As I was watching an History Channel DVD set...The Founding Brothers
(great by way) one of the Historians made a comment that sparked my curiosity.
He said that real political leadership only has a chance to be seen in times of crisis.
I agreed whole-heartedly with that statement and thought that I'd like to hear from the AD crew on who they believe were some of the greatest leaders in America.

Because of this statement we now have Parameters:

Name Presidents Only.

Site Crisis or Multitude Thereof.

Don't Be Afraid To Site Presidents That Have A Shorter List Of Crisis. Some Crisis No Matter How Few Are Much More Difficult Or Have Larger Affects Depending On The Outcome.

Using that philosophy: George W. Bush the II
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
FDR

CP

FDR: World War II

Bush II: 9/11 (obviously)

JFK: Cuban Missile Crisis (saw a thing on the history channel where JFK, before the Soviet Ambassador's visit knew about the Cuban missiles and didn't reveal it till the last possible moment, meanwhile, Krucshcov (sp?) thought all was well and Kennedy knew nothing about the missiles and once the missiles were operative, he use it as a blackmail scheme...very interesting & scary stuff)

FDR: World War II/Great Depression

JFK: Cuban Missile Crisis

Abraham Lincoln: The Civil War

Harry S. Truman: WWII/the decision to drop the atom bombs

Funny thing about that JFK choice. If the very reason we were faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis was because JFK had shown weakness and a lack of leadership in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, wouldn't that mitigate his "True Political Leadership" mantle?

Hmm... I suppose if they are the ones who create the crisis in the first place, by means of their own faults, I guess that could be reason to say that they lack "true political leadership".

So then...

JFK/LBJ: Civil rights crisis

FORD: The ending of the Vietnam War, bad economy and civil rights

FDR - Great Depression, WWII

Can't really think of any others except perhaps Andrew Johnson for Reconstruction.

Andrew Johnson for Reconstruction? His "Reconstruction" was nearly singularly responsible for the next 100 years of animosity between the former Confederate states and the former Union states. It also led to such lunacy as the "Jim Crow" laws. He was also the first of only two presidents to be impeached.

You list FDR and A. Johnson as the only presidents displaying "true political leadership?" Wow!

Here is my list:

GWB - 9/11/01 and the war on terror.

GHWB - Gulf War

Reagan - Bringing down the Soviet Union

Harry Truman - Dropping the bomb, and firing MacArthur.

FDR - The Great Depression and World War II.

Lincoln - Civil War and the re-unification of the United States.

Washington - the founding of the nation

Comments?

Kevin S. Bailey

FDR Lincoln Washington

I would say probably only George Washington, for keeping the country from falling apart as soon as it was born, with things like putting down the Whisky Rebellion and such.


I don't think any of the other Presidents mentioned really showed any true leadership. Lincoln was so scared of dissenters to his Unconsitutional war, he suspended haebes corpus and generally spit on civil rights. FDR and Wilson were corporate puppets, they took their orders from people, so that basically disqualifies them. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a made-up crisis, because both sides already had nuclear ICBMs that could reach the other. Dubya didn't do anything really special or unexpected, and his father just went to war for oil. Reagan didn't have anything to do with the Presidency, whenever he wasn't reading off a teleprompter it was obvious he had no idea what was going on.

20th Century Presidents who led. T. Roosevelt (anti-trust, environment), Wilson (WW1) , FDR (The New Deal ,WWII) ,Truman (Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine),LBJ (The Great Society, Civil rights), Reagan ( at least spoke of less government). Most of the rest have followed the voters.

Yeah, I found it ironic that Democrats were complaining about Clinton never having a disaster to benefit from, since his eight-year non-response seems to have made 9/11 possible. And the mistaken, simplistic association people made with Clinton and a prosperous economy may have seemed powerful at the time, but after 9/11, it is clear that disasters are much more profitable. Either that, or its just that people are finally realizing that it wasn't Clinton's record high tax hikes, but the politically irrelevant emergence of cell phones, 401ks and the internet that brought the prosperity.

aquapub, it appears you did not read the SPECIFIC parameters johnlocke set up for this thread. He wants us to:

QUOTE

Name Presidents Only.

Site Crisis or Multitude Thereof.

Trashing the other party without addressing the actual debate is getting a old. Let's try and stick to the topic please.

george washington- reason mentioned by rattlesnake

thomas jefferson- for writing the document that made america a seperate nation.


