- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 211
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
On this forum and elsewhere, there's a lot of talk about who would make a "good" president or a "bad" president, and whether previous presidents were "good" or "bad".
But I'm curious: What exactly constitutes a "good" or a "bad" president?
On this forum and elsewhere, there's a lot of talk about who would make a "good" president or a "bad" president, and whether previous presidents were "good" or "bad".
But I'm curious: What exactly constitutes a "good" or a "bad" president?
make sure [things are] better off for the one who relieves you than it was when you assumed the watch.
The day [Obama] took over, our economy was in free fall … Compare that to now …
These are hard-and-fast metrics to use when determining whether the president was good or bad.
Hmmm. So you're saying that the President single-handedly controls the economy?
On the battlefield, does the general personally fire all the weapons? Does the general personally feed all the troops? Does the general personally train all the troops?
Of course not. But he makes doggone sure that his people know what they're supposed to do, and how and when to do it. This is why generals - even though they're often not anywhere near the battlefield - pretty much get all the credit and all the blame for what happens while they're in charge. Who won the battle of Waterloo? Did the Duke of Wellington personally fire all the weapons? No...but we all remember that he won - and Napoleon lost - the Battle of Waterloo.
So it goes with presidents. The president - and not the congresspeople and the advisers and policy wonks - are the ones who receive all the credit and all the blame for what happens on their watch. So...yeah, Obama DOES and SHOULD get credit for how the economy improved on his watch.
Except the advisory and policy makers are the ones who probably actually wrote the policies, economies also tend to have an ability to operate autonomously to a certain degree as well. A country is not like a battlefield. Obama changed nothing, it could just have easily have been McCain or Romney doing the exact same thing. Obama had no vision, he had charisma, but no actual vision.
Funny how when it's y'all's guy who's in office, y'all are so happy to give him credit (and little or no blame), but when it's the other side's guy who's in office, well, he doesn't get credit for anything!
If you have not noticed I am a Liberal and I believe many other Democrats and Republicans have been good presidents not because of their party but because of their vision. Good presidents have vision and fundamentally change America and what it means to be American. Obama was not bad but just okay.
That's your perception. But look instead at his wealth of accomplishments, most especially at the 66 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, by far the longest such streak in American history. And yes, Obama had a lot to do with that, given the stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and quite a few other initiatives. There's also Obamacare, and 20M more Americans have coverage today thanks to his efforts (yes, I would prefer single-payer, but this is the best we could get given the political atmosphere). There's ending two stupid wars (and keeping us out of other wars), ending torture, ending the stupid embargo on Cuba, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and quite a bit more.
Regardless of your personal perception, he's done more for America than most people are willing to give him credit for.
Generals - even though they're often not anywhere near the battlefield - pretty much get all the credit and all the blame for what happens while they're in charge.
So it goes with presidents.
Those are not that large of accomplishments in the grand scheme of things, as I said McCain or Romney could have also very easily done those things. The economy was most likely going to recover regardless and the ends anyways, it is like crediting Bill Clinton with the dot-com boom. Obama did not change America, he has not changed what it means to be American, all he did was pass some legislation that helped a few million Americans, good presidents change the entire country.
Roosevelt, Wilson, Reagan, Kennedy, they all fundamentally changed America and were good presidents.
You're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that the economy would have recovered anyway, especially given that none of the Republicans would have allowed a Keynesian stimulus to pass. What's more, their position was for more deregulation, not for something like Dodd-Frank. I do not credit Clinton for the economic progress in the mid '90's - I say instead it's more due to Bush 41 when he raised taxes against the wishes of his own party.
There are no presidents who "changed the entire country" in a positive manner, except for Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. And Wilson was IMO the worst president in our history. He was president when the Great Influenza hit. America had about 100M people at the time, and the Flu killed nearly a million...and Wilson never once mentioned it in public, but kept silent in order to preserve the "war morale". Kennedy didn't change the nation, though he did a couple very important things right. Reagan was a great president for two reasons, one, that he won the Cold War, and two, he gave America back its nationalistic pride...but at the same time, he tripled our debt, allowed us to get involved in Iran Contra (which is a bigger scandal than anything the Clintons or Obama did), and helped spread the myth of the "welfare queen". When he announced his run, he did it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where civil rights activists had been lynched. He didn't do that because he supported civil rights - Google "Lee Atwater quote" sometime - he was one of Reagan's chief advisers. Probably worst of all, he got rid of the Fairness Doctrine that required news outlets to at least attempt to tell both sides of the story. That, more than anything (except for Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), enabled the rise of the Religious Right and the hyperpartisanship we see today.
Not a valid comparison. A general has ultimate control and authority over every single resource under his command. Not so with presidents and the economy.
