1
0

No More Great Presidents


 invite response                
2016 Feb 15, 8:41pm   11,668 views  23 comments

by indigenous   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

My idea of a great president is one who acts in accordance with his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not since the presidency of Grover Cleveland has any president achieved greatness by this standard. Worse, the most admired have been those who failed most miserably. Evidently my standard differs from that employed by others who judge presidential greatness.

In the New York Times Magazine for December 15, 1996, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., presented the results of a poll of historians asked to rank the presidents (excepting only William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, who held office very briefly). Thirty historians plus politicos Mario M. Cuomo and Paul Simon were asked to rank the nations chief executives as Great, Near Great, Average, Below Average, or Failure. The ranking applies to performance in the White House, not to lifetime accomplishments, and the historians used their own judgment as to what constitutes greatness or failure.

The results of the poll correspond well with the results of a number of earlier polls, especially in the set of presidents regarded as Great or Near Great. The three Great ones are Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Near Great comprise Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Truman. The Failures are Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover, and Nixon, the last ranking at the very bottom of the heap.

What are we to make of this ranking? Well, it helps to know that the historians (and two politicians) doing the ranking are nearly all left-liberals. In this regard they faithfully represent the historical profession in the United States today. In making their judgments, such historians bring to bear left-liberal beliefs and values. Thus, one respondent, James MacGregor Burns, asks: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic President [as Nixon], so brilliant and so morally lacking?"--as if Nixon were, in this crowd, uniquely immoral.

One need not ponder the rankings long, however, to discover a remarkable correlation: all but one of the presidents ranked as Great or Near Great had an intimate association with war, either in office or by reputation before taking office. Of the top-ranking "nine immortals," five (Lincoln, FDR, Polk, Wilson, and Truman) were commander in chief when the nation went to war, and three (Washington, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt) were best known prior to becoming president for their martial exploits. The one exception, Jefferson, confined his presidential bellicosity to authorizing, with Congressional consent, the naval engagements against the Barbary pirates. (Of course, he had been a revolutionary official during the War of Independence.)

In contrast, of the eleven presidents ranked as Below Average or Failure, all but one (Nixon) managed to keep the nation at peace during their terms in office, and even Nixon ultimately extracted the United States from the quagmire of the war in Vietnam, though not until many more lives had been squandered.

The lesson seems obvious. Any president who craves a high place in the annals of history should hasten to thrust the American people into an orgy of death and destruction. It does not matter how ill-conceived the war may be. Lincoln achieved his presidential immortality by quite unnecessarily plunging America into its greatest bloodbath--ostensibly to maintain the boundaries of an existing federal union, as if those boundaries possessed some sacred status. Wilson, on his own initiative and against the preference of a clear majority of the American people, propelled the country into a grotesquely senseless, shockingly barbarous clash of European dynasties in which the United States had no substantial national interest. On such savage and foolish foundations is presidential greatness constructed.

I hold no brief for John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, or Chester Arthur. But give them their due; at least they did not spill the blood of their fellow citizens. Grant and Harding, who always rank near the bottom, do not deserve such contempt. Schlesinger observes that "their sin was excessive loyalty to crooked friends"--a sin that, in truth, many presidents have committed. And even Schlesinger admits: "Scandal and corruption are indefensible, but they may injure the general welfare less than misconceived policies."

Indeed, scandal and corruption, which not surprisingly have tainted most administrations to some degree, pale by comparison to the damage presidential policy decisions have wreaked. What weight does Grant's Credit Mobilier scandal have in comparison to Lincoln's 620,000 dead in the Civil War? Harding's Teapot Dome affair is but a drop in the ocean compared to the global horrors set in train by Wilson's decision to take the United States into World War I: Allied victory, a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake. Why do the historians, and following them the public, place on pedestals the leaders responsible for such utter catastrophes?

I have a theory: left-liberal historians worship political power, and idolize those who wield it most lavishly in the service of left-liberal causes. How else can one account for the beatification of Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt? Truman, now so elevated in the estimation of the historians, left office in unpopularity bordering on disgrace because of his Korean War disaster, but the historians forgive him, admiring his use of nuclear weapons and attempts to preserve and extend the New Deal. Theodore Roosevelt, a bloodthirsty proto-fascist, evokes admiration because of his public flogging of big business, a perennial left-liberal whipping boy.

Were I to rank the presidents, I would not quite turn the historian's ranking on its head, but I would move in that direction. Certainly Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson belong at the bottom, for their statist economic policies as well as their supremely catastrophic war policies.