I only have one problem and that is the idea reagen alone brought the soviet union down. it is documented fact they collapsed due to debt caused by trying to keep america's military edge minimal or non-existant (america HAD invade once in the early part of the USSRs history) so while reagen may have been a decent prez (I was a young pup then and don't know)he is not responsible for the USSRs fall.

JFK did do a good job getting missles off of cuba, but we were responsible for them being there in the first place (by placing nukes on every side of the USSR within range of their major population centers)

Reagan actually did bring down the USSR by forcing them into submission. And he did it because he was willing to deal with them from strength rather than weakness.

As for JFK, he was responsible for the missiles in Cuba, but not for the reason you state. Thet were placed there because Kruschev seized on the weakness JFK showed in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Notice the common denominator here. You win when you deal from atrength and lose when you show weakness. There are lessons to be learned from this that apply to the WOT today. Thankfully we are at last showing we've learned those lessons. Well, most of us anyway.

Passion51 - you still haven't stated your choices for this thread. Please share.

I could only think of two that aren't obvious
Jefferson: Napoleonic wars where he was able to get the Louisiana purchase and evade war with France
Adams: Not going to war with France

And who reversed detente and put additional pressure on the USSR's budget? To say that Reagan alone was responsible for the fall of the USSR is wrong. To say that the USSR collapsed due to debt and ignore Reagan was one of the reasons for that debt is poor reasoning.

Well, under Clinton, we got nearly a decade of unanswered Al Queda attacks, appeasement for North Korea, and the occasional cruise missile for Iraq. His negligence made 9/11 possible. Under President Bush, we have liberated a genocidal terrorist-sponsor (who was far bloodier than Milosevic, yet still unsupported by Dems) uprooted the Taliban, and chased Al Queda across the globe. And all while cutting taxes and lowering prescription costs. There's simply no contest. As the last two elections have demonstrated, the voters know where to go for real leadership in tough times.

The question is an oxymoron.

The best true leadership I have seen in my lifetime is Jesse Ventura.

I've heard hes been bombing badly with the people lately. But, hey, I'm all for third parties..as long as they're liberal ones.

My choice is Theodore Roosevelt for: anti-trust action against the railroad barons, establishment of the national parks, and the foresight to build the Panama Canal. TR had guts, compassion and foresight, three wonderful qualities in a President. He also brought together Russia and Japan and because of his patience and determination they brought an end to the Russo-Japanese War.

This question is not an oxymoron and Jesse Ventura is not a great political leader according to the topic which states we're talking about presidents......ohhh.

Oops. Excuse me. The question still remains an oxymoron to me as I have a hard time associating the word "true" with "political" and I have a hard time with "political" and "leadership" as well. When I think of just the presidents I have seen in my lifetime, only one seemed to have his own moral base instead of power for himself and his own party as the basis for his decisions. There has been a severe lack of leadership at the presidential level in my lifetime. Some of the presidents I know only via history seem to have exhibited some true leadership but I prefer to reflect upon those I have had the opportunity for more direct observation.

Under Clinton, we caught, arrested and convicted the original Al-qaeda attempt suspects on the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (how quickly they so conveniently forget).

I'll give you the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but please; Bush said a nary word about "liberating" Iraq, until it became apparent that we still have no idea where the WMD are, and they needed another excuse.

As for cutting taxes, this is round 2 IIRC, and the economy still hasn't been set right, not to mention a surpluss turned into a deficit in only 2 years.

The house has only just passed the bill to allow lower priced prescription drugs to be imported. It still has to be passed in the senate, and any differences reconciled, wherein the president has already promised to veto it. There's leadership for ya.

Well thank you god for this man's statement. I agree completely. However, it is completely absurd for anyone to list Lincoln as a good leader! He is responsible for countless deaths, including his own. While the crisis he endured was formidable, I'll admit, he handled it in the worst and most selfish way possible. Lincoln was, In my view, a mephistophelian, sycophantic baby-kisser who was ridiculous and immoral enough to convince now nearly the entire world that the southrons began the war, and also that the main reason was because they wished to preserve the institution of slavery. Now Jefferson Davis, he handled the crisis the right way. His plans nearing the end of the war, although ignored, were pure genius and it would be interesting to see how poorly the yankees reacted to it.

I now add Washington to the list. His crisis was shaping the future of America forever. By passing on his wonderful rule, not serving it for a lifetime, he set the trend of power changing hands in America. However, he did not foresee the evil that lincoln would do immediately following the death of all the founding fathers. I wonder why yankees waited until they all died. perhaps it was because these men would have personally castrated them.

Brice - do not derail this thread with your Lincoln bashing. We get it; you hate him. This thread is to debate: