What Was the President Smoking?

<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joe_Garagiola-Gerald_Ford.jpg">White House staff</a>/Wikimedia

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Tuesday, First Lady Michelle Obama announced that her husband has been cigarette-free for a year. This is great news for President Obama’s life expectancy. But is it good for his legacy?

Obama was hardly the first occupant of the Oval Office to light one up every now and then. The overwhelming majority of American presidents have consumed tobacco in some form or another, and a few of them have even dabbled in other, more ilicit substances. So is there a correlation between, say, walking around with a wad of chewing tobacco in your cheeks and totally tanking as president? What about swearing off substances all together? Here’s a crude comparison of our 10 greatest presidents and our 10 worst, based on C-Span’s 2009 survey of historians. Erudite analysis and methodology below the jump:

Ok, so does this chart tell us anything at all? Kind of. Chewing tobacco is, as a rule, not something that great presidents do. From a modern perspective, this one seems fairly obvious—can you imagine how Frank Luntz’s real American voters would react if Mitch Daniels whipped out a spitoon at a debate?—but there’s also a clear historical explanation: The golden age of chaw coincided with the dark ages of the executive branch. Of course Grover Cleveland chewed tobacco; he didn’t have anything else to do. The same can explain (sort of) the cigar gap: Our worst presidents literally conducted their business in smoke-filled rooms.

As for pot, I broadened the perimeters somewhat, to include Washington and Jefferson—who pot advocates insist must have tried some of their own hemp—as well as Lincoln, who they’ve also claimed as one of their own on some rather dubious evidence. (The believers quote Lincoln as writing: “Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica.”) Kennedy’s pot connections seem a bit clearer (It was the ’60s! He was young!). The point here is that having a successful presidency makes it more likely that future generations will try to associate you with ilicit drugs.

Want the full breakdown? Here you go:

Best: Lincoln: As befitting the subject of a poem called “Lincoln never smoked a cigarette,” Lincoln never smoked a cigarette. He also never smoked cigars or pipes. Nonetheless, marijuana activists have adopted him as their own. Washington: Smokes pot in Thomas Pynchon’s novel, Mason & Dixon; probably didn’t actually smoke pot. FDR: Pipe (quit), cigarettes. Theodore Roosevelt: Forced by his father to smoke cigars and drink coffee as a boy, abstained from tobacco products as an adult. Truman: none. Kennedy: Cigars, pot. Jefferson: See: Washington. Eisenhower: cigarettes (quit). Wilson: none. Reagan: Advertised cigarettes but did not smoke; pipe (quit).

And the worst: Buchanan: cigars. Andrew Johnson: chewed tobacco; cigars. Pierce: cigars. William Henry Harrison: pipe. Harding: cigars; cigarettes; chewing tobacco—also snuff; needless to say, he died. Fillmore: none. George W. Bush: chewed tobacco (quit); cigars; pot. Tyler: cigars. Hoover: cigars, pipe. Hayes: cigars (quit). 

Update: Commenter Heather Terrell notes that I should have used a bar graph, because the data are not continuous. So here’s a bar graph, for posterity:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate