The truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done.
Today is “President’s Day.” A holiday originally intended to honor George Washington (and in some states Abraham Lincoln), President’s Day has degenerated into just another day off for government employees and an excuse for large retailers to hold sales. More destructive to our national consciousness, it has become a day that purports to “celebrate” all presidents equally, the dismal failures along with the towering giants. Perhaps this is why hardly any celebration occurs at all. This is a shame, because the truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done.
There have been several presidents who have earned the appellation “great” for the leadership and vision they demonstrated during their service in the White House, including Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush (still a work in progress). Today, however, we must honor three presidents above all others: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Each of these men led the United States through a period of deep national crisis, and each time the nation emerged stronger, freer, and more committed to its founding ideals.
George Washington (1789-1797)
George Washington not only is America’s greatest president, he is the single most important person in American history, and one of the most important persons who ever lived. Washington was the central figure in both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention (without Washington’s support, the Convention never would have succeeded), but today we honor President Washington for his brilliant and indispensable leadership during the crucial early years of the American Republic.
Washington understood that, as the nation’s first president (the only president to be elected by the unanimous vote of the Electoral College), he had been entrusted to set the course for the future growth and success of the infant nation. During his eight years in office, Washington deftly steered clear of the many dangers then threatening the country.
Washington reduced the danger of sectionalism by making several goodwill tours throughout the country and appointing to his cabinet leading politicians from both North and South and both Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions. He secured the nation’s borders, as well as access to the Spanish-controlled port at New Orleans (vital to westward expansion), with necessary, albeit unpopular, treaties with England and Spain. And he prudently avoided being drawn into the great power struggle between England and France, a policy that was unpopular among both pro-British and pro-French crowds in America, but essential to allowing the United States time to recover from the Revolutionary War and gather her strength for the great nation-building tasks ahead.
Equally important, Washington asserted the constitutional authority of the new federal government to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.” Without a strong central government — the very impetus behind the Constitutional Convention — no American nation would have been possible.
One of the most significant, but frequently overlooked, events during Washington’s presidency was the so-called Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Essentially, the Whiskey Rebellion was an uprising by settlers in western Pennsylvania who opposed a liquor tax passed by Congress. To quell the rebellion, Washington, acting pursuant to federal law, called up a militia force of 13,000 men, whom he personally led into the troubled area. The rebellion was suppressed with nary a shot. Instead of being punitive or vindictive — which would have embittered the settlers, and other Americans, towards the new central government — Washington offered amnesty to rebels who dispersed peaceably and pardoned rebel leaders who were convicted of treason.
Washington’s handling of the Whiskey Rebellion is a case study in the exercise of firm yet magnanimous authority by a leader who was prepared to risk his own reputation in the service of the greater good.
Last but not least, Washington deserves enormous credit for ensuring the success of democracy in America, by rejecting calls to make him king and refusing to serve more than two terms as president. How many persons, then or now, would voluntarily relinquish power in this manner? I dare say very few. These were the acts of a profoundly noble and patriotic man, whose love of country and belief in the principles of the American Revolution were the driving forces in his life.
Washington may not have been a thinker on par with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, but his character, judgment, and patriotism were unparalleled. After his death in 1799, Washington was famously eulogized by Congress: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Indeed.
Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
The next president we honor today is Abraham Lincoln, for his steadfast leadership during the nation’s darkest crisis, the Civil War. While many admire President Lincoln for his glorious prose and Hamlet-like sensitivity, it was Lincoln’s single-minded dedication to preserving the Union that underlies his greatness.
Adamantly opposed to secession, Lincoln warned the South in his First Inaugural Address: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. . . . You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it.” Shortly thereafter, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. In the four years that followed, despite military setbacks, a devastating body count, and fierce political opposition, Lincoln remained true to his oath, and saved the nation.
Contrary to his popular image, there was nothing Hamlet-like about Lincoln’s approach to the Civil War. He understood that, first and foremost, the Confederacy had to be defeated militarily, no matter the cost. And the cost was enormous, including more than 600,000 dead (North and South).
Lesser men than Lincoln were prepared to quit the fight long before Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox in April 1865. Such a course would have doomed the United States (and the Confederacy) to a future of weakness and mediocrity. Thankfully, Lincoln was prepared to do whatever was required — raising one of the largest armies the world had ever seen, engaging in the bloodiest battles in American history, expanding the powers of the presidency — to ensure the success of the Union.
