Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Presidential Preferences
Today National Review Online is running a symposium on the perennial question, "Who is your favorite president?" It includes picks by Reason Contributing Editor John Hood, Reason contributor Bill Kauffman, and Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum.
Taktix®|2.16.09 @ 9:54AM|#
William Henry Harrison.
He did what I wish the last 5-6 presidents should have done:
Dropped Dead
|2.16.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Fuck you Taktix® for getting it in first. ;-)
I really admire Washington, Jefferson, and Eisenhower. GWB and
James Buchanan are at the bottom.
creech|2.16.09 @ 10:16AM|#
Buchanan, our only bachelor president and only Pennsylvanian, apparently believed the constitution permitted secession. This is still debated today. So why is he "worst" if he upheld his principled position to defend the constitution? One could as easily argue that the sainted Lincoln was the "worst."
mark|2.16.09 @ 10:23AM|#
Jefferson:
The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States?
But, uh, Mr. President, when your main source of revenue is trade,
do you think neutrality between France and England was the right
decision, considering that it led to a total breakdown in trade and
military unreadiness, ultimately allowing the British to burn down
the first White House?
We're still cool though, bro.
tarran|2.16.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Nah, George Washington was a scumbag. He invaded
Pennsylvania with the U.S. Army to demand that the farmers
there pay Hamilton's tax on whiskey (which oddly enough kneecapped
smaller producers while taxing large producers like George
Washington relatively lightly).
It was also his unprovoked attack on a French diplomatic party
which triggerred the French Indian War, which cause a great deal of
misery across North America.
Oh, and he kept getting has ass kicked in the Revolutionary war.
Thank God the French Navy was there to save his bacon (and how bad
a commander do you have to be to be rescued by the French)?
To quote Peter Griffin:
"Not a fan, Louis, not a fan." :)
|2.16.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Oh, and he kept getting has ass kicked in the Revolutionary
war.
Dunno about that. The hardest thing for a commander to do is
maintain a viable military force in the face of superior
opposition, which Washington did.
He had pretty much managed to turn the tide by Yorktown, which,
after all, consisted of bottling up the British army.
Thank God the French Navy was there to save his
bacon
The French Navy at no time was a match for the British Navy. By the
time of Yorktown, the British public was pretty well worn out on
the war (thanks to Washington surviving as long as he had), and
they were unwilling to commit to a major naval engagement to keep
the war going.
All the British Navy could have done was evacuate Cornwallis,
possibly to put him ashore somewhere else.
So, I think Washington still gets major props as a commander.
Gilbert Martin|2.16.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"Buchanan, our only bachelor president and only Pennsylvanian,
apparently believed the constitution permitted secession. This is
still debated today. So why is he "worst" if he upheld his
principled position to defend the constitution? One could as easily
argue that the sainted Lincoln was the "worst."
A better way of putting it is that the Constitution was not
delegated any power to prohibit secession. That is the 10th
Amendment.
Three of the original states that ratifed the Constitution,
Virginia, Rhode Island and Massachussetts, explictly stated at the
time ratification that they reserved the right to secceed.
Other states had threatened to secceed prior to the prior to the
incorrectly named "Civil War". Probably the most significant
example was a threat by South Carolina to do so during Andrew
Jackson's presidency.
Lincoln basically ignored the Constitution and illegally used force
to conquer the secceeding states and force them back into the
union.
Mad Max|2.16.09 @ 10:35AM|#
'Buchanan, our only bachelor president and only Pennsylvanian,
apparently believed the constitution permitted secession. This is
still debated today. So why is he "worst" if he upheld his
principled position to defend the constitution? One could as easily
argue that the sainted Lincoln was the "worst."'
Buchanan isn't the worst, because of all the competition he had in
the 20th century. He's the worst because, *before* the secession
crisis, he tried to use federal power - up to and beyond the limits
of the Constitution - to force slavery down the throats of the
country.
In the secession crisis, Buchanan actually acted prudently, given
that he was a lame duck facing an unprecedented situation. He gets
blamed for not starting the Civil War right away, but I'm not going
to criticize him for *that.* He didn't say secession was legal, but
he did have doubts as to how far the federal government could go in
suppressing secessionists. He didn't think the feds could act
against a state *qua* state, but he also seemed to believe that the
federal government could act against individual lawbreakers, even
if they claimed the support of a secessionist state. He sent a ship
to relieve Fort Sumter, but it was shot at - the war didn't start
then, but it could have.
I would put Cleveland as the greatest President. Jefferson is in
the running for greatest philosopher, but as a President he wasn't
among the greats. Coolidge was OK, as was Harding. They have the
advantage of being compared to their predecessors and successors,
next to whom just about anyone would look good.
Gilbert Martin|2.16.09 @ 10:36AM|#
What I meant to say is that the Constitution did not delagate any power to the federal government to prohibit succession.
Mad Max|2.16.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Also, Washington and Cleveland are a tie. Washington is greater than Cleveland if you consider *all* of Washington's career. As Pres, he was Cleveland's equal.
Jerry|2.16.09 @ 10:39AM|#
I wish they had this up at Commentary Magazine, the list would then go: Hamilton, Hamilton, Lincoln, Lincoln, Hamilton, Hamilton, T. Roosevelt, Hamilton, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Hamilton.
Seward|2.16.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Woodrow Wilson was definitely the worst both in foreign affairs and domestic. As for "least worst," well, at this point there are a number of contenders but I would go with van Buren right now.
Seward|2.16.09 @ 10:44AM|#
R.C. Dean,
The French Navy at no time was a match for the British
Navy.
They didn't have to be.
I would note that Rochambeau was the one who suggested marching
down to Yorktown; Washington wanted to liberate New York (it was
something of a pride issue as I understand). There is a reason why
there is a statue of Rochambeau in D.C.
Seward|2.16.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Jerry,
Happily, Hamilton was never President. Though he may have tried to
initiate a coup d'etat.
Citizen Nothing|2.16.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Maybe Jerry is ranking the guys on money:
Franklin
Jefferson
Washinton
Grant
Lincoln
Jackson
Hamilton
|2.16.09 @ 11:02AM|#
The French Navy at no time was a match for the British
Navy.
They didn't have to be.
They would have had to be if the British had decided to put it to
the test. Which they didn't because they didn't, at that late date,
think it was worth it, especially given recent reversals on the
ground.
I would note that Rochambeau was the one who suggested marching
down to Yorktown;
Didn't know that. No question, the French of the time knew their
land warfare. Although I would note that not even Napoleon could
beat Wellington in the Peninsular War, in spite of having superior
forces, and Wellington's general strategy has some striking
similarities to Washington's. Wellington, of course, also had a
freer hand to avoid standing and fighting than Washington did,
fighting as he was in a foreign country.
|2.16.09 @ 11:05AM|#
In what manner he would have performed himself if the holy angels had shoved the Depression forward a couple of years - this we can only guess, and one man's hazard is as good as another's. My own is that he would have responded to bad times precisely as he responded to good ones - that is, by pulling down the blinds, stretching his legs upon his desk, and snoozing away the lazy afternoons.... He slept more than any other President, whether by day or by night. Nero fiddled, but Coolidge only snored.... Counting out Harding as a cipher only, Dr. Coolidge was preceded by one World Saver and followed by two more. What enlightened American, having to choose between any of them and another Coolidge, would hesitate for an instant? There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance.
H.L. Mencken
Jacob - Zaphod Beeblebrox FTW
BDB|2.16.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Actually, Buchanan belieced secession was unconstitutional, but too much of a pushover under the thumb of the slave power to do anything about it.
Citizen Nothing|2.16.09 @ 11:16AM|#
"He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance."
I'll seriously vote for anyone who adopts this as a campaign
slogan.
|2.16.09 @ 11:19AM|#
I don't have "favorite" presidents. They're all politicians, so therefore scum.
Citizen Nothing|2.16.09 @ 11:23AM|#
So Epi, would you favor pond scum, or that scum that forms on your teeth after a night of drinking?
Bingo|2.16.09 @ 11:27AM|#
So after all the Lincoln love at NRO, can we finally do away with the idea of conservatives being for smaller government?
The Angry Optimist|2.16.09 @ 11:27AM|#
It was also his unprovoked attack on a French diplomatic
party which triggerred the French Indian War, which cause a great
deal of misery across North America.
The Austrian impulse to engage in historical revisionism strikes
again.
Washington received word that there was a raiding party on the way
and he ambushed them. A case of mistaken identity,
maybe, but framing it as some kind of Archduke
Ferdinand moment is not honest! Especially since something so minor
could not, and surprise, surprise, did not trigger war in and of
itself. War between the British and the French was coming. Blaming
Washington is piss-poor history.
Oh, and he kept getting has ass kicked in the Revolutionary
war.
Again, just not true. Washington and Knox drove Howe from Boston.
After that, Washington managed to withdraw from New York without
British discovery (if you don't think that's impressive, go look it
up). Did the New York/New Jersey campaign go well? No, not until
the Christmas raid in Princeton, combined with Washington's
direction of the NJ militia during that winter, forcing Cornwallis
back to NYC proper.
I mean, where do you get this stuff?
|2.16.09 @ 11:41AM|#
Bingo | February 16, 2009, 11:27am | #
So after all the Lincoln love at NRO, can we finally do away with
the idea of conservatives being for smaller government?
Why start now?
alan|2.16.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Warren G Harding -- Conquered a recession with a free market temperament, reversed many of war criminal Wilson's atrocious policies, put a dent in the Red Scare with a pardon of Debs. Whored around a bit, and was at least corrupt enough for a major scandal. I see no evidence of claim to saint hood, so a good all around bloke.
