Where Have All the George Washingtons Gone?

Five reasons why America doesn’t have great presidents anymore.

BY AARON DAVID MILLER | FEBRUARY 20, 2012

Happy Presidents Day, a holiday that ranks somewhere between Groundhog Day and Opening Day at the ballpark in the list of Americans' priorities. It's easy to see why. Even though Americans admire their great presidents, they've been frustrated for quite a while now by their Disappointers in Chief. Those presidents seem to have become experts in taking Americans to the Mount Everest of hope and expectations and then letting them down in the valley of executive despair. Americans' own expectations, of course, have always been too high. Still, of late, Americans haven't had what presidential scholars would describe as a parade of great presidents occupying the White House.

Indeed, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America's last undeniably great president, the history of the presidency has resembled much more a bumpy and often wild ride than a consistent tale of top performers. It has been a story of scandal, impeachment, assassination, and transitional presidencies -- and also one of dedicated, intelligent, and able presidents, some of whom were not actually great presidents but who were great at appearing presidential. But since FDR, the greatness of consistent and incomparable achievement has eluded all of his successors.

Why? Are Americans just in a bad patch -- like in the 19th century for a decade or so on either side of Abraham Lincoln, when faceless chief executives came and went without much of a trace of significant accomplishment? Are Americans just between great presidents, waiting for another FDR? Or is something else afoot?

I think it's the latter. And as Americans celebrate President's Day, more likely at the shopping mall than the National Mall, here are five reasons that presidential greatness has become harder now than ever.

1. Americans are ambivalent about greatness.

The American system, creed, and political culture works against greatness. There's an anti-greatness and anti-authority trope that courses throughout U.S. history. Unlike the European story (literally filled with Greats -- Catherine, Alexander, Peter, Charles, and a handful of English kings), American history was not peopled by the royal or the entitled. There was no real tradition of grandiosity (sorry Newt) and certainly few of the monarchial trappings of power. George Washington rode around in an ornate coach with a large GW embossed on its top, but he shunned the more elaborate titles of the office in favor of a simple Mr. President. Americans have always liked leaders with a common touch and a dose of humility, even just for show.

Indeed, much to the dismay of the British ambassador, Thomas Jefferson would regularly greet him in bedroom slippers, sometimes opening the White House door in his stocking feet. Grover Cleveland answered his own phone; and Harry Truman, after leaving the White House in the summer of 1953, packed up the wife and drove himself to New England without handlers or Secret Service protection. Not until 1906, after three U.S. presidents (Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley) had been assassinated, did Congress even authorize formal statutory authority for presidential protection.

Wikimedia

 SUBJECTS: POLITICS, NORTH AMERICA
 

Aaron David Miller is a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His new book, Can America Have Another Great President? will be published this year.

L4V4

3:05 AM ET

February 20, 2012

its a different time

its just a different day in age, we are a people of advanced technology, not wooden teeth and candlelight

 

DAVELEAU

3:38 AM ET

February 20, 2012

Mediocrity at best...except...

Great leadership in democracy occurs partly due to great leadership, but great leadership can only flourish alongside great followership. Our national philosophy has changed drastically for the worse over the past century. We've become lazy quickly with our successes and have dropped the ball in education (not on the gov't level, as this is on the students' shoulders) and in work ethic. One other thing...

Psssssst.... You forgot about Reagan. He was on par with FDR, if not better...

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

10:10 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Yeah pssst you forgot about Reagan

Iran Contra
Dead marines in Beirut
Honduran death camps
Oliver North
We begin bombing in five minutes
Reactivating mighty MO an enduring symbol of freedom to relentlessly shell villages in south Lebanon indiscriminately.
MIGHTY MO!
Reagan was a bastard and far from great he was a buffoon that showed us just how dangerous a media construct really is. The first world trade was a criminal act as is most terrorism. Clinton handled it as such. Later when there was evidence to support a centralized CRIMINAL network he bombed their bases in northern Afghanistan. Of course the separatists claimed he was doing it in order to defray criticism of the Lewinsky affair. Clinton was an effective head of state a phenomenon not seen from the Separatist party since Geo Sr. and before that not since Ike with the exception of a few moments with Reagan. Largely centering around his contacts with the Russians. Reagan put us on the footing of lower taxes, less educationand diminshed infrastructure. For his efforts we now have a country where people take the equity from their homes down to walmart and give it to the Chinese. The Separatists and their tax policies have hollowed out this country leaving only the shell and the flag to wrap themselves in they have brought a chill wind to this country and Reagan was their leader Say what you will about Clinton. If all you got to say is he lied to your face about having illicit sex. You got nothing. Oh yeah and psssssst repealing Glass Steagall was a plank in the separatist's contract (on) America.

 

DAVELEAU

1:57 PM ET

February 22, 2012

I expected such a response.

I expected such a response. It's a somewhat typical response; however, there are several fallacies within it that must be corrected.

Iran Contra = Oliver North, so that's only one issue. A valid concern, but one of minor comparison to the stomping on the Constitution by others more recent (both R and D).
Beirut = How about the dead during Clinton's wars? Double standard.
Bombed in 5 min = a joke. Not a reason to degrade a president's standing.
Lebanon = Really? Indiscriminately?
First world trade = Terrorism? Really? This is kind of like calling Clinton or Obama Hitler. There is disagreement, and then there is reshaping reality into something outlandish. Calling someone or something (either on the R or D side) a hyperbolic name just for effect shows a poor contact with reality.

You neglected to note the huge recession (not as bad as the current one, but second worst since Great Depression) turn-around under Reagan. This was coupled with the hugely negative view of America that much of the populace held that was turned around through Reagan's leadership. He restored the American dream and set us on a road to prosperity that lasted, well, until 9/11.
Reagan ended the Cold War and stopped the repression by the USSR.
Reagan had principles and stuck by them. He did not watch polls, like Clinton and Obama, which is evidenced by their constant backtracking on decisions after outcries.
Clinton's illicit sex scandal was huge, because it erroded the morals of our nation. Leadership is crucial to developing societal norms. Reagan bolstered our society, and Clinton's pergury to get out of a sex scandal was as bad, at least, than Iran Contra. He lied drectly to the faces of the American people and got caught. He wagged the dog with our troops by joining unnecessary conflicts without any clear guidance and put troops in harm's way to take media coverage away from his sex scandal. His only successes were when he followed Reaganomics and lowered taxes to promote growth that he had hurt with his initial policies.

 

K0POWER

8:42 AM ET

February 20, 2012

English Kings

Only one English King has been called great and that was King Alfred.

Good article though.

 

ANON45

9:32 AM ET

February 20, 2012

Great adversity makes great leaders.

America simply isn't in a state where adversity has reached such a level. Yes that's even with the economic crisis and rising tensions.

 

WHEN-IS-VALENTINES

10:58 AM ET

February 20, 2012

This is my favorite holiday..

I don't know why, but I have always loved Presidents Day. It is my favorite holiday. My second favorite is valentines day. I wonder When is Valentines this year? I feel great today.

 

GRANT

12:28 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Frankly I think people award

Frankly I think people award to much unquestioning praise to our pre-1950s presidents. Personally I suspect that most of our presidents would have reacted in the same general manner.

 

LAURA123

7:09 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Not that I approve of war,

Not that I approve of war, but Clinton allowed the first insurance to largely go unregulated. There's growing, credible evidence that the seeds of today's financial crisis began in his administration. There was a sizable surplus in his budget, but maybe he should have spent the funds on education, infrastructure, etc. I'm old enough to recall Reagan's "It's morning again in America." I recall Clinton's memorable lines, too: "I did not have sex with that woman," topped only by "It's how you define is." No need to continue with these ...

 

STENTOR

10:14 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Really?

$15000/day stylist, $50000 lingerie bill, multimillion vacation in Spain on taxpayers dime, another multimillion trip to Africa with family members brought along and listed as senior staffers...
Michelle is grandiose enough for both of them.
Our mass media-inaugurated Obamas see the Presidency not as a job but as an experience to be savoured at leisure. Royalty indeed.

 

BUREAUCRACYWARRIOR

4:48 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Good and Bad

Number 2 has to be the lamest of the 5. If WW2 had never happened FDR would easily be in Carter territory; worse, we might actually be putting bad presidents in "FDR" territory.

Numbers 3 and 4 are by far the best of the 5. Especially 3; I have often thought about that as reason why there are no "great" presidents anymore.

 

KA5S

8:50 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Re-Reading Greatness

If we read historians more honest than Parson Weems, we get a different picture of greatness. If we were to learn history less rose-tinted than what we got in High School, we might come away with less reverence for these great men, but a good deal more respect for what they got done. Politics is, was and always will be a dirty, nasty, smelly business; history teaches us why it must be, but also, why it is still the best we can do.

 

PEARPANDAS

11:01 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Agreed KA5S

I believe we we would respect them more if we had a more realistic picture of what they had done.

This article is very articulate in identifying an underlying current in American culture, one that is sensed but rarely talked about. It is neccessary to
move on quotes from here, and be able to understand that this country needs real leadership but more than that, it needs the American people to stand up behind that leadership for what is right. Only then will the leadership be allowed to havemeaningful quotes.

 

TOPNOTCH

11:17 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Not sure about obama yet

But on the bright side presidents day is always a great day. All we hear about is how Iran is gonna shut down the oil supply and that where going to be into another war. Im so sick of all of this. This makes my gout flare up from all the stress. anyone have some gout-home-remedies

 

KEYBASHER

11:42 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Change the holiday back to ...

... Washington's Birthday and fix it on Feb. 22. Then more people will give a damn about it.

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

3:52 PM ET

February 21, 2012

We don't need

A GREAT president we need a competent manager who can steer the ship of state. That person needs the support of the people without the constant denegration of the opposing party. America needs better qualified and competent congressional representatives who can roll up their sleeves and shoulder the burden of greatness. Being the bullseye of the president is in some ways easier than being in congress. This country needs individuals who understand the long term value of compromise. If the president steers the ship of state then congress is truly its engine. We are not firing on all cylinders people. The greatest generation achieved progress during times of shared struggle. Coming to congress after the war made possible great and exciting change through LEADERSHIP. Understanding the strength found in diversity. Burdening oneself with struggle is to assume the responsibilty of solving the problems and enabling the president to steer the ship. Their is no idealogical difference between the presidents as the media would like you to assume. They are Us and We, Them. Our congress has been on their knees for too long before others. Stand up and lead. Calling the president a liar on the floor as a heckler is shameful. I know that and so do you. That is not leadership and we all know that. Who among the congress can you point to as a leader? We have had many strong ones in the past. Who will be the strong one to cross the aisle and say "My opponent is right"? Boehner? Reed? Politics is a dirty business but it still requires strength of character and courage of convictions. Which member of congress does this describe?

 

MANYHOT0

5:27 PM ET

February 21, 2012

president day

Obama is a very great president. He is not just a taker., he has had done a lot of things for USA. Even I am a Canadian,but I support Obama. Great.

AppleGuider

 

STOGIEGUY7

1:01 PM ET

February 22, 2012

Yeah sure

You think he's great because he doesn't have to be your president. He's not methodically ruining your country. In fact, Canada's economy is as robust as it's been in years. The US, on the other hand, is being reduced to also-ran status.

That's awesome if your Canadian but not if you're an American with kids. I pray that Obama is dispatched in November. The only thing he's great at is making the US look like Venezuela.

 

ATIMOSHENKO

6:47 PM ET

February 21, 2012

Media does not trivialise

Media exposes the truth. No leaders, all of them fallible human beings, were ever as great as they are presented in the myths that were built up around them. We are not having worse leaders, we are getting better at seeing our leaders for what they really are.

Heroic people (as opposed to heroic acts) are really only possible through very, very tight informational control (a lesser form of the methods used to build up personality cults), the scope for which we have irreversibly lost.

 

STOGIEGUY7

1:02 PM ET

February 22, 2012

The Author

So Mr. Miller, will I be seeing you at the next Obama Fund breakfast? Clearly, that's where your political proclivities lie.

 

MARTY24

1:31 PM ET

February 22, 2012

Successful leadership

Successful leadership calls for being able to identify where the ship of state needs to be steered, the ability to persuade a large majority that that is the right destination, and the skills to get us there.

Crises are useful for the first two requirements because they reduce the number of possible destinations and open distance between them. With starker differences, it is easier to make a case for one of the alternatives, and in most cases, the alternatives will be so different that only one makes any sense. This reduces the requirements for being "great" to simply having the necessary skills.

Without a crisis, the range of potential destinations is much larger and the options may be differentiated by nuance. This makes selecting one of them more difficult, something that has been tested empirically: If two kiosks are offering free samples and coupons for a new product, the one that offers the fewer choices always is more successful in getting people to buy.

The underlying problem with Obama is that he campaigned in 2008 on a strategy that recognized that his best chance for election was to keep the people in the dark about what he actually stood for. Thus, even those who fell for this had no reason to support the various choices he has made since becoming president. If you recognize that this also means that he knows he stands for policies that most Americans reject, then it follows almost immediately that he will face serious political opposition. He is now so compromised by this that even if he gets reelected, he will have no mandate, and the opposition will only intensify in the next Congress. The reelection of Obama is thus a formula for paralysis.

I have to side with those who have concluded that Obama has been a bad president. His one "achievement", the health care bill, serves to demonstrate what is wrong. At the time he went on the road to campaign for the bill, and to denounce the many critics who were making claims about what it contained, there was no bill. Thus, he was technically correct that their claims were false, something that was routinely reported. What wasn't reported was that because there was no bill, his claims about what it contained were also false. When it was eventually written, it was so complicated that the only certain consequence was the bankruptcy of the states, except for Nebraska which was allowed to stay out in exchange for its senators voting for the bill. That they would only vote for it if their own state got an exemption is all you really need to know about the health care bill.

