U. S. Presidents
[ Strong Presidents ] [ Weak Presidents ] [ Personal... ] [ Credits ] [ Interesting Links ]
William J. Clinton is the 42 president of the United States. Over the past 210 years, we have had many
strong presidents and some weak ones. As Election 2000 takes its place in
the history books and we look forward, wondering what the current presidency will bring, let's look back at some
of our previous presidents and what made them weak or strong. I have also included one
of my personal views/pet peeves/concerns on elections.
(Information at this site was gathered from the White House.)
The definition of what makes a strong president is open to debate. As we look over a list of presidents (for a complete list, visit the White House), we note that those considered strong generally faced conflicts of one nature or another. To get through the conflicts, they demonstrated exceptional leadership. Her is a partial list in order that they held office.
Just like our list of strong presidents, we expect that not everyone will agree with our list of weak presidents. While you might not include all of ours, and might add some we did not include, hopefully none of ours would be on your list of strong presidents.
Some political ramblings...
As with all the presidents so far, I agree with some things and disagree with others. Thinking our president is doing a good/bad job and voicing our opinion about it is a fundamental American right -- it's what our democracy is all about.
For example, I'll excercise my right to disagree right now. One thing I just can't stand about Bush, is his attitude towards the less-privileged and his arrogance. He got where he is by his own hard work, his own merits, and because he deserved it, right? Bullshit. He got there because he's got money and he was lucky enough to be born into a family that is high up in the American class system. He didn't have to start "from scratch" and build his own financial portfolio, it was handed to him. And he didn't have to make his own connections, his family already had them.
In psychology this is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. The tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences and overestimate dispositional influences upon others' behavior. In other words, we tend to mistakenly attribute other people's successes and failures in life to their internal character (strong or weak) and fail to take into consideration the power of the situation and circumstances. This is coupled with the Self-Serving Bias where we make the opposite mistake. We tend to attribute our own successes to our own internal characteristics while failing to take into consideration the power of the circumstances we find ourselves in to either aid or hinder us.
Bush got where he is, not because he is one inkling smarter, or more deserving than anyone else (in fact he's a pretty arrogant SOB and I really dislike that). He got where he is in spite of himself. And you only have to look at the wider metropolitan city area of D.C. itself to see blatant examples of how the privileged in America close ranks and step on the underclasses in order to make sure they "stay in their place", meanwhile maintaining the status quo for those privileged enough to enjoy it. Power begets power.
So I don't really respect Bush the man very much at all. Come to think of it, I don't respect Gore, the man very much either. He's a hypocrite and a liar who isn't beneath manipulating the legal system nor the American people to serve his own selfish ends. I think it's called "politics", isn't it? (She says tongue in cheek). Gore has got one advantage. He is much better than Bush at presenting a sympathetic public image. And that's a fact. Bush sucks at P.R. and public speaking. Gore is better at it. It wins him brownie points with the American public. That doesn't make him any better of a candidate than Bush was. But we get stuck with candidates from the privileged (ie moneyed) class so these are the choices we have. If I could change that, I would. I would make it possible for this to be a TRUE democracy where ANYONE who wanted to campaign could, and we chose our candidates on their merits, not some manipulated media image. Now stop laughing. We can all dream, can't we?
On the other hand, I do like Gore's pro-environment stance. And I like Bush's policy on national security. The best offense is a strong defense. How do you think the Ravens and the Giants got to the SuperBowl this year? ;-) I think he's right-- and I can get behind him on that. I also like Bush's New Freedom Initiative to help out people with disabilities. So my only point is, there is good and bad to everyone. Nothing is black and white, just shades of gray. You can't just dismiss a whole person, you need to specify what policies, what actions, whether it's the private man or the public image you are talking about, etc, etc. Things are often much more complex than they seem on the surface. And the blessing and the curse of living in America is that sometimes someone you like will be President and sometimes someone you don't like will be. That's just the way it is.
It is interesting to note that "When the founders of the American republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions." Political Parties in the United States by John F. Bibby.
So with all that said, "What's your point?" you ask? Good question! Here's what I believe the bottom line is. We may not respect the man who is president but I think that as Americans who care about the stability of our country and still enjoy living here in relative safety and freedom, we need to respect the Office. Whoever is in it. The President is still the President. So go ahead, voice your opinions. But make sure they areyour opinions and that you have really thought them through and taken the trouble to inform yourself. Don't just repeat some line the media comes up with and repeats 50 times a day until people buy into it because they've heard it so much. Really think about the issues. Take the trouble to research them. (The internet is making it easier to get information.) Consider all sides, and let's get behind the President of the United States and everything that office stands for.
One of the things that office stands for is the right to get involved. The right of the American people to influence (ok, I didn't say "control", I said "influence") what happens in our government. The controversial Election 2000 has spawned lots of election reform movements, in addition to the on-going efforts for campaign finance reform. If you don't agree with it, get in there and help change it. (maybe one of these day's I'll take my own advice.. ;-). Here's a list of where you and I can get involved locally.
So all I'm saying is that the U.S. isn't perfect, no country is. But if you have gained anything by being born here, living here, or being educated here -- remember that always and don't take the U.S. for granted. Even if you don't like the electoral process, you can be thankful that at least we have one! You could try living in Iraq, or Sudan, or one of many other countries with dictators and totalitarian governments. Or maybe you have, or were born in one, and now you're here.
So count your blessings that we are all privileged in one way, and that is we live in America. "Ask not what the U.S. can do for you, ask what you can do for the U.S."
So whether we voted for Bush or not, whether he turns out to be strong or weak, time will tell. But he's our leader for the next four years. Will they be wasted years? Will they be divided years? I hope not. No matter what the next four years bring, I hope they will be productive and healing years.
Back to homepage