Write-in: Van Buren (Rothbard's favorite). Grant (Rothbard's second favorite) might be a good "unconventional" choice too, since he's typically viewed in an excessively unfavorable light both by conventional historians and "conventional" libertarian students of history.
Best President
- Thread starter T.hill
- Start date
That is correct , but that was a done deal by 1951 , MI5 & CIA , if it had not been for BP , MI5 should have been too busy in Ireland.
Ender
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 12,527
We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again
The popular 1970s television series “All in the Family” had a cute theme-song sung by Archie and Edith at the beginning of every episode. One lyric was: “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” Well, the show was great fun, but the liberals who created “All in the Family” got their history wrong. Herbert Hoover—who interfered with and ruined the American economy more than any president before him (a distinction he held for only a few years, since FDR soon surpassed Hoover’s folly)—was a presidential disaster.
What we could use today, instead of another Hoover or Roosevelt, is a president like Warren G. Harding (1865-1923). President Harding, who served as president from 1921 until his death in 1923, perennially finishes near the bottom of most historians’ ranking of presidents. According to conventional wisdom, Harding was a corrupt president, an amiable, poker-playing loafer with no notable achievements. That’s an odd characterization of a president whose death triggered the greatest outpouring of national grief since Lincoln’s assassination.
Let’s examine the corruption charge first:
Like several later presidents, Harding’s moral integrity was compromised by an extramarital affair. Unlike his adulterous successors, though, there is no evidence (merely salacious allegations) that he engaged in such behavior while president or that he was a serial adulterer.
But was President Harding a crook? The Harding administration has been permanently tainted by the Teapot Dome scandal. The corruption, though, was not Harding’s. The crooks were two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Harry Daugherty and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall. Their insider-dealing violated their fiduciary responsibility to the American people and the trust of the president who had appointed them.
Harding didn’t make a penny from his lieutenants’ thievery, yet he has been condemned as corrupt. Contrast that with later presidents who are fondly remembered despite having knowingly, deliberately rescued congressional allies from IRS probes of tax cheating, or gave pardons in exchange for sizable donations to pet causes. These days, politicians go to Washington and quickly become multimillionaires. Warren Harding is held to a higher ethical standard than later politicians.
Allegation #2: Was the 29th president a lazy dolt? Deeply conscious of his duty to his country, President Harding worked long hours, striving valiantly to master and fulfill honorably his weighty presidential duties. Journalist William H. Crawford (a Democrat) shadowed Harding in 1923, and calculated his work-week to be 84 hours long. Harding literally worked himself to death early in his third year in office. Lazy? Not a chance.
Finally, and most importantly, to claim that Harding accomplished nothing as president requires almost a willful blindness to the historical record. It is necessary and expedient, though, for the left to perpetuate this myth.
Harding was the first president to champion civil rights for blacks. As a senator, he had voted for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in 1920, and as president, he publicly denounced lynching. That seems unremarkable today, but in 1921 it earned him the undying enmity of southern Democrats, the defenders of that era’s institutionalized racism. As further evidence of his humanity and broad-mindedness, Harding supported women’s right to vote, and as president he released the famous socialist antiwar activist and political prisoner, Eugene Debs—a magnanimous gesture, since Harding was diametrically opposed to Debs’ socialistic beliefs.
Harding’s handling of the Depression of 1920-21 is the primary reason why he is universally denigrated by devotees of Big Government. Upon taking office, Harding inherited an economy that was reeling from dislocations caused by World War I. In a few months, wholesale prices collapsed by more than 40 percent. Production plunged over 20 percent. Unemployment zoomed from under 3 percent to over 11 percent. 1920-21 saw the most rapid, severe economic downturn our country has ever experienced.
Harding’s response was to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments. He didn’t “do nothing,” as President Obama implied when touting his “stimulus” plan; rather, he cut taxes and slashed federal spending 10-20 percent per year. Prices were allowed to fall, supply and demand readjusted, and by 1922 the depression was over. During the next few years, unemployment dove while production soared 60 percent. Harding presided over one of the greatest economic success stories in American history.
Harding convincingly demonstrated that government intervention is NOT the solution to economic downturns. His policies were the polar opposite of FDR’s depression-lengthening interventionistic blunders. That is why those who perpetuate the myth of FDR as economic savior also strive to preserve the myth of Harding as failure.
If there is any justice, future historians will acknowledge Warren G. Harding as having arguably the best fiscal and economic record of all 20th century presidents. Warren Harding wasn’t perfect, but at a time of severe economic crisis, his policies turned hardship into booming prosperity.
RIP, Mr. President. You helped your countrymen big-time when it counted most. Mister, we could use a man like Warren Harding again.
http://www.visionandvalues.org/2009/08/we-could-use-a-man-like-warren-harding-again/
The popular 1970s television series “All in the Family” had a cute theme-song sung by Archie and Edith at the beginning of every episode. One lyric was: “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” Well, the show was great fun, but the liberals who created “All in the Family” got their history wrong. Herbert Hoover—who interfered with and ruined the American economy more than any president before him (a distinction he held for only a few years, since FDR soon surpassed Hoover’s folly)—was a presidential disaster.
