@joe pockets
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
@Raiders22 I would figure the worse would have to be a Republican Trump, Nixon …or Buchanan & Jacksonwho was a conservative when they chose Democrat for party title till becoming the Republican Party….Oh Franklin Pierce was a horses ass that could sit in on that liars pocket game!
Pierce is a somewhat complicated figure. Having just lost his son in the train accident and his wife refusing to join him in D.C. and with the nation moving closer to war -- he had a lot of baggage and domestic issues to deal with. He also did not do his legacy any favors in the modern day because of his stance of seemingly pro-slavery, no matter how you view it -- as a compromise or a state's rights issue. You can make the case that this led to him not getting the next nomination. But when you follow him up with Buchanan and Douglas, you have to wonder what the Democrats were really thinking at the time. How can they distance theirselves from Douglas's very pro-slavery stance at the time.
But when you come into power while the nation seems in a quiet state but looking back was clearly headed into turmoil, you have to ask if that is a true gauge for a legacy. But the case can be made for him as somewhat ineffective. But after years of drink and the rearview-looking that can be done, I think it 'seems' worse than it was at the time.
Buchanan was largely seen as not doing enough to prevent what a lot of folks saw coming for the nation. But largely has the same issues as Pierce with his legacy and the seemingly ineffectiveness of it. When it had become more and. more evident that th nation was fracturing, I am not sure what he could do to prevent it. Even Lincoln -- the vaunted one that most put at the very top -- could not do it.
In a Nation that was largely had very minor issues to deal with compared to modern Presidents (other than the singular issue that every one of them had been hoping to avoid for decades) I cannot judge them as harshly as modern ones. The more modern ones have many more issues that can have a longer term effect on the nation and even the world.
Nixon is largely remembered for simply Watergate -- which he did not even need to do. He was going to win in a blowout, regardless. But he did far, far more good domestically and internationally to be considered anywhere near the bottom.
I can very easily make the case for Trump to have been the best President in modern times and that includes Reagan. Simply by looking at the economy when they took over and the worldview of the USA when they took over. Then compare those two things to when they left office.
Carter obviously did very little to prevent what was going on economically on the domestic front. I also dock him a lot on growing the government, solely with the Department of Education, etc.
So, with modern guys having to deal with many more issues than older guys on both domestic and international fronts -- Carter, Obama, and Biden rank at the very bottom for me.
The economic issues and the loss of respect globally would be enough. But Obama and Biden were the very definition of diviseness for the nation -- and that is never a good thing. Then to mention that they both made social issues into political ones was not good.
But, yes, you can make a case for Buchanan and Pierce; I just do not based on the fewer issues they did not handle well.
Others may be more polarizing -- for example, Trump, Lincoln, both Adams, Tyler, and even Jefferson. But effectiveness alone, or lack of it, put the others at the bottom.
Hot Forum Topics
