# The US Presidency: Past, Present, and Future...



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Recent threads have inspired me to ask these questions of our erudite and opinionated membership:

1) The power of American Presidents has waxed and waned over the generations, yet certainly trending upward. Was it better in times past when the Presidency was less powerful - or today? Or should the office be granted even more power?

2) When were the zenith and nadir of the Presidency as an institution? Not necessarily concerning power alone - nor indeed even specific presidents, but the highest and lowest times for the office as a whole...including elements of prestige, influence, value to nation, &c.

3) Who were the best and worst qualified men to have become President (as might have been so considered at the moment they took office, trying to lay aside prejudices of ideology or what happened after that time) - and how did this relate to their actual performance?

4) If you could have changed the results of any Presidential election in history (1788-1976, to prevent this from becoming too overtly political), who would you have had win instead (from any person who was Constitutionally qualified at the time, whether running or not), and how do you suppose this would have affected history?

This could become a really stimulating discussion - so please take it seriously!


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 2) When were the zenith and nadir of the Presidency as an institution? Not necessarily concerning power alone - nor indeed even specific presidents, but the highest and lowest times for the office as a whole...including elements of prestige, influence, value to nation, &c.


I would place the zenith at JFK, in terms of moral and glamourous prestige, and the nadir at Harding (or possibly Nixon) - both a low power administration and a corrupt one, but I am not that familiar with American XIXth century history, there might be better candidates there.



> quote:
> 3) Who were the best and worst qualified men to have become President (as might have been so considered at the moment they took office, trying to lay aside prejudices of ideology or what happened after that time) - and how did this relate to their actual performance?


Again, restricting myself to the last century, I think Hoover would have to be considered one of the most qualified men for the job - although he performed poorly.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

1 - It was better when the president, and government as a whole, was less powerful. Of course, the President is awarded special powers during wartime, however the current excuse for a war is rather poor, and the powers he has been granted are being abused. Not very surprising, really, and I wouldn't say that he's been the first president to abuse war powers, but that isn't an excuse.

2 - The zenith would probably be Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt. JFK had some good ideas and was very charismatic, but didn't really get much done. The nadair would probably be FDR. He did a lot of good work, and managed to kick start the failing economy of the 30's, but, long term, did more damage to the government than anyone else. 


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

1. The Imperial Presidency has run through the Augustus and Marcus Aurelius phase and we're getting the Neros and Caligulas.

2. Nixon's the winner, hands down. Although as Jackie Mason says, life was exciting when Nixon was around. You come downstairs in the morning, and all the furniture's gone. "Aha! Nixon's been here!"

Grant's DTs didn't help him. Read H.L. Mencken for an idea of the mediocrity that was Harding.

Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Truman were pretty good. Civil War, trust-busting, and dealing with snippy newspaper columnists while wearing sharp DB suits, respectively.

3. Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln. Smart men.

FDR and everybody after have all sought to expand the power of the Presidency and never missed a chance to dance on the remains of individual liberties - with hob-nailed boots.

4. Washington. We should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

1) I dont know anyone who would like to see the executive granted more powers.

2) Washington was the most exhaulted. For the nadir, I would list either Ford or Carter, just because no one cared or does care about them. 

3) Without a doubt, presidents 2-4. Adams, Jefferson, Madison. In their day, they were 3 of the most well-read men in the world. They were true scholars, but also practical men who had gifts for turning their learning into action. Just read some of their correspondence between each other and try to imagine any modern politician having such intellectual conversations. 

4) I would replace FDR with just about anyone. He steered the USA in a new, socialist direction contrary to the priciples upon which it was founded. Once you give a government those powers and create those beurocracies, it's nearly impossible to reverse the process. Observe the situation in France and see how difficult it is to trim back even the smallest entitlements.
One poster here has mentioned how FDR kickstarted the economy. Almost all evidence I have seen leads me to conclude that the depression corrected itself naturally by running its course, and that FDR's administration's actions did nothing but slow the process.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

(3) George HW Bush will go down in no one's list of great presidents, but if I am reading your question correctly, he certainly seem the most qualified when he took over. A career diplomat just when relations were thawing with the USSR. VP during one of the best periods of economic growth.

Just think of how legendary he would have become if he was as good in politics as he was in government.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Unfortunately or fortunately, being described as doing well as President is purely subjective. There are many people who still say Bill Clinton was a good president. Additionally, a president is never going to make everyone happy. For everyone who has done well in one groups eyes, they have done poorly in the other groups eyes. There is no winning, so why would anyone want to be president?

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> One poster here has mentioned how FDR kickstarted the economy. Almost all evidence I have seen leads me to conclude that the depression corrected itself naturally by running its course, and that FDR's administration's actions did nothing but slow the process.


Most economists I've talked to think that the new deal programs helped start the economy up, but later acted to retard it's further growth by sucking away available labor and capital from new businesses. It would have been a good one- or two-year aid package, instead it turned into a perpetual economic sinkhole.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AMVanquish_
> 
> (3) George HW Bush will go down in no one's list of great presidents, but if I am reading your question correctly, he certainly seem the most qualified when he took over. A career diplomat just when relations were thawing with the USSR. VP during one of the best periods of economic growth.
> 
> Just think of how legendary he would have become if he was as good in politics as he was in government.


Or if he, not Reagan, had won the 1980 primary.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Juggling actual terms would be interesting. If Nixon beat Kennedy Vietnam would never have escalated into the quagmire it became. For all his tragic flaws, Nixon mined Haiphong when the V.C. were a virtually exausted military force. Hanoi scurried to the bargaining table. That Vietnam was a useless war from day one is mute.Nixon stopped the national hemmorhage. Ditto if Barry Goldwater defeated LSD, er LBJ.Kennedy could have then served and promoted his domestic social agenda during the times of civil rights etc. My favourite is T.R. Founder of our envied park system, His photo with John Muir exemplifies everything I believe in.It's ironic, but most of our best environmental legislation and progress came out of republican administrations.We could also ponder who might have been president. I personally thank Sitting Bull INC. for stopping the aspirations of one George Armstrong Custer


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that Keynsian economics and the ability for a government to spend a country out of a recession are dead theories. At least they should be. Any time you are diverting money from hi-return (private sector) spending to low-return (public sector) spending you are subtracting from the net wealth of the nation.

FDR would go down as the worst in my book for several reasons. Some of these reasons come from the rather conservative political and economic beliefs that I have. Others are so basic and should really bother any human being. I will stick to those:

1. FDR ordered all Japanese Americans and Japanese living in America into internmet camps.
2. When FDR did not like the decisions of the Supreme Court he tried to expand its size by adding members that would agree with him.

The above two points are beyond the pale and mark FDR as an embarrassment to the United States (at least for me).


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

Right on, iammatt! Increasingly (as best I'm able to discern from the limited contact I keep with a former career), historians recognize that FDR's chief benefit was psychological, and that that may have been (definitely _was_, I think) outweighed by the positive harm he and his administration did to human rights, limited government (one of the major reasons for American economic success), and much else. It's regrettable that Herbert Hoover, an honest, intelligent, and capable man, neither insensitive nor foolish, was not re-elected: though the American aspects of the worldwide economic depression might have been slightly more severe, they likely would have ended no later -- and without the avalanche of lasting ill effects from which we suffer.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Just throwing in a second 'right-on' for iammatt. But ...



> quote:1. FDR ordered all Japanese Americans and Japanese living in America into internmet camps.


 Gee. I didn't know they had internet camps back then. How could they have? Al Gore wasn't even born yet. Hmmm. Ya larrn sumpin' new ever'day.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> Right on, iammatt! Increasingly (as best I'm able to discern from the limited contact I keep with a former career), historians recognize that FDR's chief benefit was psychological, and that that may have been (definitely _was_, I think) outweighed by the positive harm he and his administration did to human rights, limited government (one of the major reasons for American economic success), and much else. It's regrettable that Herbert Hoover, an honest, intelligent, and capable man, neither insensitive nor foolish, was not re-elected: though the American aspects of the worldwide economic depression might have been slightly more severe, they likely would have ended no later -- and without the avalanche of lasting ill effects from which we suffer.


