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.

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

12:28 AM ET

February 20, 2012

aside from monica, clinton was pretty great...

carter? horrible. bush 1? not bad....reagan? great. bush junior? a moral man but not great at persuading...

obama? a talker...still not sure what his agenda really is....and that's NOT great.

 

FUNKEDUP143

9:04 AM ET

February 20, 2012

Disagree on Clinton

Whilst he definitely made some good impacts he will now go down as the man who revoked the Glass Seagell act which is one of the reasons we are where we are today with banks and economies all going under.

 

FREETHINKER12

12:34 PM ET

February 20, 2012

??

bush jr was a moral man????

your just saying that because he was the most pro isreal president in modern times. Obama isnt thats why your scared. Go to tel aviv you treasonous isreali firster

 

BEINGTHERE

1:08 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Clinton was/is our favorite clown president

Had Clinton's VP not invented the internet, our outgoing Bubba would not have reigned over the great economy of the 90s. In the first paragraph of his obit., Monica's name or the intern reference will be mentioned because the Clinton administrations were mediocre.

Not that I approve of war, but Clinton allowed the first World Trade Center to largely go unanswered. 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 ...

 

LAURA123

8:13 PM ET

February 20, 2012

europe laughs at obama, the

europe laughs at obama, the middle east hates him, the israelis distrust him, the russians abuse him, the chinese just smile at him, poland and the czechs despise him...pakistan US relations are in free fall, he is making insurance deals with the taliban to release high level gitmo psychos, he is giving money to the muslim brotherhood in egypt, he is watching the butchery in syria take place with no help whatsoever, he did the same in iran

 

HAWAIIVIEW

11:31 PM ET

February 23, 2012

"Europe Laughs at Obama"

I always find it interesting when someone on the right uses European sensibilities to bolster their American Way of thinking. Sometimes it's fair to be defined by who doesn't like you.
I think that the President deserves another four years, and I will vote for him, again.

 

THEYELLOWDEVIL

5:05 PM ET

February 24, 2012

Congragulations!

Obama's new campaign slogan is geared toward supporters like you!

"Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me." Obama 2012!

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

12:34 AM ET

February 20, 2012

roosevelt got lucky

thats the truth...

if it wasnt for the war, his economic plan for recovery from the depression was not really a success...the war changed that for him....

also, I will always find it unforgiveable that he knew and didnt bomb the tracks.

 

BRANDON.DIXON

11:51 AM ET

February 20, 2012

ha

Well you can say that Reagan's policies wouldn't have been successful if the oil ebargo didn't end but it did... without luck there is no such thing as success. And you cant compair the presidents of today to those at the beginning it has changed tremendously since the new deal.

 

LAURA123

8:11 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Say what you like, obama's

Say what you like, obama's first term is a failure and its been mostly cheap PR stunts and smoke and mirrors. you think unemplyment is down? ha! thats just people stopping to look for work....why would they when obama just keeps extending unemployment vehicle. you think gm is doing well? have you seen gm sales in europe or asia or south america? you think foreign relations are better?

 

KEYBASHER

12:44 PM ET

February 21, 2012

RE: roosevelt got lucky

Bombing the tracks or the camps would neither have saved a life nor shortened the war a day.

 

L4V4

4:05 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

4:38 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

11:10 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

2:57 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

9:42 AM ET

February 20, 2012

English Kings

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

Good article though.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

10:17 AM ET

February 20, 2012

Obama in the lense of history will be viewed as less than great

he's a great talker, a great reciter, great teleprompter guy, great photo op guy, great in the dinners for journalists where he tells great jokes, great basketball player, great golfer, great drone user, great seal team user....................

BUT

he's a piss poor president, piss poor economic policies, piss poor at healing divides between americans, piss poor at managing, piss poor in foreign policy. what? no budget for over 1000 days? and then when he does roll one out, its for political posturing, not actually for governing? really?

All I see that's great are his PR stunts, and getting the media to do his bidding. Its allllll smoke and mirrors with this guy...all image, all superficial crap...as if he is in a giant reality show where stupid americans are charmed by image and the cool factor. He in FACT has been treating the american electorate cynically as if they are incredibly stupid and he can say and do anything he wants and they will still love him. If bush or any other republican did half of what obama is doing, you would be screaming for impeachment.

 

FREETHINKER12

12:38 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Bush cost us trillions in

Bush cost us trillions in iraq and thousands of lives. Obama stayed out of stupid wars, he assisted the rebels in Libya for $2 billion and zero lives lost. He hasnt boot licked isreal or pakistan (waaaay more drone strikes). Employment is picking back up and he has got us out of Iraq and soon out of Afghanistan.

Obama is a great president, clinton faced no challenges, bush jr was a sell out retard.

you hate obama because you are a treasonous isreali firster, who measures american presidents but how much they will sell their country out to isreal. Stay in tel aviv and shutup

 

BEINGTHERE

1:20 PM ET

February 20, 2012

No greats among current or past four presidents

Obama is yet to be judged. With time, results of Bush's two wars may exonerate him. Probably a baby born in 2012 might be alive to witness this. His dad was so-so and Clinton was less than so-so, unless you count the reality t.v. show feel to much of his presidency.

In many ways George Washington lived in a much more complex world than now. It's all relative. He had little education and he wasn't perfect in disposition, but if you read extensively about him, most biographers call out the courage, character and endurance to see his country succeed. He also managed to negotiate fairly with most of the people with whom he served.

 

BEINGTHERE

1:21 PM ET

February 20, 2012

No greats among current or past four presidents

Obama is yet to be judged. With time, results of Bush's two wars may exonerate him. Probably a baby born in 2012 might be alive to witness this. His dad was so-so and Clinton was less than so-so, unless you count the reality t.v. show feel to much of his presidency.

In many ways George Washington lived in a much more complex world than now. It's all relative. He had little education and he wasn't perfect in disposition, but if you read extensively about him, most biographers call out the courage, character and endurance to see his country succeed. He also managed to negotiate fairly with most of the people with whom he served.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

2:50 PM ET

February 20, 2012

freethinker....you are a small little coward...a nazi scum

come to israel....we know what to do with you... :-)

see if you survive one hour opening your filthy little mouth. We will more than wash it out with soap.

why is it jew haters are such cowards? it always amazes me how big they talk but when confronted in real life, they shrink into the shit under my shoe.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

6:09 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Exposing Hipocrites ...sigh...

you said: "he's a piss poor president, piss poor economic policies, piss poor at healing divides between americans, piss poor at managing, piss poor in foreign policy. what? no budget for over 1000 days? and then when he does roll one out, its for political posturing, not actually for governing? really?"

Lets be clear that this is your VERY one sided, politically motivated opinion of the man. Many of us, who are equally as intelligent as you think the exact opposite; and pretty much believe that the man is the most intelligent person we have had in the oval office since Jefferson, and that he was given a pretty shit situation to govern over. He's doing the best he has with what he has to work with.

And as far as "healing divides between americans" goes: You simply can't "heal" stupid. Nor can you "heal" racism, or close mindedness for that matter. There is a reason that the majority of Academics in the country voted for Obama, and lean left. This is frankly because smarter people tend to be liberals. I myself am a moderate, but Im smart enough to recognize a trend when I see one. That trend: Social conservatives tend to be extremely dumb people with just enough education to make them believe they are smart, when they actually shouldn't be making any decisions on their own.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

11:20 PM ET

February 20, 2012

no obama is not doing the best he can with what he got

he is doing the best he can to ruin the economy so that people become truly dependant on big goverment. its all part of the plan....saul alynski..you know, the one who hillary did her thesis on and obama taught courses on him....

obama is horrible by all accounts in foreign policy and domestically has divided americans more than at any other time in history. Liberals say thats because people are racist...and I say, bullshit! how many white "folks" voted for obama? 65%? it was a large majority...if there is any racism going on here, its reverse racism with the dems using false arguments to paint republicans as racists...and that in of itself is racist...the left is chock full of race baiters...

why has obama not has a budget in over a 1000 days????? he asks every family to have a budget and live within their means....so why not the govt???? the man is the most slippery disingenuous president in history. He smiles at you at the same time he is lying to you. the man could sell snow to an eskimo.

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

11:23 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Selling snow to an Eskimo

I think the people to whom you are referring are known as Innuit, but I'm not going to get hung up on your ignorance. Selling snow to the Innuit sounds like a difficult task and if its true what you say about Oboma's ability in this matter he sounds like the right man for the job. Israellis best understand the tide of change is coming to this country. It is more comfortable to make peace from strength. These chances may be fleeting.

 

PRINCEWALLY

11:00 AM ET

February 22, 2012

Not a fan

I'm not a fan, but I don't think he's trying to sink the economy on purpose. I think he thinks intentions are the same as actions.

I mean, he's got an obsession with wind power, but it's not the most efficient energy source out there. It's not the most reliable, or the most passive. But he loves it and keeps throwing money into installations, without even considering the alternatives.

Or his foreign relations. Giving the Queen of England an iPod? "Oh, it's a gift from me, she'll love it no matter what."

Give me a break.

 

ANON45

10:32 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

11:58 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

1:28 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

8:09 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 ...

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

3:09 PM ET

February 20, 2012

real americans support allies

they support the uk, france, israel, italy, germany, australia, spain, canada, etc...etc...etc...

thats what you do. you support free western oriented countries who by and large support america ....its a symbiotic relationship. If there is one country who has done more to support america than israel, I have yet to see it. :-)

jews fought in ww1, ww11, korea, vietnam gulf war 1, 11, and will continue to do so. Israelis pay with their blood to support the values of america....freedom...free speech....jewish blood and treasure dies for america....we are your front lines you dumbass teetotalling goosestepper. Say what you like, obama's first term is a failure and its been mostly cheap PR stunts and smoke and mirrors. you think unemplyment is down? ha! thats just people stopping to look for work....why would they when obama just keeps extending unemployment benefits. you think gm is doing well? have you seen gm sales in europe or asia or south america? you think foreign relations are better? ha! europe laughs at obama, the middle east hates him, the israelis distrust him, the russians abuse him, the chinese just smile at him, poland and the czechs despise him...pakistan US relations are in free fall, he is making deals with the taliban to release high level gitmo psychos, he is giving money to the muslim brotherhood in egypt, he is watching the butchery in syria take place with no help whatsoever, he did the same in iran, etc...etc...and your going to tell me he has a good foreign policy? why? cause he killed bin laden? yeah, that was great...but that was what any president would do when given the info, which by the way originally came from waterboarding....

your debt just keeps rising and what does obama do? nothing. he blames "rich" americans ...which is a total fabrication. if you taxed the "rich" 100% it still wouldnt put a dent in your debt....its called petty politics from a man who claimed he was beyond that....uh huh....does he reign in entitlements? no! that would take true political leadership, something obama is just not about...he is a selfish president and soon enough, your going to see the real results of his presidency. he is far more indebted to organized labour and unions and lobbyists than any pres before him...which is also something he promised not to do....he lacks transparency as witnessed in his obamacare bill, he instructs holder to run the doj through the prism of race, he covers up illegal acts as evidenced in fast and furious and the black panther voter intimidation case which he had holder bury...

what else has this fine presidency done? you must be joking man....

 

VICTORPANAK

8:24 PM ET

February 20, 2012

wish I could see you in person...

...so I could smack some reason into you. You are one of the most disgusting-sounding pro-israel conservative tools I've ever heard of. If the US is supposed to support free democracies that value free speech and all these other human rights, then Israel should be pretty f'ing high on our enemies list. Israel is acting like an amateur nazi germany. I'm just waiting till you guys come up with the "ultimate solution" to the palestinian problem. I'm not anti-semite in any way, but the fact that you feel Israel is entitled to US support for the bogus reasons you came up with is despicable. Get your racist and expansionist state under control, and then we can talk

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

11:12 PM ET

February 20, 2012

victor...your words copied and pasted below

"hen Israel should be pretty f'ing high on our enemies list. Israel is acting like an amateur nazi germany. I'm just waiting till you guys come up with the "ultimate solution" to the palestinian problem. I'm not anti-semite in any way"...

but you're not an anti semite...right? hahahahahahahaha....loser...

come fuckin find me and see what you get you shit for brains pondscum

 

ERICDAVIS1

11:52 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Real Americans support America not other countries.

I owe the United Kingdom, France, Israel, Italy, Germany, Australia, Spain, and Canada, nothing. Those countries are my economic competitors. Why would I want to support people I compete against? It does not make sense. How about we stop underwriting their security, so that they have to raise their tax rates and make their products less competitive, so that Americans can take their jobs? But then again I support abolishing payroll taxes along with the corporate tax and instituting a replacement VAT or tariffs. I see no reason to make the world safe for offshoring. Why is our Navy protecting foreign merchant ships carrying imports into our shores from pirates? Shouldn't we allow pirates to seize them so that it would give a comparative advantage to American merchant ships and manufactured goods?

