A Great President...

Baddboy said something that made me think...

"...this country needs a leader now more than almost any other time in history..."

We once had a discussion about "great Presidents" and how they came to be. I recall that I either concluded or was convinced that great Presidents were "made" rather than were "born", and I still think that is true.

I use the term "made" in the sense that the OFFICE makes the President far more often than the President makes the man... with VERY few exceptions. Exceptions would be Washington... and that is it, I think.

Jefferson made compromise after compromise while President, and no one would question that man's moral principals or intellectual capacity. Lincoln was a "moderate" choice in as much as he was even a factor in the 1860 election (he never appeared on the ballots in 11 of 13 Southern states, after all), a compromise between Seward and Chase for the GOP nomination and the election of 1860.

Teddy Roosevelt made the US Navy into a global force projection branch of the military, while simultaneously instituting the beginnings of the modern "environmental" movement we all know and love today. He streamlined government (as much as any President can), while fighting the evils of "Big Business" in the eyes of the people.

In fact, find the Presidents that DIDN'T work from a moderate, or "compromise" position during their terms, and you will find some of the most "unpopular" Presidents. Tyler, Grant, Nixon, Carter, Wilson, Hoover... all uncompromising, puritanical applicators of their perceived mandates. Hoover was the "last" true Conservative, we have established that... but he failed as a President because he wouldn't compromise and do SOMETHING to fix the problem, even if it was only temporary or stop-gap in nature. Carter failed because he couldn't work with a Democratically controlled Congress... and he was a Dem himself! Clinton failed because he couldn't separate personal from Presidential, regardless of how "personal" his affairs (ahem) in the White House were. Johnson refused to allow the CIC in theater in Vietnam to exercise the latitude he needed to win the effort. Bush placed unwavering support for his Cabinet ahead of common sense, and has paid the price time and time again.

My point is that the truly great Presidents have made the RIGHT choices, regardless of Party affiliations, and they have used the tools in place in the Oval Office to overcome or combat times of national crisis... Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan... all "moderated" a nation in crisis in one way or another, based on common sense and a personal drive to succeed.

To suggest that Obama or Huckabee will NOT make the right choices based on party membership is too simple an argument to make... their agendas will be dictated by the platforms of their respective parties, but the real "meat and potatoes" policies SHOULD reflect an ability to discern RIGHT from WRONG, and our society is far better than most at instilling that ability in its people, if not in its policies and practices.

Let's suppose Obama wins the election by a landslide (running against someone like Huckabee, say)... a clear mandate is made by the People: We like what Obama is saying, and want it implemented. Obama wants a timeline in place for the removal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Objectively speaking, is that so bad a thing to want? SHOULD the US be expected to prop up a regime in Iraq that is incapable of self-sustained operation? When is enough enough? If mistakes were made since March of '03, when do they get fixed, and who is responsible for fixing them? Who can say that one fix is better or worse than another, except those looking BACK from an historical perspective? Isn't all else simply another opinion amidst millions?

As has been said time and time again here... there is very little SUBSTANTIAL action that a President can take without Congressional approval, so issues like abortion, the death penalty, immigration reform, national security and a federal budget are all contingent on Congressional actions just as much (if not more) than Presidential ones. What we CAN'T measure in a candidate is his or her ability to LEAD a nation in times of crisis. Say what you will of Clinton, he was charismatic and very personable... in that sense, a good leader (not a good role model for kids, however, but that is an aside). An argument could be made that, while in office, Reagan was the consumate leader. FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, Washington... all LEADERS. Not all were good politicians, though (FDR the exception here).

None of the choices on either side are perfect... but there is leadership there, none the less. I think Huckabee could be a leader, as could Thompson. Obama strikes me as a young and vibrant leader with many good qualities (liberal affiliation not one of them, however). Clinton has the popular support, but is she a leader? Personally, I don't think so. Edwards either. The same for Ron Paul.

Rarely has the American people picked a complete non-leader as President, but it has happened. Wilson, Hoover, Carter... those are obvious examples from the last century. Let's hope we don't choose another soon.