The 2008 Presidential candidates may soon be decided. Senators Obama and Clinton are ready for the stretch run – with the March 4th Texas and Ohio primaries considered must-wins for Clinton. Hillary desperately needs to derail Obama’s run of 11 straight primary wins to stay in the race if she hopes to face off against McCain.
However, as I’ve watched both the Democrat and Republican primaries, I’ve wondered where all the great American political leaders have gone. With all due respect to Clinton, Obama, and McCain, I don’t feel the presence of greatness. McCain has certainly gained the respect of Americans as a war hero, and maybe it’s too early to judge the young Obama, but I’m not overly impressed with any of the candidates. I guess I’m tired from listening to politicians’ rhetoric, as they say whatever necessary to get elected. It has probably been that way since George Washington, but I just don’t remember it being so blatant.
The first President of my life was Harry Truman, but I was too young to remember him. I do recall President Eisenhower, however, the first presidential election and President of which I have great memory was John F. Kennedy. The first election in which I was able to vote was in 1972, Nixon versus McGovern. Another first for me would be if Obama is elected. He would be the first President younger than I. Hillary is a few years my elder, and I hope to live to be as old as McCain.
History certainly helps us define greatness. Therefore, Hillary, Obama, or McCain could one day be defined as great. However, I also believe that there have been presidential candidates in whom Americans saw greatness prior to their legacy being formed. I felt that about John F. Kennedy, but I was young and impressionable. Unfortunately, I have not had the feeling of greatness with any president since JFK. I remember my mother and father telling me of the same feeling regarding Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Not surprisingly, a Rasmussen Poll in 2007 indicated only six American Presidents received a favorable rating of at least 80 percent: George Washington (94%), Abraham Lincoln (92%), Thomas Jefferson (89%), Theodore Roosevelt (84%), Franklin D. Roosevelt (81%) and John F. Kennedy (80%). Richard Nixon had a 40 % favorable rating and George W. Bush 39 %, the lowest two rankings in the recent poll. The poll seems to make my point. JFK was our 35th President and assassinated in 1963. We have since had eight Presidents – none of whom are on the 80 percent favorable list.
Four Presidents comprise Mount Rushmore: Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln. If you could add one President to the monument, would you? I might add FDR, but the choices are few.
I wonder if I’ll ever see another great American President in my lifetime.
To address one of the questions noted in your blog entry: George Washington did everything he could do NOT to be President. He did not campaign and only reluctantly took the office under great pressure from his fellow leaders of the burgeoning republic. I also find an interesting common denominator among the highest rated Presidents. Five of the six most favorable did not have television to deliver their persona, message and deeds to Americans. We had to rely on reading, and to some extent, radio for FDR. Four of the top six completely relied on the written word to communicate who they were and what they did – now and then – to the nation. One can conclude that television perverts how we choose a leader.
You so adroitly write in your blog: “We have since had eight Presidents – none of whom are on the 80 percent favorable list.” All of these Presidents we saw primarily through the cheap lens of television. We choose our presidents under the influence of advertising’s fundamentals; just we choose a brand of hemorrhoid medication.
Comment by Bostonian — February 22, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Bostonian…I’m not sure where in the Blog a question about Washington exists. I am well aware he accepted the role of President reluctantly. I was just making a point that political rhetoric has existed long before my life began.
Also, don’t use television as an excuse for lack of greatness. Presidents have four to eight years to develop their legacy. None since Kennedy have done a great job doing so in the eyes of most Americans.
Comment by Gil — February 22, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
“It has probably been that way since George Washington, but I just don’t remember it being so blatant.” I was making reference to this implied question, though I understand it was a rhetorical one. I am not making excuses; I am trying to convey that our nation’s choices for President would be vastly different if we had to READ our candidates’ words rather than see their “performances” on television.
Comment by Bostonian — February 22, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Great presidents have certainly been far and few between in recent years. Maybe the intrusive media has something to do with qualified people wanting to get involved with politics these days. Let’s face it, many of our great presidents of the past couldn’t cope with today’s ruthless media either. If we had looked into the personal lives of the presidents in the 80% bracket listed, I’m sure today’s purists would be modified. Maybe we should all begin to realize that we’re electing a president and NOT a Pope.
Comment by GZguy — February 23, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Of course in the case of Mitt Romney, no one would be able to find any slime on him at all, which, of course, was the fundamental reason the press did every other kind of hit job on him in the primaries. After all, the guy married his 10th grade sweetheart, and not even the Clintons team of private investigators could find even a whiff of infidelity. Getting back to your central thesis of a dearth of great presidents, in the first century of the republic, at least, the concept of public service was finite: one did his term, and then went back to private life.
Comment by Bostonian — February 23, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
What’s right isn’t always popular and what’s popular isn’t always right. Don’t equate approval ratings with being a good president. History is showing that Kennedy wasn’t a great president. Probably not even a good one. He was smoke and mirrors whose legacy lies in the manner of his death. LBJ was unpopular because of the war, but his record on Civil Rights is unmatched. Nixon was an ass but a foreign policy genius, and Clinton for his flaws left us with a balanced budget. Our best and brightest no longer wish to play the political game. When the politicians split along party lines on something as stupid as Roger Clemens it’s obvious that the system is what’s broken. Until that system gets fixed you may not find another George Washington.
Comment by lou costello — February 24, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Trust “Bostonian” to sway from the theme of the Blog and provide his typical conservative comment. It’s not about Party-lines, it’s about great presidents.
Comment by GZguy — February 25, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Hey “Lou” … where we you in your history class? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bill introduced by President Kennedy. He introduced it in his civil rights speech on June 11, 1963. LBJ was the one who got to sign it when it was passed on February 10, 1964 after the death of JFK.
But, your right…Nixon was an ass who led us deeper into a war he knew we couldn’t win. And a balanced budget doesn’t make a great president.
Comment by Delmartian — February 26, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Hey Lou… your “smoke and mirrors” comment is way off-base. Kennedy’s Civil Rights Bill alone was a major accomplishment, not to mention his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis — and his push to develop the space program, which was the launching pad for the technology of today. Also, less we forget the Peace Corps and his overall presence and the good will he brought to the free world.
In retrospect, his accomplishments in less than one term were remarkable - and those of which many president would love to have on their resumes.
Comment by Delmartian — February 26, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
how come everyone in new england is outraged by clinton’s indescretions but so readily accept those of all three kennedy brothers. and as far as history class, history is already treating johnson better than kennedy, remember viet nam was kennedy’s war. and kennedy was stealing elections (west virginia primary) way before the bush family.
Comment by lou costello — February 28, 2008 @ 1:57 am
Lou … not sure where you get your info. First, I’m from California, but can tell you most New Englanders are staunch Democrats and big supporters of President Clinton.
Secondly, Kennedy inherited the Cold War foreign policy of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Eisenhower began sending advisers to Vietnam in support of his “buddy” Ngo Dinh Diem, who formed the new Republic of Vietnam and named himself President in 1955, with the support of Eisenhower.
And, lastly, the “official” escalation of the war started January 31, 1965, when President Johnson mobilized the 18th TAC Fighter Squadron from Okinawa to DaNang AFB.
Kennedy my have increased advisers to Nam when he inherited the mess, but make no mistake, this was a Johnson-Nixon war.
Comment by Delmartian — February 28, 2008 @ 9:07 am