Worst Ever
September 24, 2006 4:41 PM Subscribe
There seems to be a pretty firm concensus in some circles that the current occupant of the White House may be the one of the worst in our history, if not the worst. Are there similar metrics for the other branches of government, and if so, how do the men currently serving (Frist in the Senate, Hastert in the House, and Roberts on the Supreme Court) match up with their predecessors?
Given, however, that Roberts has only been on the court for one year, it may be a little premature to, uh, judge. In his case, did anything stand out in his first year on the court that might suggest where he is headed in this regard?
I'd think the other guys, Hastert with almost 10 years and Frist with about three, should have left enough of a trail to make a credible call.
Given, however, that Roberts has only been on the court for one year, it may be a little premature to, uh, judge. In his case, did anything stand out in his first year on the court that might suggest where he is headed in this regard?
I'd think the other guys, Hastert with almost 10 years and Frist with about three, should have left enough of a trail to make a credible call.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this sounds like polling people for political opinions, not answering a question.
Seems hard to believe that Roberts and the current court are going to be worse than the court that issued the Dred Scott decision, or the courts that issued the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy decisions (John Marshall Harlan excepted, peace be upon him).
Likewise, it would be difficult for the current Congress to be worse than the early Congress that passed the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, or the Senate that let McCarthy have his fun, or the endless stream of Congresses that ignored the disenfranchisement of black voters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:11 PM on September 24, 2006
Likewise, it would be difficult for the current Congress to be worse than the early Congress that passed the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, or the Senate that let McCarthy have his fun, or the endless stream of Congresses that ignored the disenfranchisement of black voters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:11 PM on September 24, 2006
The Presidency is inherently more political than the occupants of other government positions in terms of his national newsworthiness for a variety of reasons:
1) His national notoriety versus the limited appeal of a Congressman or a Senator.
2) The long list of predecessors to which the President is judged against.
3) The varying expectations as to how a President should act and what he should do (should he dominate over Congress or be dominated by it, should he focus his efforts towards more domestic matters, or be more internationally minded?).
There are many more reasons, in my opinion, for this phenomena, but I'll focus on these three.
1) There are 435 representatives in the House, 100 in the Senate, and only 1 President. The obvious difference between these three ranks in our government (other than the numbers) are the constituencies they have. A Representative is responsible for roughly 600,000 people, and a Senator for only a single state. News stories for these people only reach the people who care (their constituents), with the exception of political scandals or positions of national prominence, which I'll get to in a minute.
Simply put, though, the President gets more news coverage because, well, he's the President. Because there's much more information available about him in the media then there is about your representatives in Congress, the public is quicker to pass judgement.
2) The same holds true in terms of judgment based on previous officeholders (this goes to the heart of your question of being labeled the "worst ever"). First, there have been more Congressmen and Senators than Presidents — we are in the 109th Congress, second session, and George W. Bush is the 42nd President. Representatives are elected every two years, with Senators coming up for a vote every six. With all these people combined with the less national media attention they receive, who really knows if Congressman X or Senator Y are doing a "better" job than his or her predecessors (some political scientists also believe this is one of the many reasons why Congress as a whole has over a 90% incumbency rate).
Furthermore the procedures used in both houses of Congress have changed drastically over the past two-hundred years, so a "good" Senator in 1912 may not be a good model to judge current Senators against. For instance, the Speaker of the House had much more power until around 1910, when some of his authority, including his chairmanship of the Rules Committee was taken away. There were other major Legislative Reorganization acts in 1946 and 1970 which take into account the changing nature of Congress.
Also, as you mention Senator Frist, there were no "party leaders" i either chamber until after Reconstruction. They are usually judged by their effectiveness in getting tough legislation through Congress (thereby, Majority Leaders like Lyndon Johnson are considered especially high up on the list of "effective" party leaders).
3) I'll touch on this point by saying this: Presidential approval ratings are usually much higher than those of Congress (Congress is usually in the 30's). This could be because of reasons mentioned in 1 and 2, but in terms of your question, it suggests that people are more open to suggestion as to what a particular president should do at this moment versus what Congress should do (make laws). The plethora of things Congress is routinely criticized for (being a rubber stamp for the President, obstructing the President's power, not having any imagination or original ideas) shows a real confusion for Congress as an institution; this, combined with its odd combination of a low approval rating and high incumbency rate, shows that people are generally satisfied with their Congressmen and women, and rarely see fit to "rate" them per se.