Seward|2.16.09 @ 11:52AM|#
R.C. Dean,
Napoleon had a hard time in Spain because what Napoleon was best at
- organization and the use artillery - wasn't that effective in
fighting a partisan campaign. That and his efforts really alienated
large segments of the Spanish population.
Anyway, for better or worse w/o the French the Revolution would
have been if not impossible to carry off then a far less likely
affair to lead to success. Eventually the colonies might have
broken away, but that could have been fifty or sixty or a hundred
years later.
That's not to suggest that the French were altruistic in their
support; nor was the fledling U.S. altruistic either (as the peace
deal eventually hammered out shows I think).
alan|2.16.09 @ 11:57AM|#
The Angry Optimist,
Except for the Whiskey rebellion, I have never fully understood my
fellow Austrio-partisans distaste in Washington. Even given the WR,
his farewell address should at least make up for much of the things
they find to be to their displeasure in Washington.
Taktix®|2.16.09 @ 12:02PM|#
What, no TJ love?
Avoiding foreign entanglements.
Repealing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Fighting tooth and nail to prevent a national bank.
Being a big fat thorn in the side of Hamilton.
Fuck, even having Aaron Burr as a VP was an accomplishment.
Zombie Jefferson 12' !!!
DADIODADDY|2.16.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Worst is a relative thing, does Carter really suck worse than Ford, Is Clinton really a bigger douche that Regan? We're not dead, the country is intact and for the most part today is no so crappy as yesterday through no help or hinderance of el presedente (whoever he/she/it is at the moment) so they must not have been too too terrrible (just because they didn't further YOUR agenda/position).
Taktix®|2.16.09 @ 12:04PM|#
No, not until the Christmas raid in Princeton, combined with
Washington's direction of the NJ militia during that winter,
forcing Cornwallis back to NYC proper.
Close enough, but Cornwallis was running the "Southern Strategy"
while Gen. CLinton was in charge of the forces occupying NY...
BDB|2.16.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Why do Austrian followers always say the opposite of mainstream historians, no matter what the issue?
The Angry Optimist|2.16.09 @ 12:27PM|#
BDB - it's like this compulsive disease.
Historian: "George Washington was a..."
AUSTRO-ZOMBIE: "SCUMBAG!!!"
alan|2.16.09 @ 12:32PM|#
BDB | February 16, 2009, 12:08pm | #
Why do Austrian followers always say the opposite of mainstream
historians, no matter what the issue?
Mainstream tends to equate greatness with the expansion of power.
Just watch a round table discussion featuring Doris&Friends on
the Lehrer News Hour for the kind of amorality that should make any
Libertarian hurl.
Mr. Chartreuse|2.16.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Top three in no particular order: Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, & Thomas Jefferson
Ben|2.16.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Love me some Coolidge.
My favorites would probably be Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,
and our friend Calvin.
Was Warren G. Harding not involved in the Tea Pot Dome Scandal?
BDB|2.16.09 @ 1:05PM|#
But Washington is ranked as great precisely because he was willing to give up his power when he could have been President-for-Life.
BDB|2.16.09 @ 1:06PM|#
How many other revolutionary leaders can you name that gave up power voluntarily and peacefully before they died? I can't think of any in modern times besides Washington.
|2.16.09 @ 1:11PM|#
How many other revolutionary leaders can you name that gave
up power voluntarily and peacefully before they died?
Allende comes to mind, depending on where you draw the line between
"revolution" and "revolt/coup."
Ortego also, maybe, depending on what you mean by "peacefully" and
whether trying to take power again democratically counts as "giving
up power."
The Angry Optimist|2.16.09 @ 1:14PM|#
I should rush to add that he wasn't exactly the model by which leaders should give up power, but strictly speaking, he peacefully left pre-death.
BDB|2.16.09 @ 1:16PM|#
True, but he became a dictator near the end and gave up on
checks and balances and democracy.
Bernardo O'Higgins (of Chile) though, is a lot like
Washington.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_O%27Higgins
BDB|2.16.09 @ 1:16PM|#
"Johnny Nowhere | February 16, 2009, 1:15pm | #
BDB - Fidel Castro"
Yeah, but he handed it off to his brother. I should have
added "democratically" I guess.
Courage, Dan, Courage|2.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"Buchanan, our only bachelor president and only
Pennsylvanian"
No, Clinton was a bachelor too. Oh, and he was also our first black
president.
Kolohe|2.16.09 @ 8:54PM|#
Mainstream tends to equate greatness with the expansion of
power.
True, but in the same way you don't bring a knife to a gun fight,
you don't bring a 19th century Jeffersonian republic to fight
fascism and communism in the 20th. Doubly so if your republic has
split into 2 (or more) nations that have long simmering disputes
that flare up every couple of decades.
Hamilton was right. Clay was right. Jackson (wrt BUS) was wrong.
And if Buchanan and the copperheads would have got their way,
liberty is dead by the start of the 21 century.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245