Best President

[Smart3]

He was not perfect and would not be like Ron but he did a fine job with very little to work with and I have studied his life extensively and have a great admiration for him.

So do I, but he wasn't one of us. Being a good leader doesn't make up for one's failings. There was this Austrian guy not that long ago who also was a great leader but you don't see him praised by many.

 

[trey4sports]

does anyone have a recommendation for a book that talks about each president and his accomplishments/failures? I love the subject but im afraid i wont find a book from a libertarian perspective on the issue. God forbid im not going to waste my time with lincoln worshiping fools.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Harding pardoned the people Wilson imprisoned for speaking out against the government.

Adams put people in jail for speaking out against the government.

Any argument in favor of Adams over Harding is invalid.

This.

Adams wasn't the worst by any means, and he had a lot of things worthy of respect. But in the grand scheme of things, he was still pretty bad in the White House (Probably above "average" but still bad.)

I was refreshed to NOT see Lincoln on this poll, but was disappointed to not see Van Buren (Rothbard's favorite) or John Tyler (Ivan Elend's favorite, as well as mine.)

I love Cleveland and like Coolidge a lot, but neither is my #1 so I can't really vote.

Andrew Jackson kind of sucked. Not the worst by any means, but in spite of his rhetoric, he still acted a lot like a King. I'd probably rank him on par with Adams, if not a little worse.

Jefferson was good, but he was a hypocrite in the White House. He was my favorite of the Founders, but in the White House he wasn't wonderful. Far better than Adams or Jackson, but not great.

I really want to know why Kennedy is on the list. If you're going for the "He died before he could screw the country up" line, William Henry Harrison is far better for that. I agree with Ivan Elend that Presidents like him who died super fast shouldn't be ranked at all, and the ones that actually kept their nose out of our lives for the most part over a longer stretch are the ones we should really admire. However, I know some people take "He who rules best rules least" extremely literally and so would pick Harrison for that reason. Considering Harrison existed, I don't see why any libertarian or constitutionalist would pick Kennedy.

Madison was justified to go to war in 1812, but it wasn't exactly smart because frankly, we were outgunned. He did manage to fight the war without any serious civil liberties violations, and though perhaps foolhardy, it WAS justified. So I'd rank him pretty high, but still not anywhere near the #1 slot. I think the #1 slot should be reserved for someone who managed to avoid war entirely.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about either Monroe or Harding.

Eisenhower kinda sucked. I remember someone saying Ron Paul spoke favorably of him, if he did, I believe he's off his rocker on this one. He "Balanced the budget" with a 91% top marginal rate and he institutionalized the liberal "New Deal" programs for all time, going so far as to say that people who wanted to repeal social security were "Stupid." I get that he did talk about the military industrial complex, although he also jump-started Vietnam. He wasn't the worst by any means, but there's no way he belongs on this poll. I'd probably rank him well outside the last 20. Heck, I could even possibly go so far as to say he was worse than EVERY pre-New Deal President besides Lincoln and Wilson...

Now, by post-New Deal standards, he was pretty good, but that's a ridiculously watered down standard.

All that said, I think Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Jackson don't really belong on this list (The rest you could probably make a case for even if I disagree). Van Buren, William Harrison, and John Tyler really need to be on the list. As it stands, I can't vote since "His Accidency" isn't on the list.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Samuel Johnston. First man elected as President under the Articles of Confederation.

Refused to serve.

How terrific is that? Epic!

Fewest days in office = best possible President.

He didn't even serve at all. So he was never President.

That said, I don't see refusing to take the job as a huge virtue. I'd rather him have taken it and left us alone.

http://www.whyeverypresidentsucked.com/

I read John Tyler's and I guess I'm not really convinced that failing to convince other people in the government that government is bad is really a bad thing. Government thugs generally can't be convinced. Its true that Tyler was a flawed man (He did support slavery, after all) but Tyler was more Jeffersonian than even Jefferson himself in office, and he did the best he could. He did actually veto the bad legislation rather than signing it.

I'd say Tyler was the best, and he's one of the few I genuinely admire rather than just saying "He sucked less than the other guy."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Also, that link really has to dig deep to find flaws with some of the earlier ones. For instance, they accused Cleveland of regulating transportation. I agree, that was bad, but you've got to put things into perspective. Even some libertarians want the government to own roads these days (I don't, for the record.)

That's a hugely minor issue when compared to something like they said about, say, Lincoln.

No President was perfect, but some were clearly far, far better than others.

