Jimmy Carter, a candidate for worst president ever, ranked George W. Bush the worst president over the weekend. Now, he says that Bush is just worse than all the presidents since Nixon (Note to Jimma: You are describing you!). Reasons for ranking a president poorly include scandal, poor domestic performance, and ineptness in foreign policy. Nixon has the first two categories covered; Carter, the latter two. Bush, methinks, fits merely the latter category. His domestic policy rates criticism, but it doesn't stand out too much from other recent presidents.

Some of the good ones, I think, include George Washington, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. The bias among historians, I think, is to label "great" the presidents who pass an ambitious domestic agenda (ignoring the effects of that agenda) and the presidents who wage wars. I guess, in a sense, they are "great"--as in "big" and not "excellent." There is another historians' "greatness" bias. It involves the obsession with the presidency itself. There are congressmen and Supreme Court justices, not to mention inventors, businessmen, philanthropists, and religious leaders, who get ignored in the history books because of the presidential obsession.

When I was six or seven, I had this obsession. I could, quite proudly, name the 39 presidents in order. I probably could have told you each president's home state and said something noteworthy about each man. But what's so noteworthy about Millard Filmore, or James Garfield, or Gerald Ford? They were presidents. That's what was mainly noteworthy to me in learning about them as a child. That's also what drives the childish obsession to rank them, name a holiday for all of them, and put them on most of the currency.

There's something of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the presidential obsession. Because large segments of the public have treated presidents like kings, presidents have become like kings in their power. The misuse of the executive order and the usurpation of congressional war powers are two abuses that the president gets away with, in small part at least, because we mistakenly view presidents as if they were elected kings. The "great" presidents, in fact, are the ones who are most Caesar-like in assuming powers not delegated to them--Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson. They were "great," but were they really great?

Anyhow, rather than rank the best presidents, I thought it would be interesting if the knowledgeable readership could provide instruction in America's worst presidents. Give reasons (or not). Explain the criteria (or not). Rank them (or not).

FDR was the worst president ever, by far. He blasted American liberties away forever via the New Deal, placed Japanese-Americans in internment camps, and deliberately lied to the American people, deceiving them by claiming to seek peace, while provoking Japan and Germany into one of the bloodiest conflicts in United States history.

What I would say the 5 worst presidents are, in order, followed by the 5 best ones.

1 is the worst:

1.) FDR

2.) Abraham Lincoln

3.) LBJ

4.) Harry Truman

5.) Jimmy Carter

Best, starting with the best:

1.) George Washington

2.) Grover Cleveland

3.) Calvin Coolidge

4.) Thomas Jefferson

5.) Ronald Reagan

That's not what my history textbook says about FDR.

Jeeze, that K is awful close to the N.

Haha, Ken, unsure if you were joking? If not, it shouldn't be surprising that books by Uncle Sam cast Uncle Sam in a pretty warm light.

Ben-T Lincoln, Truman?

Yes. Both started bloody, unconstitutional, unnecessary wars. Thats pretty bad to me.

No, I am not joking. I spent a couple weeks on FDR's presidency this semester in a U.S. history course. My professor made FDR sound like a saint. That may be a bit of an exageration, but my professor did not seem to find many flaws in what FDR did.

No shocker there. Historians tend to love the state and love war.

I was born in 1930 so I've seen many presidents. The worst, hands down, Jimmy Carter. Many good ones. I loved The Gipper most of all.

At this point, Bush is running a close second to Carter as the worst President. Both of them have worked to sell this country to the highest bidder. Difference is that Carter lived in a time where most political types still believed in this country so he couldn't get it done. Bush is the right man for the right time and we, as a nation, will suffer for it.

Amen to that, asdf. I fear that we live in the twilight of the Republic.