Comments on: The 10 Worst Presidents (from a free-market perspective): Part 1

By: Wedabes

Wedabes — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:32:17 +0000

Did this clown really put Washington top 10 worst? Im done lmao. He was a classical moderate president. He set presidency. Without him, nonintervention would not have been heard of. Whiskey rebellion was constitutional. He did not expand the government like alot of others. He did not raise taxes. Non-intervention once again. He was a decent president at least. I am a libertarian, but i respect moderate approaches to constitution.

By: alexus

alexus — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:44:58 +0000

i think bush deserves to be on dat list

By: alexus

alexus — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:43:50 +0000

bush

By: timm

timm — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 06:56:16 +0000

I think our guest is high.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 26 May 2011 23:12:33 +0000

I am not libertarian, but I’ll just pretend that I am.
10. Definitely a bad one, but I’d give the 10th spot to Hoover with T Roosevelt as a “dishonorable mention” along with Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
9. I’d put him a little higher, worse than Nixon and Washington, though better than GW Bush.
-Lebanese-Civil War
-Iraq-Iran War
-Iran-Contra
-Bombed Libya
-Invasion of Grenada
-Funding of military groups in 10 different countries
-War On Drugs
-Tripled debt with spending increases
To name just his worst actions.
8. George W. Bush is indeed the worst president ever. Lincoln is the only one who can compete, and Bush just beats him out. Again, I’m just going to name his worst actions.
-Invasion of Afghanistan
-Military Commisions Act
-USA Patriot Act
-Tortured prisoners
-Sarbanes-Oxley Act
-Invaded and occupied Iraq
-Created Dept. Of Homeland Security
-Spending to overthrow Iran’s government
-Incredible deficits
-Funded Somali warlords against ICU
-Supported Ethiopian invasion of Somalia
-Attempted Coup in Venezuela
-Provoked Palestinian Civil War
-Attempted to destabilize Pakistan
-Orchestrated Civic Coup in Bolivia
-Operation Pipe Dreams
-Counterterrorism Military training abroad
-Nationalized and bailed out economic disasters
-One million people on no fly lists
Man that’s a lot.
7. Washington’s crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion was constitutional. The constitution gives the president the power to crush insurecction or rebellion. Anyways, Washington was pretty much average. He did his fair share of damage, but not nearly as much as say, Bush or Reagan, and it’s pretty much balanced out by the good he did (Foreign Policy of Neutrality, set precedent for constitutional veto power, peacefully relinquishing power after 2 terms.) Replace him with Eisenhower. Why? Well, let’s see. Again, just listing his worst actions.
-Operation Ajax
-Operation PBSuccess
-CIA intervention in Cuba
-Operation Blue Bat
-CIA assistance during Congo Crisis
-NSC 16/62
-Internal Revenue Code of 1954
-Dept. Of Health, Education, and Welfare
-Appointed Earl Warren
Now, let’s look at Washington’s worst actions
-Appointed Alexander Hamilton
-Introduced National Draft
Clearly, Washington is worse.
6. Nixon definitely belongs on this list, however, I would say he was better than Bush, Reagan, and possibly Eisenhower. Not just because he didn’t do quite as much harm as Reagan or Bush (Though way more harm than Eisenhower), but also because he did more good. SALT I, eventually ending Vietnam, opening relations with China, and lowering the defense spending level.
I’d say…
10. Herbert Hoover
9. Dwight Eisenhower
8. Richard Nixon
7. Lyndon Johnson
6. Ronald Reagan

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 02 May 2011 14:53:57 +0000

Bush.. No doubt about it

By: me mee

me mee — Sun, 01 May 2011 11:17:52 +0000

really the great communicator is up there that is absurd he tore down the wall he put us in a prosperous position econnomically yet he is on the list Ronald Reagan could be one of the greatest presidents ever

By: C. Wendt

C. Wendt — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:06:32 +0000

Now, I’ll admit that president Washington was far from blameless economically, but counting him as “worse” than hard-core war-mongering domestic and foreign interventionists like Bush and Roosevelt is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion. It is true that he was clearly Federalist-leaning and wanted a stronger Federal government than, say, a Jefferson, but he also repeatedly actively turned down dictatorial power and set various precedents which prevented generations of subsequent presidents from doing so, and by and large (the banking matter being an exception; apparently he bought Hamilton’s “implied-power” argument here) he made a point of keeping scrupulously within the bounds the Constitution and making it taboo for others to usurp unconstitutional powers (read, for example, his position on presidential military exploits/Congress’ war-declaration power, along with his humble foreign policy, contrary to the desires of those such as Hamilton, who romanticized “imperial glory,” or his warning against changes to the Constitution by usurpation).

As for the Whiskey Rebellion (”imagine George W. Bush doing that!”), Bush would most certainly have taken military action against an actual violent rebellion during his presidency- in fact, I don’t think there has been even one president in the history of the United States who would not have used military force- reluctantly in some instances, but nevertheless- to put down something like the Whiskey Rebellion. Notable is the fact that Washington essentially scared the rebels into abandoning their cause with minimal bloodshed, then pardoned all of them (against the wishes, once more, of Hamilton, who wanted them all hanged- Hamilton did regrettably have a lot of clout in the Washington administration, but we shouldn’t make the mistake of viewing their positions as indistinguishable).

Washington’s federal expansion consisted mostly in endeavors he viewed as necessary for defense/law-and-order purposes; I am not aware of any efforts by Washington to forcefully intervene in private contracts, institute income taxation, set price controls, etc., and his foreign policy was very much a free-market-friendly one. His militarily-influenced political perspective and authoritarian streak push him outside the bounds of what we could fairly call an ideal libertarian, but these failings must be weighed against quite a few strong points in his resume (centrally his remarkable capacity for turning down absolute power, anti-imperialism and non-interventionism), and I don’t think they were nearly so severe as what we’ve seen from numerous subsequent presidents.