I just saw a clip on the Hitler - er, the _History_ Channel of Herbert fly-casting. He's wearing a suit and standing straight up. In a little mountain stream like the Rapidan in Virginia, where HH set up a retreat) you can wear a suit if you like, as long as you don't mind giving the locals a good laugh.

But you've got to crawl and creep around. Those fish are skittish. Granted, this was the 20s, and there were more of them, but still.

The only other fly-fishing President I'm aware of was Carter. I remember seeing him on the news, casting from a canoe. Even to my adolescent eye, it was all wrong.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> I just saw a clip on the Hitler - er, the _History_ Channel of Herbert fly-casting. He's wearing a suit and standing straight up. . . .
> 
> The only other fly-fishing President I'm aware of was Carter. . . .


As a child, I heard from one who was acquainted with him that Mr. Hoover was quite a skilled fly-fisherman. I've also heard that Mr. Coolidge was a fly-fisherman (plausible, given that he was a Vermonter who spent most of his life in Massachusetts) and that Mr. Eisenhower at least attempted casting.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I think the worst president has got to be FDR, bar none. In terms of damage done many have tried, but nobody has quite equaled the man. 

My favorite presidents are the ones who nobody remembers what they did. People like Cleveland or Harding or Coolidge. I follow Mencken's belief that, "We suffer most when the White House busts with ideas."


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> I think the worst president has got to be FDR, bar none. In terms of damage done many have tried, but nobody has quite equaled the man.
> 
> My favorite presidents are the ones who nobody remembers what they did. People like Cleveland or Harding or Coolidge. I follow Mencken's belief that, "We suffer most when the White House busts with ideas."


What has not even been mentioned about FDR is the way the he gave in to Stalin. Churchill tried to convince him to be tougher on the division of Europe, but FDR sold out the Eastern Europeans and they lived with that mistake for fifty years. He had no clue as to the dangers of the Soviet Union.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> What has not even been mentioned about FDR is the way the he gave in to Stalin. . . .


FDR once called the second-greatest mass-murderer in history (Mao ranks first) "a Christian gentleman". Stalin deserved neither the noun nor the adjective of the appellation.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> My favorite presidents are the ones who nobody remembers what they did. People like Cleveland or Harding or Coolidge. I follow Mencken's belief that, "We suffer most when the White House busts with ideas."


Im glad to see someone recognizing Coolidge. He's one of the most underrated presidents of all time.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'm not personally qualified to say, but surveys of historians and political scientists seem to rank Lincoln as #1 and FDR at #2.

Even the Federalist Society - Wall Street Journal survey finds FDR at #3 which makes me think that our posters here may be considered _slightly _right wing by most......

https://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

Coolidge comes in at #24, one below, ahem, Bill Clinton.

But I'm sure our experts here can correct me and those damn-fool book-learned snobs at them yoonuvursities.

------------------


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Looking at the way the rankings were conducted it is easy to see why FDR and Lincoln were so highly rated. The ratings were essentially biased to favor strong executives over weak, and active presidents over inactive. Which is also why you end up with "crisis" presidents like FDR and Lincoln. 

They also seemed very concerned with presidential image and how the president shaped and changed public opinion and policy. FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and the like certainly did those things. The problem is that many of the changes they made were for the worse. 

In general these types of rankings just who how flawed rankings are and how biased contemporary opinions of presidents are.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

In other words, they are all wrong and you and the boys here are right (no pun intended)?

Quelle surprise!

------------------


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I'll ditto Berkov's thoughts and analysis. Cleveland and Coolidge were excellent Presidents, if you favor limited government within Constitutional boundaries. Those who favor an expansive government of unlimited powers, a Roosevelt (either) or Lincoln is your man.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> In other words, they are all wrong and you and the boys here are right (no pun intended)?
> 
> ...


I realize that you are quite a leftist, but have you no problem with FDR sending so many Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment camps?

I personally cannot abide by a President who is so outwardly rascist, but maybe you feel differently.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> I realize that you are quite a leftist, but have you no problem with FDR sending so many Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment camps?


I'd say centrist - its you guys who are _waaaayyyyy _out in right field.

Of course I have a problem with FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans. That is a very stupid question. Why did you ask it?



> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> I personally cannot abide by a President who is so outwardly rascist, but maybe you feel differently.


You prefer your presidents to keep their rascism quiet? Makes sense. How do you feel about racial profiling?

------------------


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My friend, everybody is a centrist. Just ask them.



> quote:Of course I have a problem with FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans. That is a very stupid question. Why did you ask it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If my President is racist, I would prefer that he did not set national policy based on it.

I am not a proponent of racial profiling. That goes for criminal activity, job applications and school admissions.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Fair enough on all points.

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I'd say centrist - its you guys who are _waaaayyyyy _out in right field.


Is being a constitutional strict-constructionalist automatically make you a right-winger? I think the constitution should be narrowly interpreted when it comes to governmental powers, and broadly interpreted in matters of civil rights. This was the intent of the constitution as indicated by most of the framers.

The primary job of the president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If a president works to reduce civil liberties and expand governmental powers, I can't see how he could be considered a good example.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Agreed. I also don't understand the "right winger" thing. I would say that someone who is "right wing" in this country is someone in favor of limited government control in economic matters and broad government control in social matters. A "left wing" person believes the opposite, stong control over economic, weak over social. 

As someone who favors limited control over economic AND social matters I woudld hardly call myself "right wing." 

That said, this whole ranking of the presidents is in a sense part of the problem of the presidency as an institution. FDR's social and economic policies essentially taught the country to be both accepting and dependant on presidential power. This presents a dilemma to post-FDR presidents, namely that they are expected to act in a positive way towards their voting base but if something goes wrong they will always be blamed for it.

Thus you have GWB both handing out medicare benefits and creating vast new bureaucracies. You simply cannot be a "small, limited government president" in the post-Roosevelt era and be electable. 

The best you can hope for is to hand out the right government benefits to the right people and not muck up foreign policy too bad. And this goes double if the country is in a depression or a recession. People won't remember if your policies were any good or if they worked, they will only remember you did "something." 

Today doing nothing is the equivilant of stabbing yourself in the back politically.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Most qualified? In the modern era I would put Nixon up there. served in the Navy, was a Congressman, Senator, Vice President, then President. And paranoid...

George HW Bush was shot down in the Pacific, a business man, top man at the CIA, VP, and I think a Congressman too earlier? 

Of course the Founders would all rank up there as qualified, though Ben Franklin was perhaps the most qualified man to not be President.

Coolidge, Harding, Ike, and Carter all fly-fished. Perhaps some others too.

I dont like LBJ very much.

I go back and forth between Polk and Jackson being my favorites though. I like Jackson a lot but he had some unsavory flaws...

Who do you think was the lowest class/of the most modest upbringing to become President? The Presidential rags to riches story?

---------------------


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 4) If you could have changed the results of any Presidential election in history (1788-1976, to prevent this from becoming too overtly political), who would you have had win instead


Gus Hall.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

1)No more power, no less...

2)Worst-Carter, Best-Ike (from an economic standpoint) or Reagan (from a patriotic standpoint), if I had to pick a personal fav it would probably be Ike, although, RWR is one of my all time personal heroes...

3)Worst qualified-Ford or Carter, Best Qualified Herbert Walker

4)Clinton V Dole...perhaps if Dole would have won he could have influenced the fed to step in and put the brakes on silicon valley before the "bubble burst" and ultimately started our economy on the downslide that it has been suffering from ever sence...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'm not personally qualified to say, but surveys of historians and political scientists seem to rank Lincoln as #1 and FDR at #2.
> 
> ...


