Poll: Obama, Hillary Clinton the Most Admired People in 2013

ReasonReasonPresident Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been named the most admired people among Americans for the sixth year in a row in a survey conducted by Gallup, although both of their ratings have taken a hit compared with last year.

The second most admired man was George W. Bush and the second most admired woman was Oprah Winfrey. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul tied with Clint Eastwood and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as the eighth most admired man of 2013. 

From The Hill:

President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were named the most-admired people in 2013 for the sixth year in a row, according to a Gallup survey. 

The open-ended poll released Monday found 16 percent of people named Obama as the most-admired man, while 15 percent named Clinton as the most-admired woman. Both scores, however, have dropped significantly since 2012.  

In 2012, 30 percent of people named Obama as the most-admired man, while 21 percent named Clinton the most-admired woman. 

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    So a woman whose single claim to fame is marrying a philandering dirt bag and standing by her man through it all is now the most admired American.

    2013, the year feminism lost all meaning as a word.

  • From the Tundra||

    Seriously. I'm used to coming here for depressing news, but this is a new level of awful.

  • John||

    See FOE's point below. Her winning is more a reflection of the divided nature of our society and the lack of a big popular hero right now than her being that popular in real terms.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    No kidding.

    The correct answer for Most Admired Woman is obviously Wendy Davis.

  • John||

    She only got 15%. It is too bad there were not enough backwoods conservatives to put Sarah Palin up over that. The Prog butt hurt over that would have been priceless.

  • Hugh Akston||

    She's the kooky redhead in the new Wendy's ads, yes?

  • Killaz||

    Nah, the year was 1998 when they voluntarily went back to the kitchen for that very same sack of shit.

  • R C Dean||

    Now, now, John. Hilary didn't just marry into power.

    She also abused it her own self, presiding over the collapse of American diplomacy and personally covering up the murder of an ambassador and other Americans by AQ.

    So, she's got that going for her.

  • John||

    And she has fucked up literally every job she has ever had going back to the Watergate Committee, through the Rose Law Firm to running the effort for Hillarycare to DOS.

    A track record like hers says nothing but giver her a promotion.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Fox News is the number one rated news network because the competition is watered down. I assume we see the same thing at play here.

  • John||

    Or the reason that some rap artist has as many number one hits as the Beatles. If the market is splintered, you can win with a very small but dedicated group of supporters.

    That is what is going on here. There is a certain breed of prog or black person who will always admire Obama no matter what. In the same way there is a core group of mostly boomer hags who will always admire Hillary. In a splintered society like ours, that is enough to win.

  • BigT||

    They admire him for collecting metadata to save us from terrorists, getting everyone into Obamacare, keeping the unemployment rate below 8%, saving GM, and not buckling under to the right wing pseudo-scandals.

    A recent Dem anti-impeachment message lists all of that. MSM wins again.

  • Killaz||

    Heh. Was that what Bo was working from the past few days?

  • BigT||

    Perhaps.

    I am on some Dem mailing lists, so I get this blood-pressure-raising stuff on occasion. I think it shows a deep paranoia. The elephants would be insane to impeach Obama without a solid majority in the Senate. They remember how well that worked last time.

  • wareagle||

    seems that if you're busy cranking out an anti-impeachment message, that in itself sound a bit like the "vote of confidence" coaches get right before they're fired.

  • Irish||

    This is because progressives are crazed cult members. While the rest of the world is turning against Obama, the prog cannot abandon his prophet and lord.

  • ||

    I believe the word they actually used was Messiah.

    But you are wrong, wrong, wrong. It is totally not a cult of personality. No way.

  • Irish||

    We're missing something important:

    The second most admired man was George W. Bush

    Two of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had are number 1 and 2.

    Good God.

  • R C Dean||

    W had some profound flaws as President, but much of the slagging on him was pure partisan hackery.

