7 ms·

Who is prepared to be a great president and have we ever had a great president? I honestly don't know. I'm only 30, and I haven't seen one in my lifetime.

by imesh 7y ago

magduf 7y ago
By most accounts, and historians generally agree, George Washington really was a great President.
existencebox 7y ago
You have no idea how much you nerd-sniped me with that question. (I spend far too much of my free time playing at historian, and am far too fond of Ken Burns to not give my thoughts, but take this as a caveat that I am no true expert.) Unfortunately, I think, no one who would be able to be elected president nowadays. Consider some of the "Greatest" presidents of our history, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, all were very human/flawed individuals with powerful detractors, (Lincoln less in his personal life and more in the role he had to play, and I omit Washington because he's effectively immortalized beyond personhood as our 'Cincinnatus') and I have my doubts as to whether any could receive sufficient support in an era where any possible slight or discontinuity (or attachment to principle over pragmatism) is a critical weakness. I realize I may have slightly dodged your real question, I'll admit I don't have a great answer to that even in the absence of the pathology I describe above. There's been no one in politics (perhaps due to the above) who even seems to have the cult-of-personality of e.g. Obama, let alone with the principles and power to carry out something positive with it. Not too many years ago I would have said McCain, but we all know how that went. (That said I've been _rather impressed_ with how Pelosi has wrangled the herd of cats that is the democratic party , but that's only one small piece of the picture and may show how far my bar has dropped.) To be precise since I answered the second half of your question implicitly, I certainly think we've had great presidents, see my list above for an incomplete summary. There have certainly been individuals who managed immense feats of good in the presidency despite such adversity that we have not seen in our lifetimes. However, as I was lamenting to my wife the other day, I've seen far less of this as time has gone on, (in local government _as much as_ in federal govt.) and as I suggest above, I'm not sure how we come back from that without systemic change.
- hadtodoit 7y ago
  Do people consider FDR to be a great president? He ranks pretty high on my list of the worst given the internment of Japanese-Americans among other things.
  - existencebox 7y ago
    It's a fascinating question. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as precedent for future abuses. As you say FDR did Japanese internment, but in that same vein you'd be remiss to not point out Jefferson's forced native american relocation program. This is kinda my point of "these were unquestionably flawed individuals" above. At the risk of justifying evils, (I don't intend to but one could interpret it this way) if your standard for great is "did no wrong" then no president (individual?) will ever be great. At the same time I don't think greatness should shield someone from criticism for the evils that came alongside. This may be an artifact of my personal philosophies regarding innate and unavoidable fallability of human incentives, but I still find enough merit in the positive outcomes and challenges overcome to call them "Great" (Thus the quotes in my initial post). If you really want to lose faith in the consistency of my mental models, ask me the list of most damaging presidents, and note that the lists are not mutually exclusive. In conclusion, I find the manner in which FDR handled international relations, helped ready the country and mobilize against the European war even with interventionism publicly abhorred, balanced the interests of the various VERY TENUOUSLY allied parties (Stalin, primarily), while simultaneously making good on public works and improvements post-depression (although efficacy can be debated) coupled with his civil rights works (e.g. FEPC) gives enough justification to call him "Great," although I'll echo, this in no way detracts from the observation you made, and I see the two as parts of the same picture. Post-factum edit for color: I've actually contemplated similar questions as yours but along a different vein for some time now, since FDR was rather sneaky in how he readied the US for war, and pushed out the various cash/carry lend/lease plans, as well as effectively participating in war without congressional approval (another storied tradition of "great" presidents with very questionable implications) but in the long run _it worked_ so to some extent, I don't have a good answer for when the ends justify the means, as it were; Lincoln is even in a similar boat.

Who is prepared to be a great president and have we ever had a great president? I honestly don't know. I'm only 30, and I haven't seen one in my lifetime.

by imesh 7y ago

Who is prepared to be a great president and have we ever had a great president? I honestly don't know. I'm only 30, and I haven't seen one in my lifetime.

magduf 7y ago

By most accounts, and historians generally agree, George Washington really was a great President.

existencebox 7y ago

You have no idea how much you nerd-sniped me with that question. (I spend far too much of my free time playing at historian, and am far too fond of Ken Burns to not give my thoughts, but take this as a caveat that I am no true expert.) Unfortunately, I think, no one who would be able to be elected president nowadays. Consider some of the "Greatest" presidents of our history, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, all were very human/flawed individuals with powerful detractors, (Lincoln less in his personal life and more in the role he had to play, and I omit Washington because he's effectively immortalized beyond personhood as our 'Cincinnatus') and I have my doubts as to whether any could receive sufficient support in an era where any possible slight or discontinuity (or attachment to principle over pragmatism) is a critical weakness. I realize I may have slightly dodged your real question, I'll admit I don't have a great answer to that even in the absence of the pathology I describe above. There's been no one in politics (perhaps due to the above) who even seems to have the cult-of-personality of e.g. Obama, let alone with the principles and power to carry out something positive with it. Not too many years ago I would have said McCain, but we all know how that went. (That said I've been _rather impressed_ with how Pelosi has wrangled the herd of cats that is the democratic party , but that's only one small piece of the picture and may show how far my bar has dropped.) To be precise since I answered the second half of your question implicitly, I certainly think we've had great presidents, see my list above for an incomplete summary. There have certainly been individuals who managed immense feats of good in the presidency despite such adversity that we have not seen in our lifetimes. However, as I was lamenting to my wife the other day, I've seen far less of this as time has gone on, (in local government _as much as_ in federal govt.) and as I suggest above, I'm not sure how we come back from that without systemic change.

hadtodoit 7y ago
Do people consider FDR to be a great president? He ranks pretty high on my list of the worst given the internment of Japanese-Americans among other things.
- existencebox 7y ago
  It's a fascinating question. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as precedent for future abuses. As you say FDR did Japanese internment, but in that same vein you'd be remiss to not point out Jefferson's forced native american relocation program. This is kinda my point of "these were unquestionably flawed individuals" above. At the risk of justifying evils, (I don't intend to but one could interpret it this way) if your standard for great is "did no wrong" then no president (individual?) will ever be great. At the same time I don't think greatness should shield someone from criticism for the evils that came alongside. This may be an artifact of my personal philosophies regarding innate and unavoidable fallability of human incentives, but I still find enough merit in the positive outcomes and challenges overcome to call them "Great" (Thus the quotes in my initial post). If you really want to lose faith in the consistency of my mental models, ask me the list of most damaging presidents, and note that the lists are not mutually exclusive. In conclusion, I find the manner in which FDR handled international relations, helped ready the country and mobilize against the European war even with interventionism publicly abhorred, balanced the interests of the various VERY TENUOUSLY allied parties (Stalin, primarily), while simultaneously making good on public works and improvements post-depression (although efficacy can be debated) coupled with his civil rights works (e.g. FEPC) gives enough justification to call him "Great," although I'll echo, this in no way detracts from the observation you made, and I see the two as parts of the same picture. Post-factum edit for color: I've actually contemplated similar questions as yours but along a different vein for some time now, since FDR was rather sneaky in how he readied the US for war, and pushed out the various cash/carry lend/lease plans, as well as effectively participating in war without congressional approval (another storied tradition of "great" presidents with very questionable implications) but in the long run _it worked_ so to some extent, I don't have a good answer for when the ends justify the means, as it were; Lincoln is even in a similar boat.