Significantly, even in the midst of a terrible civil war, Lincoln did not suspend the electoral process, and in 1864 he stood for re-election against a popular anti-war candidate from the Democratic Party, whom Lincoln soundly defeated.
Lincoln was more than just an iron-willed commander-in-chief, however. He was a brilliant political thinker (for example, his First Inaugural Address is a tour de force of constitutional theory), who recognized that the Civil War fundamentally was about the future of freedom and democracy in America.
This was not just an issue of slavery, although Lincoln realized early on that the abolition of slavery had to be one of the North’s chief war aims, for which he deserves enormous credit. Rather, as Lincoln expressed in the Gettysburg Address, it was about the success of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Lincoln rightly predicted that were the Confederacy to succeed in dividing the country, the great republic bequeathed to Americans by the Founding Fathers — which Lincoln aptly called “the last, best hope on earth” — would be destroyed. Lincoln was determined that would not happen. It cost him his life. But it earned for him the eternal gratitude of all Americans.
Ronald Reagan (1981-1988)
Washington and Lincoln stand above all other presidents in American history. In our lifetimes, however, one man has embodied the same qualities of love of country and commitment to freedom that made Washington and Lincoln great; his name, Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan came into office at one of the lowest points in American history. The 1970s had been a miserable decade.
Domestically, the 1970s witnessed low economic growth coupled with rising unemployment and inflation (“stagflation”); exploding rates of illegitimacy, crime, and drug abuse; and a near total failure of leadership from the White House. Overseas, the forces of communism and Islamic extremism were spreading seemingly unchecked, punctuated by the fall of Saigon in 1975, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that same year. The decade reached its nadir with the Iranian Hostage Crisis (November 1979 to January 1981), one of the most demoralizing episodes in American history.
This all changed on January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the nation’s 40th president. That day, in his eloquent and inspiring Inaugural Address, Reagan articulated the themes that would guide his presidency for the next eight years: expanding individual liberty and opportunity, reducing the role of the federal government, unleashing the entrepreneurial energy and genius of ordinary Americans, and rebuilding the military.
Above all else, Reagan restored a spirit of confidence and optimism to the White House, and to the American people.
Under Reagan’s leadership, the nation embarked on the longest period of economic expansion in its history. Real economic growth went from an anemic 1.6% to a robust 3.5% per year. The “misery index” (unemployment + inflation) declined from 20.8% during the last year of Carter’s presidency to 9.6% during the last year of Reagan’s presidency. Tax rates were slashed, while government revenues soared in a “supply side” boom. And contrary to critics who claim that Reagan’s policies unfairly benefited the rich, the portion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 18% in 1981 to 28% in 1988.
At the same time that Reagan’s fiscal policies were reinvigorating the American economy, his build up of American military power — and his plain talk about the evils of communism — were reinvigorating the “containment” policy of Truman and Kennedy. Reagan referred to his foreign policy in characteristically homespun terms as “peace through strength.” It worked. Reagan stopped the spread of communism in Latin America. He struck back against Middle Eastern terrorists. He created an unmatched military that would later win the First Gulf War in spectacular fashion.
Most importantly, Reagan exerted enormous and unrelenting pressure on the Soviet Union — through military, political, economic, and technological means — to abandon its commitment to worldwide revolution, agree to steep cuts in nuclear weapons, and liberalize its society. The result was one of the most profound achievements in human history: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
The American people were drawn to Reagan’s message of freedom and hope. In the 1980 election versus the hapless Jimmy Carter, Reagan received 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49, and won the popular vote 51% to 41%. Reagan was resoundingly re-elected in 1984 over Walter Mondale (Carter’s vice-president), with 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13, and 59% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 41%. By comparison, this was a larger margin of victory than FDR achieved in 1932, 1940, or 1944.
Reagan has remained extremely popular with the American people, and his death in June 2004 resulted in an outpouring of love and grief across the nation. At his funeral, Reagan’s friend and ally Margaret Thatcher recounted Reagan’s enormous legacy: “He sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism.” These were great and difficult tasks, and Reagan achieved them all.
On this President’s Day 2006, let us remember, and take inspiration from, our three greatest presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan. All hail the chief!
Originally published by the American Thinker.