On foreign policy, Obama has been an almost unmitigated disaster. His worst failure here has been with Iran. Many of his supporters believe he was right to try to "engage" Iran, something they believe the hated GW Bush didn't do. But Bush made 28 approaches to Iran and was rebuffed every time. Why would Obama think he could get another result? As a result of the dithering that has accompanied this effort to "engage" Iran, we are heading toward a new war, one that will be much more devastating than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are now at least four scenarios for how it will start: 1) Iran is now suggesting that it will attack Israel and/or block the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran attacks Israel, then Israel will respond. Obama's foreign policy is actually encouraging this result. If it blocks the Straits, then the US Navy will have to respond, and Iranian attacks on the Navy should lead to war with Iran. 2) The civil conflict in Syria could escalate with external involvement to take out the pro-Iran Assad regime. Iran would come to Assad's defense, possibly by directing its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza to attack Israel, which would then be fully entitled to respond. 3) Israel may seek to take out the Iranian nuclear program before its window of opportunity to do so closes. Obama is working hard to prevent this. 4) If he is losing in his re-election bid, a strike at Iran could be his "October surprise" to defeat the Republicans. It is hard to prove a counterfactual, but it is likely none of this would be the case without Obama's screw-ups.

Obama's personal history goes far to explain why he has been so bad. Political leaders fall into three psychological profiles. Some, like FDR and Reagan, seek to get certain things done. If they have the right objectives and the necessary skills, they can be great. Others, like Clinton, are motivated by a desire to be loved by the people. (Note the "love" here is not of the Monica Lewinsky type.) These leaders select their objectives based on whether the people will like those choices rather than on whether the goals are inherently desirable. They don't usually bother to make the case for badly needed reforms if those reforms will be unpopular. The third category, into which Obama falls, are those who seek office to exercise power. It is often the case that they seek power to "prove" something to someone, usually a missing parent. The combination of a need for power, strong political skills, and no real sense of what the country needs is what makes Obama so dangerous.

Part of the problem going into this year's election is that there are large numbers of people who fell for the Obama con job who would be seriously embarrassed to admit they had been had. Many of these people regard themselves as intellectuals, and they will most likely not be able to bring themselves to believe that their support for him was simply stupid and that the people they regard as stupid had understood him correctly.

The bottom line on the difficulty for being a great president today may be that the policies needed to solve the country's many problems are not the policies advocated by the Intellectuals. Even when they are wrong on substance, they still communicate much better than the "stupids", and their claim to power depends entirely on keeping the wider public convinced that they know what they're talking, and writing, about, even when they don't. Even when the "stupids" have the first leadership requirement, the "intellectuals" have the other two. This combination will probably destroy the US and the cause of freedom.

 

THEYELLOWDEVIL

3:53 PM ET

February 24, 2012

Article needs to be renamed...

This article barely talked about Washington. It was all about Roosevelt, and how every President since has a complete failure compared to him. Couple that with the fact that Roosevelt systematically breached Constitutional protocol (Japanese-American internment, his attempt to stack the Supreme Court with his ideologues, etc), cost and overall failure of the New Deal, the establishment of Social Security as a mandated retirement program, and (initial) tacit sympathies for the Soviet Union, I have to largely disagree. (I will give him some points on the execution of WWII however). I conclude that if this author deduces the high calibur of presidents ended with Roosevelt, he should be reasurred that his standards were quite low to begin with.

 

FREEDOMRIDER

7:48 PM ET

February 24, 2012

Expand your tunnel-vision

Your opinion about FDR is highly biased and irrelevant.

Naturally, the author follows the standards set by the top three greatest presidents (constantly ranked as such by scholars) to measure the successes and failures of those who followed. Besides, the article’s title was not “Where Has George Washington Gone?”

Whether you like it or not, FDR is number three!

Some really disappointing and nasty comments though…Sad!

 

GENARO MAHOE

4:19 AM ET

March 19, 2012

George Washington

It true that, George Washington is one of the greatest president in American history. he contributed a lot for American. Washington had a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to preserve liberty, improve infrastructure, open the western lands, promote commerce, found a permanent capital, reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of American nationalism.[2] At his death, Washington was hailed as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen".[3] The Federalists made him the symbol of their party but for many years, the Jeffersonians continued to distrust his influence and delayed building the Washington Monument. As the leader of the first successful revolution against a colonial empire in world history, Washington became an international icon for liberation and nationalism, especially in France and Latin America.[4] He is consistently ranked among the top three presidents of the United States, according to polls of both scholars and the general public.