Which presidents appear most frequently on 'worst' lists and why?
Executive summary
Scholarly and popular “worst president” lists repeatedly single out a small cluster of nineteenth- and early-twentieth‑century chiefs—James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding—as the most frequent occupants of the bottom ranks because they are judged to have failed during national crises, abused (or ignored) constitutional norms, or presided over corruption or economic catastrophe [1] [2] [3]. More recent presidents like Donald Trump have surged onto these lists as polarization and fresh historical wounds shape historian and public rankings, but methodological differences and partisan self‑selection mean modern entries are more contested [4] [5].
1. Who shows up most consistently on ‘worst’ lists—and why they do
Across multiple scholarly and media compilations, James Buchanan is the clearest consensus “worst” because historians blame his passivity and missteps for failing to head off secession and the Civil War; Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce commonly follow for mishandling Reconstruction and antebellum crises respectively, while Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding appear for their associations with economic collapse and corruption [1] [2] [3]. These judgments cluster around specific failings: catastrophic national crises (Buchanan, Hoover), constitutional or political betrayal (Johnson), and administrative rot or policy negligence (Harding) — criteria historians emphasize when labeling presidencies as failures [6] [3].
2. Why modern presidents sometimes land on the bottom: Trump, Bush and the role of partisanship
Recent rankings have pushed Donald Trump toward the bottom in several high‑profile surveys, driven by historians’ evaluations of his moral authority, administrative competence and the post‑2020 attack on Congress and legal entanglements; however, Trump’s placement is far more volatile and partisan—self‑identified Republican historians often rate him higher—so his low rank reflects both immediate consequences and polarized expert pools [4] [5] [7]. Similarly, leaders such as George W. Bush appear unevenly: some partisan-grouped surveys place him low while others treat him as average, demonstrating that contemporary controversies and ideological lenses heavily shape who is called “worst” in living memory [4] [3].
3. How survey design, era and metrics skew the “worst” roster
Ranking exercises are not neutral: they compress complex administrations into single scores and depend on respondent selection, temporal distance, and the attributes weighed (constitutional leadership, crisis management, morals, policy outcomes), so nineteenth‑century failures tied to existential crises often stand out in ways policy‑nuanced modern presidencies do not [8] [2]. Studies that sample different mixes of historians, political scientists and the public—Siena, C‑SPAN, independent projects—produce consistent bottom names for long‑standing failures but diverge sharply for recent presidents because presentism, partisan identity and recency bias alter scoring [9] [7] [2].
4. Alternative perspectives and scholarly caveats
Not all scholars accept simple “best/worst” rankings: critics argue they flatten nuance—some presidents have strong records on one dimension and catastrophic failures on another—and that demographic composition of expert panels (age, race, ideology) can tilt outcomes toward traditional narratives [8] [10]. For modern figures, long‑term institutional effects and future archival revelations could raise or lower reputations, so lists that place living or recent presidents among the worst reflect current judgment more than settled history [10] [3].
5. What this clustering tells us about historical judgment
The frequent recurrence of Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce, Hoover and Harding on worst lists signals a historiographical pattern: when a presidency is judged to have failed at preserving the Union, managing an economic collapse, or preventing systemic corruption, consensus forms across different ranking projects because the consequences are measurable and enduring; by contrast, modern partisan disputes create contested bottom slots until time gives historians perspective and evidence [1] [6] [4]. This pattern cautions against treating any single “worst” list as definitive and underscores that methodology, timing and political context drive who is labeled a historical failure.