Salah

Harding has generally been ranked as one of the very worst presidents the US of A has ever elected. As I understand it, his reputation was stained largely due to gross corruption.

Is his reputation justified? Did he have any redeeming qualities? As I understand it, he was one of the first presidents to openly advocate civil rights for black Americans. What exactly caused him to earn such an abysmal reputation?

Inc

I read a story about him, where some influencial person saw him, and commented that 'he looked the part of a president, or words to that effect. His person then 'took him under his wing' as it were, helping his progress in the political arena. Apparently he was very good-looking with an impressive build and carried himself well, and this helped his rise to power somewhat.

SomeGuy

Harding himself wasn't corrupt, even though he was surely guilty of cronyism (you could argue those go hand in hand, but there is a difference). The numerous political scandals associated with his administration, coupled with the fact that he died shortly after and thus couldn't redeem himself politically, has prevented historians from taking an honest look at his Presidency. Cheating on his wife hasn't done his reputation any favors, either.

But from what I've read about Harding, he was an accomplished and popular President during his short term. The economy boomed (Roaring Twenties), he actively fought for the rights of blacks, he created one of the first social programs by funding thousands of children's health centers, among other things. I don't see how he's the worst.

Patito de Hule

Compare Grant and Harding. Both were honest themselves, but each had one of the most corrupt administrations in American History. They were associated with the rise and fall of laissez faire capitalism.