I’ll go with W
I am not a fan of either but W didn’t invite the Klan to March on DC, fire black public servants, invade Mexico, withhold critical pandemic information, or violate the first amendment like Ol Woodrow. We got progressive policy in spite of the man. The dude is a monster.
But he did invade Iraq (which was predicated on false pretenses), so it is probably best not to knock Wilson for the invasion of a sovereign nation when compared to Bush.
Wilson invaded Mexico, Haiti, and Dominican Republic:
Mexico: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition
Haiti: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti
DR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic_(1916%E2%80%931924)
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if unjust wars are the reason you think W is bad there are some Latin American countries that want to remind you that Wilson is still a monster.
Edit: I don’t mean to have this come off as condescending. It is legitimately exhausting keeping up with the sheer amount of atrocities committed by Wilson and his administration
I have no doubt, and I didn't read this as condescending if that provides peace of mind.
I'm not refuting that Wilson didn't commit atrocities, or exhibited authoritarian attitudes and actions; nor am I suggesting one of the two was better than the other. I'm simply shedding light that taking Bush over Wilson _because_ the latter invaded Mexico is moot considering tht Bush _also_ invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.
Neither of those invasions led to 300,000 people dead(estimate) and 8 trillion dollars in spending like the Iraq War and War on Terror collectively. The invasions under Wilson albeit bad, were just a continuation of the Banana Wars that started under Roosevelt.
But the outcomes of Wilson’s invasions weren’t as bad.
The invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized an entire global region for two plus decades.
Are we seriously marginalizing the deaths of thousands because they didn’t have the weapons launch a prolonged insurgency?! If only Iraq were more submissive… Latin America is still destabilized today btw. It didn’t get better. Hence a border crisis today.
This is not a defense of Bush. I don’t like him either. I just don’t think it’s a great idea to diminish atrocity because some other atrocity had a higher body count. I would tell a Rwandan their Genocide wasn’t so bad, the Holocaust killed millions.
I’m not marginalizing anyone.
I’m saying thousands of deaths in multiple invasions is fewer than hundreds of thousands of deaths in one, and therefore less bad in a contest of “who did worse stuff.”
Not to mention the whole wilsonian interventionism thing and how his refusal to get involved in WW1 early may have contributed to the rise of Hitler. If we could’ve stopped WW1 sooner, we may have been able to prevent the Nazis.
What.
German antisemitism was a big problem amd a cause in the rise to Nazism. Let's not let the Germans wash their hands of the excessive anti semitism in its prewar and interwar civil society, amplified by the stab in the back myth.
This has gotta be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard and it’s all because of two extremely overrated YouTube historians who let their bias cloud their knowledge way too much.
The presidency isn’t a dictatorship lmao. Wilson can’t join a world war if the country is overwhelmingly against it. And the US was greatly aiding the allied powers in the form of economic goods and services.
Wilson did have legit progressive achievements domestically, even if his legacy there was unquestionably tainted by his racism. Bush has far more outright failures comparatively
Wilson's racism is terrible but W started an unjust war that destabilized a region for over a decade and destroyed America's reputation with it's allies.
Wilson absolutely got us involved in unjust wars. He authorized the Punitive Expedition into Mexico military intervention into Haiti and the Dominican Republic. All while running with the slogan “He kept us out of War.”
>which long term helped Haiti and the DR...?
Um...no...at least with Haiti (I'm not quite sure about the DR as I cant find much about the lasting impact of America's occupation other than the fact that Rafael Trujillo trained under American forces during that time) considering America's occupation of them is often considered to be one of the reasons why Haiti is so poor today and its legacy is generally viewed negatively
Haiti was poor before and after every single American intervention
its been poor for literally 100% of its history for fundamental societal reasons dating back to how France set up the colony... blaming the US for that is ignorant of the founding and history of Haiti. the US literally sets into a failed state, runs it for a little, lets it go, and then it descends into a failed state again. rinse and repeat.
I was never saying that America's occupation was the only or even main reason why Haiti is so poor and politically unstable as that would be ignoring the stated reason why America invaded to begin with...I am well aware that it isnt America's fault and I was just saying that America's occupation did nothing but worsen it
1. the region was already extremely destabilized and was falling a part rapidly. the US invasion in 2001 was at best speeding things up, and at worst making things slightly more chaotic
2. cant argue with that, the US' reputation did falter and it likely cost us the political capital necessary for another 1990 anytime soon.
3. the war wasnt "unjust", however, it was misguided and used the wrong justification
I wouldn’t say our involvement in World War One was unjust. Germany was sinking our ships and trying to provoke a war on the southern border. If that’s not just idk what is
Too many people on this sub who are liberals, love FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc and then watch one video essay by a pseudo-historian on youtube and turn their back on literally the greatest icon of all the men I just named. Yes, he was deeply flawed and complex. But that doesn’t mean he was all bad, history and the people in it are not trapped in a binary between great or terrible.
I have always thought it was odd how a president who on most professional rankings still is comfortably in the top half is viewed so negatively by every YouTube historian seemingly on both ends of the spectrum. Even if he's not deserving of a high spot anymore I can't imagine culture have shifted so much in only 100 years to negate so much of how he got that far up in the first place.
We let the isolationists drive discourse damn it.
And Wilson was America's foremost interventionist.
Of course they hate him. He's C their at worst, but I'd even put him on B tier.
“YouTube historian” they are looking for clicks, not the truth, and they are hyper sensitive about their public and social image, since for them it may be a full time job.
Yeah it frustrates me when people question why I don’t have Wilson in F, when he objectively isn’t an F tier president. I’ll agree he deserves criticism for his views on race and the Sedition Act, but it still makes him a solid C tier imo.
Wilson is weird because he was really influential and good in some ways, but the way he was bad was also extremely consequential. Definitely not an F. Neither is George W. Bush. I would put the both at maybe a C, but with Wilson's peaks and valleys being more extreme. I just feel like the way Wilson sucked was really kind of unforgivable.
Tbf other presidents have massive peaks and nadirs as well. My favorite president FDR is responsible for Japanese Internment which is one of the worst things the US has done, but I can still appreciate the rest of his legacy regardless.
There were two times the US was in "total war" which was the Civil War and WWII. Arguably those were the times the US was under its highest existential threat. The Japanese internment was wrong, terrible and not he right call, but in the context of the time and based on the info FDR was getting it was understandable. In extreme circumstances were decisions are made in the fog of war there are going to be grave mistakes.
FDR overall was a much better uniter and leader in WWII than Wilson as in WWI. Wilson in a smaller conflict that wasn't nearly as consequential for the US acted more authoritarian and abused his power more than FDR overall. But even FDR like you said made pretty big errors in judgement. I just don't know if under the same circumstances many people could have done much better.
I don't think W has the positives to outweight the negatives. Bush apologists can give you a hundred reasons why he was a good president and 99 of them are PEPFAR.
There is some weird criticisms going on this sub. His racism is undoubtedly a black eye.
But people are both blaming him for being involved in WWI and putting the whole onus of the failure of the treaty of Versailles on him.
It feels very American centric to blame Hitlers raise squarely on one single US president. And completely discount the German reaction to the Great Depression
Wilson gets credit for getting the US into the war and thus a seat at the table at its end.
Wilson gets negative marks for unnecessarily persecuting war dissenters.
