host

Historians and the American public often disagree when assessing presidential
performance. I believe that Clinton was a greater president than Reagan or
either Bush. My reasoning is that Clinton did a better job of "fighting for the common citizen, and working to expand opportunity for all, <br>and seeking to strengthen liberty and justice". (see bottom quote box) I see those qualities
as being very presidential. I expect differing opinions to be posted here, but
I request that each post be accompanied by a link to factual research that
will bolster your opinions!

alansmithee

IMO, Clinton only did a better job of "fighting for the common citizen, and working to expand opportunity for all, and seeking to strengthen liberty and justice" if "the common citizen" is his political career and "strengthening liberty and justice" is protecting himself from prosecution. For me, Clinton seemed too willing to throw anyone under the bus if it furthured his popularity. I think he started a dangerous trend of not doing what's best, but what gets the biggest boost in popularity at the time.

I personally put FDR at the top of the presidential list, followed by Wilson, Truman, Lincoln, and LBJ in no particular order. To me, they all saw problems in the country, and took steps to alleviate those problems because they were the right things to do (at least in their opinions) and not for popularity's sake. Honestly, I believe what the article's author thinks is important to be highly irrelevant to discussing a president's "greatness". If restricting civil liberties, war, or the highly dubious claim of "openly violate the constitution" are what's required at the time for the betterment of the country, that's what needs to be done.

host

A president who "openly violates the constitution", is a crminal who has
compromised his oath of office. You would still trust such a president to
somehow have the best interests of the American people as his highest
priority. Who are the American people without their constitution ? Why would
a president with so little regard for the substance of his oath of office, and
for constituional law, be expected to still act in the best interests of Americans,
when he is no longer acting judiciously?

Superbelt

To be fair, I have to say this.

The "Great" presidents, like Roosevelt and Lincoln openly violated the constitution. Lincoln basically suspended the entire thing and ruled the Union as a dictator in wartime, thankfully he restored it after the war was over.

Roosevelt also illegally detained thousands of americas, notably all west coast Japanese.

My opinion, Lincoln was right to do what he did in the midst of a civil war. The very existence of America was in jeopardy, there were enough dissenters on the Union side who were trying to either sabotage the war effort, appease/make peace with the South, or other derailments that Lincoln either had to give up or take the drastic measures he did.

Roosevelt and his Japanese internments was completely inexcusable though. They were people who were put in jail not for any ties to Japan or even avowed dissenting views. They were America Citizens put there specifically for their nationality.

Having said that, neither tried to write their particular abuses permanently into LAW, as this administration has.

ARTelevision

I think I have answered something very similar to this here previously. In any event, based on my reading of both of Bob Woodward's books on George W. Bush's job performance and other books on the man, my sense of history and thoughts on the future, my observation of and participation in his campaigns, and seeing him in person, I think George W. Bush has as much "Presidential Greatness" as I have seen, studied, or experienced among U.S. Presidents.

It's the right combination of a number of significant factors that I see as contributing to this. These factors amount to a measure of "leadership" ability in the context of the past, present, and future of our nation and the world.

__________________
create evolution

Mephisto2

I don't know. I honestly can't see why Bush could be seen as a "great President."

If it weren't for 9/11, I don't think he would have been held is such high regard. He certainly acted very well in the days, weeks and even months directly after the attack. I wholly supported his actions in invading Afghanistan and also his laudable and refreshing policies towards AIDS in Africa.

I'm certainly not a fan of his unilateralism and eco-unfriendly policies and the close ties he has with big-business and the Christian right. These however are just scalar; that is, he is not alone in this, but simply "further along" than most others.

Yet, I think it honestly all began to go wrong with his invasion of Iraq. I honestly believe he misled, or was misled, with regards to the invasion. I think he pandered to the neo-cons in his cabinet and allowed personal animosity to cloud his judgement.

It is patently clear that Iraq has gone, and is continuing to go, wrong.

So the only "great" thing that Bush has done is act Presidential after 9/11. His policy in Iraq is divisive in America, let alone on the world stage.

I don't think he's as bad as some paint him. Like most people, I honestly believe he's a good man. I just don't agree with a lot of his policies. On the other hand, so what? That's politcs.


I also don't believe Clinton (a man I greatly respect) qualifies as a great President. A good one, yes; but not great.

To be a great President you have to deal with great events. There were none in Clinton's tenure. In Bush's there have been, but he's fumbled the ball.


That leaves us to consider earlier Presidents. One could argue that JFK was a contender, due mainly to his actions with regards to Civil Rights; a great social upheaval in recent American history. But his record is also tarnished by scandal, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the beginning of the Vietnam War, that other great American misadventure.

Lincoln, without a doubt, stands head and shoulders above all others in my mind. Without his dogged determination and leadership the United States may have ceased to exist as we know it today. He had his faults, but they were minor to what he achieved; the preservation of the Union and the Emancipation of the Slaves.

One could argue that Nixon was great, especially in his engagement with China, but I don't think he qualifies. Again, greatness cannot be achieved without dealing with great events.

That leaves us with two other obvious examples.

President Roosevelt could be considered in this exalted few, for the New Deal, his leadership during the Great Depression and of course WWII.

President Wilson who led America through WWI and, more importantly and influentially, the subsequent peace. Unfortunately his brainchild failed and now America seems to view any kind of multi-lateral, trans-national representative and policing body as anathema, but his heart was in the right place.

What does this tell us? That to make a great President you need great events. And that these great events tend to be, more often than not, wars. However, and this is important, that being a President during a war does not automatically make you a great President.


Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko

Just me but I've always loved Teddy, lol something about the guy just makes me think Cowboy Diplomacy.

One of those things where your choice should just be that, your own. Teddy had so many problems also but all in all, hindsight being what it is, I love the guy.

__________________

flstf

I agree, Lincoln was an exceptional leader. Especially when you consider that he was pretty much a racist himself. That did not stop him from realizing the importance of keeping the union together and doing what was necessary to accomplish it. He knew that the war was really about state's rights and also that slavery's days were numbered.

Coppertop

I would say that it has been a long, long time since anyone truly qualified for the job has held the office. Basically I think that you have to sell your soul (so to speak) to attain that most lofty of positions. Therefore anyone who could run and be elected is immediately disqualified from being worthy.

jonjon42

just thought I should throw this in here...even though it is a bit of a joke

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Personally I see major issues with many presidents stopping them from being "great" . The American public tends to rate presidents according to charisma so that is why these people are up their.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Mephisto2

I don't know. I've read quite a bit on the man and the war, and I wouldn't describe him as a racist.


Mr Mephisto

alansmithee

I would hardly call Lincoln or FDR charismatic. The charismatic president started fairly recently IMO (i'd say Regan being the first of a trend, after Kennedy who was wholly elected on charisma). Really, it's probably more due to the influence of TV than anything else.

JBX

I think the great presidents are one's that didn't want the job, George Washington come to mind for me.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

flstf

I guess for his time he was considered progressive, but some like the following link disagree:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...16/ai_63323546

An excerpt:

Mephisto2

I have to run out to the shops, but I'll respond when I get back. I can post several references that show Lincoln was not a racist. Also, the above quotations are sometimes taken out of context.

More to follow...


Mr Mephisto

PS - Nice discussion, but maybe we're thread-jacking?