Lastly, the Supreme Court. "Rankings" seem to be done posthumously, and most of the time focus on the major decisions of that court (Brown vs. Board of Ed., Baker vs. Carr, Marbury vs. Madison, etc.). The Supreme Court is inherently less political than the other branches of government because the people do not elect the Justices, and the only way to remove them is by impeachment. The public, therefore, "looks the other way" on occasion. For example, Justice Stevens is routinely called the "Supreme Court Justice from Florida" because he's been living there for many years. His clerk in Washington sends him the necessary paperwork and transcripts, and he renders his decisions, and sends them back up to Washington. He does come to Washington on occasion (when he has to), but most people don't mind.
In short, the President is the most "ranked" of any public office holder, and this is going to remain for the next several decades. You can certainly find lists of the best "Chief Justices" or "Speakers of the House", but you must be skeptical because of the dramatic differences in the Congress of yesteryear to the Congress of today.
posted by mikespez at 5:41 PM on September 24, 2006
1) His national notoriety versus the limited appeal of a Congressman or a Senator.
2) The long list of predecessors to which the President is judged against.
3) The varying expectations as to how a President should act and what he should do (should he dominate over Congress or be dominated by it, should he focus his efforts towards more domestic matters, or be more internationally minded?).
There are many more reasons, in my opinion, for this phenomena, but I'll focus on these three.
1) There are 435 representatives in the House, 100 in the Senate, and only 1 President. The obvious difference between these three ranks in our government (other than the numbers) are the constituencies they have. A Representative is responsible for roughly 600,000 people, and a Senator for only a single state. News stories for these people only reach the people who care (their constituents), with the exception of political scandals or positions of national prominence, which I'll get to in a minute.
Simply put, though, the President gets more news coverage because, well, he's the President. Because there's much more information available about him in the media then there is about your representatives in Congress, the public is quicker to pass judgement.
2) The same holds true in terms of judgment based on previous officeholders (this goes to the heart of your question of being labeled the "worst ever"). First, there have been more Congressmen and Senators than Presidents — we are in the 109th Congress, second session, and George W. Bush is the 42nd President. Representatives are elected every two years, with Senators coming up for a vote every six. With all these people combined with the less national media attention they receive, who really knows if Congressman X or Senator Y are doing a "better" job than his or her predecessors (some political scientists also believe this is one of the many reasons why Congress as a whole has over a 90% incumbency rate).
Furthermore the procedures used in both houses of Congress have changed drastically over the past two-hundred years, so a "good" Senator in 1912 may not be a good model to judge current Senators against. For instance, the Speaker of the House had much more power until around 1910, when some of his authority, including his chairmanship of the Rules Committee was taken away. There were other major Legislative Reorganization acts in 1946 and 1970 which take into account the changing nature of Congress.
Also, as you mention Senator Frist, there were no "party leaders" i either chamber until after Reconstruction. They are usually judged by their effectiveness in getting tough legislation through Congress (thereby, Majority Leaders like Lyndon Johnson are considered especially high up on the list of "effective" party leaders).
3) I'll touch on this point by saying this: Presidential approval ratings are usually much higher than those of Congress (Congress is usually in the 30's). This could be because of reasons mentioned in 1 and 2, but in terms of your question, it suggests that people are more open to suggestion as to what a particular president should do at this moment versus what Congress should do (make laws). The plethora of things Congress is routinely criticized for (being a rubber stamp for the President, obstructing the President's power, not having any imagination or original ideas) shows a real confusion for Congress as an institution; this, combined with its odd combination of a low approval rating and high incumbency rate, shows that people are generally satisfied with their Congressmen and women, and rarely see fit to "rate" them per se.
Lastly, the Supreme Court. "Rankings" seem to be done posthumously, and most of the time focus on the major decisions of that court (Brown vs. Board of Ed., Baker vs. Carr, Marbury vs. Madison, etc.). The Supreme Court is inherently less political than the other branches of government because the people do not elect the Justices, and the only way to remove them is by impeachment. The public, therefore, "looks the other way" on occasion. For example, Justice Stevens is routinely called the "Supreme Court Justice from Florida" because he's been living there for many years. His clerk in Washington sends him the necessary paperwork and transcripts, and he renders his decisions, and sends them back up to Washington. He does come to Washington on occasion (when he has to), but most people don't mind.
