-
Mitt Romney's Chance for Glory
January 20, 2012 | 50 comments
-
Road Runners
January 9, 2012 | 24 comments
-
FDR's Class Warfare: A Tutorial For Obama
December 8, 2011 | 138 comments
-
Obama's Vision Through History
November 30, 2009 | 101 comments
-
FDR and Obama: Their First Hundred Days
April 29, 2009 | 12 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama Against Any President
What really makes a president great?
According to President Obama, those presidents who grow government the most are candidates for being the greatest presidents. Big glitzy programs count for a lot. In an interview with Steve Kroft of CBS on 60 Minutes Overtime, President Obama spoke glowingly of his contributions: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history."
A key problem, of course, is that the president's two largest programs, his stimulus package and Obamacare, are both under an avalanche of criticism. The stimulus package led to a rise, not a fall in unemployment, and its pork-barrel provisions are exposed almost daily. Obamacare scores low in the polls; it is heavily challenged in the courts; and all Republicans voted against it and most ran elections against it very successfully in 2010.
Presidents Johnson and FDR have similar baggage. In Johnson's first two years, Vietnam became intractable; and increasing the payments in Aid to Families with Dependent Children gave single mothers incentives to take the cash from the government and not get married. FDR's major programs of his first two years, the AAA and the NRA, were both struck down by the Supreme Court. And FDR ended up with more than 19% unemployment in 1938 when the countries of Europe, according to a League of Nations survey, had only 11%. Is that the kind of success a president should emulate?
If we look at the opinions of historians, however, President Obama may be on the right track. They tend to give high ratings to presidents who announce big programs and increase the national debt sharply. Johnson does well, and FDR does even better -- ranking among the top three presidents in most polls. The Arthur Schlesinger Presidential Polls, for example, conducted in 1948, 1962, and 1996, consistently exalted FDR at the top, or near the top.
How do historians rank presidents who achieve prosperity and security for Americans? Let's pose the question this way: What if we had a president who, in his first two years as president, cut federal spending in half; produced budget surpluses in both years; cut tax rates, and slashed unemployment from 12 to 2%? Where should historians rank such a man?
The answer is "in last place -- the worst president in U.S. history." That has been the fate of Warren G. Harding, who was president from 1921 to 1923. He accomplished all of the above -- the federal budget plummeted from $6.4 billion in 1920 to $3.1 billion in 1923; tax rates on the rich fell from 73 to 56%; and the U.S. slashed the national debt and unemployment during Harding's two years as president -- before his untimely death in office.
True, some historians point out, Harding had two major scandals with the Veterans' Administration and with oil leases at Teapot Dome. His appointees extorted or stole public money, but Harding seems to have known nothing about it. Along these lines, Solyndra and Fast and Furious, two recent Obama scandals, may prove to be as damaging to him as Teapot Dome was to Harding.
But Harding's record at improving prosperity for Americans was strong. And shouldn't that be a major point in evaluating his presidency? Harding's humdrum cuts in tax rates and federal spending may lack drama, but they gave Americans jobs.
Under President Obama, by contrast, millions of jobs have disappeared, home values are way down, and standards of living have declined. Yet President Obama tells us he likes "what we've gotten done" with Obamacare and stimulus spending. So do most historians. But historians are safe with tenured jobs; other Americans get laid off when taxes rise, regulations increase, and debt skyrockets to pay for Obama's hope and change. And they, more than the historians, will elect the next president in 2012.
About the Author
Burton Folsom, Jr. is professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal? (Simon & Schuster, 2008). His new book, co-authored with Anita Folsom, is FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).
About the Author
Anita Folsom works at Hillsdale College and is co-author of FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (71) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Burton Folsom, Jr.
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/25/obama-against-any-president
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
ADVERTISEMENT
Brother John| 1.25.12 @ 6:28AM
Harding's chief fault was his misplaced trust in his friends. He was not personally crooked and gets a bad rap as such. In addition to the above stated, these policies created an unemployment rate of about 1.6% in 1926. Do you remember seeing anything like that recently? I certainly don't.
I'd take nearly any predecessor (barring the likes of LBJ, a Roosevelt, etc) over what we are saddled with at present.
Though, to be fair, on 9/11/01 I'd have liked to have seen someone like a James Polk in the White House. There wouldn't have been a single living thing anywhere in Afghanistan by lunchtime on the 13th.
Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 5:20PM
Yes, I don't see why historians dislike Harding so much. I suppose it's because most historians are FDR apologists and thus have to trash all the Republican presidents who came before FDR. Even Grant is nowadays ridiculed by our liberal historians. Sheesh!
aware| 1.25.12 @ 6:31AM
Harding was the 2nd best president of the 20th century after Coolidge. Every single other president added to the odious and heavy hand of the criminal elite we call "government".
cuban pete| 1.25.12 @ 9:06AM
Cool Cal was a great man.
His speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, 7/5/26, is a classic.
"There is a finality that is exceedingly restful...
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:05PM
I agree. The Coolidge speech of 1926 on the Declaration is so beautiful that I read it to my students at Hillsdale College. Thanks. Burt
Purp| 1.25.12 @ 10:41AM
Hahahaha ... leading the Great Depression, just like BushBaby .. hahahaha.... Grrreeeeaaattt ya, go with that.
Ted| 1.25.12 @ 11:23AM
You are mistaken. Herbert Hoover was the President at the time of the 1929 stock market crash, which most people recognize as the start of the Great Depression. Additionally, many of Hoover's policies exacerbated the problems. FDR's policies took that to a whole new level.
Boar Hunter| 1.25.12 @ 1:24PM
Purp is not "mistaken" he is willfully ignorant. If you respond to him you will only encourage his pitiable rants. Facts and logic are simply irrelevant to him.
Mike Hawk| 1.25.12 @ 2:24PM
He's still a kid. Maybe he might learn something someday. Then again he's a LIb and my be terminally dumb.
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:07PM
Ted -- Bingo. You are right. Hoover was no Coolidge or Harding. I discovered that in writing NEW DEAL OR RAW DEAL? Thanks for your comment. Burt
Henry Calvin| 1.25.12 @ 11:05AM
Both sets of my grandparents came from Switzerland in the 20's with $100.00 each and a dream. Today, they have offspring all across the fruited plane, thanks to the start they got from Harding's policies. I am proud to be named after my father, who was named for Henry Ford and Calvin Coolidge. We need to go back to the unassuming leadership of men like Coolidge, Harding, and my grandfathers. Men who did what was best for the country and their families.
Henry Calvin| 1.25.12 @ 11:06AM
plain not plane!!LOL!
Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 11:42AM
A point to consider: who was the greatest Roman Emperor? Answer: Antoninius Pius---Rome was at relative peace, the borders were maintained,only 4 men were put to death for treason in his 21 years on the throne, he lived non-ostentatiously, and he picked Marcus Aurelius to succeed him.
Aware: c'mon. Where do you put RWR?
Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 5:23PM
Washington first, Lincoln second, Reagan third, then Coolidge, McKinley and Harding coming in a bit after.
Conserdude| 1.25.12 @ 6:41AM
Excellent! Historians are a bunch of liberals
c.j. acworth| 1.25.12 @ 7:22AM
Solyndra and Fast & Furious will only damage Obama and the Dems to the extent that the voting public is aware of and outraged over them. Are you listening Bohner/McConell/Romney/et. al.?
Michael Tomlinson| 1.25.12 @ 7:24AM
The five worst Presidents in modern US history -- FDR, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Barack Hussein Obama.
RJ| 1.25.12 @ 8:50AM
Woodrow Wilson needs to be added to the list. He was the first President to openly reject the Constitution and set the precedent for much of FDR's New Deal.
KennesawJack| 1.25.12 @ 9:29AM
Pennsylvanians are grateful to Obamarx and Carter. Until those two came along, the only President from the Keystone State, James Buchanan was almost universally regarded as the worst President in our history. Mr. Buchanan is slowly moving up the ladder and eventually should find the likes of FDR, Wilson, and LBJ beneath him in the rankings.
Purp| 1.25.12 @ 11:03AM
That's hilarious...
RJ| 1.25.12 @ 2:50PM
We have paid a big price in suffering through Obama and Carter to elevate Buchanan. However, President Buchanan had an excellent resume, and while he did nothing while several states left the Union, he stands as a great statesman compared to the president we have today.
L. Ross| 1.25.12 @ 7:32AM
Honestly, how could anyone rank lower the Obama or Carter? Just asking.
