On this President's Day I was thinking about what makes someone a good President of the United States? Is it the age he (or hopefully someday she) was born into? Would Abraham Lincoln have been a less effective chief executive had he governed at the turn of century rather than during the Civil War? Or is it something inherently presidential in the person? Is it just predestined for this one to be a sequoia while another one is kindling wood?
Sometimes I think it is perception. Someone like Harry Truman could say "The Buck Stops Here" and make it sound absolutely presidential; someone like George H. Bush could say "Read my lips" and slip into infamy faster than Charlie Sheen on a bender. I guess it could be the times and world events that shape a presidency, or it may just be that one guy is just better than the other.
I look at presidents and think of accomplishments; I also think family influences us a great deal in thinking about them as well. For example, my uncle always kept a beautiful picture of a young John F. Kennedy on his office wall. I was greatly moved every time I saw that picture, and my uncle's feelings about the man were also told in stories. While I don't remember JFK as being president, I know of his legacy from history but also have strong positive feelings about him from family.
I have also heard very negative things from family members about presidents. So growing up and hearing negative things about Herbert Hoover and positive stories about Franklin Delano Roosevelt would probably slant my feelings in a certain way. Also, as a student of history, I was certainly taught very positive things about FDR while the thing that stands clear in my mind about Hoover is the Hoovervilles: the many homeless shantytowns that sprung up all over the nation due to the Great Depression under his watch.
I am very conscious now of how I speak about presidents to my children. Since I remember Watergate vividly, it is hard for me to say anything positive about Richard Nixon, yet I still manage to say something like "he opened the door to China" and even of Jimmy Carter "he brought Israel and Egypt together in the peace process." While I may personally think of both men as kindling more than presidential timber, I am not going to let those thoughts warp my kids' perceptions of these men: they'll get enough of that in school someday.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I've never understood Teddy Roosevelt's claim to greatness.
Part of that is my fault. We moved a lot when I was growing up, and I must have had "American History, Foundation to Reconstruction" 4-5 times, but I never had the second half of our history in school. Over my adult years, I've filled in most of the missing period, but I've never really gotten the appeal of TR.
2 - Victor Lana
I suppose, Baronius, that having been to his house in Oyster Bay as a boy I got filled with admiration for him. It was a museum of all he did in life, including tusks and spears and animal heads on the walls.
I think people saw him as expanding that Manifest Destiny idea: during his time in office we started getting overseas possessions and becoming the world power and player. Perhaps that is his legacy; perhaps we should have stayed the way we were before he took office. Maybe we'd be better off.
3 - Alan Kurtz
Mounting tusks and animal heads on the walls is not admirable, nor is the way TR went out with high-powered rifles and slaughtered wild beasts in their native habitats.
Also, the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine explicitly rejected Manifest Destiny territorial conquests in favor of the U.S. becoming an international policeman to secure American interests--expansionism being replaced by interventionism. This was an ultimately ruinous policy for which we have paid dearly to this very day.
4 - Deathrider6
For better or worse the views of what is and is not proper change over time TR would have a difficult time getting the GOP ticket in the 21st century. Understandably the views I am expressing are my own but a Presidential hopeful must have several things working in his or her favor to even hope to win the nomination of thier party. Connections are one eperience applies to some extent and the ability to comunicate and have the pulse of a majority of the American people. Having all of these assets will enhance the "presidential timbre" of anyone. What the indiviual does once elected is a different story entirely.
5 - Baronius
I didn't mean to spit on your childhood memories, Victor.
I was just looking at the Siena Research Institute poll of scholars, and they ranked TR as the second best president of all time (below FDR). It's one of those lists that can easily start an argument among geeks. For example, they list Reagan as the 36th most intelligent president, and the 3rd luckiest. They list FDR as the best at handling the economy. Anyway, the categories "Leadership Ability" and "Communication Ability" seem to correspond best to your idea of timber, and the people you named score among the highest in them.
I have a real problem with FDR ranked 2nd in Court Appointments. On the other hand, there's not much to argue about in their appraisal of Clinton as the second lowest in Integrity. You can guess the loser in that category, I'm sure.
6 - Arch Conservative
"On the other hand, there's not much to argue about in their appraisal of Clinton as the second lowest in Integrity. You can guess the loser in that category, I'm sure."
Obama's not even done yet and they're ranking him?