Foreigners are not my friends. They are my competitors and I believe in crushing the competition. If you want to support people in other countries, then by all means feel free to donate your own money to support them but don't tax me to do it.

 

VICTORPANAK

1:32 PM ET

February 21, 2012

uhhh, right, I'm not anti-semite...

I just can't stand it when pro-Israelis whine about being threatened by arab states and persecuted, blah, blah, blah. Jews have had the roughest history of any group of humans and I'm truly sorry for you. But it doesn't give you the right to, once you have the power, subject other groups of people (palestinians) to the same hardships you endured. You see the hypocrisy? Israel is an expansionist state that is semi-passively encroaching on the living space of palestinians and other arabs. The world accepts this because of the historical context of the Jewish struggle, but also because the USA and the rest of the western countries are anti-arab and feel like they owe the Jewish community reparations. You can try to argue that Israel is under attack by terrorist groups and you can argue that we should take seriously the threats of annihilation made by arab leaders, but the truth is, Israel is the true aggressor. Picture it from the opposite perspective. Post WW2, a new, strictly Jewish state is established in one of the holiest areas for Muslims and Jews alike, displacing in the process tons of palestinian natives. How would you feel if you were a Muslim in the area? Pissed off at the Western countries? Absolutely. Would you want to get rid of the state of Israel? I would, just like any subjugated ethnic group would want the occupying state to leave. Add to this the fact that Israel eventually gets nuclear capabilities and kicks every arab state's ass in a series of wars, the result is pretty crystal clear. Muslims in the area feel that their governments are incapable of dealing with the problem and thus civilians turn to their own means of resistance and protest: terrorism. Funny that American resistance during the american revolutionary war has come to be known as revolutionary activities (it was pretty much terrorism). Really though, Muslim activities are only a reaction to the very real and tangible threat they perceive in Israel. Why can't Israel be a free and secular state? How can you claim that Israel represents freedom, democracy, and especially right to free speech or religion with a track record like Israel has? Talk about exposing hypocrisy. Anyways, you know my name, come find me if you wanna talk about this for real...

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

4:28 PM ET

February 21, 2012

Victor while I agree with many of your points

I would suggest that supporting Israel and providing a homeland for the Jews took some of the ethnic pressure off of Europe enabling the establishment of more stable economies. There are few places on this flat earth where people can live without the necessity to coexist with neighbors. The Israellis have done well transforming the desert of the earth into a flourishing agriculturally rich environment. Unfortunately they have not been as successful with their hearts. If the Israellis TRULY believe they are better than their neighbors, perhaps they should lift their neighbors and enable their own success. Peace comes at a price and pax Anericana may be over.

 

VICTORPANAK

5:56 PM ET

February 21, 2012

definitely agree with this

To be clear, I do not support the removal of the state entirely. Not even close. But the Israelis do not seem willing to give Palestinians any living room at all. In fact, they are persistently pushing the boundaries and encroaching on the minuscule territory that the palestinians are already squeezed into. Until I see a change in this attitude, I don't see any ideological or even realpolitik reason for the United States to support Israel. It's a diplomatic burden that has completely ruined our credibility with Muslims around the world.

 

VICTORPANAK

6:08 PM ET

February 21, 2012

also randy,

About your argument that creating Israel created a more stable society in Europe: While this may be true, you seem to ignore the cost. It simply shifted the ethnic tensions geographically. And in today's world, shifting problems geographically simply means the repercussions will catch up with you down the road. Seems it has. Israel has fostered huge tensions between the West and Muslims, and the results of this tension are more than palpable now in Europe, what with the huge influx of immigrants coming from the arab world. Remember the riots in Paris? Definitely a ethnic dimension to these examples of unrest. It may be a huge stretch to connect these to Israel.. but at a very macro scale, you can't really say that Israel is not a factor in this equation.

 

MARTY24

3:07 PM ET

February 22, 2012

Getting your facts right

Victor,

Would you change your mind if you realized your facts were wrong? Most Islamist-firsters don't care about the facts, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and point out some critical realities.

First, Israel, even with the territories, is a small country, about the size of New Jersey. There are about 11 million people living there, including those under "occupation." The largest component of the Israeli population consists of Jews who were expelled from the Muslim countries and their descendants. The Jewish population of the Muslim world declined from over a million to about 50,000; the Christian population there is now rapidly declining also, and for similar reasons. Both the Jewish and Christian populations of the Muslim world outside Arabia had lived there for at least a millennium before the Muslims arrived, colonized their countries, and persecuted the native population. Christians remain victims in places like Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and "Palestine".