Understanding that there is an inherent bias in any partisan political web site, I don’t think you could leave FDR off the list. FDR got us through the depression and World War II.
I agree with your choice of Linclon. But either Washington or Regan would have to make room for FDR on my list. Interestingly I think both of those men, although good leaders also benefited from their timing. Washington’s legacy looms large, because of the romance built around him. As a general, he lost more battles than he won, however he became a symbol of an emerging nation.
To some degree, Reagan won the cold war. However, Reagan also benefitted from 40 years of Soviet containment. Simply put, the Soviet Union could not support an empire and maintain parity with the United States. Reagan (and Bush Sr.) was in the right place at the right time. Reagan’s greatness was in his ability to communicate. In that sense, he was a great leader.
Greg in NY
FDR would be okay but in no way does he pull ahead of Reagan. He may have steered us through WWII but he did not steer us through the Great Depression and his policies may have actually lengthened the depression.
How could a conservative consider FDR one of our greatests presidents? This is the man who believed human beings had the “right to entitlements”. This is the man who created social security and the welfare state. This is the man who had more than nine justices on his Supreme Court to force his unconstitutional “rights” onto the people. FDR’s policies, as Eli pointed out, DID lengthen the depression. You do not solve economic problems by creating more government, and that is exactly what FDR attempted to do. We are still victims of his policies today. FDR should be on the list of worst presidents, if he is not THE worst.
I think the case for FDR begins his leadership during the Great Depression. I agree that many of his economic policies were wrongheaded, and in the long-run deeply corrosive. However, even conservatives like Hoover believed that the government had to play a significantly expanded role to help lift the country out of its worst economic catastophe ever. We cannot even imagine how bad the GD was. But it was FDR’s leadership — his ability to calm the country’s fears and instill a sense of hope — that is most important here. The United States could have gone off the rails during the GD, and we didn’t. FDR deserves much credit for that.
I think the case for FDR is solidified with his leadership during World War Two. FDR rejected isolationism, did what he could to aid Great Britain before we entered the war, and then fought that war with determination and ferocity (two qualities we have been lacking for some time). Yes, there were many decisions and strategies of his that can be criticized, as there are for every great president. But FDR’s steadfast commitment to total victory over the Nazis and the Japanese was crucial.
True, FDR’s historical reputation is enlarged by the magnitude of the issues he confronted (which were greater than those faced by any other president besides Washington and Lincoln). I also agree that Reagan and some of our other presidents would have been even better leaders if they had been president during the same historical period as FDR. Still, for all his faults, FDR rose to the occasion and deserves to be recognized as one of our “greatest” presidents. I place FDR lower than Reagan, however, because of the clearly negative long-term consequences of some of his economic policies and some of his geopolitical decisions vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan made no such mistakes.
Lincoln is far and away my favorite president, followed by Reagan even though they both were forced into decisions which haunted them and us today. Lincoln’s decisions concerning the Civil War have forever left state rights in the dust. This was a painful thing to do, and we still live with that today. He accepted his principles were second to that of the needs of the country, which is true leadership. Between the Commerce Clause (FDR’s version) and the Civil War states no longer truly govern themselves, and the Federal Government has grown to its disasterous size of today. Reagan, a man who truly spoke and believed in small government, allowed the federal government to double in size and brought the term deficit to the forefront tof the political debate. He had to deal with a democratic Congress, but more importantly he knew he must defeat the Soviet Union, so he allowed his principles to take a back seat to what was best for the country, a true sign of leadership.
Compare that to a man like FDR and I do not believe a comparison is possible. FDR was as arrogant as a man can be. He suffered from polio, but hid the fact from the American People because he knew what the voters should and should not know about him. He broke the unwritten rule concerning 2 terms of office in the presidency, after all he was the only one qualified to do the job. He desired a stacked Supreme Court, after all, what point is the consitition if it limits his desires? He changed the soul of the country from capitalism to a welfare state. FDR’s chapter in the book of the United States should be seen as short-sighted, ignorant, and above all arrogant. The fact WWII occurred is the sole bit of respect for this man. WWII got the United States out of the depression, brought pride back to America, and established the United States as the leader of the free world. This was done despite FDR, not because of him.
I am in total agreement with some of the comments regarding FDR. Yes, he instilled a sense of security back into an America devastated by the Great Depression, but we are still paying for his policies today. Despite (or perhaps, as some have argued here, because of) his policies, there was no end of the Depression in sight. Our pre-WWII-involvement “Arsenal of Democracy” policy began putting people back into the factories, and conversion into a total war economy after the Pearl Harbor attack was what truly ended the Depression once and for all. Jobs and growth are what jumpstarts an economy, not hand-outs and entitlements. And with jobs and income comes pride both in yourself and your country (something I know first-hand, after being unemployed for most of the Clinton recession). Reagan (and W) understood that. FDR, sadly, apparently did not. FDR presided over two of the most crucial points of our history and squandered one of them through his program of government, not economic, expansion.
Even FDR’s leadership during WWII can be called into question. He gave far too much leverage to Stalin during Yalta and other conferences, and the result was the Cold War essentially beginning on V-E day. I dare say that had he survived into the Japanese surrender, we could very well have been talking about North and South Japan (and a wall running through central Tokyo) along with East and West Germany.
My favorite Presidents? In no particular order, Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, Jefferson, and TR. Can’t say where W stands until he’s out of office. Honorable mention for Nixon’s foreign policy acumen
What about the Adams. And I liked Teddy better than the other R. One thing for sure a good qualification of a great president is personality. That is formed when people learn the difference between right and wrong and selflessly act in the right. What I like about Washington, Lincoln and Reagan is that it was never about them. Not like narcisstic, whiney people pleasing leaders today. The reason why president’s day is diluted is because we tucked in Martin Luther King day, which would of been okay had he been born in April or May. Oops, I said it. Messed with the sancrosanct.
Most Americans could not list 10 presidents. There are huge chunks missing from our education. All we know is a few catchy anecdotes. Happy Washington’s birthday and go eat a piece of cherry pie to celebrate.
I would disagree with the choice of Lincoln. He may have had some great qualities and lead the country in a difficult time, but a lot of the difficulty was caused by him. He was the first president to disregard the constitution. He invaded the South when they were within their rights to secede from the Union. There is nothing in the Constitution at the time that prevented any state from getting out of a union that would become oppresive. Virgina and New York actually had it in their state constitutions to secede if the Federal Government became oppresive. I think FDR was one of the worst presidents this country ever had. His policies took a recession and turned it into a 12 year depression. He is the #1 reason today for our nanny state and the attitude that a lot of Americans have for being dependent on government handouts. Thank God for RR.
You bring up some good points re: Lincoln, vic. I won’t argue that he expanded executive power and disregarded the Constitution. But here’s how I see it – he was granted war powers by congress to quell what both sides saw as a rebellion (the South even looked upon it as the second Revolution). That it quickly escalated into full-blown war very well could have been the fault of Lincoln (but you could argue that it was also the fault of Davis). But here’s where I disagree with you – Lincoln made difficult decisions not based on any desire for power, but because he felt it was the right thing to do for the Union and for the American people (at least that’s how I interpret all that I’ve read about him and the Civil War). Think of what would have happened had he been a Clintonesque poll watcher, or had he lost to McClellan (the John Kerry of the 1864 election). The North would’ve pulled out, the South would’ve been successful in setting up their own country, and everything west of the Mississippi probably would’ve at best been a third country (more likely Balkanized into several small countries themselves). But that wouldn’t have been the end of it. North America would have repeated the same cycle of wars that Europe had undergone, and most likely would have been weakened enough to invite an invasion from some powerful European nation (or a Mexico hungry for revenge) within a generation. The world without a strong *United* America, without Abraham Lincoln, would be a very different, much darker place today.
I agree with you Michael that Lincoln did what he did not for personal power but to preserve the Union and thank God for that. I just have a problem with anyone when all you get is a one sided view of what aperson does and not the whole of who that person is or the rest of what he did. Lincoln was a man of great charecter and made a lot of very hard desicions. But people need to be made aware that he also made a lot of bad desicions and that he be judged not only on certain ones but on all the things he did. And when you look at what he did as a whole I think he could have done things differently. But like you say it could have been worse. He could have had the character of Bill Clinton. That would have really been bad for the country.
Is this the Intellectual Conservative or the Intellectual Nationalist? Lincoln is by far the worst president the US has ever had.
