President Bush vs Nixon vs Johnson?

Question

Pick one.

Answer 1

If you look at it chronologically, it really shakes any belief in progress you might have retained.

Johnson was the best.

He bears the most blame for the Vietnam saga, initiating the big escalation in both ground troops and aerial bombardment. In his defense, his hand was forced by knee-jerk anti-Communism in America. Still, he could have, and should have, said no -- as Eisenhower had done, before Kennedy. Most of the Vietnam decisions were made after Johnson had been elected in 1964 in a landslide victory that also gave the Democrats one of the biggest Congressional advantages in history, so he had a mandate to lead.

Johnson played a major positive role in advancing the cause of Civil Rights -- for whatever reason. Johnson underwent a personal transformation, from typical good old boy to a guy who really tried to make a difference re poverty and racism in America. He used his very considerable political skills to twist arms and cut deals in this cause... laid out a lot of political capital, so to speak.

His "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" have been much criticized, with justice -- most of the benefits went to a new class of "community leader" adept at feathering their nests with public money, like our own version of the Soviet apparatchiks. The chance to shake out and reform these programs died because his Administration tried to have both guns and butter, initiating an ongoing cycle of inflation and/or currency debasement that continues to this day.

His hick manners (e.g., "let's pin that coonskin to the wall", re Vietnam) contributed to him suffering in public performance from comparison with the glamor of the dead JFK's Camelot. I personally hate that "President as Celebrity" BS, but you've gotta face up to it being a factor in elections and Presidential approval.

Johnson wanted to complete the work of the New Deal, and ended up killing the New Deal Democratic coalition of the Solid South and working class North. This involuntary manslaughter resulted from the expanded franchise and increased political power of the black man, his greatest accomplishment, and the consequent flight of many whites -- North and South -- to the party of "law and order", the Republicans. (Them hippies running wild was a big factor too). His was a tragic Presidency, and he knew it.

Nixon is the most interesting of the three. Like Johnson, he underwent a deep personal transformation, this one regarding how best to confront Communism. He was the one who finally opened diplomatic relations with Beijing after a previous career as butt boy for the (Nationalist) China Lobby and numba one Redbator. That's a real achievement,. no matter how late, long overdue, and obvious It says a lot about the absurdity of American politics that Nixon, or a guy like Nixon, was really the only one who could do it.

His Administration also concluded the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War. Never thought of it until now, but it's ironic (or merely consistent?) that nobody upset about, e.g., helicopters departing the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon with Americans kicking former Vietnamese co-workers in the face to keep them off the chopper ever links the sad details of the withdrawal (esp the "boat people") to Nixon, on whose watch it occurred. Or suggests that we might do better by the "loyal" Iraqis we will leave behind, to a probably very unpleasant fate, when we inevitably clear out of there.

He got a lot of support from "the silent majority", a phrase his speechwriters introduced -- folks who saw the 60s and early 70s as a never-ending serial of "Students Gone Wild". But he lost the Okies from Muskogee with Watergate. (In a later song, Merle Haggard references "when Nixon lied to us on TV.)

Watergate. Today, he'd probably get away with it, but in 1974-5 people still thought the Constitution was worth defending against a President who thought the national security apparatus was designed as a weapon for an American praetorian guard defending and enhancing the President's monarchical and imperial powers. A President who famously said, "If the President does it, it's not illegal". Alas for him, the country disagreed. Twisting, turning, begging, praying, he clung to the life raft his doomed Presidency had become, until the evasions, missing tapes, contradictions, etc. undercut the lie and and he had to resign, like the guy who blows out his brains rather than facing bankruptcy.

It's too bad he was such a paranoid, self-pitying guy, because he had some flexibility which the current Occupant altogether lacks. Not too many folks know that Nixon briefly imposed wage and price controls -- anathema to free market worshipers. He also toyed with national health insurance. But he just HAD to do Watergate, unfortunately... Tricky Dick was his nickname long before he got to the White House. "I am not a crook" was his pathetic effort to answer us little kids saying "Say it ain't so, Joe". Unfortunately, Nixon was lying then, as usual.

Bush is, hands down, the worst of the three -- a guy who makes you dwell sentimentally on the superb character of Nixon. If you look at pictures of Lincoln, a great President, he acquires more and more dignity as he ages. Suffering and seriousness are carved into his face. Bush is the exact opposite. As he and his non-reputation spiral further and further down the toilet, he just looks old, scared, and pathetic -- like the nation should take care of him, rather than vice vesa.

Perhaps he does have some contact with reality. You wouldn't know it otherwise. His Administration has been an unmitigated disaster. Its sole "accomplishment" was the biggest reverse Robin Hood heist in American history, transferring billions from the poor to the rich and augmenting the biggest income and asset disparties since the Gilded Age of the 1890s.

When America needed a Lincoln in the wake of 9/11, we got the Smirking Chimp. Rather than uniting the country in mourning and pledge to sacrifice, he seized the opportunity to wave the bloody shirt for partisan political advantage. He pushed for, and got, a war that frantically shifted its rationale from Iraq WMD to overthrowing Saddam to democracy in the Middle East to "well, we can't betray their sacrifice" -- like sunk cost in a foolish investment justified throwing more lives and cash down an increasingly obvious rathole.

Like Nixon at Watergate, he took a position that the President was above the law -- re surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, and even, sickingly, torture. Unlike Nixon, he seems to get away with it. He has surrounded himself with a court of sycophants who try to throw a veneer of legality over his abuses of executive power. They haven't succeeded, but then again the public hasn't dragged Bush and his coterie out of the White House to face a barrage of ripe fruit.

A truly profound fool, he was the perfect spear carrier for his warmongering Vice President and the inbred cartel of neocons who affirm their (demonstrably wrong) "expertise" by holding seminars for themselves, with maybe a Medal of Freedom at the end.

Like Johnson, he managed to deeply wound his party. Unlike Johnson, the wound was inflicted via corruption, incompetence, and pure stupidity, rather than misguided good intentions. History will recall Bush as the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, and assign any "tragedy" to the American people, dimwitted enough to elect him twice and passively suffer his abuse of their trust.

Answer 2

No contest: Buchanan presided over a depression (Panic of 1857) and did nothing to stop the Civil War from happening. And, as was not widely known at the time, he was corrupt as hell, having taken a lot of bribes over the length of his political career. By the standards of that time, and by the standards of this time, he was a conservative through and through. (Of course, back then, it was the Democrats who were the conservatives.) Bush is the worst since Buchanan, but being the worst President of the last 148 years is bad enough. Carter was far better than any of the three Republicans who have thus far succeeded him, and better than the last two Republicans who preceded him (or else he wouldn't have won). In terms of job growth, war vs. peace, and, dear God, ethics, he kicks Ronald Reagan's butt. But he was unlucky: As someone said, "If Carter had fired the air-traffic controllers, there would have been a crash the next day." (I guess they forgot about Air Florida Flight 90, 5 months after Reagan fired them. Where'd the crash happen? National Airport, just outside Washington. And those bastards in the Republican Congress renamed the airport for him.)

Answer 3

You're mean.

It would have to be Nixon. But 30 years ago, I'd have said Johnson. I only had this nagging suspicion of him, vs the things that have come to light more recently.

Answer 4

Midget, Nerdy, dweeb. The know it all on the play ground that everyone loved to beat up because he thought he was sooooo much better than everyone. Teacher's brown nosing pet. Can't you see the remnants still on his nose?

Lying, Thieving low life scum.

Thoughtless, uncaring, cold-hearted, twit

hmmm, I think that sums it up.

Answer 5

If we absolutely have to have one, I choose Johnson (assuming you mean LBJ, not Lincoln's Vice President).

Of the 3, he was the least destructive.

Answer 6

He's battling corpses now too?

I pick Nixon,

of course.

Answer 7

Johnson signed the civil rights act, so he wins even though he ****** us up with vietnam

Answer 8

Pick one based on what, exactly? Who I would want to have dinner with? Who is the most dishonest or corrupt? Who was the best leader?? I guess if I had to pick one, I would pick Nixon since he is such an interesting character.

Answer 9

best forign affairs nixon

Answer 10

I pick Nixon. He knew foreign policy and got us out of Vietnam.

Answer 11

They're all such losers, I can't make up my mind!