I'd pretty much agree everyone after Coolidge deserves nothing but ridicule (Or Nuremberg for the ones still breathing) but some of the early ones had relatively limited flaws. Not perfect, but there are at least four or five that I'd be THRILLED to have in office today.

Of course, Ron Paul would be #1 if he became President now...

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

 

[T.hill]

The 91 percent rate was filled with loopholes, no one paid even close to that in taxes. He was very good in terms of pre new deal presidents and JFK was also significantly better than every single president subsequently after him.

Eisenhower especially is underrated, history deserves to be observed relatively as well as objectively. Some unfairly judge those who were racist or treated native americans inhumanely. Well racism was a universal attitude that was continued generationally through the Old World. Skin color and culture were unfortunately factors in judging superiority by many races.

Some on these forums are also just closed-minded and excessively cynical.

 

[T.hill]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

 

[Christian Liberty]

does anyone have a recommendation for a book that talks about each president and his accomplishments/failures? I love the subject but im afraid i wont find a book from a libertarian perspective on the issue. God forbid im not going to waste my time with lincoln worshiping fools.

Ivan Elend's "Recarving Rushmore." I've only read half (Up to Cleveland) but its excellent so far. He's definitely libertarian leaning, I'm not sure if he's a hardline libertarian but that's definitely the direction he leans

Minor Spoiler Alert About Lincoln (Ignore the underlined text if you don't want to know) (I've never tried using spoiler tags on here, so I don't know if it works.)

Spoiler

He rates Lincoln #29 out of 40 (He does rank William Harrison or Garfield because they died too quick, or Obama because he hadn't been elected when the book was published.) He does have some negative things to say about the CSA, some of which I didn't agree with, and he's a little bit softer on Lincoln than I would be, but he doesn't blindly worship at all. He does reference Dilorenzo's book in a relatively favorable light although he says he doesn't completely agree with him.

I'd recommend the book.

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

James Madison was pretty good, but I believe the Presidents who avoided war entirely were better than those who simply were successful in their wars.

The 91 percent rate was filled with loopholes, no one paid even close to that in taxes. He was very good in terms of pre new deal presidents and JFK was also significantly better than every single president subsequently after him.

Eisenhower especially is underrated, history deserves to be observed relatively as well as objectively. Some unfairly judge those who were racist or treated native americans inhumanely. Well racism was a universal attitude that was continued generationally through the Old World. Skin color and culture were unfortunately factors in judging superiority by many races.

Some on these forums are also just closed-minded and excessively cynical.

I don't really view history as relative, it is what it is.

Although our modern leaders do far worse to EVERYONE than most of the early ones did to the Indians. Despite his Indian policy, I still admire Van Buren.

I know Reagan's free market credentials were overrated but I don't know to what extent. I can't imagine anyone else since Kennedy beating him.

That said, being the best of post-New Deal Presidents is NOT the same as being the best. Kennedy isn't even close to being the best. No 20th century President is anywhere close, except Coolidge, and even then, he's probably somewhere in the upper single digits, not #1.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

I blame LBJ for most of it, but I still didn't like the fact that Eisenhower started any level of intervention there.

That said, his foreign policy was mostly OK, its the domestic that was not.

 

[Southron]

Calvin Coolidge. "There is no surer road to destruction than prosperity without character."

It's hard to imagine anyone like him emerging from Massachusetts today.

 

[dillo]

Also, neither Eisenhower or JFK liked war and always avoided it. Eisenhower did not initiate the Vietnam War, he sent some military advisers there that weren't directly involved in military conflict. JFK also had no plans directly involving the US into the conflict.

Blame LBJ for that mess.

Didnt Eisenhower get us involved in Korea?

 

[oyarde]

Didnt Eisenhower get us involved in Korea?

Truman got us in (1950) , Ike got us out ( elected1952 , truce signed July 1953 )

 

[oyarde]

The greatest president of all time and the greatest executive leader of all time was James Madison. From 1588 until WWI, the most most successful resistance against the British empire was the War of 1812. Yet Madison did it without a central bank, without an income tax, without a military draft, without an espionage act, and without any trial for treason. Remarkably, the federal government only spent 3.9% of GDP in the middle of the War of 1812.

No one in world history has done this before and no one has done it since.

I admire him . I did not make a selection in the poll , would like to have someone more modern to select , but pickings are slim and faults are great....

 

[Rocco]

Why is JFK on the list but Ronald Reagan, who is by far a superior president to JFK, is not?

 

[Ender]

Why is JFK on the list but Ronald Reagan, who is by far a superior president to JFK, is not?

Reagan is not superior to JFK.

Reagan was a charismatic neocon puppet; JFK was a rich spoiled playboy, who woke up from The Matrix.

 

[Rocco]

Economic growth rates would disagree.

Reagan is not superior to JFK.

Reagan was a charismatic neocon puppet; JFK was a rich spoiled playboy, who woke up from The Matrix.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I admire him . I did not make a selection in the poll , would like to have someone more modern to select , but pickings are slim and faults are great....

If you want modern, JFK is easily the best since the pre-civil war era. Unlike other good presidents like Coolidge and Cleveland, JFK was dealt a really bad hand.

BTW - here is an almost unknown but great factoid about JFK; JFK pardoned so many people convicted in the Drug War, that he made the narcotics act of 1956 (signed by Eisenhower) almost inoperable. He did these pardons in the flow of his term, and never got the chance for mass pardons at the end of a term:

John F. Kennedy

Democratic President John F. Kennedy pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 575 people during his term.[12] Among them are:

First-time offenders convicted of crimes under the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 – pardoned all, in effect overturning much of the law passed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

 

[Ender]

Economic growth rates would disagree.

From Murray Rothbard:

Reaganomics is largely monetarism.
The monetarist view is that the Fed must only very, very slowly
reduce the rate of counterfeiting, and thereby insure a gradual,
painless recession with no unemployment or sharp readjustments.
The hoax of Reaganomics was that the phony "budget cuts"
and "tax cuts" were supposed to provide the razzle-dazzle
to give gradualist Friedmanism the time, or the "breathing
space," to work its magic.

Instead, gradualism has led to the present shambles of Reaganomics. The
rate of counterfeiting declined, enough to bring about our current
recession, but not nearly enough to end inflation. Since
November, in fact, the Fed, stung by the deep recession and by
political urgings to expand the money supply, has increased Ml
by a startlingly high annual rate of 13.7%. Panicky, the Administration
is fighting amongst itself. Secretary Regan blames the Fed for
looming re-inflation and higher interest rates since November;
Fed Chairman Volcker lashes back by blaming Reagan and Regan'
s enormous deficits for the fear of Wall Street and higher interest.
Both, of course, are right.

There were two fundamental reforms the Reagan Administration could have
proposed to end our Age of Inflation. First, either the abolition
or the brutal checking of the Fed. Nothing was done, since monetarism
wishes to give all power to the Fed and then navely urges the
Fed to use that power wisely and with self-restraint. Second,
the Administration could have followed Reagan's campaign pledge
and reinstituted the gold standard. But the Friedmanite monetarists
hate gold with a purple passion and wish all power to government
fiat money.

When the Reagan program lay in shambles by the end of 1981, the Reagan
Administration briefly flirted with the supply-side notion of
instituting some form of phony gold standard, where the dollar
would not really be convertible into gold but would cloak its
decaying corpus in gold's well-earned prestige. For a while, it
looked as if a phony gold standard would be the Reaganite diversion
from the realities of grinding recession, zero economic growth,
high interest rates, almost double-digit inflation, and huge $100
billion deficits. But this was not to be, and Reagan has clearly
given the green light to the packed Friedmanite majority and staff
on the U.S. Gold Commission to reject the gold standard out of
hand and to continue the monetary status quo.

Instead, Ronald Reagan has found another diversionary tactic, another razzle-dazzle
hoax with which to bemuse the media and the electorate: the "New
Federalism" (see Part IV of this article).

Not only the gold standard, but all fundamental reform has been rebuffed
by the Reagan Administration. The National Taxpayers Union's balanced
budget amendment – as namby-pamby as it is – has been spurned by the
Reagan Administration, as has the Friedmanite Tax Limitation Amendment,
even though that would only freeze the status quo.

All of this raises the dread spectre of Thatcherism, of going down
the disastrous route blazed by Mrs. Thatcher. More and more it
looks as if the Reagan Administration, despite the warning signals
sent up by the Thatcher experiment for the past several years,
is going down the Thatcher trail. That is, to ignominy and disastrous
defeat, and more important, to the discrediting of the free-market,
hard-money cause by employing its rhetoric while thoroughly betraying
it in practice.

 

[Wisent]

My favorite 18th century President - George Washington. 19th century President - Grover Cleveland. 20th century President - Calvin Coolidge. 21st century President - Rand Paul