Well, Thomas Woods (BA History, Harvard; PhD History, Columbia), for one, has made the observation that most political scientists and historians are rabid statists who seem to rank presidents according to how massively they expanded government, how many wars they managed to start or get the U.S. involved in, and how many people they killed. Thus people like Lincoln, TR and FDR are considered "great," while presidents who (at least more than most other presidents) mostly left people alone to go about their business, such as Cleveland, Harding and Coolidge, are described as "failures" or worse.

Politics inherently attracts the worst elements of society to it (though I'm not saying that every single person in government is evil), so maybe it's naive to think that things would've turned out much differently if past elections had gone another way.

But, assuming it would've made a difference, as I recall, Wilson was largely responsible for the income tax, the direct election of Senators, and for butting the U.S. into what became WWI, and you can make a strong case that the devastation caused by WWI was the leading cause of Hitler's rise in Germany and Russia going Communist, which led to WWII and the Cold War. Because of that, I largely blame him for many of the atrocities of the 20th Century. So it may have been for the best if Taft had won in 1912, but as I said, maybe everything that happened would've happened anyway.

If Harding or Coolidge had been president in 1929 (meaning Harding hadn't died and had run again and/or Coolidge ran again), I'd bet my last dollar that what became the Great Depression due to the government's idiocy (contrary to popular misconception, FDR just continued and expanded Hoover's polcies) would've been a minor recession that would've been over within a year.

And I wish Goldwater had won in 1964, although, like with Wilson and others, it might not have made much differene. But 1964 and 1980 are the only two years since the 30s when there seemed to be a significant difference between the two major candidates (and in 1980, the supposedly small-government candidate -- Reagan -- won, and the government still grew by about two-thirds during his eight years).


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harry96_
> 
> Well, Thomas Woods (BA History, Harvard; PhD History, Columbia), for one, has made the observation that most political scientists and historians are rabid statists who seem to rank presidents according to how massively they expanded government, how many wars they managed to start or get the U.S. involved in, and how many people they killed. Thus people like Lincoln, TR and FDR are considered "great," while presidents who (at least more than most other presidents) mostly left people alone to go about their business, such as Cleveland, Harding and Coolidge, are described as "failures" or worse.


So we should ignore every other political scientist and historian because they don't agree with Thomas Woods?

He regards the Federalist Society as rabid statists? I really think we are talking about someone who is the far, far right of the political spectrum.

And blaming Wilson for the disasters of the last century is simply ludicrous.

------------------


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Wow.

No. I was just using Woods as an example in response to your implication that everyone who's educted or has formal or impressive credentials agrees on who the "great" presidents are, and that anyone who disagrees is uneducated or ignorant.

And I've never seen Woods mention the Federalist Society specifically. You posted a link to their survey, which had typical results; I responded by referencing Woods' relevent observation about historians and political scientists IN GENERAL. 

You really should stop constantly calling people right-wingers since you obviously don't know what "right-wing" means (hint: there are more ideologies than left, right and center, which are all slightly different types of statism). In one day you've called me, Doug Casey and Thomas Woods extreme right-wingers, and none of us are anywhere near any part of the right.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I know perfectly what right wing means and Messrs Woods, Casey and you are excellent examples of it.

You may wish for some other designation but if the cap fits.....

Mr Woods seems to be in a very small minority of his peers and his description (provide by you) of them as "rabid statists" would seem to confirm that he is not to be taken particularly seriously.

------------------


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you've done it []


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Comrade Citizen crs,

Wishing you a happy May Day in advance. Better crank up the Red Army Chorus on the stereo to drown out the cries from Lubyanka. But Henry Wallace in 1948 the was best chance fellow travelers had to win the White House. Clinton's commission was with Chinese intelligence and not the NKVD, right?.............just kidding! [}]

Karl


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I know perfectly what right wing means and Messrs Woods, Casey and you are excellent examples of it.
> 
> ...


Libertarians (I believe Harry is one) are not right wing (or any wing for that matter). They share as much with the left wingers as they do with the right. For a visual, take a look at the Nolan Chart:










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------