Finding presidents to put at the top of the list poses more difficulty, especially in choosing among those who have held office during the past century. Grover Cleveland, though far from perfect, may have been the best. He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894.

Washington, I think, actually does deserve a high rating--not even the historians can be wrong all the time. He established the precedent of stepping down after two terms, which lasted until it clashed with FDR's insatiable ambition, and he prescribed the sensible foreign policy, later slandered as "isolationism," that served the nation well for more than a century. Other early presidents who were not entirely reprehensible in office include Jefferson and Jackson, though each committed grave derelictions.

Of the presidents since Cleveland, I rank Coolidge the highest. He sponsored sharp tax cuts and greatly reduced the national debt. As H.L. Mencken wrote, "There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance"--high praise in view of the execrable performance of other twentieth-century presidents. Taft and Eisenhower were a cut above the rest, but that's not saying much.

Unfortunately, under FDR the Constitution suffered damage that none of his successors has repaired and most have made worse. Certainly since 1932--and, one might well argue, since 1896--no president has been true to his oath of office. Realizing the ambitions harbored by Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt created the "imperial presidency," and we have been the worse for it ever since.

The people who ratified the original Constitution never intended the presidency to be a powerful office spawning "great men." Article II, Sections 2-4, which enumerate the powers of the president, comprise but four paragraphs, most of which deal with appointments and minor duties.

The president is to act as commander in chief of the army and navy, but Congress alone can commit the nation to war, that is, "declare war." The president is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but only Congress can enact laws, and then only within the scope of its limited, enumerated powers. The presidency was intended to be a largely ceremonial position whose occupant would confine himself to enforcing federal laws.

But over time, abruptly during Lincoln's presidency and progressively during the twentieth century, presidents seized more and more power.

American liberty will never be reestablished so long as elites and masses alike look to the president to perform supernatural feats and therefore tolerate his virtually unlimited exercise of power. Until we can restore limited, constitutional government in this country, God save us from great presidents.

https://mises.org/library/no-more-great-presidents-0

Comments 1 - 23 of 23        Search these comments

1   indigenous   2016 Feb 15, 8:45pm  

There you go mutt.

BTW do you consider that you have posted any essays? Just curious.

2   turtledove   2016 Feb 15, 9:55pm  

My vote is for Polk. He's a bit underrated. He's the only one to have achieved all of his promises in a SINGLE term. There's something to be said about that. Especially since we've never seen that in our lifetimes of liars and career politicians.

3   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 4:14am  

turtledove says

He's the only one to have achieved all of his promises in a SINGLE term.

He sounds like another war monger?

My vote is for the only president in the 20th century who did nothing. I.E. Silent Cal. BTW he reduced the federal government by 50%

After him George Washington, who stepped down after 2 terms, and whose heroism made it possible for the US to exist at all.

Grover Cleveland, who was in office during the greatest economic expansion in US history in the late 1800s

Murray Rothbard likes Martin Van Buren

Jackson, although an ahole, he did get rid of the central bank.

I think Obama will go down as one of the worst, because of his onerous legacy.

The metric that the author uses: "My idea of a great president is one who acts in accordance with his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." is often forgotten.

The only recent candidate that spoke of this at all was Ron Paul.

4   Y   2016 Feb 16, 6:06am  

what heroism?
he crossed an icy river in a boat...big deal.
that makes half the world population heros...

indigenous says

After him George Washington, who stepped down after 2 terms, and whose heroism made it possible for the US to exist at all.

5   bob2356   2016 Feb 16, 6:32am  

indigenous says

BTW he reduced the federal government by 50%

Federal spending went from 2.9 billion in 1924 to 2.85 billion in 1927 which was the lowest expenditures of his term. I know your math really sucks but 2.85 isn't 50% of 2.9 even in the libertarian alternative universe. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals click on table 1.

You really should read Coolidge's biography "A Puritan in Babylon". Calvin Coolidge as man and president was a lot more complicated and nuanced than the usual meaningless mises sound bites that you believe pass for knowledge of the subject matter. He very frankly admits that he failed to address problems that helped lead to the great depression. He was also very much a wall street insider with extensive holdings of preferred stock in JP Morgan that would be totally unacceptable today. He cut income taxes but made up for it through raising what were low tariffs up to 38%. He didn't just cut income taxes he made them much more progressive.

I think Coolidge was a lot like Clinton. He became president in a time when there were dramatic historic one time changes that supercharged the economy. What either as president did or didn't do really made very little difference.

Interesting a libertarian considers a president who instituted high tariff rates and more progressive income taxes as the best ,president of the 20th century. It goes directly against your mises.org religion.

6   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 9:42am  

Ok I will look into it, since you and lips color everything you read with your Libby perspective it has to be checked against reality. I will let you know.

7   HEY YOU   2016 Feb 16, 9:57am  

In my life we've only had Republic Party presidents & Democratic presidents.
So, we've never had a Great president.

8   bob2356   2016 Feb 16, 10:46am  

indigenous says

Ok I will look into it, since you and lips color everything you read with your Libby perspective it has to be checked against reality. I will let you know.

Mises,org is reality? Sometimes you are just too funny for words.

9   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 11:55am  

bob2356 says

Mises,org is reality? Sometimes you are just too funny for words.

Cute

10   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 12:17pm  

I guess i'm supposed have hurt feelings?

What if I don't have any?

11   anonymous   2016 Feb 16, 12:56pm  

I'm in the camp that knows that indigenous and CiC are both dumber than a pile of rocks.

I'd wager that they are both mentally retarded

12   anonymous   2016 Feb 16, 1:40pm  

I'll book that bet

13   bob2356   2016 Feb 16, 3:27pm  

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Mises,org is reality?

Just like Thinkprogress.org, right bobby?

They were real enough you couldn't find anything that shows they were wrong. Curiosity overwhelms me. Did you have to have some type of training to be a major putz or was it something that came naturally to you?

14   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 4:00pm  

Instead, they cut the top rate to 25%, eliminating all income taxation for some two million people—and revenue went up not down! They also cut federal spending by 50%. So instead of budget deficits, America ran surpluses, American debt was reduced by 25%, and American credit was the most sought after in the world. And by 1923, unemployment had plummeted to 2.4%. And this was not just fake “make-work” stimulus jobs; allowing entrepreneurs to keep most of their money made this an incredibly fruitful time for new inventions. They developed Kleenex, scotch tape, the zipper, sliced bread, and especially the radio.

15   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 4:02pm  

http://patriotupdate.com/remembering-calvin-coolidge-how-he-rescued-america-from-a-depression/

President, John Calvin Coolidge, Jr., (18721933). If Americans remember anything about him, its for being a man of so few words that he was nicknamed Silent Cal. One story goes: a woman told him at a dinner, Mr. Coolidge, I’ve made a bet against a fellow who said it was impossible to get more than two words out of you. He replied, You lose. But he deserves to be known as one of our greatest presidents, helping to produce one of Americas most prosperous decades, the Roaring 20s.

16   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 4:06pm  

" I just want you to become aware that what you're doing is pointless so maybe you'll stop"

Funny that was my intention for you.

17   indigenous   2016 Feb 16, 11:44pm  

indigenous says

Instead, they cut the top rate to 25%, eliminating all income taxation for some two million people—and revenue went up not down! They also cut federal spending by 50%. So instead of budget deficits, America ran surpluses, American debt was reduced by 25%, and American credit was the most sought after in the world. And by 1923, unemployment had plummeted to 2.4%. And this was not just fake “make-work” stimulus jobs; allowing entrepreneurs to keep most of their money made this an incredibly fruitful time for new inventions. They developed Kleenex, scotch tape, the zipper, sliced bread, and especially the radio.

www.youtube.com/embed/K8E_zMLCRNg

18   bob2356   2016 Feb 17, 3:43am  

indigenous says

They also cut federal spending by 50%

Are you a total idiot, completely brain dead, or heavily into hallucinogenic drugs? I gave you the federal spending right from omb and you keep posting the same bullshit. Once again in your weird world official records don't matter only random totally false garbage someone posted in mises.org.

indigenous says

So instead of budget deficits, America ran surpluses, American debt was reduced by 25%, and American credit was the most sought after in the world. And by 1923, unemployment had plummeted to 2.4%. And this was not just fake “make-work” stimulus jobs; allowing entrepreneurs to keep most of their money made this an incredibly fruitful time for new inventions.

The same was true for the 50's, except tax rates went up. Way up. I guess entrepreneurs were incredibly fruitful while paying high taxes also.

Or maybe correlation isn't causation and the 20's were a boom time no matter what the presidents policies were. Especially since the revenue act wasn't passed until late 1924 and taxes weren't reduced until 1925, when the decade was already half over. How does that explain the boom in the early 20's? How did a tax cut in 1925 create 2.4% unemployment in 1923, except in the mises/indiginous/libertarian alternative reality chamber?

Newly invented things like mass production and consumer credit might, just might, have had a little tiny something to do with the 20's being a boom. Like incredibly low energy prices and a revolution in IT created the 90's boom that is credited to Clinton policies. There is a reason the 1920's are called the second industrial revolution.

19   indigenous   2016 Feb 17, 4:05am  

Oh hey Bobby, I'm glad you linked that table, I see where the problem was. It was actually Harding who reduced the spending by 50% in 1922. Of course you didn't bother to mention that. What is that word the Wogster is fond of? Oh yea disingenuous.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2021
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total On-Budget Off-Budget
Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–)
1920 6,649 6,358 291 6,649 6,358 291 .......... .......... ..........
1921 5,571 5,062 509 5,571 5,062 509 .......... .......... ..........
1922 4,026 3,289 736 4,026 3,289 736 .......... .......... ..........
1923 3,853 3,140 713 3,853 3,140 713 .......... .......... ..........

Yup reducing government cranks up the economy all right.

Of course there are many factors involved in an economy. This is why a priori science is so important. I'm glad you are starting to realize that the same science that is applied to hard science doesn't work in economics.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals click on table 1.

20   bob2356   2016 Feb 17, 6:54am  

indigenous says

Oh hey Bobby, I'm glad you linked that table, I see where the problem was. It was actually Harding who reduced the spending by 50% in 1922. Of course you didn't bother to mention that. What is that word the Wogster is fond of? Oh yea disingenuous.

Nothing disingenuous about it. The war budget wound down. Why don't you go back to say 1915 and point out how after reducing the war spending by 50% the federal spending is still 5 TIMES HIGHER than pre war spending 7 years earlier. There must have really been one hell of a boom 1900-1915 with federal spending 80% less than 1922. Where was the early 1900's boom? Did I miss it somehow? A priori "science" would dictate the economy would have been through the roof.

You are the one that claimed reducing taxes and federal spending created the boom of the 1920's. You said nothing about the totally unique economic conditions that actually created the boom. Now there are other factors once someone pointed out what you said was total bullshit? Shouldn't having federal spending in 1920 that was 9 TIMES larger than 5 years earlier have killed the economy? You can't have it both ways.

indigenous says

My vote is for the only president in the 20th century who did nothing. I.E. Silent Cal. BTW he reduced the federal government by 50%

indigenous says

It was actually Harding who reduced the spending by 50%

It's Harding now? You named Coolidge as the president who made all this happen. Do you want to take a few more stabs at it or would you care to admit you don't know anything about either of them other than cutting and pasting something from mises.

21   indigenous   2016 Feb 17, 8:51am  

bob2356 says

The war budget wound down.

The war ended in 1918, that doesn't fly.

bob2356 says

You are the one that claimed reducing taxes and federal spending created the boom of the 1920's.

Like I said there are many things going on in the economy. Otherwise your fairy tale that it is all created by government would be the answer.

War increases the economy through spending of course but the money spent is not an investment as it is used up and destroys others investments.

bob2356 says

You named Coolidge as the president who made all this happen.

Coolidge was an extension of Harding as you know..

22   bob2356   2016 Feb 17, 11:14am  

indigenous says

bob2356 says

The war budget wound down.

The war ended in 1918, that doesn't fly.

Amazing do you practice being clueless or does it come naturally? The armistance was signed in Nov 1918. That would be the end of 1918 . The budget for 1919 was already in place. The budgets that wound down WWI spending were the 1920 and 1921 budgets. Are you somehow unaware countries budgets are prepared in advance of the year actually starting

indigenous says

Like I said there are many things going on in the economy. Otherwise your fairy tale that it is all created by government would be the answer.

No you didn't. You said the 1920's boomed because government spending was cut. Period.

My fairy tale? You are either the stupidest person on the planet or have zero reading comprehension. I said the 20's boomed because of changes in technology and finance with government having little to do with it. You dodged my question as always happens when there is nothing on mises to cut and paste. If the 20's boomed because taxes were cut then why did the 50's boom when taxes were raised? This should be a dancing on ice moment.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

You named Coolidge as the president who made all this happen.

Coolidge was an extension of Harding as you know..

Translation, I don't have a clue what harding or coolidge did when they were presidents, I just pasted something that sounded good.

23   indigenous   2016 Feb 17, 12:18pm  

bob2356 says

The budgets that wound down WWI spending were the 1920 and 1921 budgets. Are you somehow unaware countries budgets are prepared in advance of the year actually starting

Yet the greatest difference was a year later.

bob2356 says

No you didn't. You said the 1920's boomed because government spending was cut. Period.

The economy always has a lot of dynamics.

bob2356 says

Translation, I don't have a clue what harding or coolidge did when they were presidents, I just pasted something that sounded good.

Yet I'm the one who brought it up!

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions