the war was higher than support for the 1991 Gulf War before hostilities began.

In 1991, public support and support in Congress was much more divided about going to war at the time. In the aftermath, future presidential hopefuls like Senator Sam Nunn payed a price for not voting to support the first Gulf War.

Today, support for Operation Iraqi Freedom is split with those still supporting in the low 40s, and those against it in the high 40s. You get reverse results when you ask the veterans who fought in Iraq, with a very slight plurality or majority supporting it.

But that was the same with World War I and Korea. After those conflicts were completed a slight majority were against them for many years. But over time, the evolved into a majority saying involvement in those conflicts was a good thing.

Iraq will likely end up the same way. At the end of the day, there was nothing good about Saddam. He was evil and had caused everyone problems for decades. Few people will be willing to defend or stand up for Saddam in the years ahead. Iraq's standard of living is increasing, ahead of Morocco now. The murder rate in Iraq for 2018 was less than the murder rate in California for 1990. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are much safer with Saddam gone. People become frustrated with the unexpected cost and duration of the conflict at the time, but ultimately in the long run its likely most people will judge that It was worth it.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against an Iraq invasion.
That is an undeniable fact

Iraq was a decision of George W Bush
If it was a success, he would deserve credit. Since it was a dismal failure, he holds the blame

NOT in the United States Senate. In the United States Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the war.

Its only in the House Of Representatives, typically where you will have younger, less experienced people, where a majority of Democrats were against the war.

The war in Iraq was a success in every relevant respect. Saddam was removed from power. A new government was successfully put in place. That new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is not interested in the production and manufacture of WMD. Stability inside the country was initially a problem, but that seems to be in the past now. In 2019, the government in Iraq is viewed primarily as stable and respecting most of its tribes and ethnic groups. It is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is seen as a possible bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of relations and resolving conflicts and political differences.

United States losses in Iraq were a tiny fraction of what it lost in similar sized wars like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, and World War II. 3,500 killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to 48,000 killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Total civilian casualties are also much lower at around 200,000, mostly as a result of terrorist bombings and insurgency. Much lower than the millions of civilians that died in the other wars. 16 years after the invasion, Iraq is a thriving developing country with a murder rate lower than California's murder rate in 1990. It is not a threat to any of its neighbors unlike Saddam's Iraq. The Iraq war has been a success by any measure. But all wars have their cost. But the cost have been light relative to similar wars and conflicts in the past.

In addition, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP averaged less than 5% during the whole period from 2001 to 2019. During the peacetime of the 1980s, U.S. defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. So the financial strain on the country and the economy has been much less than similar size wars the United States has engaged in the past.

 

[U2Edge]

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.

In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.

Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terror
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them

In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him

Iraq did have one of the most extensive stock piles of WMD in the world. They had failed to fully verifiably disarm of all this WMD per UN Security Council resolutions after the first Gulf War. In 1996 they began harassing UN inspectors so much that they functionally could no do their job. Inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 because they could not function under Saddam's restrictions. The United States had been bombing Iraq for violations and other reasons annually since 1991 through 2003. The reality is that the 1991 Gulf War never really ended. There was a ceacefire in March 1991, but this was broken multiple times over the next 12 years due to Saddam's violations. In March 2003, the United States and other coalition partners finally finished the job after failing to get Saddam to comply with 15 different UN Security Council resolutions over the past 12 years.

While evidence was not found that Saddam had built new WMD weapons, program related activities that were forbidden were found. In addition, bio/chem capable artillery shells over time were found all over Iraq during the occupation. At first, those found were just a trickle. But then it turned into a flood. Over 10,000 155 mm shells filled with sarin gas, likely produced and filled with sarin gas during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s have been found since the 2003 invasion. Some of these artillery shells with sarin gas have been eroded and their purity levels are not much of a threat. But some of the sarin gas in these artillery shells still have 90% to 95% purity. Just one 155 mm artillery shell filled with sarin gas at 90% to 95% purity could kill over a thousand people if used in an urban area.

In addition, sanctions and the weapons embargo meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming and rebuilding his military through sell of Iraq's massive oil reserves had largely eroded by 2002. It was only a matter of time at that point before Saddam would rebuild his capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Another reason that removing Saddam in 2003 was a necessity.

WMDs were a fake issue
Still are

Bush lied about the threat to justify his invasion. A reason he is our worst modern President

No one lied about anything. There was a lot of intelligence on WMD's that proved to be inaccurate. But its an indisputable fact that Iraq still had thousands of Artillery Shells from the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s that were filled with Sarin Gas. These artillery shells were found gradually over time during the U.S. occupation of Iraq from 2003 through the end of 2011. U.S. military personal that have been involved with the removal and disposal of these artillery shells have been injured and become sick from handling degraded artillery shells that were filled with Sarin Gas. Luckily in these cases the purity level of the sarin was very low.

Iraq and Saddam claimed it was not in possession of any of these old artillery shells dating from the Iran/Iraq war in the mid-1980s back in 2002. That was obviously incorrect, regardless of whether it was a lie or an accounting error. Over 10,000 of these artillery shells were gradually found in the decade after the invasion. In 2019, thousands of these shells are still awaiting proper disposal.

 

[U2Edge]

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists

Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.

Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam

That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives

Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.

The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.

 

[MisterBeale]

Giving socialism to the elites off the back of the poor? There is not contest on this one. One President single handedly destroyed the nation.

Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said: "A great industrial nation controlled by its system of credit. Our System of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are In the hands of a few men. We have come to he one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world-no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."

President Wilson, in advocating the Federal Reserve Act, said: "We must have a currency, not rigid as now, but really elastic, responsive to sound credit, the expanding and controlling credit of everyday transactions, the normal ebb and flow of personal and corporate dealings. Our banking laws must mobilize reserves; must not permit the contraction anywhere in a few hands of the monetary resources of the country or their use for speculative purposes in such volume as to hinder or impede or stand in the way of other legitimate more fruitful uses. And the control of the system of banking and of Issues which our new law is to set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the government itself, so that banks may be instruments, not masters, of business and of the individual enterprise and Initiative."

http://ia800300.us.archive.org/27/i...States/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystem.pdf

. . . and here comes WWI and a GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!