Most Overrated President

[OttoVonBismarck]

Washington is considered an able administrator and also respected by historians for being mostly non partisan. Yes, his personal politics were heavily Federalist but he refused to play a partisan game. He is also genuinely respected for defining the nature and scope of the Presidency, some of his examples are still followed today while some have been abandoned, but much of the executive office was defined by how Washington interpreted the somewhat intentionally vague Second Article of the USC.

[Barrister]

Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?

Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.

He set the standard. 

I don't think we could have asked for a better first president.

But that goes to the Washington myth-making, not reality.

"He set the standard" - what does that even mean?

Discussing "over-rated" or "under-rated" is in some ways a rather silly exercise.  It's not trying to assess whether someone was a good President, or a bad President, but whether the popular perception is out of line with a more objective analysis.

[Valmy]

But that goes to the Washington myth-making, not reality.

"He set the standard" - what does that even mean?

Discussing "over-rated" or "under-rated" is in some ways a rather silly exercise.  It's not trying to assess whether someone was a good President, or a bad President, but whether the popular perception is out of line with a more objective analysis.

It means just what it says on the tin.  The Constitution was rather vague.  Washington's interpretation is how the government really works.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also notable is Washington fleshed out a much more limited Presidency than we have today. For example Washington did not have a legislative agenda because he viewed that as the Congress sphere of respnsibility. Washington also used the veto only to strike down laws he felt were unconstitutional, it wasn't until Andrew Jackson that Presidents started vetoing legislation purely because they personally opposed it.

[Barrister]

Washington is considered an able administrator and also respected by historians for being mostly non partisan. Yes, his personal politics were heavily Federalist but he refused to play a partisan game. He is also genuinely respected for defining the nature and scope of the Presidency, some of his examples are still followed today while some have been abandoned, but much of the executive office was defined by how Washington interpreted the somewhat intentionally vague Second Article of the USC.

That's it though.  An "able administrator" is hardly the highest of praise.

I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1).  I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.

[Razgovory]

Washington also personally put down a rebellion and prevented a military coup.

Washington's resignation can't be overstated in importance.  It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).

[citizen k]

I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1).  I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.

Have you ever read about the Washington presidency?

http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4

He also has a four volume biography.

[Admiral Yi]

Surely the most over-rated President must be George Washington?

Not overrated as a General, or a revolutionary leader, but his time as President was fairly unremarkable, and yet the hagiography of President Washington is strong.

Very little of that hagiography (that I'm aware of) concerns his presidency, except the manner in which it ended.

[Barrister]

I'm pretty sure any ranking of Presidents puts Washington in the top 3 (I think Lincoln usually gets #1).  I'm not saying he was a bad President, but I don't know if objectively he's much more than middle of the pack.

Have you ever read about the Washington presidency?

http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Indispensable-James-Thomas-Flexner/dp/0316286168/ref=pd_sim_b_4

He also has a four volume biography.

I have not read a 4 volume biography of Washington, no.

Feel free to educate me however.  I'm not inflexible - show me how I'm wrong.

[Valmy]

It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).

Yeah...I have a hard time believing that.  Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life.  The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous.  He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.

However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents.  That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.

Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.

[Razgovory]

It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).

Yeah...I have a hard time believing that.  Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life.  The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous.  He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.

However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents.  That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.

Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.

You don't have to be universally beloved to become a dictator.  There are plenty of examples in South America where the liberator makes himeself a tyrant, I doubt everyone loved those guys.  Washington probably had most prestige and respect in the whole of the Colonies.  He was unanimously elected President of the constitutional convention and got 100% of the electoral college behind when he ran for President.  It would have been so very easy to simply stay on as President or to use his military rank to achieve goals in his Presidency.

When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation.  If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.

[Valmy]

When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation.  If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.

Considering the strong opposition to the Constitution itself, even backed by Washington, I have my doubts.  I think the Revolution had made the American population particularly radical and mobilized politically in that era.

[Barrister]

It's why the American Republic survived and England's Republican under Cromwell did not (and Britain saw unrest and instability for nearly 100 years after).

Yeah...I have a hard time believing that.  Washington, even when he was just President, was hardly universally beloved enough he could have declared himself dictator for life.  The notion it was only Washington's restraint that kept us from naming him autocrat always struck me as a tad ridiculous.  He was, after all, critisized by the Republican press quite a bit for his policies.

However I do think it was fortunate Washington had no blood descendents.  That would have been a mighty political dynasty indeed.

Also the problems facing the long term survival of the British Commonwealth were more profound than simply Cromwell taking his mandate as far as he did.

You don't have to be universally beloved to become a dictator.  There are plenty of examples in South America where the liberator makes himeself a tyrant, I doubt everyone loved those guys.  Washington probably had most prestige and respect in the whole of the Colonies.  He was unanimously elected President of the constitutional convention and got 100% of the electoral college behind when he ran for President.  It would have been so very easy to simply stay on as President or to use his military rank to achieve goals in his Presidency.

When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation.  If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.

That's actually not a bad point.  I too doubt that Washington could have declared himself "dictator for life", but the south american caudillos certainly show how you can assume almost complete control of a country and maintain a thin veneer of democracy.

But it still doesn't sit right to say someone is a great president because of what he didn't do.

[frunk]

When the Articles of Confederation failed it would have been very tempting to simply step in and assume power for the good of the nation.  If he had, he likely would have gotten away with it.

Considering the strong opposition to the Constitution itself, even backed by Washington, I have my doubts.  I think the Revolution had made the American population particularly radical and mobilized politically in that era.

It doesn't matter whether it would have succeeded or not.  Any attempt to concentrate more power in the hands of one man, at the point, would have destabilized the fledgling government at the very least.

[derspiess]

I voted FDR as well.