    I don't think he's even in the top 5 worst Presidents ever. That list, in no particular order, would include:

    Obama.
    Wilson.
    Nixon.
    FDR.
    TR?

  • From the Tundra||

    Lincoln?

    *ducks*

  • Pro Libertate||

    Buchanan?

    Bush was pretty bad. Obama is much worse, but I think we forget how much of an assist Bush gave him. Placing presidents in their time, yes, he's likely not a top five loser, but given that presidential abuse of power is at record heights now, I'd say he was godawful in an absolute sense, second only to Obama and maybe FDR.

  • John||

    You forgot LBJ. LBJ was an order of magnitude worse. He gave us Vietnam and the Great Society.

    And never forget just how bad Carter was. He let Iran fall into the hands of the Mullahs, told the world it was okay to kidnap and terrorize American diplomats, and told the country it was its own fault the economy sucked and they were just going to have to get used to being poor. Carter was in many ways a prototype Obama. He just wasn't the sociopath Obama is and the Democratic Party had not yet gone fully insane and thus were able to limit the damage he did.

  • Irish||

    There's also Carter's mild mistakes in handling Zimbabwe.

    Messrs. Carter and Young would only countenance a settlement in which Mr. Mugabe, a Marxist who had repeatedly made clear his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state, played a leading role. Mr. Young, displaying the willful naiveté that came to characterize Mr. Carter's mindset, told the London Times that Mr. Mugabe was a "very gentle man" whom he "can't imagine … ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone."

  • ||

    Can't we just list Wilson a second time?

    Nah, Lincoln too.

  • John||

    Because destroying the slave holding South is an international crime. And we all know that the federal government of 1866, was thanks to Lincoln, just like the giant one we have today.

    Seriously, I would give my first born to have a federal government today with the power and size of the one Lincoln left. I have never quite figured out how Lincoln is to blame for the Progressive movement.

  • R C Dean||

    Lincoln's fundamental offense was inverting the federal union from a voluntary association of sovereign states to a kind of roach motel.

    The knock-on effects of that lead pretty directly to the massively overweening Total State we have today.

    Against that huge debit on his ledger, you can put the emancipation of slaves. But lets not overlook Lincoln's massive abuse of power.

  • ||

    Lincoln's fundamental offense was inverting the federal union from a voluntary association of sovereign states to a kind of roach motel.

    Exactly.

  • sarcasmic||

    Before Lincoln the United States was plural. After the war it became singular.

  • John||

    Before the Antebellum South tried to leave the Union to ensure the continued enslavement of millions of American, the United States was plural. After the war it became singular.

    Fixed it for you.

  • Seamus||

    Before Lincoln the United States was plural. After the war it became singular.

    That must be why the 13th Amendment (ratified December 6, 1865) says that slavery may not exist "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well said.

  • John||

    That wasn't Lincoln's mistake. That was the South's mistake for abusing that right for the furtherence of slavery. If you like the idea of succession, you should hate the antebellum South for discrediting it with slavery not Lincoln.

    Nearly all of the evils of our present society can be traced back to slavery and responses to it. People just for whatever reason refuse to hold the South accountable so they project on Lincoln.

  • sarcasmic||

    *deep breath*

    Secession was over slavery.

    The war was to preserve the Union.

    It doesn't matter why the South left the Union because Lincoln would have gone to war anyway.

  • John||

    It doesn't matter why the South left the Union because Lincoln would have gone to war anyway.

    It sure as hell does matter. If the South had left for anything but the most vile reasons, succession would not be so discredited.

    To say that Lincoln was a bad President, you have to say that fighting to stop succession is worse than leaving the union to continue slavery. And that is just nuts. It doesn't matter what Lincoln though of succession. When the South left, he was left with the choice of endorsing succession and the continued enslavement of millions or rejecting succession. He may not have intended for it to be that way. But circumstances made it that way since had he done nothing, he would have been responsible for the perpetual enslavement of millions.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's secession, not succession. As far as your false dichotomy goes, there were other choices. But that's OK. I would expect nothing less than a false dichotomy so you can wage personal attacks against a straw man. I'll leave you to Tulpafy by yourself.

