An increasing number of Americans – not just conservatives – are expressing the opinion that Barack Obama’s presidency is as calamitous for the United States as was that of Jimmy Carter. If so, then in the relatively short span of three decades, America has experienced two spectacularly flawed presidencies, each comparable to only a relative handful that have occurred over the life of the Republic. Could these two recent tragedies have been predicted? Are there any identifiable personality traits, past experiences or political trajectories that might enable voters to foresee impending abject failure in a presidential candidate?

In order to respond to that query, we must ask: who were our worst presidents? An immediate problem in addressing the question is that in most of the well-known surveys that rank our presidents, the overwhelming majority of the opinions were solicited from leftist historians and political science professors. Thus biased thinking skews the results. For example, Calvin Coolidge is typically cast as a horrible president, while Woodrow Wilson is extolled as a great one. It is said that Coolidge was: absent while business ran roughshod over the working man; complicit in the rich virtually escaping federal taxation; and indifferent to the plight of American minorities. Wilson was heralded for expanding the rights of women, modernizing America’s antiquated Constitutional structure and improving the condition of the poor.

These assessments are colored by the political tendencies of those providing the judgments. In fact, Coolidge presided over one of the greatest periods of prosperity in the history of our nation, and almost all of his actions – and in many instances, wise inactions – helped to steer the economy and social fabric of the country in a favorable direction. Wilson, on the other hand, led us into a gruesome world war that served only as an appetizer for a more horrific reprise; instituted Constitutional “reforms” that haunt us to this day; incarcerated innocent Americans for disloyalty; and bequeathed to us the Federal Reserve.

Surely, surveys that rank Wilson high and Coolidge low are hopelessly biased to the left and not to be trusted. Examples of such tainted surveys include: the Schlesinger polls (both père [1948, 1962] et fils [1996]) and the five Sienna College polls [between 1982 and 2010 – the last of which absurdly ranked Obama the 15^th best president]. Somewhat less biased are two polls done by the Wall Street Journal in collaboration with the Federalist Society [2000, 2005].

Of course, any definitive ranking will be subjective, but for my money, our least distinguished presidents prior to 1900 were: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanan, Johnson and Arthur.

• Tyler. Not so much obscure as unaccomplished, Tyler resigned both House and Senate seats, and served an abbreviated term as Virginia Governor. As president, he was: referred to as “His Accidency”; unable to decide whether he was a Whig or Democratic-Republican; humiliated by the resignation of his entire cabinet; expelled from his party; and the first president to be the subject of an impeachment resolution.
• Fillmore. His political career was largely confined to New York State, where he was as unsuccessful candidate for Governor. A surprise choice for VP, he: favored slavery in the territories annexed from Mexico; attempted to appease both sides in the slavery debate, achieving no success on either side; maintained a confused position on the Compromise of 1850; signed the Fugitive Slave Act; and failed to unite the Whig Party, with some considering him the proximate cause of its death.
• Buchanan. According to many, one of the two absolute worst presidents. He was: a perennially ignored candidate; a doughface, i.e., a Northerner with Southern sympathies, who ultimately alienated both sides; unable to prevent the succession of southern states, thereby setting the stage for the Civil War.
• Johnson. The other in the duo of absolute worst presidents, he was: a colossal failure as the surprise successor to Lincoln; a Democratic in a Republican administration; completely inept at implementing Lincoln’s reconstruction plans; unable to contain the Radical Republicans; and the first president to actually be impeached.
• Arthur. Not a failure as much as arguably the most obscure president in our history. Having had almost no prior political career, he was an accidental choice as VP and a monumental surprise to America as President. His two biggest failings were a dismal record on supporting Jim Crow and his concealment that he was ill in office with Bright’s disease, which probably rendered him lethargic, ineffective and erratic.

More important than exactly which men comprise any list of worst presidents is the identification of a critical feature that many of these less than successful chief executives had in common. Before ascending to the presidency, they were relatively obscure, their ascendancy was unanticipated, and from an objective standpoint, they were not particularly well-qualified. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority ascended to the presidency via the death of the incumbent. In summary, I would say that those presidents who arrived in office from obscurity, marking an occasion that was unanticipated by the American people, and with precious little in the way of relevant experience – especially if they ascended from the VP position – are disproportionately represented among the worst presidents.

Between Arthur and Carter there were four more instances of a VP assuming the presidency upon the death of the president: Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ. The first and last were certainly not obscure. The second and third were to some extent, but neither proved to be a failed president (both were reelected, as was Roosevelt). LBJ was an awful president (the legacy of the Great Society and the Vietnam War continue to corrupt America’s soul); but he was certainly a well-known commodity with, in principle, excellent credentials.

That said, it is the case that (depending on exactly who is on your list), from sometime in the late nineteenth century until the latter part of the twentieth century, there was no individual who ascended to the presidency from (relative) obscurity, in an unanticipated fashion, without sufficient credentials. Perhaps this was because America became a major world power and the scrutiny of presidential candidates grew more intense. Perhaps it was because of the growing mass media, rendering it much more difficult for a dark horse to emerge. Perhaps it was because of increasing party control of the nomination process. Whatever the reasons, they have had less effect in recent decades. In the last 35 years, it has happened twice – sans the death of an incumbent to abet it. What changed after 1960 that allowed the American people to twice usher an obscure, unqualified, inexperienced and ultimately fatally-flawed candidate all the way through the nomination process straight to the White House?