Which President was right on all the issues?

[MonkeyFunk]

We've had 43 of them. Which one was right on all the issues?

And of the ones who were right on most of the issues, which ones were succesful presidents?

My point is that being right on the issues is actually pretty marginal when it comes to being a successful president. First off, most Presidents don't actually get to do much on "the issues". Abortion? Gay rights? Health care? The President has little or nothing to do with these issues.

The Congress does, and that means parties do. Kucinich can't institute single-payer health care as President. He can do more as a Representative than he could as President. Edwards can deal with poverty issues better as a Senator (which he gave up) better than he could as President.

Presidents aren't elected or judged by history on "issues". They're judged, and they succeed or fail, by competence and effectiveness. I know plenty of people down at the corner bar who are right on all the issues - it doesn't mean they'd be successful presidents.

A successful president provides a vision, can work with a congress (either friendly or unfriendly), and can respond to crises that arise. None of the great presidents are known for issues - they're known for meeting the challenges that arise. And there's no good way to discern how a person will respond to such challenges other than their personality and character - not where they stand on issue X.

We are blessed to have a surfeit of Democratic candidates who I feel could respond well. Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and hopefully Clark and Gore - every one of them is someone I'd trust to make the right call when things get tough.

So why don't we stop bashing the Dems that are running and focus instead on kicking some Republic ass?

[napi21]

1. Of course you are right. The problem is that you can't campaign on

"How great my personality is, or character, those two attributes simply have to be shown in the way a candidate presents themselves...and of courseTHE MEDIA!

That is the primary reason I can't get all excited because I don't agree with ANY candidate on EVERYTHING. That's unrealistic!

[unblock]

2. leaders ARE judged on the issues.

true, they are often, at least in part, judged on competence and effectiveness. then again, hitler was competent and effective. those are hardly the only criteria.

lincoln was arguably not the most competent or effective -- the war might have been handled better -- but he was competent and effective enough and most importantly, he was right on the issues.

fdr was certainly competent and effective, but his legacy and enduring impact is on the issues.

jfk's actual accomplishments are rather limited, but again, he was right on the issues, and lbj carried through on that.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. I disagree with your reading of history

Lincoln's historicity is based purely on his character. He didn't run on a war platform or an anti-slavery platform. He was smart enough and had the right personality to guide us through the hardest time in our history.

FDR didn't run on the New Deal. He was smart enough and flexible enough to try a whole lot of things to address teh horrible problems the nation faced, and he was talented enough to reject the options that failed and push the options that worked.

As for JFK and LBJ, they were wrong on some issues, right on others. LBJ was spectacularly wrong on the war, but right on civil rights. His approach to poverty issues is still being debated, but he's not faring well.

Today is Washington's birthday, which is why I posted this. In my opinion, he was the greatest President, simply because he invented the job. He could have created a very different presidency, but his character created an institution that has, more or less, succeeded spectacularly for two centuries.

And yet, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, JFk and all the great Presidents were wrong on some issues. The issues resolved themselves over time - sometimes it took far longer than is satisfactory, but nonetheless, they got resolved.

Today's "issues" will be resolved. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually - that's the beauty of our system. It's slower than we'd like, but it moves forward.

[unblock]

6. i disagree with your definition of "character"

if lincoln's (and the then-new republican party's) view on slavery, cited by the south as the main reason for secession, was "character"; and his decision to fight to keep the union together rather than permit the south to secede was "character"; and fdr's proposals in his legendary first 100 days were "character"; then i guess we're just arguing semantics.

personally, i think of these as positions on issues.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. I guess my point is that

Lincoln didn't run on an anti-slavery platform.

FDR didn't run in '32 on the New Deal. The New Deal didn't exist then - he created it as President.

Yes, Lincoln was opposed to secession as a candidate. But his legacy is based on what he DID about secession - he fought the most awful war our country has ever known over the issue. And he won it. But he didn't get elected in '60 promising to fight a war. He didn't get elected promising to end slavery.

Can you answer my original question - what President was right on all the issues?

[unblock]

8. to your original question, no president was "right" on all the issues

but i see that as due primarily to the fact that all presidents are inherently compromises with the electorate at large; and certainly at best, a compromise with my own personal positions.

lincoln might not have "run on" the anti-slavery platform; but the republican party did, lincoln was on the record as being anti-slavery, and the south took his election as an emergency requiring secession as the only response. so i think it's safe to say that lincoln's position on the issue was quite clear.

fdr did indeed run on the "new deal" -- that was a campaign slogan of his, a promise from the 1932 democratic convention speech accepting the nomination. you are correct, though, in that he provided almost no details, if he even had any in mind. when he got into office, the "new deal" strategy seemed to largely be "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!" nevertheless, the core issue was just that; whether the government (and the federal government in particular) should do something, or not, as the republicans clearly favored "laissez-faire", i.e., do nothing.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Correct...

the "new deal" wasn't defined. People just wanted a president who could do better, and FDR was the man.

And my point here is that no matter how good somebody is on "the issues" is irrelevant. Most people here would probably agree with Kucinich on "the issues" but he has zero chance of getting elected, or if elected, implementing them.

The "issues" aren't that important - despite what DUers think. What's important is the ability to get elected,and after that, the ability to govern.

I think all the top-level Democratic candidates would be able to do that.

[unblock]

18. i agree. i think the key to a good presidency is not being "right" but being "not wrong"

any form of management is a bit like golf. it's a game of mistakes.

you don't need to hit a hole-in-one to be good, and, in fact, that's actually not the best indicator of being good. the key is to avoid mistakes, minimize their impact, and not let them derail you.

so the good executive cannot be one who has great character but all wrong on the issues, nor vice versa. you have to be good enough, or "not wrong" on a whole host of traits and attributes.

[Fenris]

4. Issues and promises are virtually meaningless in presidential campaigns.

If you listened at all to Bush during the 2000 campaign, his answers and statements about his positions were so coached that he actually sounded like a moderate. Which was the point - you can't run too far on either side of the center. Bush didn't, and neither did Gore. If you based your opinions on Gore and Bush simply on their campaign rhetoric, you would have probably assumed they didn't diverge terribly from one another on a lot of issues.

And you would have been wrong. Voters in this country aren't stupid, but they have a difficult time understanding the difference between absolute honesty and precision-tuned campaign rhetoric. If you can accept the fact that a large percentage of what a politician is saying to you is pure nonsense, the you're on your way to making an informed decision. But if you continue to delude yourself by assuming everything candidate X and Y say is actually what they believe, prepare to be sorely disappointed.

And don't assume they actually have the political power to follow through on their big promises. Bush held both houses of Congress, and he still couldn't get his beloved Social Security reform through. Presidential will alone does not guarantee success.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Thank you Fenris...

I think that's pretty insightful.

[unblock]

9. issues and promises are not meaningless -- only to shrub

true, a two-party general election is a reverse tug-or-war, with both candidates muscling for the middle, back-to-back, one candidate claiming all the support that is to the left, the other claiming all the support that is to the right. they both try to pretend to be in, or very near, the center, just as two competing merchants on a beach position themselves in the middle of the beach so each can be closest to their half of the people.

yet bush senior lost his re-election largely due to republican discontent with his broken "read my lips" pledge.

most campaigns don't really LIE about issues, they just try to shift priorities of issues and make some sound less extreme. shrub's campaign in 2000 was of a different nature. as some of us democrats from texas were screaming how this guy was actually to the right of pat buchanan, no one, not even democrats outside of texas, could see past the mountain of well-orchestrated lies coming out of his campaign headquarters and the republic noise machine. but most campaigns can't get away with that. they need to control the media and congress in order to do this, and this is not the norm.

we texas democrats also knew that shrub in the white house meant war with iraq. i'm still convinced that this was THE REASON why shrub decided to clean up his image so he could become president. i'm still amazed he waited as long as he did.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Good for you Texas Democrats..

But the constant use of the word "shrub" tells me that your historical allegiance is to Molly Ivins and not the United States. I'm trying to discuss real history and real issues, not partisan jokes.

[nolabels]

10. William Henry Harrison

He has a stellar presidential record :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison

[MonkeyFunk]

13. and you think

he agreed with you on every issue?

[nolabels]

14. If someone needed me to be boxed in on my polictical views.........

it would be anarchist, but basicaly it's only possible to follow ones bliss. As it pertains the subject that he got basically nothing done in office politically in HIS lifetime, so yea.

The framers of the US Constitution mostly erected the office of POTUS as magistrational job, not some freaking king

An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn097.htm

[sutz12]

15. None of them werre right on every issue...

However, what I've seen lately is that elections have not been won on issues. If they had, the Dems would never lose. The past few elections (and especially both of Shrub's) have been decided more by personality than by issues.

Issues take time to develop and discuss, something the American public doesn't really want to spend time on. Better to elect a cypher because he's a "good Christian" or because he'd be "a nice guy to have a beer with." Incidentally, W may have convinced enough people of those two beliefs to get elected, but most of us around here knew better.

Bush rode the "I hate Clinton" crowd into the WH in 2000. In 2004, well Americans don't seem to like to change Presidents during a war, even a trumped up pseudo-war like the "War on Terror." Hell, I remember the chant about Richard Nixon when he ran for re-election. "Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in '72."

[MonkeyFunk]

16. correct

Nobody wins the presidency on issues. Congress is about issues. The Presidency is about personality.

And that's why Hillary's vote on the IWR doesn't matter, and that's why Edwards' position on health care doesn't matter, and that's why Obama's position on civil rights doesn't matter. The factor that people will base their vote on is competence and personality. If they perceive Hillary to be capable and smart,they'll vote for her, regardless of her voting history. Same for Edwards, Obama, Clark, whomever.

Only political nerds like DUers will care about "issues". The real electorate will focus on who they think can do the job.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. The President is actually extremely involved in legislative affairs

It wasn't always that way, but it is now.

The fact is that because Congress needs to get the President to sign things, it gives him extreme leverage to negotiate with him. They pass some of his agenda in exchange for his signing of some of their agenda.

Additionally the President can go outside of Congress to sell his program to the American people. If the President and his agenda are popular, Congress is forced to pass his agenda for fear that if they don't they will not be re-elected. This is how the modern White House works.

Also, if the President and Congress are of the same party, congressional leadership is supposed to let much of the major legislation be introduced by the White House because the President is the leader of the party.

And to answer the question in your subject line, Bobby Kennedy. He was right about Vietnam, right about civil rights, and right about poverty and expanding the middle class which were the three most pressing issues of the day. Funny how he never made it to the White House.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I agree

the President has the fabled "bully pulpit" and if he wins he can push his agenda, given a friendly congress. Bush had no mandate, but he had a congress that was more eager than he was. Tom Delay and Trent Lott did more for the conservative agenda than Bush ever did.

As for Robert Kennedy... it was tragic that he was killed.