In short, the President is the most "ranked" of any public office holder, and this is going to remain for the next several decades. You can certainly find lists of the best "Chief Justices" or "Speakers of the House", but you must be skeptical because of the dramatic differences in the Congress of yesteryear to the Congress of today.
posted by mikespez at 5:41 PM on September 24, 2006
Amen. Your question sir, is deeply flawed. Since this is obviously the worst question ever written, can you name the second worst question ever asked?
posted by blue_beetle at 5:42 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 5:42 PM on September 24, 2006
Response by poster: Well, now I know what people think about my questions. The title was supposed to be "Worst <INSERT_YOUR_BRANCH_OF_GOVERNMENT_HERE> Ever", but I didn't get the entity information for the opening and closing brackets right.
posted by hwestiii at 5:51 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by hwestiii at 5:51 PM on September 24, 2006
Response by poster: Also, by picking out Frist, Hastert, and Roberts, I did so because of their leadership positiions, as Majority Leader of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and Chief Justice, not simply sitting members of their respective houses.
Perhaps it is the worst question ever.
posted by hwestiii at 5:54 PM on September 24, 2006
Perhaps it is the worst question ever.
posted by hwestiii at 5:54 PM on September 24, 2006
For as much as I dislike Bush, I think it's totally inappropriate to label him as "The Worst" while he's still in office. The things he is doing right now will have consequences for the next several decades. Things that Clinton did that I was opposed to at the time ended up being good thingstm.
It's quite possible that things that Bush is doing now end up bringing around good thingstm.
Yes he has a low approval rating, and I support almost none of his administrative decisions, but there is no way he can be ranked until we know what long-lasting effects his policy has. Surely no noteworthy political historian would actually say that GW is the "Worst", while he's still in office, though they may say that his approval rating is the worst. There's a HUGE difference.
As for the question, those positions aren't elected by the people, so there's very little reason for companies to Poll about them. Also, the average Citizen Joe knows very little of what the Senate Majority Leader ACTUALLY does, anything that happens in the Senate/House is attributed to the party as a whole, rather than one individual.
So again, you'll find historical comments, but no historian would be able to make a valid assessment of the people currently in office, simply because they're still in office.
posted by hatsix at 6:08 PM on September 24, 2006
It's quite possible that things that Bush is doing now end up bringing around good thingstm.
Yes he has a low approval rating, and I support almost none of his administrative decisions, but there is no way he can be ranked until we know what long-lasting effects his policy has. Surely no noteworthy political historian would actually say that GW is the "Worst", while he's still in office, though they may say that his approval rating is the worst. There's a HUGE difference.
As for the question, those positions aren't elected by the people, so there's very little reason for companies to Poll about them. Also, the average Citizen Joe knows very little of what the Senate Majority Leader ACTUALLY does, anything that happens in the Senate/House is attributed to the party as a whole, rather than one individual.
So again, you'll find historical comments, but no historian would be able to make a valid assessment of the people currently in office, simply because they're still in office.
posted by hatsix at 6:08 PM on September 24, 2006
Bush, obviously, sucks like none other in living memory.
Frist is an incompotent who, regardless of your politics, can't get the job done. He regularly calls votes when he thinks he has the head count to win and learns the opposite. (See "Frist's Blackberry Spring" by the excellent Mark Schmitt for more.) LBJ controlled that body from the moment he stepped on its floor.
Hastert is a non-entity--power passed to the Majority Leader on the GOP side long ago. He's no Rayburn.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:57 PM on September 24, 2006
Frist is an incompotent who, regardless of your politics, can't get the job done. He regularly calls votes when he thinks he has the head count to win and learns the opposite. (See "Frist's Blackberry Spring" by the excellent Mark Schmitt for more.) LBJ controlled that body from the moment he stepped on its floor.
Hastert is a non-entity--power passed to the Majority Leader on the GOP side long ago. He's no Rayburn.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:57 PM on September 24, 2006
sorry, link didn't work. Here's Frist's Blackberry Spring.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:59 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 6:59 PM on September 24, 2006
IAAL, and Roberts is very talented. I disagree on most issues, but I expect him to be an excellent Chief Justice.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by geoff. at 4:46 PM on September 24, 2006