What we could use today, instead of another Hoover or Roosevelt, is a president like Warren G. Harding (1865-1923). President Harding, who served as president from 1921 until his death in 1923, perennially finishes near the bottom of most historians’ ranking of presidents. According to conventional wisdom, Harding was a corrupt president, an amiable, poker-playing loafer with no notable achievements. That’s an odd characterization of a president whose death triggered the greatest outpouring of national grief since Lincoln’s assassination.
Let’s examine the corruption charge first:
Like several later presidents, Harding’s moral integrity was compromised by an extramarital affair. Unlike his adulterous successors, though, there is no evidence (merely salacious allegations) that he engaged in such behavior while president or that he was a serial adulterer.
But was President Harding a crook? The Harding administration has been permanently tainted by the Teapot Dome scandal. The corruption, though, was not Harding’s. The crooks were two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Harry Daugherty and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall. Their insider-dealing violated their fiduciary responsibility to the American people and the trust of the president who had appointed them.
Harding didn’t make a penny from his lieutenants’ thievery, yet he has been condemned as corrupt. Contrast that with later presidents who are fondly remembered despite having knowingly, deliberately rescued congressional allies from IRS probes of tax cheating, or gave pardons in exchange for sizable donations to pet causes. These days, politicians go to Washington and quickly become multimillionaires. Warren Harding is held to a higher ethical standard than later politicians.
Allegation #2: Was the 29th president a lazy dolt? Deeply conscious of his duty to his country, President Harding worked long hours, striving valiantly to master and fulfill honorably his weighty presidential duties. Journalist William H. Crawford (a Democrat) shadowed Harding in 1923, and calculated his work-week to be 84 hours long. Harding literally worked himself to death early in his third year in office. Lazy? Not a chance.
Finally, and most importantly, to claim that Harding accomplished nothing as president requires almost a willful blindness to the historical record. It is necessary and expedient, though, for the left to perpetuate this myth.
Harding was the first president to champion civil rights for blacks. As a senator, he had voted for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in 1920, and as president, he publicly denounced lynching. That seems unremarkable today, but in 1921 it earned him the undying enmity of southern Democrats, the defenders of that era’s institutionalized racism. As further evidence of his humanity and broad-mindedness, Harding supported women’s right to vote, and as president he released the famous socialist antiwar activist and political prisoner, Eugene Debs—a magnanimous gesture, since Harding was diametrically opposed to Debs’ socialistic beliefs.
Harding’s handling of the Depression of 1920-21 is the primary reason why he is universally denigrated by devotees of Big Government. Upon taking office, Harding inherited an economy that was reeling from dislocations caused by World War I. In a few months, wholesale prices collapsed by more than 40 percent. Production plunged over 20 percent. Unemployment zoomed from under 3 percent to over 11 percent. 1920-21 saw the most rapid, severe economic downturn our country has ever experienced.
Harding’s response was to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments. He didn’t “do nothing,” as President Obama implied when touting his “stimulus” plan; rather, he cut taxes and slashed federal spending 10-20 percent per year. Prices were allowed to fall, supply and demand readjusted, and by 1922 the depression was over. During the next few years, unemployment dove while production soared 60 percent. Harding presided over one of the greatest economic success stories in American history.
Harding convincingly demonstrated that government intervention is NOT the solution to economic downturns. His policies were the polar opposite of FDR’s depression-lengthening interventionistic blunders. That is why those who perpetuate the myth of FDR as economic savior also strive to preserve the myth of Harding as failure.
If there is any justice, future historians will acknowledge Warren G. Harding as having arguably the best fiscal and economic record of all 20th century presidents. Warren Harding wasn’t perfect, but at a time of severe economic crisis, his policies turned hardship into booming prosperity.
RIP, Mr. President. You helped your countrymen big-time when it counted most. Mister, we could use a man like Warren Harding again.
http://www.visionandvalues.org/2009/08/we-could-use-a-man-like-warren-harding-again/
Last edited:
McKinley was one of the biggest champions of protectionist tariffs in U.S. history, got the U.S. politically involved in the Spanish Civil War and pushed Congress for the declaration authorizing the Spanish-American War, launched a unilateral military intervention in China, and was an early philosophical proponent of U.S. foreign interventionism in general.
Reagan was not a good president (oversaw a sizable increase in the national debt, CIA abuses abroad, Grenada, etc.), but he did cut taxes and reduce domestic regulations, was actually relatively reserved in terms of foreign policy compared with the other presidents of the last 50 years, and does deserve some credit for avoiding outright war with the Soviet Union and allowing it to collapse under the weight of its own economic failure. Kennedy was also not a good president (a lot of corruption in his administration, the Bay of Pigs debacle, pushed for various forms of federal intervention that were later followed up on by LBJ, etc.), but he did oversee significant tax cuts, was relatively restrained in foreign policy compared with most presidents from the middle of the 20th century onward, and supposedly intended to pull out of Vietnam before he was assassinated.
I don't feel that either Reagan or Kennedy was worlds better than McKinley, but I don't think they were quite as bad-- and there isn't much difference between 26th and 31st in my presidential rankings, insofar as I'm concerned.
LBJ was an evil man , but we were boots on the ground with kill teams in Laos before Ike.
goRPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,219
A poll for best president is like having a poll for best pimp- they might have their charming moments, but they all smacked you around and whored you out.
I voted Cleveland because of the vetoes and the mustache, despite the weirdness with his wife. He quite literally robbed the cradle.
I voted Cleveland because of the vetoes and the mustache, despite the weirdness with his wife. He quite literally robbed the cradle.
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
I vote for Antonius Pius as the greatest Roman Emperor.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
What was Rothbard's issue with Tyler?
Cleveland was also rock solid other than the road building, but as I said, even some libertarians are in favor of government doing that. Roads aren't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I'd love to see the whole thing but I definitely have a few specific questions.
Why is elder Bush so low? Granted, I know he sucked, but I don't see how you can put him in the same ballpark as Lincoln. Let alone worse. Heck, I don't even know if younger Bush really reached the level of tyranny that occurred under Lincoln. Mind you: I get that modern Presidents have more technology, and therefore it may well be "worse" to be around now, but tech also goes both ways, I don't really think you can factor that in. The bottom line, at least Obama and Bush are incompetent tyrants. I absolutely quake in fear at the thought of another Lincoln.
Also, I feel like Wilson was worse than FDR. I get that there are some valid questions to be asked about World War II, but that war was at least arguably justified. World War I clearly was not. And FDR didn't arrest his critics like Wilson. So even though I do feel like FDR was a tyrant, I'd rank him one spot above Wilson, who I'd put at the bottom.
Why is John Tyler so low? And why the heck is Cleveland higher than him? The roads was a relatively minor thing, but I still think its enough to knock him out of the top spot when you've got Tyler or Van Buren...
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
nice to see some love for James Monroe. There's a reason he had the most overwhelming re-election in the history of the US.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I feel like I'd rank Reagan higher than Jimmy Carter, although I know Elend disagrees with me and I'm willing to be talked out of that stance. I'm not exactly a Reagan fanatic but as MaxPower pointed out, Reagan was pretty solid domestically and relatively reserved on foreign policy. I'm not a Reaganist, if I follow anyone politically its Ron Paul, not Ron Reagan, but overall I think putting Reagan in the top 20, and Carter clearly not, is probably reasonable.
Which is to say, still bad. I'd never vote for him. But I'd prefer him over Carter.
Why on Earth does Taft do so well? You're confusing Robert and William Howard, I think. Robert was the conservative, and never became President. William H. was such a "trust buster" that even the fascist TR criticized him for going too far. Near the bottom: IMO.
I don't really have a fully fledged ranking system yet. I could maybe split them into tiers later, but I don't think I could really go from 1-44 with any accuracy.
Which is to say, still bad. I'd never vote for him. But I'd prefer him over Carter.
Why on Earth does Taft do so well? You're confusing Robert and William Howard, I think. Robert was the conservative, and never became President. William H. was such a "trust buster" that even the fascist TR criticized him for going too far. Near the bottom: IMO.
I don't really have a fully fledged ranking system yet. I could maybe split them into tiers later, but I don't think I could really go from 1-44 with any accuracy.
BamaAla
Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,465
Except that Powhatan and the Powhatans wanted to assimilate the Europeans and refused to be assimilated themselves. The folks at Jamestown were no angels, but to suggest that the Powhatans were is poor revisionist history.
Andrew Jackson gets my vote.
I think Taft was opposed to the Federal Reserve, which is why TR ran as an independent to split the vote and let Wilson win.
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
If TR wanted a Federal Reserve, he had 8 years to do it himself.
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
Remember FDR badgering the Japanese? Well, the British Empire badgered the US for 30 years. Finally, the Congress declared war. Madison did us a favor by setting important war precedents.
Among them:
1) the congress declares war, not the president.
2) war must be deliberated for many years by congress before it is declared.
3) the Constitution must be followed to the letter during war.
4) no military draft needed to win a war, nor a central bank, income tax, espionage laws, secret courts, etc.
5) freedom of speech preserved during war.
6) a short war with low causalities.
Thanks to Madison, there has been over 200 years of peace with Great Britain. Unlike many treaties, the treaty of Ghent produced a lasting peace.
For the US, it produced the greatest economic expansion by far in all of history over the next 100 years or so, with free trade opened on the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic ocean, West Indies, and Mediterranean Sea.
Uriah
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,062
Whoa, I just mentioned him http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420659-Video-This-One-Time-At-Anarchy-Camp post 17.
I thought the same thing.
green73
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 13,670
Similar threads