Secession was a completely legal option, and Lincoln got over 600,000 people killed, trampled the Constitution, and ravaged the
South to save an artificial political entity. Traditional American conservatism has always favored the local over the national, the
close by over the far off, the particular over the general. For a conservative to say that Lincoln was a great president because he
saved the Union at the expense of a culturally distinct region that simple wanted to peacefully withdraw, is to completely
misunderstand the nature of American conservatism. Besides, to echo Dabney what has the North ever conserved? The South, in
spite of the efforts of the victorious Yankees to indctinate us in Yankee right think, has always been the most culturally conservative
region.
Read here for more. http://www.etherzone.com/2005/phill022505.shtml
BTW, on a conservative website, how could anyone argue that an outright socialist like FDR was great? He distantly trails Lincoln,
but he is clearly our second worst president.
Every President has his faults; and it is no simple matter of imperfection that sinks one man to mediocrity or another’s achievement that raises him to greatness. I feel Washington to have been our greatest president for one simple reason. Without Washington, our revolution would never have succeeded. Few today realize how close the contest was or how often we teetered toward defeat. There was no other leader at the time as acceptable to Massachusetts radicals and Carolina conservatives to entrust with the power of a confederated army. As agreed as the colonies were to resisting England, they were equally jealous and suspicious of one another, and entertained conflicting war aims. There was not yet the idea of a separation (much less confederation) to follow the war, and the initial aim was for a simple redress of grievances. The war itself made reunification with England a virtual impossibility, and only then did most colonists concede the necessity.
Many times, the British succeeded in battering and routing our armies. Time and again, irregulars disappeared and regulars deserted into general population. Patriots lost heart and would have us plead for terms that did not leave their families destitute, while Congress voted monies and levies it did not have. Throughout, Washington held the army together, often paying wages and provisions out of his own holdings until they were much reduced. He was as concerned for his men as any good captain, but spent them in pursuit of our freedom. He suffered with his men and risked himself often. As a large landholder, it is easy to dismiss Washington as having an interest in the outcome and attributing his resoluteness to that. However, it is easy to show he would have had better and surer result had he decided against revolt and sided with the crown. After the war, he preferred to retire from public life. Instead, he realized the country still needed his unique prestige if it was to succeed. He held the fledgling republic together against the strains of sectionalism, political factions, and territorial in-fighting long enough that we began to think and act as a single people. Thus, he gave most of his remaining years as first President. Any other choice would have fragmented north from south and coastal states from trans-Appalachia.
Without Washington, there would be no United States of America founded on principles of liberty, republic and just representation. There would be no Bill of Rights serving as a bulwark against tyranny, and no subdivisions of power to distinguish one office of government from another. The experiment would have degenerated quickly from an ideal to a more practical ‘politics of reality’. There would still have been a separation at some later date, but it would be more as other colonies were let go when empire no longer had strength for it. Instead of a USA, there would be a larger Canada and Mexico. Or, perhaps, there’d be a large number of mutually jealous states spanning the continent, as in Europe.
Lincoln preserved the union, whether right or wrong. Had he done no more than that (plus some fine speeches), he would be remembered today more for the bloody division of civil war than for the healing balm of freedom bestowed on black men and women entitled to the same regard as whites. The south would go it’s way until conflict over territories brought north and south to war anyway. It is easy to think slavery could go one way and the north and west another, but a dissected union would have been just the first step in a cycle of war and further fractionation. Lincoln achieved greatness by converting a war primarily about division into a war about justice. This does not make him the equal of Washington, who made any such proposition possible, but it does put him in the same league. Only those who still crave a breakup into smaller parts will measure Lincoln solely by the stick of the forcible restraints he imposed.
For the rest of the list, greatness is more a matter of where you stand regarding the proper role of government. Some have tried expeditious means to protect us, only to find they cripple our enterprise and are easier to get than get rid of. Others have tried to undo the miscalculations of government, only to be reviled by some who prefer the security of an illusory safety net. None of the other presidents made a nation possible or kept it from self-destruction. No others extended freedom to so many at such great personal expense. Call who you will 3rd, 4th, or 10th in the general pantheon, only these two are irrefutably ‘great’ and deserving of the sort of acknowledgement of special days set aside to recall just what it was they accomplished.
you did not give any info whatsoever on james k. polk which is what i asked for . how dare you! im a critic so ur gonna hear from this!