  • R C Dean||

    It doesn't matter why the South left the Union because Lincoln would have gone to war anyway.

    It sure as hell does matter. If the South had left for anything but the most vile reasons, succession would not be so discredited.

    I'm not seeing how the latter lines up with the former.

    Let's keep in mind that slavery, whatever its importance to certain elements on both sides, was far from the only reason for the war, and that I find it a little hard to swallow the idea that it was even the most important reason for the war when the North never got around to formally abolishing it until the war was almost over.

  • Chili Dogg||

    John, for the record, Lincoln told Horace Greeley that he would accept the continuing existence of slavery if that is what it took to keep the US together. He likely would have fought the South even if slavery were not an issue. BTW, in 1848, Lincoln made a speech in which he defended the right of the people in Mexico to secede from Mexico and join the US.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Look, whatever the reason, the Civil War had a very unfortunate result--it killed the political philosophy behind the Declaration. Without a federalist system, with states retaining the nuclear option of secession, the growth of central power was practically guaranteed. When you factor in the pause needed to recover from the war, which was devastating to the entire country, it was a very short time indeed before the federal government began to grow at a quick clip.

    Lincoln placed union above everything else. That's his big flaw from the libertarian perspective. Everyone is fine with using force to end the use of force inherent in slavery, I think, but in discarding our political system--which in many ways is what happened--Lincoln and his government started us on a path that's looking increasingly bleak.

    Secession is a fundamental, core principle to the American system. Without it, we've got no real counter to the federal government, other than a meager hope that things will change.

  • John||

    Lincoln placed union above everything else. That's his big flaw from the libertarian perspective. Everyone is fine with using force to end the use of force inherent in slavery, I think, but in discarding our political system--which in many ways is what happened--Lincoln and his government started us on a path that's looking increasingly bleak

    And Lincoln did that because circumstances required it. Had the South not used seccession for such a vile and divisive reason, some other states might have been able to leave later for better reasons. That is the South not Lincoln's fault.

    The real problem with Libertarians on this issue is that they seem to think Lincoln's sin of denying the right of secession is worse or more noteworthy than the South's sin of being a slave state. For every drop of ink spilt by Libertarians over the evils of institutional slavery, there is a thousand spilt whining over Lincoln and secession.

    It makes Libertarians look like the racist yahoos Progs accuse them of being. Every one of these arguments degenerates to the same point, "black people should have sucked it up and stayed enslaved for another generation so we wouldn't lose the right of secession". Sorry, but I don't see that as being a very convincing or winning argument with anyone outside doctrinaire Libertarians.

  • sarcasmic||

    The real problem with Libertarians on this issue is that they seem to think Lincoln's sin of denying the right of secession is worse or more noteworthy than the South's sin of being a slave state.

    Straw man! False dichotomy! Go Tulpa!

  • John||

    If you don't think that is true, then explain why sarcasmic. Otherwise shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. We know your move and can just assume you will yell strawman or Tulpa. You don't need to waste the time to actually post it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Slavery died throughout the rest of the civilized world without war.

    Otherwise shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.

    You are a contemptuous piece of shit, John. And you wonder why nobody likes you.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's the thing about rights (including the right to secede):

    It doesn't matter why you exercise them.

    You have the same 1A right to publish pornography as you do to comment on the Federalist Papers.

    Was the South wrong to secede because of slavery? You bet. Did they have the right to secede for any reason? Yes, they did.

    Was it worth the de facto conversion of the US from a union of sovereign states to an all-powerful central government ruling over provinces, in order to eliminate slavery? Honestly, I think that's debatable. Mostly because I don't slavery would have lasted much more than another generation in any event, secession or no. But, that's a counterfactual, so there's no way to know.