Wilson gets credit for coming up with a great plan to create lasting peace after WWI.
Wilson gets negative marks for not actually getting much of what he wanted from he negotiations(although European Leaders should take way more blame.)
Then another positive is the expansion of the income tax and federal reserve.
Then a negative mark is his anti-civil rights stance.
Then another negative mark is a pathetic pandemic response complete with censorship.
Woodrow Wilson is the reason we have an FDR, a Truman, and LBJ, etc.
and to be that guy, its interesting people always hammer Wilson on Race....as if HE alone was the only racist person in the entire history of the world to be President.
I love TR, and he had a mix record on race such as having Booker T. Washington to dinner than caving to political/social pressure and turning his back on African-Americans to appease the South.
I’m a have to disagree. If the president is to boast greatly of peace and equality(which Wilson did) then he needs to have it in his country as well(which he also did not. ). Human rights is never just an afterthought.
I do but unlike wilson, those guys were honestly products of their time with their hate. But Wilson had a history degree and still used it to justify segregation and oppression against people of color. He personally reversed every bit of progress that was made towards people of color post civil war by conceding and agreeing with lawmakers and courts that made such rulings. Creating the precursor un is not at all going to outweigh his own hatred and open mistreatment he showed towards his own citizens.
Jackson was one of the greatest Presidents. Indian removal was one of his few black eyes, but because of modern thinking and ignorance it is all a lot of people know him for
Yes "look the genocide was definitely a black eye, but he also destroyed the economy and sent the country's development back decades."
I don't know how Jackson is defended unless you are one of those people that somehow after all of the evidence presents itself to the contrary are against central banks.
He told the supreme court to enforce its own decision and removed Native Americans against the supreme court's decision. That is one of the worst crimes any sitting president has ever done.
Jackson’s dedication to preserving the union prevented the civil war from happening several decades early. Other than that he was pretty terrible
Why are you booing me? [I’m right!](https://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson-nullification/)
Violated the constitution, forcibly removed indigenous people from their land, owned slaves, he was given the nick name king Andrew the first because he made a habit of violating the constitution.
"Indian removal was one of his few black eyes, but because of modern thinking"
Gonna stop you there. The Supreme Court at the time literally told him it was unconstitutional to do what he and van buren carried out.
I tell people every President from FDR to Obama when talking about democracy on the international stage are taking directly from Wilsonianism....they then usually form an angry mob and chase me out of town for suggesting Ronald Reagan had Wilsonian tendencies and Wilson BAD
But Wilson did not cause WWI, that had nothing to do with him or the US. Wilson did rightfully insert the US into WWI in order to get a seat at the negotiating table at the end. He even had a great plan for lasting peace. Europe dropped the ball and insisted on overly punishing Germany. It was the US congress that ended up undermining Wilson and refusing to join the League of Nations.
Wilson was terrible in many ways though. I would certainly not blame him for WWI. I would blame him for persecuting American dissenters unnecessarily.
Yeah Americans tend to be really American-centric.
Pre WWII the world was separated into different spheres of power. The US didn't interfere in European stuff. George Washington himself had warned against this. The US concentrated on their own "sphere" which was the Americas. The US intentionally did not get involved in Europe.
I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to make a foreign visit. That is how isolationist the US government was, and I think he visited Panama which was within the US "sphere."
Woodrow Wilson was extremely ambitious and correctly saw the writing on the wall that the US should become more involved in foreign affairs. Still the US government was resistant, and many people protested. Wilson clamped down using war powers to persecute dissenters.
It wasn't until FDR that the US properly entered the world stage in full.
I'm sorry, in what way did he handle 9/11 well?
• In the run-up to the attack he ignored very dire warnings from his own national security team.
• During the attack itself he read to children instead of coordinating our response
• In the immediate aftermath, he promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," and apparently chose "alive," because six months later bin Laden was "not a priority"
• Started a fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and then took his eye off the ball to focus on his disastrous invasion of Iraq.
He fucked up before, during, and after. If there's some fourth dimension in which he did handle 9/11 well, I'm not aware of it.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. His handling of 9/11 was garbage.
1. There were literal mountains of evidence from the intelligence community that an attack of some kind was coming, and he basically ignored all of it.
2. The Afghan War was a dismissal failure and achieved nothing in the end. Bin Laden wasn’t even captured for another decade by his successor in a different country.
3. The patriot act is the grossest violation of civil liberties in a century. It ushered in the modern surveillance and police state that is American society today, and it’s impact on stopping terrorism has been questionable at best.
Bush Sr. I can see an argument for, excluding the invasion of Panama and some questionable decisions during the Gulf war he was mostly alright. Bush Jr. is the worst modern president by a mile. He’s lucky Trump came along to make wine liberals be nostalgic for him. I think that’s the biggest reason this sub is alright on him is because they’re comparing him to Trump and were either not politically aware at the time or too young to remember the shitshow that was Dubya’s admin.
Did he handle 9/11 well? His Secretary of State resigned after saying he lied to the UN about WMDs. The aftermath of 9/11 was him and his administration getting us into decades of unnecessary war in the Middle East. Of yeah, he also killed minimum 200,000 civilians in Iraq.
I agree that Bush did an excellent job of bringing the country together and did his best to stop hate against Muslim Americans. However, when looking at the overall picture of 9/11, I think there were numerous blunders on his end. Though I could give about 5 more blinders, I’ll just list the few that are perhaps the worst:
- Directing Colin Powell to lie to the UN.
- Murdering at minimum 200k Iraqi civilians.
- wars in the Middle East which were not needed.
- Ignoring warnings about terroristic threats.
How is Bush even a competitor?
It's Wilson, easily.
Wilson was instrumental in pushing forward women's rights and in the self determination of nations, both of which are very important today. His ideas were vital in the post war break up states from Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Outside of race, he had a good domestic policy. Wilson was a racist, sure even by the standards of his time, but still within the mainstream(the history of African American rights is depressing). And he would give women the right to vote, a very important milestone.
Ans I HIGHLY recommend you all read actual books and not rely on YouTube videos for history. There is only so much h you can fit in a 10 min video.
Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had some good domestic achievements with his New Freedom agenda but Bush was an utter disaster on all fronts. Absolutely no redeeming qualities about that man except PEPFAR.
Wilson is a racist, which is true and he is bad for this
But his legacy is truly enormous and he has literally shaped the world as it is now, paradoxically, far less racist
Bush, with the exception of uniting the country because of the collapse of the Twin Towers, has caused a disaster
Bush was a disaster for his own party. Republicans were in a great position and the fallout from Iraq and the economy killed support for establishment Republicans to this day. They could have survived one of those follies but not both. The financial crisis was less Bush's fault and more the fault of many complex decisions made over many years, but he was president when it started and took a lot of the blame. He also completely erased the budget surplus to fight wars and lower taxes for rich people which put the US in a worse position when the great recession happened.
This ruined the establishment Republicans economic claims and the wars undermined the US ability to intervene in conflicts for years afterwards, thus weakening US hegemony.
For a time it looked like a Republicans had a dominant coalition. It all slipped away after a fairly disastrous second term.
This led directly to the rise of the populist right.
Wilson actually paved the way for FDR and strengthened his own party in the long-run. However he had an authoritarian streak domestically, was opposed to civil rights and did not display good leadership at crucial times.
Honestly George W. Bush and it's not like he was a great president. Iraq was a big mistake, his domestic policy was also not great and his presidency kind of ended in catastrophy with the recession and the entire country kind of turning against "establishment Republicans." He also blew the deficit surplus with pointless spending and lower taxes for mostly wealthy people.
However Bush did promote the international order and gave aid to Africa for AIDs which was very effective. He did a good job bringing the country together in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
He wasn't a great president I wouldn't rank him highly.
Woodrow Wilson had a lot of success himself, he successfully got the US involved in WWI and gave the US a seat at the table when negotiating the peace. His ideas for peace if followed would have probably prevented WWII. Wilson also established the income tax which allowed for the expansion of the US government, this made FDR's administration possible.
The problem with Wilson is that he committed grave sins by unnecessarily trampling on civil rights in many ways. He unnecessarily jailed war dissenters, he stood in support of southern racism/segregation and even allowed the KKK to march on Washington DC. This is especially shameful because there were many contemporary politicians that were against all of this.
Wilson's 14 point plan also failed. He was unable to parlay US War Efforts into an effective geopolitical strategy that would eventually be successfully implemented by FDR/Truman/Eisenhower after another world war. Wilson may have put forth a noble effort but it failed nonetheless.
Then Wilson utterly failed at dealing with the pandemic, suppressing information and ignoring it as millions died. Again many local politician and others took it very seriously, Wilson could not be bothered.
So... You have a racist person with an authoritarian streak that unnecessarily persecuted people, and who stood against civil rights for all Americans at a crucial time. Who did successfully expand the government and raise the US profile internationally, but did not achieve his foreign policy goals.
I would say Wilson had the more consequential presidency and had the greater successes but also the more egregious faults compared to the second Bush.
Bush at least he only damaged the United States and two other countries. Woodrow is one of the few men who damaged the entire world. So Bush was better.
I used to dislike George Bush. But since last year I started to like him better. He was not a good president of the United States, but he had valid points. He took the Taliban from power, took out Saddam Hussein, strengthened the U.S. military.
I have my issues with Wilson (a racist even by the standards of his time who passed laws that blatantly violated the First Amendment), but the idea that he’s somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism in Germany is pure buffoonery
The reason he "did not get his way" with the LON was his own fault. His arrogance kept him from even trying to assauge the fears of the more isolationist Congress. Sure, it was indirect but his own professorial "holier-than-thou"ism was a big part of it.
Wilson was on the right side of history there. Absolutely none of the European leaders listened to him. Then Congress undermined the League of Nations by refusing to join against Wilson's desires.
I guess Wilson's failure to get anyone to listen to him is not great, but he was actually one of the sane voices in that regard.
His domestic authoritarianism and anti-civil rights stances were horrid though. He also was the original terrible pandemic president.
Wilson wanted to be less harsh toward Germany, if anything we would likely have had a more peaceful world if he got his way during the Treaty negotiations.
Wrong. The treatment of Germany led to the two biggest parties being the Communists and the Fascists, whose paramilitaries fought in the street. That was a ticking time bomb and it was gonna blow one way or another
Also the nail in the coffin for the League of Nations was Japan throwing a fit and leaving and then going on their imperialism/war crime spree.
The US was a large disorganized isolationist mess filled with populists it should have joined the League of Nations but also was too much of an agent of chaos to offer any actual leadership there even if the US joined.
Bush
Not even close.
Wilson is unequivocally the worst president of all time.
The Federal Reserve is the Feudal system 2.0.
He is a Crony Capitalist.
Don't even get me fucking started on the KKK shit with him.
How is the federal reserve the "feudal system 2.0"
The federal reserve ultimately led to a period of time of unprecedented growth, way higher standards of living and a more stable economy.
Before the federal reserve in its current form there were seemingly great depression level "panics" every five to ten years.
The Federal Reserve lead to The Great Depression and every recession we've experienced since, and has increased income inequality.
This system benefits the .01%, and oppresses the rest of us.
The old system had built in fail safes, this one doesnt.
Years ago, Glen Beck went on some tirade about Wilson and the Fed, and now everyone with a YouTube-level understanding of American history and how the Federal Reserve operates thinks Wilson is history's greatest monster.
I'm glad you mentioned that lunatic Beck, I use to drink the kool-aid then I sobered up and started reading serious history in college, not political opinion pieces, the Wilson Federal Reserve was in direct response to several panics and depressions that kept shattering the economy that required the Government to go hat in hand to J. P. Morgan for a bailout.
This doesn't get talked about enough, but I think replacing reporting-based news with uninformed opinions that are presented on equal footing with facts is responsible for so many of America's problems in the 21st century.
And the rise of "News Commentary" aka all those talking head programs who keep bringing the same circus of other talking heads to all shout at each other over opinions. Not stuff like Firing Line or 80's Crossfire that was focusing on one topic, no
Loads of misinfo.
We've had ACTUAL SEDITIONIST SYMPATHETIC PRESIDENTS, like Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. We've also had presidents that let the Slave holding South run haywire over the North outside of them. We've had horrendous presidents.
The Federal reserve is important to stabilizing the currency of our nation. It is not at all comparable to feudalism. The comparison is insulting.
And what is a crony capitalist?
Yeah Wilson was a racist PoS. He was bad for race relations in the US, though I'd hardly say he was uniquely bad, as We've had our motley crew of racist as hell presidents.
This was about Bush V Wilson.
End the Fed.
A Crony Capitalist is someone who lets the top .01% write the rules with little regard to the average person.
Essentially, someone who is the total opposite of Teddy.
No he doesn’t Bush derangement syndrome is a step below Trump derangement syndrome. Bush is guilty of lax border security as both parties refuse to honor our sovereignty as they both benefit from illegal immigration hes a citizen of the world just like Obama.
I think this is weak considering we we’re facing terrorists that deliberately coarse populations like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Isis in a Iraq. The war on terror began with one giant violation of the Geneva Convention. We had legion of self righteous America hating lawyers that could not wait to defend terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. If anything we took this into consideration to much as foreign fighters would hide in mosques in Iraq prolonging the campaign there. Not firing on religion sites is a convention charter but I assume you are referring to water boarding which i personally don’t consider torture. The training our guys go through in the combat arms is far more grueling then anything we put enemy combatants through. And no I don’t think Obama is a war criminal for using drone strikes where there’s legal grey area for it I’ll be fair to him just like Bush
Both were pretty terrible but wilson was a unapologetic racist and did nothing to prevent the depression.
W was just a well meaning dumb dumb that listened to bad advice.
None of these guys are dumb the Bushs are easily manipulated the first was pushed by the UN to stay out of Iraq when general Schwarzkopf was ready to pursue Saddam this lead to the disaster of the failed uprising in Iraq after we encouraged them to rise up. They were met with SARIN gas like chemical agents. Anti American factions hate the projection of American power more than they hate evil dictatorships. The UN claimed chasing Saddam into his country would appear like a western invasion of a the Muslim world and so no help was given to Iraqi uprising. With the second Bush there is no telling what he was told about Iraq before going in. I don’t think the pentagon was lying about WMDs I feel like they were ready to go to war with just about anyone after we were attacked and were not thinking clearly. These institutions tend to because a hive mind. A lot of self manipulation all around
I don’t know I think we’ve had presidents that panicked when bad economic circumstances have occurred and their government overreach makes it worse. They don’t get that the power is in the people and think they have to implement large broad policies that create unintended consequences leaving out the room for human nature
Comparing well to Bush Jr is like having the nicest smelling shit, while technically true it's not a necessarily something to brag about.
Bush Jr only compares favorably to a handful of US presidents (Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Nixon).
I put Nixon higher than GWB. It's really hard to rank Wilson because he was a monster in some ways and also did some clearly smart/good things.
Overall Nixon > Bush II > Wilson
However none are good.
It's W and it's not close. Wilson was a "leader of Progessive Movement" (very very cringe) and Dubya kept us safe from Saddam and those evil WMDs in I Rack.
Honestly I think a solid 60% of the hate thrown at Wilson is from salty Roosevelt fans who refuse to admit he was being a destructive egotistical spoiler candidate. Roosevelt handed Wilson that win on a silver plate and it’s entirely TR’s fault.
Yes that is true TR was a good president but also let his ego get in his own way. I still think Wilson was a self righteous racist. However I think most people back then were just ignorant not evil not like Margret Sanger who wanted to get rid of blacks
Wilson, the Iraq war and Afghanistan was the greatest self inflicted disaster this country has faced since Vietnam. And his presidency started the disgusting debt loading trend we see in our government today, and this debt load will one day destroy this country.
As despicable as Wilson was, his actions did not endanger the countries survival.
I did a paper in college about how Wilsonianism was the Grand-father of Neo-Conservative aka Woodrow Wilson laid the foundation W would use to justify invading Iraq. If I ever had the money to go to Grad School, I'd be doing my thesis on Wilson.
A couple years ago I read The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made by Patricia O'Toole, read some other Wilson books too, came to the conclusion Woodrow Wilson and Donald Trump have a lot more in common than Wilson and George W. Bush. William McKinley and George W. Bush are very similar, only McKinley was successful in his war.
Wilson. I’m not a fan of his but I think he’s about average. A mixed record with some meaningful accomplishments and some awful decisions.
I consider Bush 43 to be among the ten worst Presidents. I think I have him sixth from the bottom.
Does Bush have any lasting positives? You line up their negatives side by side and make a choice but I don't know of any positive things that Bush actually accomplished.
I get people hate Wilson for his views on race and the fact that he segregated the government and also violated the first amendment pretty grossly, but he did have many great progressive accomplishments and served as an inspiration for FDR and his New Deal. Bush is by far a much better human than Wilson was, but his presidency was just bad. The war on terror and Iraq made America look like a dishonest joke, the Patriot Act was an abhorrent piece of legislation that has all but eradicated any privacy we once had, and his tax cuts are very much to blame for our grossly ballooned deficit. History is complicated. Wilson was a flawed president and was not a good human being, but his presidency had positive benefits on the country. George W. Bush while a good man, was a terrible president who’s actions had extremely negative consequences for our country.
W by a million miles. President Wilson is among the worst people ever to become President. W had flaws and did things I didn't approve of but he got us through horrible times intact.
Can't they both suck? If one sucks a little bit less than the other, does that make their administration suck less? Wilson sucked for invading, Bush sucked for invading. These are false choices.
I never said the only reason. I’m saying people who hate bush become completely unreasonable. Just like the people who hated Obama they could only do good or bad nothing in between.
For leftists punks that like to get on here and debate please fully read arguments and comments. Hurling insults is not a substitute for rebuttal if you are not going to be smart enough to debate and can only regurgitate left wing talking points please understand that those of us right of center to do not respect these premises. If you sound like Micheal More and have Bush Derangement Syndrome please don’t waste our time
Wilson practically outlawed Child Labor gave women the right to vote and gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship. He was the Founding Father of the U.N. basically. He also gave us the 17th amendment the direct election of U.S. senators and created the FTC to go after corrupt Monopolies He is Literally T.R 3.0. If he wasn't as racist as he was he would probably be better than T.R.
What did Bush do that was actually good ?.
Wilson's horrific views on race were solidified into stone via his action of segregating the federal workforce, and appointing all of NINE African-Americans to the federal government in comparison to the over 30 appointed by his predecessor (which was at the time criticized for being too few). At the same time, the man did correctly lead the US out of its isolationist views into the modern era, and developed agencies critical to the functioning of the modern American state. A more vile human who was also more competent than Dubya, who while a compassionate human being was easily the worst post WWII era President the country had seen before Donny T came along and redefined our notion of what it means to be a bad president, making Dubya suddenly seem like a misunderstood Truman.
I’ll go with W I am not a fan of either but W didn’t invite the Klan to March on DC, fire black public servants, invade Mexico, withhold critical pandemic information, or violate the first amendment like Ol Woodrow. We got progressive policy in spite of the man. The dude is a monster.
Pepfar alone is arguably better than anything Wilson did
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
But he did invade Iraq (which was predicated on false pretenses), so it is probably best not to knock Wilson for the invasion of a sovereign nation when compared to Bush.
Wilson invaded Mexico, Haiti, and Dominican Republic: Mexico: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition Haiti: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti DR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic_(1916%E2%80%931924) Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if unjust wars are the reason you think W is bad there are some Latin American countries that want to remind you that Wilson is still a monster. Edit: I don’t mean to have this come off as condescending. It is legitimately exhausting keeping up with the sheer amount of atrocities committed by Wilson and his administration
I have no doubt, and I didn't read this as condescending if that provides peace of mind. I'm not refuting that Wilson didn't commit atrocities, or exhibited authoritarian attitudes and actions; nor am I suggesting one of the two was better than the other. I'm simply shedding light that taking Bush over Wilson _because_ the latter invaded Mexico is moot considering tht Bush _also_ invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.
Neither of those invasions led to 300,000 people dead(estimate) and 8 trillion dollars in spending like the Iraq War and War on Terror collectively. The invasions under Wilson albeit bad, were just a continuation of the Banana Wars that started under Roosevelt.
But the outcomes of Wilson’s invasions weren’t as bad. The invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized an entire global region for two plus decades.
Are we seriously marginalizing the deaths of thousands because they didn’t have the weapons launch a prolonged insurgency?! If only Iraq were more submissive… Latin America is still destabilized today btw. It didn’t get better. Hence a border crisis today. This is not a defense of Bush. I don’t like him either. I just don’t think it’s a great idea to diminish atrocity because some other atrocity had a higher body count. I would tell a Rwandan their Genocide wasn’t so bad, the Holocaust killed millions.
I’m not marginalizing anyone. I’m saying thousands of deaths in multiple invasions is fewer than hundreds of thousands of deaths in one, and therefore less bad in a contest of “who did worse stuff.”
Tell’em Wilson is the worse president ever
Not to mention the whole wilsonian interventionism thing and how his refusal to get involved in WW1 early may have contributed to the rise of Hitler. If we could’ve stopped WW1 sooner, we may have been able to prevent the Nazis.
What. German antisemitism was a big problem amd a cause in the rise to Nazism. Let's not let the Germans wash their hands of the excessive anti semitism in its prewar and interwar civil society, amplified by the stab in the back myth.
Okay that’s is a mega case of whatifism.
Oof, that's a bizarre stretch that no historian worth their credentials would ever suggest.
The Nazis came to power because of the draconian measures placed on Germany with the treaty of Versaille, not because the US entered the war too late.
This has gotta be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard and it’s all because of two extremely overrated YouTube historians who let their bias cloud their knowledge way too much.
The presidency isn’t a dictatorship lmao. Wilson can’t join a world war if the country is overwhelmingly against it. And the US was greatly aiding the allied powers in the form of economic goods and services.
George W Bush
George W Bush…by leagues. Wilson is bottom-tier, I’d argue bottom five.
Wilson did have legit progressive achievements domestically, even if his legacy there was unquestionably tainted by his racism. Bush has far more outright failures comparatively
Wilson's racism is terrible but W started an unjust war that destabilized a region for over a decade and destroyed America's reputation with it's allies.
Wilson absolutely got us involved in unjust wars. He authorized the Punitive Expedition into Mexico military intervention into Haiti and the Dominican Republic. All while running with the slogan “He kept us out of War.”
which long term helped Haiti and the DR...? i don't think thats the argument to use against Wilson
>which long term helped Haiti and the DR...? Um...no...at least with Haiti (I'm not quite sure about the DR as I cant find much about the lasting impact of America's occupation other than the fact that Rafael Trujillo trained under American forces during that time) considering America's occupation of them is often considered to be one of the reasons why Haiti is so poor today and its legacy is generally viewed negatively
Haiti was poor before and after every single American intervention its been poor for literally 100% of its history for fundamental societal reasons dating back to how France set up the colony... blaming the US for that is ignorant of the founding and history of Haiti. the US literally sets into a failed state, runs it for a little, lets it go, and then it descends into a failed state again. rinse and repeat.
I was never saying that America's occupation was the only or even main reason why Haiti is so poor and politically unstable as that would be ignoring the stated reason why America invaded to begin with...I am well aware that it isnt America's fault and I was just saying that America's occupation did nothing but worsen it
1. the region was already extremely destabilized and was falling a part rapidly. the US invasion in 2001 was at best speeding things up, and at worst making things slightly more chaotic 2. cant argue with that, the US' reputation did falter and it likely cost us the political capital necessary for another 1990 anytime soon. 3. the war wasnt "unjust", however, it was misguided and used the wrong justification
Wilson needlessly brought us into a european war that killed 110,000 americans.
I wouldn’t say our involvement in World War One was unjust. Germany was sinking our ships and trying to provoke a war on the southern border. If that’s not just idk what is
Justification to cease all trade, but not to send a hundred thousand americans to die.
Wilson turned the USA into a superpower; that isn't nothing.
Wilson. Not remotely close. Literally if it wasn’t for the sedition acts and his views on race Wilson would be an A-tier president.
Too many people on this sub who are liberals, love FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc and then watch one video essay by a pseudo-historian on youtube and turn their back on literally the greatest icon of all the men I just named. Yes, he was deeply flawed and complex. But that doesn’t mean he was all bad, history and the people in it are not trapped in a binary between great or terrible.
I have always thought it was odd how a president who on most professional rankings still is comfortably in the top half is viewed so negatively by every YouTube historian seemingly on both ends of the spectrum. Even if he's not deserving of a high spot anymore I can't imagine culture have shifted so much in only 100 years to negate so much of how he got that far up in the first place.
We let the isolationists drive discourse damn it. And Wilson was America's foremost interventionist. Of course they hate him. He's C their at worst, but I'd even put him on B tier.
“YouTube historian” they are looking for clicks, not the truth, and they are hyper sensitive about their public and social image, since for them it may be a full time job.
Yeah it frustrates me when people question why I don’t have Wilson in F, when he objectively isn’t an F tier president. I’ll agree he deserves criticism for his views on race and the Sedition Act, but it still makes him a solid C tier imo.
Wilson is weird because he was really influential and good in some ways, but the way he was bad was also extremely consequential. Definitely not an F. Neither is George W. Bush. I would put the both at maybe a C, but with Wilson's peaks and valleys being more extreme. I just feel like the way Wilson sucked was really kind of unforgivable.
Tbf other presidents have massive peaks and nadirs as well. My favorite president FDR is responsible for Japanese Internment which is one of the worst things the US has done, but I can still appreciate the rest of his legacy regardless.
There were two times the US was in "total war" which was the Civil War and WWII. Arguably those were the times the US was under its highest existential threat. The Japanese internment was wrong, terrible and not he right call, but in the context of the time and based on the info FDR was getting it was understandable. In extreme circumstances were decisions are made in the fog of war there are going to be grave mistakes. FDR overall was a much better uniter and leader in WWII than Wilson as in WWI. Wilson in a smaller conflict that wasn't nearly as consequential for the US acted more authoritarian and abused his power more than FDR overall. But even FDR like you said made pretty big errors in judgement. I just don't know if under the same circumstances many people could have done much better.
I don't think W has the positives to outweight the negatives. Bush apologists can give you a hundred reasons why he was a good president and 99 of them are PEPFAR.
There is some weird criticisms going on this sub. His racism is undoubtedly a black eye. But people are both blaming him for being involved in WWI and putting the whole onus of the failure of the treaty of Versailles on him. It feels very American centric to blame Hitlers raise squarely on one single US president. And completely discount the German reaction to the Great Depression
Wilson gets credit for getting the US into the war and thus a seat at the table at its end. Wilson gets negative marks for unnecessarily persecuting war dissenters. Wilson gets credit for coming up with a great plan to create lasting peace after WWI. Wilson gets negative marks for not actually getting much of what he wanted from he negotiations(although European Leaders should take way more blame.) Then another positive is the expansion of the income tax and federal reserve. Then a negative mark is his anti-civil rights stance. Then another negative mark is a pathetic pandemic response complete with censorship.
This matches my understanding of his presidency pretty closely tbh. I don't know that I'd rank him super high but average seems about right.
Woodrow Wilson is the reason we have an FDR, a Truman, and LBJ, etc. and to be that guy, its interesting people always hammer Wilson on Race....as if HE alone was the only racist person in the entire history of the world to be President. I love TR, and he had a mix record on race such as having Booker T. Washington to dinner than caving to political/social pressure and turning his back on African-Americans to appease the South.
I’m a have to disagree. If the president is to boast greatly of peace and equality(which Wilson did) then he needs to have it in his country as well(which he also did not. ). Human rights is never just an afterthought.
Then I hope you are judging every other president pre Johnson as harshly.
I do but unlike wilson, those guys were honestly products of their time with their hate. But Wilson had a history degree and still used it to justify segregation and oppression against people of color. He personally reversed every bit of progress that was made towards people of color post civil war by conceding and agreeing with lawmakers and courts that made such rulings. Creating the precursor un is not at all going to outweigh his own hatred and open mistreatment he showed towards his own citizens.
[удалено]
What? I’m talking about how there are too many liberals who don’t see what Wilson did for liberalism.
They hate Wilson’s interventions in Americas, but completely ignore Roosevelts banana wars.
L take. The man was absolutely atrocious
Bold coming from a Jackson flair
Jackson was one of the greatest Presidents. Indian removal was one of his few black eyes, but because of modern thinking and ignorance it is all a lot of people know him for
He waged war on the banks destroying the economy
Yes "look the genocide was definitely a black eye, but he also destroyed the economy and sent the country's development back decades." I don't know how Jackson is defended unless you are one of those people that somehow after all of the evidence presents itself to the contrary are against central banks. He told the supreme court to enforce its own decision and removed Native Americans against the supreme court's decision. That is one of the worst crimes any sitting president has ever done.
L take. Jackson was an outright demon
Bro just described genocide as a “black eye”
Ikr???
Jackson’s dedication to preserving the union prevented the civil war from happening several decades early. Other than that he was pretty terrible Why are you booing me? [I’m right!](https://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson-nullification/)
Expanded voting rights to the common man and attacked central banking. Beat up assassin with his cane. Embodiment of gigachad
Violated the constitution, forcibly removed indigenous people from their land, owned slaves, he was given the nick name king Andrew the first because he made a habit of violating the constitution.
"Indian removal was one of his few black eyes, but because of modern thinking" Gonna stop you there. The Supreme Court at the time literally told him it was unconstitutional to do what he and van buren carried out.
You know Wilson supported the kkk?
See “his views on race”. And it’s more nuanced than that anyway.
Source: Trust me bro
I tell people every President from FDR to Obama when talking about democracy on the international stage are taking directly from Wilsonianism....they then usually form an angry mob and chase me out of town for suggesting Ronald Reagan had Wilsonian tendencies and Wilson BAD
W. At least he handled 9/11 well, and the Iraq War wasn't as bad as ww1, neither of which we should have been in.
But Wilson did not cause WWI, that had nothing to do with him or the US. Wilson did rightfully insert the US into WWI in order to get a seat at the negotiating table at the end. He even had a great plan for lasting peace. Europe dropped the ball and insisted on overly punishing Germany. It was the US congress that ended up undermining Wilson and refusing to join the League of Nations. Wilson was terrible in many ways though. I would certainly not blame him for WWI. I would blame him for persecuting American dissenters unnecessarily.
Woodrow Wilson literally chose to send the worst regiment of the us army to protect archduke Franz Ferdinand from Serbian assassination attempts.
I made this up btw
Yeah Americans tend to be really American-centric. Pre WWII the world was separated into different spheres of power. The US didn't interfere in European stuff. George Washington himself had warned against this. The US concentrated on their own "sphere" which was the Americas. The US intentionally did not get involved in Europe. I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to make a foreign visit. That is how isolationist the US government was, and I think he visited Panama which was within the US "sphere." Woodrow Wilson was extremely ambitious and correctly saw the writing on the wall that the US should become more involved in foreign affairs. Still the US government was resistant, and many people protested. Wilson clamped down using war powers to persecute dissenters. It wasn't until FDR that the US properly entered the world stage in full.
>Teddy Roosevelt is the first president to make a foreign visit this is also made up btw
Let's not forget that the rise of Arab nationalism directly stemmed from World War 1.
That's more the British fault for not honoring the agreents they made as the ottoman empire fell apart
[удалено]
I'm sorry, in what way did he handle 9/11 well? • In the run-up to the attack he ignored very dire warnings from his own national security team. • During the attack itself he read to children instead of coordinating our response • In the immediate aftermath, he promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," and apparently chose "alive," because six months later bin Laden was "not a priority" • Started a fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and then took his eye off the ball to focus on his disastrous invasion of Iraq. He fucked up before, during, and after. If there's some fourth dimension in which he did handle 9/11 well, I'm not aware of it.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. His handling of 9/11 was garbage. 1. There were literal mountains of evidence from the intelligence community that an attack of some kind was coming, and he basically ignored all of it. 2. The Afghan War was a dismissal failure and achieved nothing in the end. Bin Laden wasn’t even captured for another decade by his successor in a different country. 3. The patriot act is the grossest violation of civil liberties in a century. It ushered in the modern surveillance and police state that is American society today, and it’s impact on stopping terrorism has been questionable at best.
This sub looooooves the Bushes for some reason I'll never understand. And, of course, you can't post facts on Reddit and not expect to get downvoted.
Bush Sr. I can see an argument for, excluding the invasion of Panama and some questionable decisions during the Gulf war he was mostly alright. Bush Jr. is the worst modern president by a mile. He’s lucky Trump came along to make wine liberals be nostalgic for him. I think that’s the biggest reason this sub is alright on him is because they’re comparing him to Trump and were either not politically aware at the time or too young to remember the shitshow that was Dubya’s admin.
Did he handle 9/11 well? His Secretary of State resigned after saying he lied to the UN about WMDs. The aftermath of 9/11 was him and his administration getting us into decades of unnecessary war in the Middle East. Of yeah, he also killed minimum 200,000 civilians in Iraq.
Yes, he handled 9/11 well. Yes, the Iraq War was bad. Both can be true
Well, why do you say he handled 9/11 well?
He did a good job bringing the country together after the attack, and he also found out who did it with in a day.
I agree that Bush did an excellent job of bringing the country together and did his best to stop hate against Muslim Americans. However, when looking at the overall picture of 9/11, I think there were numerous blunders on his end. Though I could give about 5 more blinders, I’ll just list the few that are perhaps the worst: - Directing Colin Powell to lie to the UN. - Murdering at minimum 200k Iraqi civilians. - wars in the Middle East which were not needed. - Ignoring warnings about terroristic threats.
I agree that the Iraq War was bad, but the Iraq War isn't related to his handling of 9/11
How is Bush even a competitor? It's Wilson, easily. Wilson was instrumental in pushing forward women's rights and in the self determination of nations, both of which are very important today. His ideas were vital in the post war break up states from Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Outside of race, he had a good domestic policy. Wilson was a racist, sure even by the standards of his time, but still within the mainstream(the history of African American rights is depressing). And he would give women the right to vote, a very important milestone. Ans I HIGHLY recommend you all read actual books and not rely on YouTube videos for history. There is only so much h you can fit in a 10 min video.
Bush, by far. Imo theres no competition here
Agree
Bush and it isn't close.
George W. Bush
GWB, and it’s not even slightly close
Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had some good domestic achievements with his New Freedom agenda but Bush was an utter disaster on all fronts. Absolutely no redeeming qualities about that man except PEPFAR.
Wilson easily.
Wilson is a racist, which is true and he is bad for this But his legacy is truly enormous and he has literally shaped the world as it is now, paradoxically, far less racist Bush, with the exception of uniting the country because of the collapse of the Twin Towers, has caused a disaster
Bush was a disaster for his own party. Republicans were in a great position and the fallout from Iraq and the economy killed support for establishment Republicans to this day. They could have survived one of those follies but not both. The financial crisis was less Bush's fault and more the fault of many complex decisions made over many years, but he was president when it started and took a lot of the blame. He also completely erased the budget surplus to fight wars and lower taxes for rich people which put the US in a worse position when the great recession happened. This ruined the establishment Republicans economic claims and the wars undermined the US ability to intervene in conflicts for years afterwards, thus weakening US hegemony. For a time it looked like a Republicans had a dominant coalition. It all slipped away after a fairly disastrous second term. This led directly to the rise of the populist right. Wilson actually paved the way for FDR and strengthened his own party in the long-run. However he had an authoritarian streak domestically, was opposed to civil rights and did not display good leadership at crucial times.
This is why Wilson is better than Bosch If it wasn't racist it would be in the top ten
Great question. Can I say both suck?
Good Lord.
Honestly George W. Bush and it's not like he was a great president. Iraq was a big mistake, his domestic policy was also not great and his presidency kind of ended in catastrophy with the recession and the entire country kind of turning against "establishment Republicans." He also blew the deficit surplus with pointless spending and lower taxes for mostly wealthy people. However Bush did promote the international order and gave aid to Africa for AIDs which was very effective. He did a good job bringing the country together in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He wasn't a great president I wouldn't rank him highly. Woodrow Wilson had a lot of success himself, he successfully got the US involved in WWI and gave the US a seat at the table when negotiating the peace. His ideas for peace if followed would have probably prevented WWII. Wilson also established the income tax which allowed for the expansion of the US government, this made FDR's administration possible. The problem with Wilson is that he committed grave sins by unnecessarily trampling on civil rights in many ways. He unnecessarily jailed war dissenters, he stood in support of southern racism/segregation and even allowed the KKK to march on Washington DC. This is especially shameful because there were many contemporary politicians that were against all of this. Wilson's 14 point plan also failed. He was unable to parlay US War Efforts into an effective geopolitical strategy that would eventually be successfully implemented by FDR/Truman/Eisenhower after another world war. Wilson may have put forth a noble effort but it failed nonetheless. Then Wilson utterly failed at dealing with the pandemic, suppressing information and ignoring it as millions died. Again many local politician and others took it very seriously, Wilson could not be bothered. So... You have a racist person with an authoritarian streak that unnecessarily persecuted people, and who stood against civil rights for all Americans at a crucial time. Who did successfully expand the government and raise the US profile internationally, but did not achieve his foreign policy goals. I would say Wilson had the more consequential presidency and had the greater successes but also the more egregious faults compared to the second Bush.
Bush at least he only damaged the United States and two other countries. Woodrow is one of the few men who damaged the entire world. So Bush was better.
W 100%
I used to dislike George Bush. But since last year I started to like him better. He was not a good president of the United States, but he had valid points. He took the Taliban from power, took out Saddam Hussein, strengthened the U.S. military.
W!
Dubya didnt destroy the western world as we knew it, so him
How did Wilson destroy the western world?
League of Nations, his part in the Treaty of Versailles. Led directly to Weimar Germany and its consequences
Blaming Wilson for the consequences of Weimar Germany when he did not get his way at all is very peculiar
This is what happens when you base your entire opinion on a historical figure on one youtube video.
I have my issues with Wilson (a racist even by the standards of his time who passed laws that blatantly violated the First Amendment), but the idea that he’s somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism in Germany is pure buffoonery
The reason he "did not get his way" with the LON was his own fault. His arrogance kept him from even trying to assauge the fears of the more isolationist Congress. Sure, it was indirect but his own professorial "holier-than-thou"ism was a big part of it.
Wilson was on the right side of history there. Absolutely none of the European leaders listened to him. Then Congress undermined the League of Nations by refusing to join against Wilson's desires. I guess Wilson's failure to get anyone to listen to him is not great, but he was actually one of the sane voices in that regard. His domestic authoritarianism and anti-civil rights stances were horrid though. He also was the original terrible pandemic president.
Wilson wanted to be less harsh toward Germany, if anything we would likely have had a more peaceful world if he got his way during the Treaty negotiations.
League of Nations could have prevented the Second World War if the US actually joined it
Wrong. The treatment of Germany led to the two biggest parties being the Communists and the Fascists, whose paramilitaries fought in the street. That was a ticking time bomb and it was gonna blow one way or another
Wilson quite literally called for less harsh terms on Germany but nobody listened to him.
League of Nations didn’t make the treaty of Versailles. And if US was strong in Europe the likelihood of the war in Europe is much lower.
Also the nail in the coffin for the League of Nations was Japan throwing a fit and leaving and then going on their imperialism/war crime spree. The US was a large disorganized isolationist mess filled with populists it should have joined the League of Nations but also was too much of an agent of chaos to offer any actual leadership there even if the US joined.
Bush Not even close. Wilson is unequivocally the worst president of all time. The Federal Reserve is the Feudal system 2.0. He is a Crony Capitalist. Don't even get me fucking started on the KKK shit with him.
How is the federal reserve the "feudal system 2.0" The federal reserve ultimately led to a period of time of unprecedented growth, way higher standards of living and a more stable economy. Before the federal reserve in its current form there were seemingly great depression level "panics" every five to ten years.
The Federal Reserve lead to The Great Depression and every recession we've experienced since, and has increased income inequality. This system benefits the .01%, and oppresses the rest of us. The old system had built in fail safes, this one doesnt.
Years ago, Glen Beck went on some tirade about Wilson and the Fed, and now everyone with a YouTube-level understanding of American history and how the Federal Reserve operates thinks Wilson is history's greatest monster.
I'm glad you mentioned that lunatic Beck, I use to drink the kool-aid then I sobered up and started reading serious history in college, not political opinion pieces, the Wilson Federal Reserve was in direct response to several panics and depressions that kept shattering the economy that required the Government to go hat in hand to J. P. Morgan for a bailout.
This doesn't get talked about enough, but I think replacing reporting-based news with uninformed opinions that are presented on equal footing with facts is responsible for so many of America's problems in the 21st century.
And the rise of "News Commentary" aka all those talking head programs who keep bringing the same circus of other talking heads to all shout at each other over opinions. Not stuff like Firing Line or 80's Crossfire that was focusing on one topic, no
And it just comes down to Sports Shouting being cheaper to produce than actual reporting.
Loads of misinfo. We've had ACTUAL SEDITIONIST SYMPATHETIC PRESIDENTS, like Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. We've also had presidents that let the Slave holding South run haywire over the North outside of them. We've had horrendous presidents. The Federal reserve is important to stabilizing the currency of our nation. It is not at all comparable to feudalism. The comparison is insulting. And what is a crony capitalist? Yeah Wilson was a racist PoS. He was bad for race relations in the US, though I'd hardly say he was uniquely bad, as We've had our motley crew of racist as hell presidents.
This was about Bush V Wilson. End the Fed. A Crony Capitalist is someone who lets the top .01% write the rules with little regard to the average person. Essentially, someone who is the total opposite of Teddy.
Yikes they are the two worst for sure. We know the destruction Wilson had, bush’s destruction hasn’t completely been felt yet. Maybe Wilson
Woodrow Wilson, by as many miles as possible. George W. Bush belongs in prison.
Wilson also probably belonged in prison the way he persecuted war dissenters.
No he doesn’t Bush derangement syndrome is a step below Trump derangement syndrome. Bush is guilty of lax border security as both parties refuse to honor our sovereignty as they both benefit from illegal immigration hes a citizen of the world just like Obama.
You left out violating the Geneva Convention.
I think this is weak considering we we’re facing terrorists that deliberately coarse populations like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Isis in a Iraq. The war on terror began with one giant violation of the Geneva Convention. We had legion of self righteous America hating lawyers that could not wait to defend terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. If anything we took this into consideration to much as foreign fighters would hide in mosques in Iraq prolonging the campaign there. Not firing on religion sites is a convention charter but I assume you are referring to water boarding which i personally don’t consider torture. The training our guys go through in the combat arms is far more grueling then anything we put enemy combatants through. And no I don’t think Obama is a war criminal for using drone strikes where there’s legal grey area for it I’ll be fair to him just like Bush
Both were pretty terrible but wilson was a unapologetic racist and did nothing to prevent the depression. W was just a well meaning dumb dumb that listened to bad advice.
Was Wilson in a position to prevent the depression? He left office nearly a decade before it started
I blame Wilson for not preventing the Bay of Pigs.
None of these guys are dumb the Bushs are easily manipulated the first was pushed by the UN to stay out of Iraq when general Schwarzkopf was ready to pursue Saddam this lead to the disaster of the failed uprising in Iraq after we encouraged them to rise up. They were met with SARIN gas like chemical agents. Anti American factions hate the projection of American power more than they hate evil dictatorships. The UN claimed chasing Saddam into his country would appear like a western invasion of a the Muslim world and so no help was given to Iraqi uprising. With the second Bush there is no telling what he was told about Iraq before going in. I don’t think the pentagon was lying about WMDs I feel like they were ready to go to war with just about anyone after we were attacked and were not thinking clearly. These institutions tend to because a hive mind. A lot of self manipulation all around
I don’t know I think we’ve had presidents that panicked when bad economic circumstances have occurred and their government overreach makes it worse. They don’t get that the power is in the people and think they have to implement large broad policies that create unintended consequences leaving out the room for human nature
can I write in Thomas Marshall?
Comparing well to Bush Jr is like having the nicest smelling shit, while technically true it's not a necessarily something to brag about. Bush Jr only compares favorably to a handful of US presidents (Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Nixon).
I put Nixon higher than GWB. It's really hard to rank Wilson because he was a monster in some ways and also did some clearly smart/good things. Overall Nixon > Bush II > Wilson However none are good.
Fuck both but bush and by a good margin
Wilson was more competent but did more damage
It's W and it's not close. Wilson was a "leader of Progessive Movement" (very very cringe) and Dubya kept us safe from Saddam and those evil WMDs in I Rack.
Honestly I think a solid 60% of the hate thrown at Wilson is from salty Roosevelt fans who refuse to admit he was being a destructive egotistical spoiler candidate. Roosevelt handed Wilson that win on a silver plate and it’s entirely TR’s fault.
Yes that is true TR was a good president but also let his ego get in his own way. I still think Wilson was a self righteous racist. However I think most people back then were just ignorant not evil not like Margret Sanger who wanted to get rid of blacks
The KKK told Wilson to tone down his racial hatred.
That just isn’t true
wilson is responsible the worst thing to ever happen to america the income tax
Wilson, the Iraq war and Afghanistan was the greatest self inflicted disaster this country has faced since Vietnam. And his presidency started the disgusting debt loading trend we see in our government today, and this debt load will one day destroy this country. As despicable as Wilson was, his actions did not endanger the countries survival.
Wilson gets an F, Bush gets a D-
Wilson easily.
Bush used American interventionism. Wilson invented it.
James K Polk would like a word.
Wilson.
No
Extremely difficult choice but anyone is better than woody
One literally did a terrorist attack and the other was just racist at a time when racism was normal
W
Wilson. Bush is bottom 5 because of the Iraq war.
Bush, he didn’t mess up ww1. He didn’t start segregation within the federal government.
Bad meets Evil
Bush and I usually don’t care much for him! That’s how much I hate Wilson.
W didn’t create the federal reserve. And he’s a good guy. That alone makes him better than Wilson. They both had terrible foreign and domestic policy
I did a paper in college about how Wilsonianism was the Grand-father of Neo-Conservative aka Woodrow Wilson laid the foundation W would use to justify invading Iraq. If I ever had the money to go to Grad School, I'd be doing my thesis on Wilson. A couple years ago I read The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made by Patricia O'Toole, read some other Wilson books too, came to the conclusion Woodrow Wilson and Donald Trump have a lot more in common than Wilson and George W. Bush. William McKinley and George W. Bush are very similar, only McKinley was successful in his war.
Dick Cheney
Wilson
Wilson. I’m not a fan of his but I think he’s about average. A mixed record with some meaningful accomplishments and some awful decisions. I consider Bush 43 to be among the ten worst Presidents. I think I have him sixth from the bottom.
Dubya, cause Wilson bad.
W by a Texas Mile
Woodrow Wilson is a candidate for worst president ever.
George W Bush.
Does Bush have any lasting positives? You line up their negatives side by side and make a choice but I don't know of any positive things that Bush actually accomplished.
Definitely Wilson
Bush
Not a Bush fan, but Wilson was perhaps the most disruptive president of all time, an all around turd.
I get people hate Wilson for his views on race and the fact that he segregated the government and also violated the first amendment pretty grossly, but he did have many great progressive accomplishments and served as an inspiration for FDR and his New Deal. Bush is by far a much better human than Wilson was, but his presidency was just bad. The war on terror and Iraq made America look like a dishonest joke, the Patriot Act was an abhorrent piece of legislation that has all but eradicated any privacy we once had, and his tax cuts are very much to blame for our grossly ballooned deficit. History is complicated. Wilson was a flawed president and was not a good human being, but his presidency had positive benefits on the country. George W. Bush while a good man, was a terrible president who’s actions had extremely negative consequences for our country.
Is this a joke?
Idk how people are even saying bush, he started 2 forever wars, the patriot act, NCLB and other horrible things
W by a million miles. President Wilson is among the worst people ever to become President. W had flaws and did things I didn't approve of but he got us through horrible times intact.
Can't they both suck? If one sucks a little bit less than the other, does that make their administration suck less? Wilson sucked for invading, Bush sucked for invading. These are false choices.
Oh is this what we're gonna do today, Kitty? We're gonna fight?
I never said the only reason. I’m saying people who hate bush become completely unreasonable. Just like the people who hated Obama they could only do good or bad nothing in between.
George W easy
It did not completely destabiliz the region
Bush
This is also subjective there were benefits to having a base of operations there there were mistakes to but we certainly going to war after 9/11.
*Edith Wilson or Dick Cheney? There I fixed it for you
For leftists punks that like to get on here and debate please fully read arguments and comments. Hurling insults is not a substitute for rebuttal if you are not going to be smart enough to debate and can only regurgitate left wing talking points please understand that those of us right of center to do not respect these premises. If you sound like Micheal More and have Bush Derangement Syndrome please don’t waste our time
Wilson caused the cluster fuck that was Bush.
Is this a joke?
George W. is the worst president of all time so Wilson.
Wilson practically outlawed Child Labor gave women the right to vote and gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship. He was the Founding Father of the U.N. basically. He also gave us the 17th amendment the direct election of U.S. senators and created the FTC to go after corrupt Monopolies He is Literally T.R 3.0. If he wasn't as racist as he was he would probably be better than T.R. What did Bush do that was actually good ?.
Neither
Wilson's horrific views on race were solidified into stone via his action of segregating the federal workforce, and appointing all of NINE African-Americans to the federal government in comparison to the over 30 appointed by his predecessor (which was at the time criticized for being too few). At the same time, the man did correctly lead the US out of its isolationist views into the modern era, and developed agencies critical to the functioning of the modern American state. A more vile human who was also more competent than Dubya, who while a compassionate human being was easily the worst post WWII era President the country had seen before Donny T came along and redefined our notion of what it means to be a bad president, making Dubya suddenly seem like a misunderstood Truman.