Yes. There will be a great President for America and soon. I plan to run for President in 2016. Vote for me. I’ll get this country on it’s right track again and quickly.
George W. Bush could have claimed a Great Presidency as his legacy if he had simply not fucked things up too much. He was president during a popular war, and historically that’s all you really needed if you were minimally competent. Unfortunately, he decided to start an unpopular one too, and it’s rather hard to blame the 24 hour news cycle for that.
I am not sure I buy this, Latvia is a full member of NATO and thus is a beneficiary of Article 5 protection. So either The US would declare war on Russia, or the NATO treaty would disintegrate, not a minor local blip at all.
That is exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned squandered opportunities. (I did mention squandering didn’t I?)
You did. I wasn’t sure if you were referring to GWB, though, since usually it takes a bit longer than just the next guy’s terms for people to forget that Great Presidents were also shitty or at least controversial presidents (see FDR).
The trouble is, ‘Great’ is going to be in the eyes of the beholder. To some, Regan was a ‘Great President’. To others, Clinton was. To some, JFK was…or Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) or Jackson (or many others, based on ones political philosophy usually). There is always Lincoln, Jefferson and, of course, Washington…the quintessential ‘Great President’. But, even Washington wasn’t universally acclaimed as ‘great’ in his own day, and certainly Lincoln wasn’t, and every other name I mentioned and one’s I didn’t were ‘Great’ to some but not to others.
So, to answer the question, do I think that there will ever be a ‘Great President’ again? Certainly for some people and for certain definitions of great. 
You’re new to this politics business, aren’t you?
War wouldn’t necessarily start. Even if Latvia bit the big one, there would be one heck of a time lag before we did anything about it.
Well, I was also thinking about Fillmore and the Peruvian guano treaties but I didn’t want to bring all that up again.
For a lot of folks, “Great” equates to causing vast amounts of Americans and/or other peoples to be slaughtered needlessly. The two “Greats” are Lincoln and FDR. LBJ is considered great by some and Truman has seen a resurgence. These are the four butchers of the American Empire. I would not be surprised if GWB was one day considered great if today’s ideology persists.
I’m good with a “not bad” president. Harding was “not bad” in that he did little damage to American society. Coolidge was even less “bad”. Other than those two it’s hard to find a president who was not actively destroying our society and/or another.
ETA: there is one caveat. Generally presidents that slaughtered Native Americans are no longer considered great. This is an improvement, but sadly the only exception to the “Great Slaughterer” rule state above.
Yeah but they’re REAAAAAALLY far away. And anyway we’re sending a “probe” (nudge, wink) so they won’t be a problem.
Lincoln had to put down a massive illegal insurrection. Blame the outlaws in the south for that. FDR had foreign powers declare war on the US. What else was he supposed to do? HST merely finished the war, though I do think the atomic bombing could have been avoided. And LBJ does indeed carry some of the weight of Vietnam, but in my opinion the greatness of Medicare and the Civil Rights Act greatly outweigh that.
Will we have another great president? I don’t think so. We are too polarized. We live in alternate realities now, one side willing to see only news filtered through their party’s news channel. The internet has made it possible to spread lies at warp speed to a group of people that are all too willing to lap it up, solidifying their hatred of the other side. No president can overcome the merchants of hate and disinformation that have taken over the political arena.
Probably better discussed elsewhere, but I agree that war would not necessarily start, but the ramifications to NATO if article 5 was toothless would be pretty big. What is NATO to countries like Latvia anyway except a guarantee of US protection in cases like this.
Lincoln did not have to put down the slaver secessionists anymore than Gorbachev had to make war to sustain the Soviet Union. A choice was made by Lincoln to maintain empire.
FDR baited Japan into attacking one of the U.S. Imperial holdings, while simultaneously supplying the allied war machine. Both choices made by him, not forced upon him.
HST slaughtered thousands of innocents to bring Japan under the empire’s control, and away from Russian influence.
LBJ slaughtered thousands of innocents, enslaved thousands more at home and sent them to die. But he have out some free stuff so it’s all good. Nevermind the fact that poverty, while decreasing steadily up until his actions, has stagnated at nearly the same level since.
What universe do you live in where voluntary accession to a larger state is “imperial”? You do know Georgia chose to join the union, right?
I don’t think Japan is now part of the US empire. And I think that South Carolina and the others joined the union much more voluntarily than Latvia joined the USSR.
You say “empire” like it was a bad thing.
Some residents chose to join.
Japan has slightly more autonomy now than then, but it is effectively an occupied vassal state.
And South Carolina was invaded when they attempted to leave a supposed liberal democracy. Latvia was free to leave.
It is.
No, nope.
Hell, he says “society” like it’s a bad thing.
The only thing that could be worse than living under the American Empire would be living under the Soviet, or the Japanese, or the German, or the British, or the Confederate, or the French, or the Spanish, or the Holy Roman, or the Aztec, or any other empire that existed (or would have existed if the US had not exerted its influence and power).