Warren Harding is a vastly underrated US President

I concede that the people did not want to be involved but I question this second statement "joining would mean that other nations would have a say in American affairs and we would be beholden to foreign powers"The League of nations was a much weaker version of the UN today, and the UN doesnt exactly impact US policy or lifestyle to an extraordinary degree. " Joining such a league may....where we would be us less likely to resist Germany....and crippling us by the time WWII came around"I dont entirely see how the US joining the international league of nations would have crippled us from fighting Nazi Germany in WWII.... As for the isolationism what was learned after WWII is that America as a country plays an undeniable role in international affairs, and that such a role existed before the outbreak of WWII. In fact many historians cite how the failure of the league of nations was a result of lack of US involvement. As for the treaty with Germany following WWI, funny story about that. Harding didnt want to join the League of Nations, and he actually drafted a separate peace treaty with Germany following WWI. This peace treaty involved minimal reparations for the war so that the US and Germany were on relatively flat ground so to speak, but European powers within the League of Nations posed severe penalties on Germany for WWI that contributed greatly to the rise of Hitler and ultimately WWII. Had the US been actively involved in the League of Nations then it could be argued that such drastic demands on war torn Germany could have been lessened, and thus could have possibly avoided WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org...(I know people dont trust Wikipedia entirely, I only want to show the part about how the US was ready to make peace with Germany then leave and not demand any kind of payback or anything from them unlike the rest of war torn Europe)The League of Nations though entered an era of peacefulness right after WWI though, so the idea that " If America had been required to get involved in the affairs of other countries it would likely have had a negative effect on our economy as Europe already was having trouble paying off their debts to us."Would be rather unfounded because there would be a lack of foreign conflicts that would require American intervention. Coordinating the debt repayments of European countries was literally the only thing that went on in Europe after WWI, and that would have required excessive intervention by the US like the Pro caims. The only other real events that could have required American intervention came much, much later after the end of WWI. The rise of Mussolini and Facism in Italy, rise of Hitler in Germany, or Japanese aggression against China, all three of these scenarios came long after WWI had ended. If dealt with earlier these developments could have lessened the terrible impact that WWII would have had on the world.As for the Harding-Mellon argument. Since we agree Mellon was the man behind the economy then Harding approving of his ideas would simply make Harding the doorman who opened the door for Mellon's policies to take hold. Hoover would then be the doorman who would not let him in. I concede that some historical presidents have appointed their own friends or kin to high positions, but if you closely examine them you will find that most of them were qualified for the jobs they were given. Robert Kennedy was made the Attorney General because JFK made him, but Robert Kennedy was actually a University of Virginia graduate in Law who almost was accepted into Harvard and was very well respected in his field before his brother made him Attorney General. He was qualified for the job. Rahm Emmanuel meanwhile was already a senior White House adviser to Bill Clinton, currently the Mayor of Chicago, and had served in the House of Representatives. He was qualified for his position as well.Harding's advisers though were literally his friends who had no prior experience in any field of politics before they were suddenly thrust into the White House, and when they were they used their new found powers to abuse the system for their own personal gain while other more qualified people were overlooked by Harding. As for comparisons to other arguments, Adams may have passed the Alien and Sedition acts but that was in response to the growing conflict between Britain and France along with fears that the conflict could suck the weak US back into a state of war and that the new country might fall back under colonization. For the record that law was actually nullified so no harm was done.http://www.earlyamerica.com...It is also true that America during WWII moved Japanese citizens into camps following the Pearl harbor attacks, but that was driven by public fear and hatred of the Japanese. The same thing occurred after 9/11 when animosity towards people of Arab descent mushroomed. Even today people still protest mosques being built near their homes or even near Ground Zero. These unfortunate periods of time are not driven solely by presidential authority though they are driven by public fear and public demands that something be done if it could bring safety to them after they were just attacked... It wasnt like FDR went around campaigning that he would lock up every Jap the minute he became president.These men you compare to Harding though are respected presidents because even though they messed up they provided a great service to the nation. Adams kept the country going after the great George Washington decided to not run for a third term, FDR led the country through the great Depression and a majority of WWII, Kennedy even kept a lid on the escalation of the Cold War. Harding as you said was a "do nothing president" So he is still inferior to these men because a lot of corruption happened under his presidency and not a lot of good came out of it compared to these other presidents. "This also would have been less likely to have worked if we were constantly worrying about European affairs."It wasnt placing European affairs above American affairs that was the issue in question here, it was the fact that Harding blatantly removed America from ALL foreign affairs and it was during that time that the seeds for WWII began growing along with the seeds for the Great Depression and the breakdown of international trade. European affairs would only require US intervention if the world agreed that US intervention was necessary to handle the crisis...Ill end here but I would like to ask the Pro where he thinks Harding should be ranked. If a list of the top presidents were to be made where would the pro place Harding? Top 5? Top 10? 15? I just want an idea here so that I know who you are comparing Harding too.