RJ| 1.25.12 @ 8:48AM
Carter was clearly in over his head, but Mr. Obama should be the undisputed winner of worst president of all time. Not only did he come to the office with no executive experience nor record of accomplishment in government, he has distain for traditional American culture (bitter clingers to guns and God). Now we know exactly what his call to "hope and change" meant.
Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 11:44AM
Mr. Ross: Buchanan played with himself while the Civil War began. 600,000 Americans died due to his dithering. Yup, he's worse than Carter.
Hal G. P. Colebatch| 1.25.12 @ 7:50AM
As I wrote here on April 16, 2008, Australia in 1938 had an unemployment rate of only 8.9% despite disadvantages including an economy a small fraction the size of the US, great distance to markets and a relatively undiversified range of products - no great testimony to FDR's economics.
Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 11:02AM
While there is no longer any doubt that FDR's New Deal failed in its objective of ending the depression (when Larry Summers says it, the debate is over), and while Neville Chamberlain's austerity policy as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain served to restore a modicum of prosperity much more quickly than FDR's "pump priming", I have to ask to what extent Australia was insulated from the worst effects of the Great Depression by its membership in the Commonwealth and its position as a net exporter of agricultural products to Commonwealth markets, including the UK and India?
RJ| 1.25.12 @ 8:40AM
In addition to the liberal bias of the participants in the Schlesinger Presidential Polls, its rankings reminds me of Frederic Bastiat's outstanding book on economics, "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen." If politicians are seen as doing something to address a problem, even if it creates another problem, they are rewarded for taking action. Many people accept the proclaimed benefits of the government program without factoring in what the taxpayers' resources could have achieved if left in the hands of the taxpayers.
Thomas Wilbur| 1.25.12 @ 9:44AM
Harding also approved the program that saved the most lives in history - Hoover's famine relief for the USSR (but opposed recognition of its regime). While cutting the military from wartime levels, he had the foresight to encourage naval aviation and develop Pearl Harbor. Not bad for 'the worst'.
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:14PM
Thomas, You are knowledgeable indeed on Harding. My historian friend Ronald Radosh will soon be publishing a book on Harding, and I hope it clears away the confusion. Burt
1ConservativeUSA| 1.25.12 @ 10:02AM
Well done.
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:15PM
Thanks for being in the audience. I wish our crowd were larger. Burt
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:15PM
Thanks for being in the audience. I wish our crowd were larger. Burt
Al Adab| 1.25.12 @ 10:06AM
As always the debate is between those who want an activist government, one which manages, control, plans and regulates ever more activity and those who expect government to protect rights, defend freedom, allow opportunity and enforce the law. The constant cry to "do something" or "solve prblems" is a chimera to force expansion and centralization on the society. Whether or not the preservation of Liberty is a priority has become the central debate in our nation.
Paul Windels| 1.25.12 @ 10:15AM
Also too little known is that Harding gave a pro-Civil Rights speech in Birmingham, Alabama, before a crowd segregated by barricade. He was cheered by the blacks and bood by the whites. An interesting contrast to his predecessor, whose racial attitudes have been conveniently overlooked by most professional historians.
My personal "worst" president is Pierce. He allowed the situation in Kansas to become violent in 1856. Had he maintained order, the possibility of a peaceful but permanent resolution -- such as a buy-out abolition -- might have remained feasible.
Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 11:49AM
Well, Harding was a Republican, not a virulent racist DEMOCRAT like Wilson.
Dai Alanye| 1.25.12 @ 2:04PM
It's worth mentioning that Harding was widely believed to be part black, and admitted to at least the possibility in private conversation.
It pleases me to think an Ohioan beat Clinton to that claim by three-quarters of a century.
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:18PM
You are right on Harding. Pierce did well on budget issues--the national debt sharply declined in his presidency, in part because he vetoed subsidies to the Collins Steamship Company (which I discuss in MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS). But yeah, on slavery Pierce was weak. Burt
Derek Leaberry| 1.25.12 @ 11:26AM
Warren Harding was one of the greatest presidents in American history as the Folsom's explain. On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was responsible for 600,000 deaths and an explosion in federal powers. He was a terrible president, the sort only a leftist would love.
Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 5:28PM
Lincoln was responsible? How about the Confederacy? Any blame there?
