Hmmm... another good question...

This is the third time I've started this post, in an attempt to avoid more confusion about what I am saying.

I see Jambo's point, but I want to clarify the question before I detail my response.

Jambo (I think) is asking if we need to measure the efforts of a President to maintain bad policy as a matter of course... meaning as part of the status quo... regardless of whether or not it was signed into law by his hand.

Every President from Washington to Lincoln perpetuated slavery in one way or another as part of the American fabric of society, be it through compromise or support for pro-slavery legislation or whatever. Compromise was important in that it kept the Union together when it otherwise would have collapsed under the pressure of the slavery question, and thus I feel it was justified as an inherent duty of the President's office: to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States and the Union that it forms. I would go so far as to even suggest that slavery would have survived Lincoln had it not been for the breaking of the Union after his election. After all, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery after being elected... he abolished slavery after 13 States seceded from the Union and waged war on the rest of the country. He was fighting a war to maintain the status quo, not to end slavery.

"Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution.

Even having said that, though, I have to repeat the statement I have made repeatedly in the past that FDR didn't do anything more than champion a political view or position that was reflected in the legislation passed by Congress... which he then signed into law. It is neither just nor fair to "blame" the communist nature of SSI solely and exclusively on FDR... all he did was sign the bill into law after both Houses of Congress had approved the bill and sent it to his desk. That said, I repeat that Obama would be simply another historical tick on the clock were it not for a sympathetic Congress dominated by liberal-leaning Democrats who have an agenda of their own to follow. The same goes for Teddy. Teddy's role as a monopoly-buster means nothing if Congress doesn't give him the anti-trust bills to sign into law.

As further proof of my point, I give you Bill Clinton. Clinton's legacy as a "fiscally responsible" President that balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit had NOTHING to do with his executive policies or agendas, but EVERYTHING to do with the Gingrich/Lott majority in Congress that dominated Clinton's spending for the last 6 years of his terms. Kudos to Clinton for not vetoing the bills... nothing more.

So, to get back to Jambo's point: Should we be taking into account a President's track record on maintaining and protecting the status quo as part of his Legacy grade on the report cards?

Perhaps we should. I know we all fall into the trap of blaming or crediting a President with more than he is actually responsible for, because a President is a single individual that has always had such a focus of attention placed on him. President's only spend what Congress allows them to spend, and NO President enacts laws that aren't pre-determined to be the will of the People by Congress... that is a fundamental principle of our system of republican government.

Thoughts?