2nd Greatest US President?

[Michael]

Discussion threads about the greatest US President always seem to produce "FDR" as the answer. I must admit that I agree.

In order to make this thread interesting, who do you think was the greatest US President (other than FDR)?

[Donkey]

Discussion threads about the greatest US President always seem to produce "FDR" as the answer. I must admit that I agree.

In order to make this thread interesting, who do you think was the greatest US President (other than FDR)?
It's hard to say because the criteria for determining it are so diverse. I mean, we put Jackson on the $20, but in my opinion he's at least partially responsible for genocide. What are the accomplishments that we should be measuring?

[wphelan]

By "greatest," do you mean best? Or do you mean it in the sense that World War I was called the "Great War."

[partofme]

I don't think I know enough about all of them to say but generally Washington and Lincoln come up quite a bit.

[neorealist]

Washington and Lincoln are kind of the lock #1 and #2 for me.

[Americano]

I think Washington has a default lock on #1 as founder of the country, even though he was a slave owner at the time.

[Michael]

I think Washington has a default lock on #1 as founder of the country, even though he was a slave owner at the time.
FDR beats him in every listing I've ever seen. No contest.

I have nothing against Washington, but I'm curious why he gets any credit as President. And what did Washington do as president that was so admirable - except refuse to be King?

99% of Washington's credit is for his generalship in the War of Independence. As appointed President, he didn't do much of significance to my knowledge. It was all Jefferson and Adams who established the government as we know it.

[Donkey]

I have nothing against Washington, but I'm curious why he gets any credit as President. And what did Washington do as president that was so admirable - except refuse to be King?

Though refusing to be king, when it is offered to you, is certainly deserving of a good deal of credit, at least in my book, as a small d democrat.

[Michael]

Though refusing to be king, when it is offered to you, is certainly deserving of a good deal of credit, at least in my book, as a small d democrat.
I'm big on democracy and I think the USA might have had more of it if ole George had of accepted.

We certainly wouldn't be dealing with this "imperial presidency" problem now.

As it has turned out, constitutional monarchy has worked pretty good. Arguably better than the Presidential system. We don't have $50 billion dollar elections.

[bug]

As far as presidents who inspires good feelings in me personally, I think I like Teddy best. He's so jolly....he reminds me of Santa. I just think that under a president like that, people are cheery-they feel good There's an infectious happieness caught from a positive leader. But if I was going to say who I think showed the most strength, where a lesser leader would have been broken to pieces and let the country fall apart, I'm going to have to be typical and say Lincoln. I hate being boring, but I would put him as "best" president.

[neorealist]

I'm big on democracy and I think the USA might have had more of it if ole George had of accepted.

We certainly wouldn't be dealing with this "imperial presidency" problem now.

As it has turned out, constitutional monarchy has worked pretty good. Arguably better than the Presidential system. We don't have $50 billion dollar elections.

I'm alright on having my taxes pay for a bloodline

[dilettante]

FDR beats him in every listing I've ever seen. No contest.

I have nothing against Washington, but I'm curious why he gets any credit as President. And what did Washington do as president that was so admirable - except refuse to be King?

99% of Washington's credit is for his generalship in the War of Independence. As appointed President, he didn't do much of significance to my knowledge. It was all Jefferson and Adams who established the government as we know it.

Washington gets such credit (in my book, anyway) for all the things he didn't do in office that he could have. Not only did he refuse to become king (or, at an earlier juncture, a military dictator) when the choice was offered him, but he's also the last president who didn't embrace party affiliations (Adams didn't want to, but he couldn't avoid it), and the last president who (IMO based on my readings by/about him) truly didn't want the job but only took it because he thought it was best for the country.

That also makes Washington somewhat special; it's quite possible that he was the only individual in the country whose elevation to president wouldn't have resulted in mass dissension, political disaffection, and possible secession in the first decade of the nation's existence. He forcibly kept himself above the political infighting that was so viciously rampant in the Early Republic and consequently remained a unifying figure for almost all Americans at a time when they most desperately needed something to unify around.

