What is a "good" president?

[Dayton3]

In other words, it doesn't matter that Obama's accomplished something that no Republican president even came close to accomplishing, because in your eyes, Obama could freaking cure cancer and end poverty and make fusion power economical, all overnight, and all free...and you'd still find a way to refuse to give him credit for any of it.

Because that's what the Right has made as part of conservative dogma: no liberal - and ESPECIALLY Obama - ever has or ever will do anything right ever...and even if they do, Thou Shalt Not Give Him Credit For It.

I'll give President Obama credit for what I think he deserves credit for.

I won't do it just to make some ridiculous claim for fairness just because the supporters of America's novelty president are salivating over him.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'll give President Obama credit for what I think he deserves credit for.

I won't do it just to make some ridiculous claim for fairness just because the supporters of America's novelty president are salivating over him.

Have you spent any time in the military? If so, here's a question for you: why is it that the captain of a ship gets 100% of the blame if his ship runs aground at oh-dark-thirty while he was in his rack getting a precious few hours of sleep? Or, if you don't know much about the Navy, the same can be said for the commanding officer of any unit that suffers a similarly major incident on maneuvers - the one in charge gets 100% of the blame.

Why is that?

 

[Dayton3]

Have you spent any time in the military? If so, here's a question for you: why is it that the captain of a ship gets 100% of the blame if his ship runs aground at oh-dark-thirty while he was in his rack getting a precious few hours of sleep? Or, if you don't know much about the Navy, the same can be said for the commanding officer of any unit that suffers a similarly major incident on maneuvers - the one in charge gets 100% of the blame.

Why is that?

Because there is one hell of a staggeringly huge difference between the captain of a destroyer with a crew of 300 and the leader of a country of more than 300 million people with roughly 4 million federal employees including some 5,000 directly chosen by the president.

 

[humbolt]

I almost responded to this: "What Good is a President". I was about to say, "not much in the past few decades", but then I read the first post and realized that this will be a partisan fun fest, so I decided on responding to what I misread at the outset instead.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Because there is one hell of a staggeringly huge difference between the captain of a destroyer with a crew of 300 and the leader of a country of more than 300 million people with roughly 4 million federal employees including some 5,000 directly chosen by the president.

Wrong. Principles of leadership work much the same regardless of the size of the group being led. According to Sun Tzu:

1. Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.

2. Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals.

So much for the number of the people being led. Now, concerning the metaphor, "ship of state":

The reason that Plato - and politicians ever since, including a certain Navy veteran named Ronald Reagan - have likened governance of the nation to the "ship of state" is because of the sheer accuracy of the metaphor. The captain never sails the ship by himself - he has to lead, train, and trust others to do so, from the engine room to steering gear, from the navigation department to the mess decks, from sick bay to the men on watch in the night in the bitter cold. The captain is responsible for everything, for making sure they're all fed and rested as necessary, that they're all trained for their tasks, that the level of discipline is sufficient that he can sleep a few hours each night confident that his men won't run the ship aground. Whatever happens on board, the captain gets all the credit and all the blame.

He can't take their hands or physically force them - he must be in turns a cheerleader, a tyrant, a cajoler, a vicious warrior, a kindly gentleman, a diplomat, and - perhaps most often - a remote, mysterious figure whose words are heard only when they are absolutely necessary...for it is he who, even though his hand never touches the wheel, takes the ship where it needs to go, sometimes into harm's way...and, more often, to exotic ports, to a better future, the hope of which being that which gives the sailors the strength to keep going day after day, year after year.

Yes, the metaphor works extremely well, which is why it has stood the test of time for over two thousand years...and it's not me that you're arguing against - instead, you're arguing against Plato and every leader and every president (including Reagan, btw) who has used that metaphor ever since.

 

[Dayton3]

Wrong. Principles of leadership work much the same regardless of the size of the group being led. According to Sun Tzu:

1. Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.

2. Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals.

So much for the number of the people being led. Now, concerning the metaphor, "ship of state":

The reason that Plato - and politicians ever since, including a certain Navy veteran named Ronald Reagan - have likened governance of the nation to the "ship of state" is because of the sheer accuracy of the metaphor. The captain never sails the ship by himself - he has to lead, train, and trust others to do so, from the engine room to steering gear, from the navigation department to the mess decks, from sick bay to the men on watch in the night in the bitter cold. The captain is responsible for everything, for making sure they're all fed and rested as necessary, that they're all trained for their tasks, that the level of discipline is sufficient that he can sleep a few hours each night confident that his men won't run the ship aground. Whatever happens on board, the captain gets all the credit and all the blame.

He can't take their hands or physically force them - he must be in turns a cheerleader, a tyrant, a cajoler, a vicious warrior, a kindly gentleman, a diplomat, and - perhaps most often - a remote, mysterious figure whose words are heard only when they are absolutely necessary...for it is he who, even though his hand never touches the wheel, takes the ship where it needs to go, sometimes into harm's way...and, more often, to exotic ports, to a better future, the hope of which being that which gives the sailors the strength to keep going day after day, year after year.

Yes, the metaphor works extremely well, which is why it has stood the test of time for over two thousand years...and it's not me that you're arguing against - instead, you're arguing against Plato and every leader and every president (including Reagan, btw) who has used that metaphor ever since.

It is still wrong.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I see it like this... A person who wants to own a Mustang doesn't buy one in the hopes of converting it to a Honda Civic. He wants it to stay a Mustang. Might make a few modifications. Might make a few upgrades. In the end, it's still four wheels and an engine, with a Mustang body. If he doesn't want a Mustang...he doesn't buy one.