  • sarcasmic||

    Mostly because I don't slavery would have lasted much more than another generation in any event, secession or no.

    It's bad economics. A paid worker who can increase their standard of living has much more incentive to be productive than a slave. Well, unless they're in a union that is. So a plantation with paid workers, all else equal, would be more productive at a lower cost than a slave plantation. Slavery would have died out for the same reason it died in the rest of the world. It can't compete with willing workers in an industrial age.

  • R C Dean||

    One of my favorite Flashman moments is when he points out that the British Empire managed to abolish slavery earlier and much more easily than the breakaway American colonies, arguing that we would have been better off to have just stayed a colony, all things considered.

  • ||

    I'm not blaming him for the Progressive movement, but you may be hard-pressed to find an anarchist who thinks the guy who went to war to "save the Union" was on the right track.

  • John||

    I would think that I would be hard pressed to find an anarchist who thinks state supported slavery is not the worst thing a state can do. But that is just me.

    What you are telling me is that in a world where the South created a nation based on the enslavement of millions of people, the real guy to be angry about is the president who acted to stop them.

    Really?

  • ||

    State-supported slavery is most likely the worst thing a state can do. How many people did Lincoln enslave to keep his precious Union together?

    I have no love for the CSA and little interest in Civil War arguments, but Lincoln is the guy who said you can't leave. Before him, people thought you could, and now it's literally unthinkable for most US residents. And that's a huge shame and gets him on the list for me.

  • John||

    How many people did Lincoln enslave to keep his precious Union together?

    None to the degree that people in the south were enslaved. You got out of the army and your kids were not bound to slavery. The draft is slavery but not the same kind or nearly as bad as generational slavery like that practiced in the South.

    I have no love for the CSA and little interest in Civil War arguments,

    Yes you do. You have at least enough love for the South and by extension slavery to think that Lincoln is worse. The villains were the South. They left and they started the war. They were the ones who demanded to keep all of the federal property on their land and kept millions of people in perpetual bondage when they did so.

    They are also the ones who were waging a terrorist war against Kansas to ensure it was free and were conducting raids into free black communities in the North to kidnap black people into slavery. That in and of itself was an act of war and gave Lincoln every right to go to war.

    Whatever Lincoln's sins, the Souths were a thousand fold worse. So much worse that even mentioning Lincoln's sins is effectively denying the enormity of the South's sins.

  • ||

    That in and of itself was an act of war and gave Lincoln every right to go to war.

    So go to war and then go home.

    And the draft may not be generational slavery, but the fucking Union itself is.

  • John||

    And the draft may not be generational slavery, but the fucking Union itself is.

    I like you Nikki, but that is profoundly stupid and insulting. If you think you or I are in any way "enslaved" the same way blacks in the South were enslaved, you are no offense a fucking moron with no sense of morality or common sense.

    The union may be metaphoric slavery in whatever sense you see that. But it is not slavery in any sense of the word as it is used in this context.

  • R C Dean||

    That in and of itself was an act of war and gave Lincoln every right to go to war.

    War to stop the raids, or war to conquer and annex a sovereign nation?

    So much worse that even mentioning Lincoln's sins is effectively denying the enormity of the South's sins.

    Oh, bullshit. This argument means that no criticism of Lincoln can be made, ever, by anyone.

  • BigT||

    I can recall being subject to potential slavery myself - the draft. It might not have been as brutal as the slavery of the South, but a helluva lot of people got killed.

    I am not sure slavery is the worst thing a govt can do - Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler all did much worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    If Lincoln originally went to war for the purpose of destroying slavery, then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

  • John||

    Since when do intentions not results matter? Who cares why he went to war. He went to war against the most vile group of people in American history and the result of that war was the freeing of millions of people

    Sorry but "but Lincoln didn't mean well" really doesn't make a very convincing argument unless you are a Prog and think intentions rather than results are what is important.

  • sarcasmic||

    When it comes to killing hundreds of thousands of people, yeah I think intentions do matter a bit.

  • John||

    When it comes to killing hundreds of thousands of people, yeah I think intentions do matter a bit.

    Why isn't the South equally responsible for those deaths? No one made them leave the union. And worse, they left for the worst reason imaginable. They started a war that killed hundreds of thousands for the purpose of continueing slavery.

    I will never understand how you people can have anything but contempt for them. The constant excuse making and the "but Lincoln wasn't a nice guy" to change the subject from the sins of the South is just bizarre.

    Get over it, The South discredited succession. You should hate them not Lincoln.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, that's a little much. It's like saying the Germans discredited interstate highways because the Nazis built the autobahns. Secession is a core principle of federalism--without it, any federalist elements are at the whim of the central government. Haven't we seen that in practice in the succeeding century and a half?

    Even if the South practiced genocide against blacks and ate their children, that wouldn't have discredited secession. It would just discredit the South at the time, as slavery does (and, of course, slavery wasn't just a southern sin, since it was practiced throughout the country/colonies earlier on). Not to mention the fact that there were plenty of antislavery southerners and only a small number owned slaves in the first place.

  • John||

    It's like saying the Germans discredited interstate highways because the Nazis built the autobahns.

    No. Building the interstate highways is not why the Germans went to war or what made them evil. Slavery was not just some incidental part of the south. Slavery was the justification for secession and the reason for the war.

    The better analogy is that it is like saying "the Germans discredited national socialism". Yes, they did. Is it possible to have national socialism and not stick people in ovens and try to take over the world? Sure. But the Germans by doing what they did generally made trying look a bit bad.

    It is the same thing here. Sure leaving the union is fine. But when you try to leave the union to keep your slave state, it puts the people on the other side in a bit of a dilemma, let you leave and ensure slaves remain slaves or stop you and deny the right of secession.

    Abusing the right to do evil things, discredits the right and anyone who supports that right should be angry at the South for discrediting it.

  • Virginian||

    Abusing the right to do evil things, discredits the right and anyone who supports that right should be angry at the South for discrediting it.

    Nazis in Skoie discredit the 1st Amendment

    People using guns to murder discredits the 2nd.

    Some thug telling the cops to get a warrant discredits the 4th.

    A mafioso grinning in an interrogation room without saying a word discredits the 5th.

    I could go on and on. But I always thought that bit from A Man For All Seasons applied here. Lincoln cut down the forest to get at the Devil, and now we must all stand as best we can in a naked wasteland.

  • John||

    Lincoln cut down the forest to get at the Devil, and now we must all stand as best we can in a naked wasteland.

    Which is of course completely stupid and ignores what happened afterwards. Lincoln did not create our federal state, the Progs did. Why Libertarians can't get that and insist on blaming Lincoln is beyond me.

    And moreover, if the Devil hadn't been there, there would have been no reason to cut the forest. So again, the South bears the responsibility here.

  • Virginian||

    And moreover, if the Devil hadn't been there, there would have been no reason to cut the forest. So again, the South bears the responsibility here.

    That woosh was the point flying over your head.

  • John||

    That woosh was the point flying over your head.

    I don't mind it when someone doesn't get an argument. But do me a favor and stop projecting.

    I fully understand the old Moore Cliche. But Moore wasn't arguing that the guy who cuts down the forest was worse than the devil. Moreover, Moore's point completely ignores and trivializes the moral dilemma evil actors put good people in by forcing them to choose between allowing evil or living by their principles. That was my point that you completely missed and missed so badly it didn't stop you from being a smug jackass about it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Slavery was legal in the U.S. Both before and after secession. Secession happened because the South wanted to maintain a slave economy, but secession wasn't the problem. Slavery was.

    And there was nothing to stop Lincoln from invading the South, liberating the slaves, then bidding the southern states a fond adieu, after pillaging them to pay for the war. That would've been better than saying states can't leave.

    We need secession badly and would not be as far along on the path to Leviathan if we still had it. Frankly, I see it as a natural right and not something that the government can take away, no matter how many times it succeeds in stamping it down.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why isn't the South equally responsible for those deaths? No one made them leave the union. And worse, they left for the worst reason imaginable. They started a war that killed hundreds of thousands for the purpose of continueing slavery.

    So you would have supported war to preserve the Union regardless of why the South seceded, because secession is justification for waging war. Got it.

  • R C Dean||

    Why isn't the South equally responsible for those deaths?

    You might as well say that the Allies are equally responsible for the millions killed in WWII.

    I will never understand how you people can have anything but contempt for them.

    Its perfectly possible to believe that the South was contemptible, and Lincoln's response was, shall we say, suboptimal.

  • sasob||

    So why is it that the intentions of Lincoln don't matter and yet the intentions of the "evil south" do?

  • BSubversive.com||

    Especially so if the resulting end of slavery could have come about peacefully...

    In an alternate universe where McClellan won the 1864 election and ended the war, how long did the vile institution of slavery last?

    What if the the north just let the south go and then simply offered sanctuary to any escaped slaves while also refusing to trade with the south?

    The question isn't about whether slavery needed to be ended, the question is did over a half million Americans need to die to end it.

    Would blacks have been treated better following a peaceful end of the institution than they were following the civil war and the resulting resentment felt by the residents of the conquered south?

  • John||

    What if the the north just let the south go and then simply offered sanctuary to any escaped slaves while also refusing to trade with the south?

    There would have been a war. The South had already launched kidnapping raids into the north in the 1850s. They would have continued to do so and a war would have happened. They also would have ended up at war as the South moved west and tried to make the west slave. That just would have delayed the war and left people in slavery longer.

    The question isn't about whether slavery needed to be ended, the question is did over a half million Americans need to die to end it.

    And when you look at how militant the South was an how little interest they had in ending slavery and their desire to advance it, there was no way it would have ended without a war.

    The South would have ended as a police state living in terror of slave revolts and an international piriah as slavery became more and more unacceptable in the 20th century. We would have ended up with South Africa south of the mason dixon line.

    Then when slavery did end, we would have had at least one more generation of the ill effects of slavery on the blacks who were victims of it. And as an added bonus a ton more racial animosity as blacks rightfully hated white people for doing nothing about their enslavement.

  • BSubversive.com||

    Slavery was ended peacefully in lots of places but perhaps we needed to have a war to end it here, however, doing so had very real, very painful and very dead consequences.

    Regardless of the war slavery would have ended eventually, the only question is how many more years of bondage those millions of enslaved Americans would have needed to endure.

  • John||

    Slavery was ended peacefully in lots of places but perhaps we needed to have a war to end it here, however, doing so had very real, very painful and very dead consequences.

    Some places it ended even worse, like Haiti. And the slave holders of places like Brazil were nothing like the ones in the American South. Our slave holders viewed slavery as a way of life and holding and expanding slavery as a moral duty. It was a particularly fucked up and horrible form of slavery that was unlikely to ever have ended well.

  • John||

    It would have been a giant mess and the country would be infinitely worse today because of it. But hey, we would have that right of succession.

    And nothing makes Libertarians popular like telling the world, "hey the best thing would have been for black people to stay in bondage a few more decades".

  • sarcasmic||

    And nothing makes Libertarians popular like telling the world, "hey the best thing would have been for black people to stay in bondage a few more decades".

    False dichotomy! Straw man! Go! Tulpa go!

  • John||

    False dichotomy! Straw man! Go! Tulpa go!

  • wareagle||

    the "most vile group of people in American history" included a few signatories to some of our founding documents since, back then, slavery was legal. As it was, some of those Founders new it was unsustainable. Importation was outlawed in the early 1800s.

