But that’s more Congress’ job. Not only does Congress not do foreign policy much, but Presidents have been insisting that Congress have no voice in foreign policy at all lately. Which makes foreign policy the President’s most important job, by far.
None of that means a retired general would make the best POTUS – and, in any case, there are none such in this election cycle anyway.
It always very seriously disturbed me that in the 1990s people were talking about Colin Powell as a serious presidential prospect, even though nobody seemed to know anything about his politics. The party might be less important than the man in that regard, but the man’s politics, as distinct from his partisanship, are far more important than the man in that regard.
If you look at what Presidents are actually supposed to be doing, the man is more important than his political views. I’ll support Bernie Sanders over Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz because I trust the man more and have more confidence in his competence. All things being equal I’d prefer a conservative, but what I want out of a President is good judgment and integrity first.
First, no one should proclaim a president as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ until at least 20 years have passed since they held office; history does not move at the speed of the internet and time is necessary to see where the President’s policies have taken us.
That said, at the meta-level, a Good president, based on my modest reading of history, is one that knows his own mind and is willing to push forward based on that. Lincoln is considered one our greatest presidents because he knew that America must remain undivided and he acted during his time towards that goal with unswerving devotion. Reagan had his own goals and beliefs, and while I disagreed then and now with many of his decisions, I’m still willing to consider him a good president, because he followed what he knew needed to be done. I am sure adaher, being the good conservative that he is, is not fond of FDR and many of his actions, but if he is fair he’ll admit that FDR was a good president at a time when questions about the very structure of America were in doubt.
Today, looking at the candidates (on both sides), the vast majority say only what the pollsters and their syncophants tell them certain voting blocks want to hear. It should be no surprise that a non-entity like Trump or Carson should become popular, because no politician will actually look us in the eye and tell us what he/she wants and what they plan to do (at least, none of them are believeable to me).
I think it is part of the ‘constant information’ age we live in now, and I wonder if people like Lincoln, Reagan, the Roosevelts, could be elected in the current situation.
But I hope they can.
Hey, you know who knew his own mind and was willing to push forward based on that?!
Yeah, I know. But I really had (still do) finding the right words to explain it. All Presidents want to accomplish something (even if it’s not doing anything), but only a few have the…I guess we’ll call it vision…to cajole, inspire, politic, and when necessary move ruthlessly towards their goals. Lincoln remains the standard for this, and he came out of the ‘hick’ Midwest with one term in Congress behind him…but a long time in politics before that.
LBJ is roundly critized (and fairly, IMHO) for the Vietnam war and the ‘failure’ of the Great Society. But he also got the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights acts through Congress in 1964 due to his knowledge of how Congress worked (and ruthless arm-twisting).
I guess in the end it is harder than it looks to determine the qualities of a good president; like I said in my first post, time often tells better (though I doubt time will make Bush 2 and Cheney look any better).
IMHO as always. YMMV.
It also depends on what you want done. Clinton and Coolidge were awesome Presidents simply because they had a steady hand and obeyed the Obama Doctrine before he articulate it(Don’t do stupid shit).
Frankly, I think the Obama Doctrine is under-rated.
In post 24 I detailed the Presidential job requirements. Now turn the question around: what makes an ineffective President?
We have 2 examples. Jimmy Carter and George W Bush. George W Bush was ineffective insofar as he wanted to establish a great wave of democracy in the Middle East, stop Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program, and permanently cut taxes for the rich. Also Katrina. And low job growth, lax regulation of the financial services industry resulting in an outbreak of liar loans and the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.
I think Carter was worse though, in terms of political skill. Not in policy, but in PR. Carter made a fair number of unforced errors such as the Malaise speech and saying that when he asked his young daughter what was the US’s biggest problem she answered nuclear proliferation. She might have been correct, but showcasing that Q&A was puerile.
Carter got better over time. Which points to his problem: he lacked Washington experience. Indeed, in 1976 he ran as an outsider. During the Presidency it showed. Washington experience be it direct or indirect is a precondition for a successful Presidency. You can’t just wave your hands, appeal to the American people, and assume everything will be just peachy.
George Bush lacked direct Washington experience, but had a certain level of policy immersion: it was part of his family. What destroyed his Presidency was his lack of curiosity and policy chops as well as his surplus of wishful thinking: Washington experience would have had limited benefit. Maybe a little.
So the preconditions are legislative/executive experience at the state/national level, policy immersion and a certain level of native intelligence.
Reagan and Obama aren’t failed Presidents, but they both suffered from a trait that nearly ruined both of them: unawareness of what was going on in their administrations. In Reagan’s case it was disinterest and possibly dementia, in Obama’s case it’s an overly politicized administration more interested in protecting him by giving him plausible deniability than informing him of problems that need his attention.