I don't think Washington was very politically astute, nor, for that matter, was he a terribly skilled military leader. But he was amazingly good at getting people to unite together and follow him and at convincing them to make sacrifices for the country. He was as much as anything an example of Republican virtue (using Republican in the 18th-century/idealized-Roman sense), and while such a quality wouldn't be terribly beneficial to a president today, it was precisely what was needed at the time.

I think that's what makes a president appear great. In the case of all the greats, Washington, Lincoln, FDR...etc, they're primarily perceived as being just what was needed at that moment in history.

[The Sister]

I think that's what makes a president appear great. In the case of all the greats, Washington, Lincoln, FDR...etc, they're primarily perceived as being just what was needed at that moment in history.

Timing - in this as in most things - is everything.

If Obama becomes a great president it will be because he was the right person at the right time.

IMO both Senators Clinton and McCain suffered from this - right people - wrong time. President Bush is a spectacular example of wrong person at the right time.

[Americano]

Timing - in this as in most things - is everything.

If Obama becomes a great president it will be because he was the right person at the right time.

IMO both Senators Clinton and McCain suffered from this - right people - wrong time. President Bush is a spectacular example of wrong person at the right time.

I'll have to disagree with Clinton and McCain as being the right people. I view Clinton's motivation as attempting to equal Bill's political achievements and McCain as just another ex-military machine man who follows orders from superiors.

Bush, well, what can I say. If historians don't rate him at the bottom of the barrel I'd suspect revisionist history in play.

[The Sister]

What about Reagan? I didn't like his politics but I hear lots of support for his 'greatness' and not just from Republicans.

[The Sister]

I'll have to disagree with Clinton and McCain as being the right people.

I think John McCain might have been the right man in 2000 for the Republican nominee and Hillary, regardless of motives, might have been the person to beat Bush in 2004 - certainly she would have done much better than Kerry.

I don't support either one of them, I just wonder if timing is everything. Could Obama have won any other election at any other time?

[Dominick]

What about Reagan? I didn't like his politics but I hear lots of support for his 'greatness' and not just from Republicans.
Indeed he is in North America. I'm always surpised by this since in Europe he's viewed as only marginally less of a moron than GWB. What did he do to achieve that status ?

[The Sister]

Indeed he is in North America. I'm always surpised by this since in Europe he's viewed as only marginally less of a moron than GWB. What did he do to achieve that status ?

I've heard he single handedly won the cold war by forcing the Soviets to spend themselves out of power - :ummm: maybe Bush should have paid closer attention!

[Americano]

What about Reagan? I didn't like his politics but I hear lots of support for his 'greatness' and not just from Republicans.

Reagan. His supply side voodoo economics, catering to the military-industrial complex, lowering tax rates and using federal deficit spending to drive the economy was IMO the most destructive US president in recent history. And that's without mention of his foreign policy. Bush the junior merely expanded on Reagan's MO.

[partofme]

I've heard he single handedly won the cold war by forcing the Soviets to spend themselves out of power - :ummm: maybe Bush should have paid closer attention!

One thing that helped this that wasn't in Reagan's control was lower oil prices towards the end of the 80s that really hurt their economy.

[Donkey]

Reagan. His supply side voodoo economics, catering to the military-industrial complex, lowering tax rates and using federal deficit spending to drive the economy was IMO the most destructive US president in recent history. And that's without mention of his foreign policy. Bush the junior merely expanded on Reagan's MO.
I know what supply-side economics is, but what is voodoo economics? I've heard the term before, I guess I just never knew what it was supposed to imply.

[partofme]

I know what supply-side economics is, but what is voodoo economics? I've heard the term before, I guess I just never knew what it was supposed to imply.

Another term for the same thing. I've also heard it called Reaganomics.