JimP| 1.25.12 @ 11:37AM
ObamaCare is also adding to the bad economy as businesses don't expand or hire or make other decisions that would positively influence the economy because the businesses are waiting out the full implementation/repeal of ObamaCare.
J.C.Eaton| 1.25.12 @ 11:41AM
Articles by Hillsdale folk are invariably insightful. This was a prime example. Noting that presidential ratings are primarly written by liberal historians is good evidence of that. Harding may not have been polished or glib[as our incumbent worthy is]but he wasn't an evil-hearted man and his most notorious lapse[Nan Britton] was something modern liberals would certainly excuse if not applaud. Actually, the American Presidency, and those men who held the office suffers from a sort of reverse Darwinism. I like to hand out dollar coins to people and tell them[you can do that when YOU'RE handing out the dollars,a fact not lost on brother Obama] that they hold the visage of our last truly great president : George Washington. Though Mr. Polk was indeed a no-nonsense guy.
Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 11:50AM
Teddy Roosevelt wasn't great?
Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 5:29PM
No, he was Father Progressive....
Burton Folsom| 1.25.12 @ 3:22PM
Thanks for the good words on Hillsdale College--where we require a course on the Constitution. Nan Britton, by the way, probably made up her book and alleged affair with Harding. But I agree with you on George Washington. Burt
Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:42AM
The freedoms have disappeared. That is what concerns me. I can't even imagine starting a business today. That one thing set the US apart. Power was in the hands of the individual. With Obama the individual is not relevant.
Louis Jenkins| 1.25.12 @ 12:04PM
"If we look at the opinions of historians, however, President Obama may be on the right track. They tend to give high ratings to presidents who announce big programs and increase the national debt sharply."
That's if, in the future, we have a nation.
Imissbuckley| 1.25.12 @ 12:07PM
Best Presidents
1. Lincoln
2. Reagan
3. Coolidge
4. Harding
5. Eisenhower
Presidents that I like for their personality or style but dislike many of their policies.
1. TR
2. JFK (Obvious exceptions tax cuts, eventual civil rights bill)
Dai Alanye| 1.25.12 @ 2:07PM
Your list only goes back to 1860?
Dick Nome| 1.25.12 @ 2:21PM
JFK?? Harding?? Neither did much except die in their 1st term.. WHat makes either on great??
Al Adab| 1.25.12 @ 3:01PM
Kennedy pushed through his tax cuts on the premise, "A rising tide lifts all ships". Now they call it "trickle down" but they refuse to admit it was their idea and it worked.
Fred Farkel| 1.25.12 @ 7:00PM
For that he's great?? I don't think so. He's in a limbo status as he never had time to show greatness, mediocrity or failure. JFK's successor was a failure. Harding's was near great but history will be the judge.
RJ| 1.25.12 @ 2:53PM
A good group of Presidents, but please add George Washington to the top of the list.
Nick| 1.26.12 @ 12:58AM
Any list that doesn't list George Washington first, is really not a serious list.
JamesPhiladelphia| 1.25.12 @ 1:58PM
That is the reason that we should call Obama the Jobless President.
Timely Renewed| 1.25.12 @ 3:19PM
The problem began long before this President and the solution must go deeper than simply replacing this incompetent ideologue. Mr. Obama’s government-heavy programs are only one manifestation of a national government which has expanded far beyond its original constitutional bounds. We can only hope to be free of this or future administrations of its ilk when we restore the original limits on the national government which have been stripped away by Supreme Court decisions since 1937. Given how entrenched that Supreme Court jurisprudence is, our only sure method of accomplishing such a restoration will be constitutional amendments restating and reinforcing those original constitutional limits. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
Tim the Enchanter| 1.27.12 @ 4:03PM
The Constitution, like any document, is only as good as the will to enforce it and abide by it. If those in power have not the will to abide by the Constitution, what makes you think that they will abide by any amendments to the same?
Sugartown Super| 1.25.12 @ 5:41PM
When persons described as "historians" opine about current events, they do not speak as historians as the matters of which they speak are not "history". I would submit that no "historian" can provide an historical perspective on any matter where all of the participants are still alive and well. We can talk about Lincoln, Harding, Pierce, et al. as all the players are long dead, all of their significant writings are available for publication and analysis, and the effects of their acts have had ample time to be felt. We are too close to 99.99 pct of the acts that we talk about here to give anything like "historical" opinions. So what we are talking about here today are the political opinions of left-liberal college professors.
Bob K.| 1.25.12 @ 7:55PM
Ever notice that the suffix "the Great" has not been used to describe anybody since Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great and Peter the Great and they were from the 18th Century?
Since we have moved into an age of run by the movements of nationalism, populism and democracy, where the people choose their leaders, this appellation "great" is now ignored.
And now the internet, that great leveler, with it's enormous accumulation of opinions on any issue has made it even more difficult to decide who was great.
Jeff Perren| 1.25.12 @ 9:06PM
Always a delight to read something, anything, by Prof. Folsom and this one is no exception.
Apart from his clear-headed, concise writing, it's a joy to read someone who actually has put in the hard labor to study his subject and truly knows the facts.
Thank you, Dr. Folsom for another fine essay.
Jeff Perren| 1.25.12 @ 9:52PM
Apologies for failing to notice that Mrs. Folsom was co-author of the article. Equal kudos to her!
Burton Folsom| 1.26.12 @ 5:02PM
Thanks, Jeff, for your kind words. Anita is a big part of the team. She wrote one-half of FDR GOES TO WAR--and she helped edit my work. Burt
Dipesto| 1.25.12 @ 9:57PM
The old 20th century high school Amhist textbook by a guy named Muzzey for years had a comment that "no president ever deserved reelection more than Rutherford B. Hayes," due to his efforts to get the country out of the Crash of 1873. There is also a micro movement among a few historians to lift the reputation of Benjamin Harrison as being a better potus than he has been rated for a century or more.
Burton Folsom| 1.26.12 @ 5:04PM
Yes, Hayes cut the national debt and supported a sound currency by redeeming the Civil War greenbacks. Alas, Harrison supported inflation of the currency by subsidizing silver production. And he supported the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which damaged several great American corporations. Burt
Keith| 1.25.12 @ 10:27PM
I read the Folsom's FDR books New Deal Raw Deal & FDR Goes to War. If only a fraction of it were accurate, FDR was a MONSTER. Yet, he is sanctified & adored as a great President. Dangerous nonsense!
Burton Folsom| 1.26.12 @ 5:06PM
Thanks, Keith. When I (and my wife Anita) were writing those books we wondered if we would be able to get a hearing for our story. Your comment suggests we did. Thanks. Burt
Burton Folsom| 1.26.12 @ 5:06PM
Thanks, Keith. When I (and my wife Anita) were writing those books we wondered if we would be able to get a hearing for our story. Your comment suggests we did. Thanks. Burt
POST American| 1.25.12 @ 11:53PM
---Great article.
--BTW--
A little REALITY CHECK from an
informed source on the airwaves---
"I think this is going to be it. Obama's
going to be the last. We are going to
be going into ACTUAL receivership
to the Globalist-owned RED Chinese.
---And I mean ACTUAL ----boots on the
ground, they will be running things.
Friends say 'Oh but the Chinese are NOT
that way --they're NOT imperial and
expansionist'. ---What they DON'T
realize is that MAO changed China.
MAO was a PSYCHOPATH, and was
under a western education and infuence.
NO, NO ---China ---RED China's going
to be brought in. ---It's looking pretty
obvious. I'll give it four or five years."
And we might add, it won't be framed
as a military or imperial 'conquest'
---but simply as the next stage in a
sober, long laid business plan.
That any fool can forsee --just by the
predictive programming and subtexts
in a regular CNN news cast.
"UNLESS we realize that the unthinkable's
ALREADY been done to us ---we're FINISHED."
-------------WE'RE TALKING TREASON-------------
Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 2:28AM
Alas, people who are not fools cannot foresee this! Nor anything else for that matter. Something about the law of unintended consequences, I believe.
Buck Ofama| 1.26.12 @ 12:13PM
we must rid the niggerhaus of the commie rat vermin infestation, asap.
Rick| 1.26.12 @ 9:39PM
Obamas' polices do to work its just headwins. He will NOT loose! Your a bigget and your poles are rasist!
Tim the Enchanter| 1.27.12 @ 4:08PM
And, Sir, what does that make you? At first blush, a candidate for a remedial English course. As far as Obama's policies "working", I guess one must look at your definition of "working". If their intent is to sow evil and discord, then I would agree that they are "working".