    Since we're judging the past by today's standards, the conduct of some in the Union army would be considered a war crime. Unless you consider the ritual razing of towns, farms, food stores, etc to be a good thing, along with the slaughter of folks who had the audacity to live on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon.

  • John||

    None of the signatories of the Declaration went crazy and tried to leave the Union and start a war over the possibility slavery might not extend to the territories. Jefferson and Washington both bear the sin of owning slaves. But neither of them would have supported slavery expanding to the North or to the West. And that makes them much less morally culpable than the South of the 1950s.

  • wareagle||

    the expansion of slavery north or west was to be left to new states to decide. As it was, Lincoln's predecessor was pro-slavery and he was a New Englander.

    At some point, conflict was likely inevitable but the vast majority of Southerners at the time were poor dirt farmers, not wealthy plantation owners. And yes, there are worse things govt can do to its people. History offers quite a few examples.

  • John||

    the expansion of slavery north or west was to be left to new states to decide. As it was, Lincoln's predecessor was pro-slavery and he was a New Englander.

    And the south's response to that was to launch a terror campaign in Kansas. Morevoer, that was a total sell out of the original compromise of that said no slavery in the west.

    Why the hell should slavery be up to a vote? It is one thing to say "let the south do what it does". But it is quite another to say "well it is okay if we let slavery go ahead and expand". The former is a concession to reality. The latter is an endorsement of slavery.

    Has this argument really degenerated to the point that the South lovers are now claiming that it is totally legitimate for states to vote to enslave another race?

  • R C Dean||

    None of the signatories of the Declaration went crazy and tried to leave the Union and start a war over the possibility slavery might not extend to the territories.

    Actually, none of the signatories signed onto a system of an all-powerful federal government ruling over provinces, either, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

  • Feanor78||

    Quoting you:
    "It doesn't matter why the South left the Union because Lincoln would have gone to war anyway.

    It sure as hell does matter. If the South had left for anything but the most vile reasons, succession would not be so discredited."

    How does that square with what you just wrote?

  • John||

    Because the first question is talking about the results of their action and the second quote is talking about the long term effect of the action on the legitimacy of secession. When talking about responsibility for the consequences of your actions, your intentions really don't matter. When talking about the effect on the moral legitimacy of your actions, your intentions are really all that matter.

    The points relate to two entirely different arguments.

  • R C Dean||

    the second quote is talking about the long term effect of the action on the legitimacy of secession.

    The legitimacy of secession was comprehensivel refuted, not by the South's reasons for seceding, but by the fact they lost the war. Lincoln won the argument over the legitimacy of secession by effectively employing "the last argument of kings."

  • Drake||

    While both had massive flaws, Nixon and TR don't belong on the list. Nixon was a mixed bag, but had the dignity to resign and skip town when a scandal got out of control. Try to imagine Clinton or Obama voluntarily leaving for the good of the country or even their party.

    LBJ and Buchanan definitely sucked. Truman really sucked too and came within a hair of losing a major war in Korea.

  • R C Dean||

    I had Nixon on the list because he is the one who signed his half of TEAM BE RULED onto the Total Regulatory State and killed the Goldwater wing of the party, clearing the political field of de facto libertarians for the generation that saw the Total State completely slip its leash.

  • Jordan||

    Nixon closed the gold window and implemented price controls. He belongs on the list.

  • Bam!||

    EPA.

  • Drake||

    Okay, we just need a bigger list.

  • Killaz||

    You forgot LBJ, or whom Lucifer likes to call My Little Pony.

    Obama is certainly the most incompetent man to ever hold the office though. no executive skills whatsoever.

  • Drake||

    Buchanan was at least as inept and was elected during a terrible crisis, not just a recession to make worse.

  • Killaz||

    Nope. Obama's mess is going to be far and away more difficult to untangle than any legacy for which Buchanan left us.

  • BakedPenguin||

    TR?

    At least Teddy's pointless wars were winnable.