Second, Israel removed all its settlements from Gaza and was rewarded by seeing that territory turned into a base for missile attacks against civilians. The UN isn't able to do anything about what is going on in Syria today because that could set a precedent for stopping the missile attacks on Jews, the last thing the UN wants to do.

Third, Israel has now removed communities twice in conjunction with serious peace efforts, so it makes no sense to claim that settlements are a hindrance to peace-making.

Fourth, when the Palestinians actually were under full occupation, their economy grew very quickly, infant mortality took a nose-dive, and literacy sky-rocketed. They had more rights than members of the ruling groups in any Arab country. It has only been since the PA was established that things got difficult for some of them. Palestinians connected to the regime continue to do very well, even as the PA keeps large numbers of Palestinians living in squalor. That is why many Palestinians in Jerusalem are trying to obtain Israeli residency even when they live in the "occupied" part of the city.

Fifth, at no time during the "peace process" have the Palestinians ever agreed to reciprocity, that they will recognize Israel as the state of the Jews if Israel recognizes a Palestinian state for them. They continue to insist that any territory they get will be judenrein, even as they insist that Palestinians have a "right" to live where they want in Israel. No other refugee group has been able to pass refugee status on to its children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Putting an end to that would do much more for the welfare of individual Palestinians than "removing settlements" even if it wouldn't be good for the Palestinian national cause.

Sixth, The real hang-up in the "peace" talks is that the PA, the "moderate" faction among the Palestinians, rejects the idea that the discussions should lead to a final resolution of the conflict; they actually want these talks to be about setting more advantageous opening positions for them for the next round, in which they will seek to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jewish population. It should be obvious that no Israeli administration could agree to such an idea.

Seventh, Jordan was part of Palestine when Palestine was a British mandate. The world has accepted the idea that eastern Palestine can be named Jordan, but not that western Palestine should become Israel. Why shouldn't the Palestinians achieve their national aspirations in Jordan, a state built out of the Palestine Mandate? Incidentally, "Palestine" is the name the League of Nations and the British gave to this territory. Arabic doesn't have a "P" so no Arab group would, or could, name anything "P"alestine.

The upshot is that, apart from the Islamist-firsters who are paid to deluge these blogs with nonsense, no sane person can back the "Palestinian" cause.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

3:45 PM ET

February 20, 2012

hey freethinker...you know who wrote this article? a jew

yes, you hate him too? is he in your racist sights?

what made you into such a racists...just curious...

was it your alcoholic daddy? your grandpappy? did someone do things to you as a child? did a jew steal your girl? lol....did you get fired from a job for being incompetent and the boss was a jew? what is it with you? many jews have died to preserve the peace you now enjoy....

you're sickening slime...

 

LAURA123

8:12 PM ET

February 20, 2012

In many ways George

In many ways George Washington
insurance in a much more complex world than now. It's all relative. He had little education and he wasn't perfect in disposition, but if you read extensively about him, most biographers call out the courage, character and endurance to see his country succeed. He also managed to negotiate fairly with most of the people with whom he served

 

STENTOR

11:14 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

5:48 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.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

8:52 AM ET

February 21, 2012

BREAKING NEWS....iran no longer needs nuclear for medicine

Guess what? Iran says it needs reactors for medical isotopes to fight cancers, right? well, Canada has pioneered a new technology for making medical isotopes for cancer without having to build nuclear reactors...its called a cyclotron and they cost roughtly 1-3 million per machine.

check the article....title is "new finding may solve isotopes shortage, and its written by margaret munro in the national post....you can google it,,,

so there you go! iran now doesnt need to enrich nuclear material! isnt that amazing????? no more excuses for iran!

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

9:11 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Iran now longer has excuse for nuclear medicine..see below!!!!!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/20/new-finding-may-solve-isotopes-shortage/

 

KA5S

9:50 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

12:01 PM 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

12:17 PM 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

12:42 PM 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.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

3:01 PM ET

February 21, 2012

iran and obama helping each other

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/on-iran-sanctions-are-not-the-answer/

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

4:52 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

6:27 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

2:01 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

7:47 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

2:02 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

2:31 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

4:53 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

8:48 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

5:19 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.