A good president doesn't want to "change" the country. He just wants to make minor adjustments that do not alter the overall design. More importantly...like all politicians, he is an employee of the people.
He is not a king (sorry, Obama).
He serves the people, not his party (sorry, Hillary).
He doesn't whore himself out for political gain (sorry G.W.).
He doesn't favor one class of citizen, while oppressing another (sorry, Bernie)
His interests are for the country and it's citizens FIRST.
He doesn't pursue one-sided diplomacy that benefits other countries first, while leaving his own country "holding the bag."

 

[David G]

Some good comments so far. And some interesting one. And, as usual, some that are simply goofy.

A 'good' president can be good in a variety of ways, and final judgement depends on a whole matrix of traits and accomplishments. And that judgement is partly dependent upon luck. The challenges that arise during your administration might play to your strengths... or not (think Jimmy Carter).

And there are actually a group of people who make it part of their work to carefully consider such things. Here's a historical listing of the presidents, and their rankings.

You'll note that Obama is currently rated the 17th best president in history. Slightly behind Ronald Reagan, and LBJ. I'll also note that, typically, once a president has been out of office for a few years, he tends to edge up in the rankings. He'll probably end up in the top 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

 

[sookster]

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.

Where was the blame on those guys when people were constantly bashing Obama and blaming him for absolutely everything and everyone. And now we have far outpaced any developed nation in the entire world.

 

[Carjosse]

Where was the blame on those guys when people were constantly bashing Obama and blaming him for absolutely everything and everyone. And now we have far outpaced any developed nation in the entire world.

The US has not far outpaced any developed nation, you kind just chugging along at the same pace you were before. Obama did not change America.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It is still wrong.

And that's still your opinion...which argues against Plato and every leader and every president (including Reagan, btw) who has used that metaphor in the more-than-two-thousand years since Plato coined the metaphor. You're entitled to your opinion, too, of course.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

My idea of a "good" President is the one who does as little as possible when it comes to "changing the country" and as much as possible when it comes to "executing the law".

My idea of a "good" President is the one who, as demanded by the Constitution, acts as a check to a runaway Congress and resists becoming a runaway President.

My idea of a "good" President is the one who presents ideas to Congress and then leaves it up to them to run with the ideas or dismiss the ideas.


Of course, I also recognize that...thanks to those on the left and the right who think the government should be all controlling, who are beholden to those who want to use the government for their own benefit or who want to use the government to advance THEIR agenda at the expense of the public's personal freedom, right to make their own choices and responsibility to deal with the consequences of their own choices and actions...we won't be getting any "good" Presidents any time soon.

 

[Dayton3]

And that's still your opinion...which argues against Plato and every leader and every president (including Reagan, btw) who has used that metaphor in the more-than-two-thousand years since Plato coined the metaphor. You're entitled to your opinion, too, of course.

I love Reagan as much as anyone but he still made mistakes.

 

[fmw]

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?

For me a good president is one that would preside over a reduction of federal government. There has not been a good president, then, since Andrew Jackson who did some cutting and paid off the national debt.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I love Reagan as much as anyone but he still made mistakes.

Churchill used the same metaphor...and he, having been First Lord of the Admiralty among other things, knew something about command at sea and about governance. How many great leaders have to use that metaphor before you start to realize that maybe, just maybe there's something to it?

And Abraham Lincoln used the same metaphor, too.

But then, if you haven't been a seafarer, perhaps I should cut you some slack, because it's really difficult for those who haven't been there to really grasp what it takes to sail beyond the horizon, much less command a ship at sea and take it into harm's way.

 

[Dayton3]

Churchill used the same metaphor...and he, having been First Lord of the Admiralty among other things, knew something about command at sea and about governance. How many great leaders have to use that metaphor before you start to realize that maybe, just maybe there's something to it?

And Abraham Lincoln used the same metaphor, too.

But then, if you haven't been a seafarer, perhaps I should cut you some slack, because it's really difficult for those who haven't been there to really grasp what it takes to sail beyond the horizon, much less command a ship at sea and take it into harm's way.

No despite my admiration for the Navy I've no direct connection to it.

All of my family was Army or Air Force.

 

[sookster]

The US has not far outpaced any developed nation, you kind just chugging along at the same pace you were before. Obama did not change America.

So America's success has nothing to do with him, but its shortfalls have everything to do with him. Makes complete logical sense.

 

[Carjosse]

So America's success has nothing to do with him, but its shortfalls have everything to do with him. Makes complete logical sense.

That is not what I said I said Obama has merely done what is expected, nothing more nothing less. He was average, he did not fundamentally change America in anyway, good or bad.

 

[David G]

That is not what I said I said Obama has merely done what is expected, nothing more nothing less. He was average, he did not fundamentally change America in anyway, good or bad.

Some good comments so far. And some interesting one. And, as usual, some that are simply goofy.

A 'good' president can be good in a variety of ways, and final judgement depends on a whole matrix of traits and accomplishments. And that judgement is partly dependent upon luck. The challenges that arise during your administration might play to your strengths... or not (think Jimmy Carter).

And there are actually a group of people who make it part of their work to carefully consider such things. Here's a historical listing of the presidents, and their rankings.

You'll note that Obama is currently rated the 17th best president in history. Slightly behind Ronald Reagan, and LBJ. I'll also note that, typically, once a president has been out of office for a few years, he tends to edge up in the rankings. He'll probably end up in the top 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

It seems that a broad spectrum of observers disagree that he was 'average'. Sounds like you're having trouble bringing an objective view to the question.