Are presidents great?

[Brent Crosby]

"What I'm trying to say about presidents is people praise a Reagan or Republican while saying a Democrat is evil beyond compare, or vice versa. In the end it is about whose "less worse," and the reality is if a head official is not corrupt themselves, they either soon will be, or their administration is. This of course lends itself to its own predictable lumping of everything into categories, so there is room for play. Yet it really doesn't change the equation that the voters generally know that money is money, and some of what goes on behind closed doors is not worthy of being looked up to.

I see why Reagan would be considered great for his involvement and influence in bringing down communism. Yet the reality is there probably was a whole bunch of other stuff that could raise ones eye in disappointment. Hence Reagan, as a whole, as well as all presidents, are not the types of individuals I would construe as being role models.

The theory floating around that presidents cannot in a way know all that much as to what's going on within closed doors of its key cabinet members seems to have some validity. It suggests they cannot know all the gray stuff as it would be that much harder to present speeches to the public on a day-to-day basis. Presidents, though influential to an extent, are cover boys."

This is what I typed on another message board. I was hoping people here could add their perspective. I still believe the presidents administrative members are the brains to the operation. Maybe presidents can be great despite being surrounded by corruption?

[Christopher T. George]

"What I'm trying to say about presidents is people praise a Reagan or Republican while saying a Democrat is evil beyond compare, or vice versa.  In the end it is about whose "less worse," and the reality is if a head official is not corrupt themselves, they either soon will be, or their administration is.  This of course lends itself to its own predictable lumping of everything into categories, so there is room for play.  Yet it really doesn't change the equation that the voters generally know that money is money, and some of what goes on behind closed doors is not worthy of being looked up to.

I see why Reagan would be considered great for his involvement and influence in bringing down communism.  Yet the reality is there probably was a whole bunch of other stuff that could raise ones eye in disappointment.  Hence Reagan, as a whole, as well as all presidents, are not the types of individuals I would construe as being role models.

The theory floating around that presidents cannot in a way know all that much as to what's going on within closed doors of its key cabinet members seems to have some validity.  It suggests they cannot know all the gray stuff as it would be that much harder to present speeches to the public on a day-to-day basis.  Presidents, though influential to an extent, are cover boys."

This is what I typed on another message board.  I was hoping people here could add their perspective.  I still believe the presidents administrative members are the brains to the operation.  Maybe presidents can be great despite being surrounded by corruption?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Brent

I would suggest that Presidents can be great because they shape the vision of their administrations even if it is left to others to carry out the actual practical matters of carrying out the duties of the administration. I would say that Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy (even if his term was forshortened), and Johnson were great presidents for their vision and for what they achieved. By contrast, Grant was a very poor President because of the scandal-ridden nature of his administration.

All my best

Chris