The economy is influenced by MILLIONS of things that the Prez has no control over. He represents, at best, only a third of the Federal government, and that's just the fed: state & local governments have a lot of impact also, and the Prez does not control them. And that's just the government: the actions of millions of private-sector entrepreneurs, workers, innovators, businessmen, volunteers, and pundits ALL effect the economy - and let's not forget natural disasters such as hurricanes & earthquakes - no Prez can control those things. And that's just the United States - what goes on in the rest of the world impacts us also, and the Prez can't control that.
And besides, whatever the Prez does is not instantaneous - his actions could take years, if not decades, to bear fruit.
No, you cannot compare the president's power to control the economy to a general's power to run a battle.
You're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that the economy would have recovered anyway, especially given that none of the Republicans would have allowed a Keynesian stimulus to pass. What's more, their position was for more deregulation, not for something like Dodd-Frank. I do not credit Clinton for the economic progress in the mid '90's - I say instead it's more due to Bush 41 when he raised taxes against the wishes of his own party.
There are no presidents who "changed the entire country" in a positive manner, except for Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. And Wilson was IMO the worst president in our history. He was president when the Great Influenza hit. America had about 100M people at the time, and the Flu killed nearly a million...and Wilson never once mentioned it in public, but kept silent in order to preserve the "war morale". Kennedy didn't change the nation, though he did a couple very important things right. Reagan was a great president for two reasons, one, that he won the Cold War, and two, he gave America back its nationalistic pride...but at the same time, he tripled our debt, allowed us to get involved in Iran Contra (which is a bigger scandal than anything the Clintons or Obama did), and helped spread the myth of the "welfare queen". When he announced his run, he did it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where civil rights activists had been lynched. He didn't do that because he supported civil rights - Google "Lee Atwater quote" sometime - he was one of Reagan's chief advisers. Probably worst of all, he got rid of the Fairness Doctrine that required news outlets to at least attempt to tell both sides of the story. That, more than anything (except for Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), enabled the rise of the Religious Right and the hyperpartisanship we see today.
It was the Spanish Flu, there was nothing you can do about that. What Wilson did do was help start America on the track of world superpower and catapulted America to the top of the world stage. Kennedy changed civil rights in America and marked a great turning point in race relations in America while Obama's presidency has only seen an increase. Reagan defined what it meant to be a proud American, and had the entire country behind him. All Obama will be remembered for is the guy who passed the Affordable Care Act and happened to be black.
Not entirely true. The first stimulus was passed by Obama AND Bush, together. Would the Republicans have done this if left on their own? Unknown but you are correct that they probably would not have.
I also think JFK changed the country in a positive manner by pushing and inspiring the Space Race.
But what is a significant and positive change to the country likely depends on the perspective and goals of an individual.
I don't like everything the President has done nor do I dislike everything he's done. I've been underwhelmed by most presidents since I've come of voting age. I think you are right in that the "great" country inspiring and country changing Presidents are in our past and I would add I don't see much chance of a future candidate of that caliber in the near future.
My opinion only though.
You're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that the economy would have recovered anyway, especially given that none of the Republicans would have allowed a Keynesian stimulus to pass. What's more, their position was for more deregulation, not for something like Dodd-Frank. I do not credit Clinton for the economic progress in the mid '90's - I say instead it's more due to Bush 41 when he raised taxes against the wishes of his own party.
There are no presidents who "changed the entire country" in a positive manner, except for Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. And Wilson was IMO the worst president in our history. He was president when the Great Influenza hit. America had about 100M people at the time, and the Flu killed nearly a million...and Wilson never once mentioned it in public, but kept silent in order to preserve the "war morale". Kennedy didn't change the nation, though he did a couple very important things right. Reagan was a great president for two reasons, one, that he won the Cold War, and two, he gave America back its nationalistic pride...but at the same time, he tripled our debt, allowed us to get involved in Iran Contra (which is a bigger scandal than anything the Clintons or Obama did), and helped spread the myth of the "welfare queen". When he announced his run, he did it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where civil rights activists had been lynched. He didn't do that because he supported civil rights - Google "Lee Atwater quote" sometime - he was one of Reagan's chief advisers. Probably worst of all, he got rid of the Fairness Doctrine that required news outlets to at least attempt to tell both sides of the story. That, more than anything (except for Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), enabled the rise of the Religious Right and the hyperpartisanship we see today.
So only ONE person actually answered the question in the OP and everyone else was either cheerleading for their guy or attacking the cheerleaders.
On this forum and elsewhere, there's a lot of talk about who would make a "good" president or a "bad" president, and whether previous presidents were "good" or "bad".
But I'm curious: What exactly constitutes a "good" or a "bad" president?
I find this post to be very ironic.Funny how when it's y'all's guy who's in office, y'all are so happy to give him credit (and little or no blame), but when it's the other side's guy who's in office, well, he doesn't get credit for anything!
I find this post to be very ironic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?