That's messed up, Max. Grant, Lincoln, TR, and Carter are better than Buchanan? You wanna explain that?
Sure.
The Grant administration cut taxes and spending, substantially reduced the national debt, reinstituted hard currency, gave blacks the vote, and took a relatively benign approach toward the Indians, against whom Grant denounced the "wars of extermination" that had gone before. Most of the bad policies in place at the time were the result of the presidents immediately preceding Grant, and not Grant himself. There are some legitimate bones to be picked with it, but the Grant administration was surely one of the better ones we've had from a libertarian perspective.
Lincoln obviously partook of all kinds of usurpation and brutality, veritably trampling on the Bill of Rights as few presidents have ever done,
but-- and this is a big exception which I do think many libertarians have a tendency to skirt around in order to preserve a purely negative view of the man-- he was instrumental in bringing an end to slavery in the United States, which was, I think, the worst human rights abuse ever in our country, going by the severity of the oppression in conjunction with the number of people it affected. This doesn't whitewash Lincoln's crimes (hence his placement at 31), but it is a sizable redeeming attribute-- large enough to rescue him from my very bottom tier.
I can't think of any particular redeeming attributes for Theodore Roosevelt's administration at the moment; he may have gotten a bit of unfair credit from me simply for being (in spite of his repugnant political philosophy) such a colorful and interesting personality. That, and the fact that most of the guys below him did more
egregiously bad things during their presidencies. Perhaps I will knock him down a couple spots in the next edition.
Carter was one of the few presidents in recent decades not to launch or prosecute any long-term offensive military occupations, oversaw substantial deregulation in things like transportation and oil, didn't commit any particularly egregious civil rights abuses against his citizens that I'm aware of, and was relatively unambitious in terms of his statist agenda, his biggest usurpations consisting in things like the creation of the Department of Education.
As for Buchanan, I will first point out that his administration persecuted Mormons, raised tariffs, and increased the national debt. Moreover, he was actively pro-slavery to a degree few presidents were, loudly supporting the Dred Scott ruling and pushing-- to the point of engaging in illegal bribery and patronage-- for the adoption of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas. That said, I do now think my placement of Buchanan looks a little harsh; after all, he was relatively unwarlike, didn't illegally invade any foreign countries or engage in any comprehensive assaults on the Bill of Rights, and only mildly enhanced the power and intrusiveness of the federal government. I may bump him up, say, four or five places in my next draft.