Presidents good at their original job

[Derek Jackson]

I have noticed that a significant number of Presidents were NOT inspiring in their original jobs. Few would argue that Reagan was a great actor. I do not think you would want Bill Clinton representing you in Court. I would not want GW Bush running a business. (Though people will know I do not want him running anything)

The exeptions that occur to me have been Military Presidents. Grant, Eisenhower and , perhaps, Washington. And Adams was a great lawyer. I assume that Taft had something going because he got onto the supreme court and, though its hard to get reliable impartial information, Lincoln seems to have been a good lawyer.

There was one other expetions. Hoover was said to be a brilliant engineer. By the way although he was NOT responsible for the Depression he WAS responsible for a wholly inadequate response was therefore justly blamed and defeated.


Would Presidents be different if they were typically people who came from the top of their professions?

[carlton_bach]

I guess if you were at the top of one profession, you wouldn't have the time to pursue a second career simultaneously. Being on the Supreme Couert or the federal Judiciary, starring in Oscar-winning movies, being the CEO of a world-spanning company you built with your own hands, or teaching admiring crowds of graduates in Harvard or Yale should keep a man busy enough.

Also, I think the skill sets required are different ones. I'm not sure a good general, good lawyer or good CEO would necessarily make a better president. There are overlaps in the jobs, but I'm not sure there's enough.

To be a president you need to be able to speak to the crowds, command people, manage large organisations, strike the balance between competing political groups, forge (and where necessary betray) alliances, and project honesty even when you're at best obfuscating the truth. I think the best place to learn these Skills is party politics.

How would things be different if western democracies tested a potential politician's *government* skills during the election process rather than his *electability* skills, though?

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

There was one other expetions. Hoover was said to be a brilliant engineer. By the way although he was NOT responsible for the Depression he WAS responsible for a wholly inadequate response was therefore justly blamed and defeated.

At the risk of starting a political debate, you can't blame Hoover for doing a bad job. Nobody had any idea what to do about it. Economic theory of the time said that it was just a normal part of the business cycle (which it was, except for its scale) and that, if left alone, things would return to normal. This had proven to be the case before. However, things did not return to normal very well, and FDR got in. FDR had no better idea of what to do than Hoover did. The only difference is that FDR figured he should do something, so that it would at least look like things were making progress, while Hoover was afraid of screwing things up more. And Hoover even offered to work with FDR and try out some of the programs in the remainder of Hoover's term after the election. FDR, being a typical politician, refused, of course, so that he could take all the credit for anything good that happened. I might also add that all of Hoover's presidential earnings went to charity.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

I guess if you were at the top of one profession, you wouldn't have the time to pursue a second career simultaneously. Being on the Supreme Couert or the federal Judiciary, starring in Oscar-winning movies, being the CEO of a world-spanning company you built with your own hands, or teaching admiring crowds of graduates in Harvard or Yale should keep a man busy enough.

Also, I think the skill sets required are different ones. I'm not sure a good general, good lawyer or good CEO would necessarily make a better president. There are overlaps in the jobs, but I'm not sure there's enough.

To be a president you need to be able to speak to the crowds, command people, manage large organisations, strike the balance between competing political groups, forge (and where necessary betray) alliances, and project honesty even when you're at best obfuscating the truth. I think the best place to learn these Skills is party politics.

How would things be different if western democracies tested a potential politician's *government* skills during the election process rather than his *electability* skills, though?

Hmmm. I wonder, though, if monomania makes someone a good leader - perhaps being well-rounded is important? For instance, Ottoman Sultans were expected to master a trade. Suleyman was a goldsmith, and Mehmed II was a furniture maker; all of them were expected to be composers and poets, too.

Weren't our better Presidents more multi-skilled? T. Roosevelt for example?

[Grey Wolf]

One couldnt argue that Zachary Taylor was a brilliant general either

Was Jimmy Carter a good peanut farmer >?

I do think this question omits people who are professional politicians - or did Nixon, JFK etc have real jobs between their military service and entering politics ?

Grey Wolf

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

One couldnt argue that Zachary Taylor was a brilliant general either

Was Jimmy Carter a good peanut farmer >?

I do think this question omits people who are professional politicians - or did Nixon, JFK etc have real jobs between their military service and entering politics ?

Grey Wolf

Professional politicians seem to me to be the ones that are the most mediocre, not to mention amoral.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

Professional politicians seem to me to be the ones that are the most mediocre, not to mention amoral.

Very true. Carter, Ford, Hoover were very good persons, but not great presidents. Of course, Hoover had the bad luck of being elected in '28.

[Landshark]

The exeptions that occur to me have been Military Presidents. Grant, Eisenhower and , perhaps, Washington.

It'd be very hard to a bad general and get to the White House, at least if you'd been a general during a major(ish) war. The worst you could say about Reagan was that he was a bad actor but a bad general, well "he brought us bloody defeat and national humiliation" would be a hard sell for the best spin doctor.

[Beck Reilly]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

The exeptions that occur to me have been Military Presidents. Grant, Eisenhower and , perhaps, Washington.

Neither Grant nor Eisenhower were great Generals.

Grant was in charge of an army that outnumbered his enemy 2:1. They outgunned their enemy. He was put in charge of an army coming off of a great victory. His record in the west is only mediocre, especially considering he was facing the WORST the Confederacy had to offer. Even with the man advantage, he lost horribly at times. Take, for example, Cold Harbor. As a President, he was a trusting, relatively nice drunk who was screwed by his friends.

Eisenhower was a great politician but never actually commanded and led soldiers very well in battle. He gave most assignments to his subordinates, the true great generals of WWII (i.e. Bradley, Hodges, Patton, etc.). He was a great political-General and administrator but not a combat General.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Walter_Kaufmann

Neither Grant nor Eisenhower were great Generals.

Grant was in charge of an army that outnumbered his enemy 2:1. They outgunned their enemy. He was put in charge of an army coming off of a great victory. His record in the west is only mediocre, especially considering he was facing the WORST the Confederacy had to offer. Even with the man advantage, he lost horribly at times. Take, for example, Cold Harbor. As a President, he was a trusting, relatively nice drunk who was screwed by his friends.

Eisenhower was a great politician but never actually commanded and led soldiers very well in battle. He gave most assignments to his subordinates, the true great generals of WWII (i.e. Bradley, Hodges, Patton, etc.). He was a great political-General and administrator but not a combat General.

True, but they were victorious generals and proven leaders. Imagine an AH where Custer escapes and runs for President.

Anyway, I wouldn't exactly put Ike or Grant on a list of great presidents. More like "They were there."

[David Howery]

Ike was never a notable commander, but his political skills were noticeable during WW2... he got along very well with his three subordinate British commanders, probably better than anyone else in the US high command... Ike was a fortunate choice for the supreme command of the allied forces...

[Grey Wolf]

Originally Posted by Landshark

It'd be very hard to a bad general and get to the White House, at least if you'd been a general during a major(ish) war.

Well, Zachary Taylor was pretty mediocre, he failed to follow up some of his advantages in the Mexican war and in some of his actions can be seen to have been victorious more or less by default.

But it was a highly politicised era for generals. For example Winfield Scot, although hated by President Polk (and what on earth were HIS origins ?) was given command of the Vera Cruz expedition, and led the victorious march on Mexico City. He later stood for election and lost.

So, of the two major generals, the least able became president and the more able never succeeded in doing so

Grey Wolf

[Mark Ford]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I do not think you would want Bill Clinton representing you in Court.

Especially since he was a teacher.



Would Presidents be different if they were typically people who came from the top of their professions?

People who come from the top of their professions usually stay in them, unless they were in low paying jobs or like Hoover made so much money that he could change professions with no fear of going broke.