Van Buren. You Suck.

Martin Van Buren and his muttonchops

Truman gets a bad rap. He dropped the atomic bombs, he failed to reign in Stalin, and led America into the Korean War. Nevertheless, he led America out of World War II and depression, saved Western Europe from Stalin, and promoted a wise domestic policy. There was little Truman did that FDR would have disapproved of. When Truman left office he had few supporters. Historians and octogenarians agree FDR is one of the greatest presidents. The Truman fan club is much smaller.

The same situation goes for Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Van Buren kept many of Jackson's cabinet and continued most of his policies. Yet, Andrew Jackson is on the ten dollar bill, and the best you can say for Van Buren is he was mentioned on Seinfeld. Has Van Buren's legacy been as unjustly maligned as Truman?

No.

I have never hid my total hatred for Martin Van Buren. In elementary school, each student was given a president to report on. Unlike some classmates who got "awesome" presidents like Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and the Roosevelts, my assignment was the eighth president of the United States. I combed his story for amazing details but was left with sadness. As a young student in 1991, I knew there was a bad president. His name was Richard Nixon and he was a mean man who almost ruined America. I also knew America did bad things in the past. Slavery wasn't a good thing. Also we weren't too nice to the "Indians" (excuse me for the pre-1992 lingo). With my introduction to Martin Van Buren, my childhood innocence (presidents-wise) was lost. This man was awful.

"Martin Van Buren was the Vice President under Andrew Jackson, and he oversaw the Trail of Tears. In conclusion, Martin Van Buren was the eighth president of the United States. The End."

B+. How dare you ruin my perfect grade in social studies.

Andrew Jackson started two major policies which ruined Van Buren in the short and long-term. The short term disaster was the elimination of the second national bank. Jackson entrusted the states with handing finances. In Van Buren's first year in office, banks closed, inflation and unemployment grew, and the president did nothing to assuage the crisis. Another panic occurred two years later, leaving America (and Van Buren) in further ruin. The crisis was relatively temporary, but cost Van Buren any chance of reelection.

The long term disaster set-up by Jackson was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The law allowed the United States, as they saw fit, to remove Native Americans from their land. During Van Buren's presidency, the Treaty of New Echota was ratified, leading to the forced removal of the Cherokee. The Chickasaw were also kicked off their land at the start of his term.

In Florida, Van Buren fought Seminoles who refused to leave their land. In his 1838 State of the Union speech, Van Buren said action of the Seminoles left "no alternative but to continue the military operations against them until they are totally expelled from Florida." This was a costly and bloody success.

In the same speech, Van Buren summed up the Trail of Tears.

"The recent emigrants, although they have in some instances removed reluctantly, have readily acquiesced in their unavoidable destiny."

Unavoidable destiny? You're awful! I have not seen a more vile statement by any other American president (prove me wrong). For more awful Van Buren quotes, visit this site. If you don't hate Van Buren yet, reread that statement again.

Although he was vocally against slavery later in life, as president he did nothing of importance to affect this critical issue. In fact, Van Buren opposed the mutinying slaves in the Amistad case. Not cool, Martin.

Van Buren was the first in a long line of terrible presidents. He was followed by William Henry Harrison (died a month in), John Tyler (hated by both parties, later joined the Confederacy), James Polk (started land-grab war against Mexico), Zachary Taylor (slave-owner but otherwise okay), Millard Fillmore (know-nothing loser), Franklin Pierce (terrible president, Confederate sympathizer), and James Buchanan (do-nothing apathetic loser). Quite simply, these eight incompetent presidents presided over the worst bit of American History. The mediocrity began with Martin Van Buren, with the help of his mentor and predecessor, Andrew Jackson.

Van Buren. You suck.

You too Jackson.

LBJ: First and Last, Anything but Average

Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ Library)

Every six years Siena College releases a poll of the Best Presidents of all-time. Usually the race is between Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, but in 2010 Franklin Delano Roosevelt came in first. This might irritate some (like some historian friends of mine), but I want to look beyond the top and focus on the fascinating

Siena released their findings category by category, which makes me, a list nerd, very happy. Did you know Washington was the best at avoiding crucial mistakes? Buchanan had the worst leadership ability? But only one president ranked first in one category and last in another. Some people say Richard Nixon would be remembered as a good president if it wasn't for Watergate, but it's safe to say LBJ would have been considered one of the greatest if not for Vietnam. In the Siena poll, historians ranked Johnson 16 out of 43. Closer to average than to greatness. A three-star presidency. Here's how Johnson ranked, from best to worst:

Relationship with Congress, Rank: 1

With the help of congress, LBJ pushed through the biggest series of government changes since The New Deal (FDR ranked second). Even with foreign policy, he had an excellent relationship with congress. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving Johnson a blank check to yield unilateral military might in East Asia. As a former member of both houses of Congress, and Senate Majority Leader for six years, Johnson was able to strong arm and compromise when needed to get his programs passed.

Party Leadership, Rank: 3

LBJ: kicking-ass and
taking-names (LBJ Library)

Two years as Senate Minority Leader, six as Majority Leader, three as Vice President, five as President, LBJ had a powerful sway over the Democratic Party. If Barry Goldwater is credited as the ideological leader of the modern Republican Party, Lyndon Johnson should receive equal credit for engineering the modern Democratic Party. In domestic policy, there is little or no difference between Johnson's ideals and actions, and the current party platform. In 1964, over 80% of African Americans voted for Johnson, a stat that has continued for Democratic Party candidates ever since.

Court Appointments, Rank: 5

This high ranking has little to do with nominating Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court. Fortas was a justice for only four year before having to resign in disgrace. This has everything to do with the selection of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American nominated to the Supreme Court. Marshall was an extremely accomplished lawyer best known for his civil rights victories. He served for twenty-four years. The man even has a feast-day in the Episcopal Church, May 17, the day his Brown vs. Board of Education case proved victorious. Thurgood was a helpful ally of Johnson's policies.

Domestic Accomplishments, Rank: 5

Ability to Compromise, Rank: 9
Overall Ability, Rank: 9

Signing Medicare into law
with Truman by his side (LBJ Library)

Again, these show his success with the Great Society, civil rights, and anti-poverty legislation that continued the United States success as the leading world power, and LBJ's success as a great leader (when it came to working with American politicians).

Handling of the U.S. economy, Rank: 10

Willing to take Risks, Rank: 12

Executive Appointments, Rank: 12

Imagination, Rank: 12

Executive Ability, Rank: Rank: 12

More positive rankings, mainly for his ability to use the executive branch to promote his ideas. Imagination for his Great Society, War on Poverty, and Space Race success. Even with his failures, America began and ended his tenure as the most powerful country in the world. Note the high rank for "willing to take risks" when you see his rankings for "luck" and "avoiding crucial mistakes" later on.

Background, Rank: 15

LBJ was a college graduate who became a teacher before getting into politics. I guess historians took that information and said: "15". I consider this the least important and most confusing of all of Siena's rankings. Other than putting Thomas Jefferson first, I don't understand any of these rankings. They gave the otherwise-great Abraham Lincoln his lowest marks for his background. I guess being born poor, with little education, dealing with depression, but still becoming a lawyer, state senator, and popular orator means "28".

Leadership Ability, Rank: 15

Communication Skills, Rank: 16
His leadership was successful for 4 of his 5 years as president. For communication skills, which equal his overall score, I point you to an animatronic LBJ:

Intelligence, Rank: 21
A president of "average intelligence". No surprised super-brained Thomas Jefferson ranks first.

A frustrated gentleman (LBJ Library)

Luck, Rank: 28
Integrity, Rank: Rank: 34
Avoid Crucial Mistakes, Rank: 37
Pretty poor rankings here. Luck and Crucial Mistakes seem equally paired. The man was on a great hot streak, but Vietnam was the end of his luck. His successor, Richard Nixon, was even worse when it came to avoiding crucial mistakes. As for integrity, I'm kind of shocked he's ranked so low after taking the moral high ground when it came to civil rights, health care rights, and poverty aid. Seems dropping agent orange and napalm on a foreign country made him lose points.


Foreign Policy Accomplishments, Rank: 43
43 is the worst a president can be ranked in a category, and Johnson got it for one reason: The Vietnam War. The war was a quagmire, one which many consider the first (and maybe only) war The United States lost.

Inspecting the troops (LBJ Library)

Johnson went all-in for victory but did not succeed. Eventually, the communists were victorious, and the U.S. lost over 50,000 troops. Johnson refused to run for re-election, as his foreign policy disaster overshadowed every single domestic success.

The war split the Democratic party, leading to the election of Republican Richard Nixon. This ended an era where 28 of the past 36 years Democratic presidents were in power. Republicans took power and held the presidency for 28 of the next 40 years. Still, over 40 years later, many of Johnson's policies are still in place, and his work for civil rights helped push the south into democracy for the first time. 

What do you think of LBJ? What other president deserves a high five and a middle finger?

America: A Young Democracy

When did freedom ring? When did America live up to its ideals? Some would say it still hasn't, given such things as anti-gay laws, anti-muslim laws, illegal immigration laws, and lack of prisoner rights (including, in some cases, the loss of the right to vote, indefinite detention, and, in a few notable cases, torture). 

Yet for most citizens, there is a high level of freedom, and for our country a high level of democracy. But obviously this wasn't always the case, and certainly not solved by our independence in 1776.

Question: When did American become a full-fledged Democracy?

Let's take a look at some data, focusing on two modern reports, and from there we'll work backwards. The first is the respected Democracy Index. In 2010, the United States placed 17 out of 167 nations, and among the 26 nations listed as "full democracies". The second report, Freedom in the World, listed the United States as "free" in 2010, receiving top marks for political rights and civil liberties.

Now let's go through their methods for figuring out our rankings, and figure out when we became a viable democracy.

Freedom of the World's view of a free democracy:

1. A competitive, multiparty political system; Year: 1796
   This is something we've had for many years, at least for the two main parties (it's currently extremely difficult to win any election on a third party ticket). The last time this was not true is debatable. During Reconstruction (1865-1877), the Radical Republicans placed rules on southern governments, ruining competition, and allowing the Republicans 12 years of rule. But the true beginning of a competitive, multiparty system began in 1796, when Thomas Jefferson split off with the Federalists to face (and lose to) John Adams as a Democratic-Republican in the second presidential election. The first two elections were won by George Washington, who did not officially belong to a political party.
2. Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses); Year: 1965

   

   LBJ Signs the Voting Rights Act

   That's a big exception (by some estimates a 5.3 million exception in the U.S.). In my opinion, universal adult suffrage did not become official until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. You can argue for 1971 as well,  when adults between the ages of 18 and 20 earned the vote with the passage of the 26th Amendment (previously you could be drafted at 18 but not vote until 21). Every year previous to 1965, voting intimidation and ineligibility kept universal suffrage from becoming a reality. Starting with the first election, you were not allowed to vote if you were non-white, female, or if you did not own land.  The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, led to suffrage for freemen and former slaves, but women still were not allowed the right to vote (not until 1920). By the end of Reconstruction in 1877, "Jim Crow" laws made it tough or nearly impossible for African-Americans in the south to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 righted most of this wrong (the poll tax, another barrier to voting, was declared illegal a year later).
3. Regularly contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot security, and the absence of massive voter fraud that yields results that are unrepresentative of the public will; Year: 1965
   Some gerrymandering aside, most congressional and presidential elections are regularly contested (and can switch parties). For massive voter fraud, some may point to the hyper charges between both parties in recent years. Politically, it's probably too early in history to confirm the 2000 Presidential Election results as "unrepresentative of the public will" (an extremely close race nonetheless - being a candidate's brother in charge of disputed ballots). The Presidential Election of 1876 would count, where Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden, even though Tilden had the popular and electoral votes, and was decided along party lines in congress.. Hayes gained the presidency without incident though, in return for ending Reconstruction, which, in turn, led to voter intimidation and fraud throughout the South for nearly a century. Again, 1965 looks to be the key, where African Americans were not long disenfranchised.
4. Significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning; Year: 1800
   Other than the failed Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to push press to a single side (for the Federalists and John Adams, against Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republican), public access of the (usually two) political parties have been given saturated coverage by the media. Today there are presidential debates (since 1960) and primary elections (through most of the US history party nominees were picked behind closed doors). The two parties views (and sometimes a third or forth) are represented through the media through news and campaign ads. So although the media rights and public access hasn't always been 100% (still probably not), I'll pick 1800 as when this clause was fulfilled. When Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts failed their cause, and the media were once again free to question, probe, and criticize.
   

Democracy Index's methodology:

1. "Whether national elections are free and fair"; 1965

   

   Samuel Tilden was robbed

   Compared with most other countries, the United States has an excellent record of free and fair elections. This again goes back to the Voting Rights act of 1965, the first year that men and women, no matter their race nor geographic location, could vote in an election, without fear of intimidation or retribution. There has been 11 presidential elections since 1965, and in all but one (cough cough 2000) the candidate who received the most votes won the election. There has been no clear example in the modern era of a candidate with poor voter approval stealing an election. With term limits set in place after Franklin Roosevelt's term, there's been an inability of the executive branch to skew multiple elections in their favor.
2. "The security of voters"; Year: 1965
   There has been no major successful voter intimidation efforts in recent times. Intimidation probably reached its peak during the Jim Crow years. Yet, in recent times, one can cast a ballot anonymously and successfully without fear of reprisal.
3. "The influence of foreign powers on government";  Year: 1776
   This has always been close to zero. Since ousting Great Britain in the American Revolution, our nation is prideful of its independence. Current contenders for influence would include China (who we owe a massive debt to) and Israel (who, for better or worse, has a successful lobbying group), but neither has a solid command over our government. We've been close allies at times with Great Britain, who encouraged our entry into World War II (we still took 3 years), and who previously burned down our White House (a bad influence). Currently The United States is the large foreign influence on our allies, never the other way around.
4. "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies". Year 1829
   Minus the obvious congressional gridlock, the Constitution and current government structure allows for successful innovation and change. These policies might be supported by special interest lobbies, but nonetheless, most rules are voted on by congress, implemented by senate-approved members of the executive branch, and overseen by a large judicial branch. There has hardly been a time in American history where our country failed to move forward with new laws and policies. But for the sake of picking a date, I chose 1829, the first year of Andrew Jackson's administration. Jackson created a powerful executive branch which was able to control policy equal with the other two branches.

So my best estimate of when the United States became a free democracy was in 1965. Our stature only improved in 1971 when we let adults who can be drafted to war also be allowed to vote. We've been pretty good ever since. Previous to 1965 we were a "flawed democracy" in the terms set by the Democracy Index. It's debatable if we were ever in a "hybrid regime" (maybe Lincoln suspending habeus corpus in the Civil War, the Radical Republican's rule during Reconstruction, or Franklin D. Roosevelt's 12 years as president). As for being an "authoritarian regime", the United States, even under British rule, citizens never had it that bad. Slaves and Native Americans, though, had an awful time, so maybe previous to 1861 we were authoritarian. Nevertheless, congrats to our country on over 40 years of relative freedom and democracy!

Although I am the totalitarian ruler of this blog, disagreements, advice, or comments are appreciated.