Gerald Ford: America's Greatest President?

Jesse Walker - 1/2/2007

if we judge him by intentions rather than results

...then we'd be liberals, dammit! :>

Roderick T. Long - 1/1/2007

A general problem, as I see it, with trying to rank presidents by libertarian criteria is that generally the ones who did the most libertarian things also did the most anti-libertarian things, whereas those who were more moderate in their libertarian effects were also more moderate in their anti-libertarian effects. (Though it doesn't work the other way around -- that is, while higher scores on the libertarian side tend to be offset by higher scores on the anti-libertarian side, there's no analogous tendency for higher scores on the anti-libertarian side to be offset by higher scores on the libertarian side.)

For example: what are some of the most libertarian achievements of presidents? Well ... here are three: ending the Alien & Sedition acts, stopping the Bank of the U.S., ending slavery. Sounds good. But the first was done by a slaveowner and civil-liberties-violator, the second by the Trail of Tears guy, and the third by a warmongering dictator.

As for Harrison -- if we judge him by intentions rather than results then he's worse than Van Buren (since he was as bad as Van Buren on the Indian question, and worse on most other issues).

Jesse Walker - 12/29/2006

Here, by the way, is Hummel's article in praise of Van Buren.

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

I'm as much an anarchist as the next bomb thrower, but haven't there been (a few) presidents who actively and successfully sought to reduce the size and power of the government during their administrations and who caused it to be smaller than it would have been with an average president at the time? I don't think it is quite as bad as a choice of execution methods: some presidents have actually stopped, or at least delayed, the execution.

The more depressing discussion is of the worst presidents: I'd rather think about Van Buren, Cleveland, and Coolidge than have to focus on Lincoln, Wilson, and Truman.

David T. Beito - 12/28/2006

Good point. Van Buren most shining moments were ex-president as a candidate of the Free Soilers. If we knock him out of contention, however, it is hard to think of good replacements. Just about everyone has a serious black mark against them. Who else is there?

I rather like John Adams, for example, for resisting war....but the again he also gave us the Alien and Sedition acts.

Charles Johnson - 12/28/2006

Aeon,

But is the standard being employed here "Which President did the least damage," or "Which President did the least damage in proportion to the damage he could have inflicted if he'd had a mind to?" Because if it's the relative standard rather than the absolute standard, then it seems like the Cold War Presidents are the obvious winners. After all, any one of them could have incinerated most of the world's population by authorizing a full-scale nuclear war, if he'd had a mind to. But none of them did, in the end. Can't say that makes me too enthusiastic about the "winners," though.

Charles Johnson - 12/28/2006

Sure, but the whole enterprise comes off a bit like "What's the best method of public execution to be killed by?" If I had to be executed, and they gave me the choice, I suppose I would probably choose a well-sharpened guillotine over hanging, firing squad, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, burning at the stake, crucifixion, etc. But it seems silly or even morbid to dignify the enterprise with time, attention, or the title of finding the "best" way to get yourself killed.

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

If it leads to a run on Hummel's fabulous book on the Civil War, I say we start spreading it to all the other libertarian blogs.

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

Pursuant to Sheldon's discomfort with the concept of best presidents, Jeff's list to me was labeled "least bad" presidents. But some horse always finishes first, even in a race of 8 year old maidens. Now if I can just dig out that list I prepared of the best forms of cancer ...

Robert Hugh Hodges - 12/28/2006

Oh well damn my literal mindedness. I’m glad that Hummel lives and sorry for any rumors that this may have started. Imagine a libertarian academic version of the Paul is dead conspiracy where if you look really closely at the cover of The Myth of National Defense you can see a clue about how Hummel died. Scary thought.

Cheers,
Bob

M.D. Fulwiler - 12/28/2006

Sheldon:

Well, there are degrees of good and bad. Cleveland is the best of a generally bad lot, and he actually reduced the size and scope of government ~overall~ during his 2 terms despite some errors.

Read some of his veto messages sometime. Good stuff.

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

> Why does there have to be a best president anyway?

Because Austrian economists are committed to the ordinal nature of preferences. As soon as the calculations are complete, a Chicagoan will be posting how many utils each president earned.

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

Yikes! I should have realized that quip might be taken literally by someone: my apologies. I'm sure he'll very much appreciate your eulogy, more so than if he actually WERE dead.

I was slyly hoping to induce Jeff Hummel, who has a well-informed opinion and great interest in this topic, to post his own thoughts on the subject. Having not succeeded yet, and by way of general apology to anyone I've scared, here is the list Hummel was kind enough to recently send me of his top 10 list of presidents:

1. Van Buren 2. Cleveland 3. Coolidge 4. Harding 5. Jefferson 6. Jackson 7. Ford 8. Monroe 9. Taylor 10. Garfield

If I were alive today, I'd generally agree with the names on the list but have minor quibbles about the order, if only to enjoy an interesting discussion.

Sheldon Richman - 12/28/2006

That's how rumors get started.

Robert Hugh Hodges - 12/28/2006

1) Less, is Jeff Hummel dead? If so, that is a terrible loss as he was a great scholar. How come his death does not seem to be reported on any libertarian sites?

2) I deal at painful length with the question of "greatest president" in my meager blog: http://blackroseupontheroodoftime.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
Bob

Jesse Walker - 12/28/2006

By the "did the least damage in office" standard, the winner would have to be not Martin Van Buren but the man who beat him.

Aeon J. Skoble - 12/28/2006

I'll defer to the historians on this, but two thoughts came to me while reading this thread: one, I think we ought to be very appreciative of Washington for eschewing various trappings of executive privilege which he could have had, and which would have made things even worse had he gone that way. He was, and knew he would be, a precedent-setter, and a lot of his choice, from not being monarchical to limiting himself to 2 terms, were great moves IMO. 2, I'd also vote for William Henry Harrison, who had the good grace to occupy the presidency for what, a month? That's my kind of president.

Sheldon Richman - 12/28/2006

Cleveland let the 1894 income-tax bill become law. The ICC came in under him. Why does there have to be a best president anyway?

Less Antman - 12/28/2006

If Hummel were alive today, I think he'd justify his choice by pointing out that Van Buren prevented potentially massive wars with both Canada and Mexico, and that this more than cancels out his continued prosecution of those Indian Wars that were begun during the Jackson Administration.

But I would argue that Cleveland deserves greater credit for putting an end to the long history of genocide against Native Americans. In addition to 8 years without significant battles against them, he tried, in good faith, to permanently bring them under the protection of private property law through the Dawes Act of 1887. (Wounded Knee occurred during the Harrison interval between Cleveland's 2 administrations.) Cleveland's 2nd administration marked the final end of the genocide (though McKinley and Wilson both added to their own disgraceful records with incidents in 1898 and 1917, respectively). The only negatives that occur to me are the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (equal to a few stumbles by Van Buren in his concessions to Calhoun) and the sending of federal troops to end the railroad strike (and there WAS some legitimate issue of violence involving an interstate activity, and a final body count that, thankfully, can be counted on one's fingers, dwarfed by the Trail of Tears alone). So I think Cleveland should rank ahead of Van Buren.

With all that said, though, my pick is Coolidge. The only clear blemish is the creation of the FCC, and a half-blemish for continuing the increase in restrictions on immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere (but not from Latin America). Against that, he cut taxes over and over again (and didn't raise tariffs, as Harding had done). He produced international demilitarization agreements (as did Harding). He tried twice and finally successfully ended a Marine presence in Nicaragua that had been continuous since Taft, and revoked the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, ending the Bad Neighbor policy. He granted citizenship to all Native Americans.

The original topic being Gerald Ford, I must say he deserves a LOT of credit for trying to stop the growth of the Leviathan, but he didn't really do anything that reduced government power significantly, as Van Buren, Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge each managed. So while he was almost certainly the greatest president in the lifetime of any of us under the age of 75, I think his overall rank is no higher than 5th.

Mark Brady - 12/28/2006

I agree with your choice, but I know that Jeff Hummel would argue strongly for Van Buren.

Amy H. Sturgis - 12/28/2006

Thanks for the link to the Cockburn piece!

Since it was Van Buren's administration that carried out the Trail of Tears and similar acts of ethnic cleansing (inspired by Jackson, yes, but enacted with malice by Van Buren), I'd kick him out of the "best of" category in a heartbeat. Grover Cleveland would be my choice.