  • Drake||

    7 of the top 10 men were politicians. Two of the top women were fucking royals.

    All this poll proves is that retards answer the phone when pollsters call.

  • Killaz||

    I hope you are right about that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Kill me now.

  • ||

    I am confident that I could concoct a poll showing Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson as the two most admired figures of the 20th century.

  • nailzer||

    Obama admired as opposed to what?

  • Rich||

    "Would you say you more *admire*, or *disdain*, President Obama?"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think LBJ needs a spot on your list, R C. I don't know which of those other criminals I'd pardon, though.

    Maybe we just need a bigger boat gallows.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Admired for what? Seriously, what does that fucking mean if you can come up with Clinton, Obama, and G.W. Bush?

  • BigT||

    Admired for winning really big popularity contests. Duh!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Americans at one time reserve their admiration for people who actually created and accomplished things?

  • John||

    Not really. People like Ford and Rockefeller were never particularly admired at the time. There have been a few, Jonas Salk, Einstein. But mostly people who create things get very rich and the rich, while tolerated, are generally envied and not admired.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know about that. Back then Americans weren't as poisoned by envy as they are today. Many recognized that in markets people become rich by improving the lives of others. That view is all but lost today.

  • John||

    Yes they were. People hated the industrial titans of the 19th century. And the Puritan ethic that frowned upon conspicuous consumption and accumulation of worldly wealth was alive and well.

  • sarcasmic||

    You missed my point completely.

  • John||

    No I didn't. Americans were every bit as poisoned with envy then as they are today. In fact they were probably more so. They just didn't quite have the federal government to hand out goodies like they do now. Why do you think the Progressive movement was so successful in the late 19th Century if not for envy?

    Rockefeller and company were truly hated. Today in contrast people like Bill Gates are admired.

    I understand your point. It is just wrong and counter to the actual history.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bill Gates is only admired because he has the "correct" politics. If his politics were different he'd be vilified like the Koch brothers.

  • Chili Dogg||

    So all the millions of people who bought Ford's cars secretly hated him? I would add Andrew Carnegie to the list (unless millions secretly hated him, too).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mr. Mugabe was a "very gentle man" whom he "can't imagine … ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone."

    Not personally, anyway.

  • RightNut||

    1. Obama
    2. Clinton
    3. Bush

    I just vomited a little.

    4. Oprah Winfrey

    Seppuku

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Nixon: wage and price controls, destruction of the dollar.

    That's enough to get him on my list.

  • Rich||

    I know people who "admire" Obama for his apparent ability to get what he wants (elected and Obamacare).

  • ||

    How fucked up do you have to be to "admire" politicians?

  • From the Tundra||

    I admire your mayor. Then again, I am pretty fucked up...

  • Winston||

    Rufus isn't from Toronto...

  • JWW||

    Admire.

    You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

  • PRX||

    who are the most despised people of 2013? the same ones?

  • Dave Krueger||

    Poll: Obama, Hillary Clinton the Most Admired People in 2013

    Is this surprising? Not when you consider this:

    The second most admired man was George W. Bush and the second most admired woman was Oprah Winfrey.

    This is why we will ultimately get exactly what we deserve.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Andrew Jackson should be on somebodies list for worst of the worst. The Trail of Tears out ways anything good this guy did.

  • dave3200||

    Proof that 15% or 16% of those polled have no clue as to who they're voting for.

  • BambiB||

    Americans are like domestic turkeys - so stupid that, if they fall down in a puddle, they drown. The turkeys have an excuse. They've been raised to be so breast-heavy that they physically can't get up.

    Americans, on the other hand, have only stupidity to blame.

    Of course, welfare has resulted in mass-production of the stupid class - so we really shouldn't be surprised.

  • altonlee||

    Sad to prove how good the dumbing down of America is working.
    I admire the local garbage collector much more than these two. Both of them need to be hung from a tall tree with a short rope.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement