On your distinction between good and great, I think on a personal level, it makes sense to strive to be a good man rather than a great man. In that sense those two descriptors are opposed to each other and can be difficult to consolidate.
I would venture to say as a society we're drifting more towards electing 'good' leaders rather than 'great' ones. Good is the goal of person, great is the goal of a president. When you see the moral gaffes perpetrated by our 'greatest' presidents (at least in retrospect), it's evident that we can't expect them to be both.
Leaders should be directed by principles of morality, but if a people are then it should free them up to aim at 'great'.
re "You may not agree with the course he set the nation on—indeed, you may think that course was evil—but you can’t deny that he shaped history enduringly. If that’s not greatness, I don’t really know what the word means."
I dunno, that means if someone single-handedly destroyed the nation, they have to be judged "great" on the basis of having had a large impact on history. Which I get if the list is "most influential". But that doesn't meet a common sense description of "great president", I don't think, which includes some notion of "was that person's impact positive".
First, a nit: I hate the word silly. The Three Stooges are silly. The Ministry of Silly Walks is silly. Jim Carrey is silly. Rankings might be frivolous but they are not silly.
It’s easy to dismiss lists. All too easy. But when you must make your own, or at least decide upon criteria, then you have to ask yourself what makes for a proper list. And I really enjoyed your take.
Lists force us to grapple with our past. They shed light on the concerns of our predecessors. And they invite us to think a bit more deeply before passing judgment. Or at least they should.
I do think it a bit pernicious to use hypotheticals against a man, be they to his credit or discredit.
For my money, I draw a parallel between judging a President and judging a captain of a ship: in smooth weather we justly value maintaining morale and being a good and decent man, but in a storm the essential is to keep the ship (of state) afloat.
Greatness, to my mind, is some combination of the dangers one inherits and the added value one leaves behind relative to a hypothetical ‘replacement’ president. Stepping into a war from one’s first day in office leaves greater scope for leadership than merely needing to address the day’s latest concerns. And let’s remember that’s it’s easier to be consequential in the earliest days when certain problems cry out for rather obvious solutions.
Lastly, a scale from one to a hundred (with two decimal points of precision!) grinds my gears. I prefer using a scale of five points, with three representing average / acceptable.
One alternative way to frame this: which Presidents, if they were European kings, would be most deserving of the epithet "the Great"?
When we refer to Alexander "the Great", we're not talking about his personal conduct, or his efforts to create a better world, or what effect his actions had on forestalling or preventing later evils. We're talking about his lasting impact on history. He was the main character of his era; he shaped the world around him, and everyone else lived in his shadow.
By that standard, the only American President that I could imagine being remembered as "the Great" 2000 years from now is Washington. Though some come closer than others.
This does highlight a problem with my heuristic: unlike most of his peers, for whom the Presidency was far and away the centerpiece of their political careers, for Washington it was something of a capstone to the 14 preceding years in which he had already been arguably the most important player in the American nation-building effort. It's hard to remember Polk as "the Great" when he was only relevant in national politics for 4 years. Alexander may have died young, but he still reigned for 13 years.
On your distinction between good and great, I think on a personal level, it makes sense to strive to be a good man rather than a great man. In that sense those two descriptors are opposed to each other and can be difficult to consolidate.
I would venture to say as a society we're drifting more towards electing 'good' leaders rather than 'great' ones. Good is the goal of person, great is the goal of a president. When you see the moral gaffes perpetrated by our 'greatest' presidents (at least in retrospect), it's evident that we can't expect them to be both.
Leaders should be directed by principles of morality, but if a people are then it should free them up to aim at 'great'.
Enjoyed the article!
re "You may not agree with the course he set the nation on—indeed, you may think that course was evil—but you can’t deny that he shaped history enduringly. If that’s not greatness, I don’t really know what the word means."
I dunno, that means if someone single-handedly destroyed the nation, they have to be judged "great" on the basis of having had a large impact on history. Which I get if the list is "most influential". But that doesn't meet a common sense description of "great president", I don't think, which includes some notion of "was that person's impact positive".
First, a nit: I hate the word silly. The Three Stooges are silly. The Ministry of Silly Walks is silly. Jim Carrey is silly. Rankings might be frivolous but they are not silly.
It’s easy to dismiss lists. All too easy. But when you must make your own, or at least decide upon criteria, then you have to ask yourself what makes for a proper list. And I really enjoyed your take.
Lists force us to grapple with our past. They shed light on the concerns of our predecessors. And they invite us to think a bit more deeply before passing judgment. Or at least they should.
I do think it a bit pernicious to use hypotheticals against a man, be they to his credit or discredit.
For my money, I draw a parallel between judging a President and judging a captain of a ship: in smooth weather we justly value maintaining morale and being a good and decent man, but in a storm the essential is to keep the ship (of state) afloat.
Greatness, to my mind, is some combination of the dangers one inherits and the added value one leaves behind relative to a hypothetical ‘replacement’ president. Stepping into a war from one’s first day in office leaves greater scope for leadership than merely needing to address the day’s latest concerns. And let’s remember that’s it’s easier to be consequential in the earliest days when certain problems cry out for rather obvious solutions.
Lastly, a scale from one to a hundred (with two decimal points of precision!) grinds my gears. I prefer using a scale of five points, with three representing average / acceptable.
Great discussion.
One alternative way to frame this: which Presidents, if they were European kings, would be most deserving of the epithet "the Great"?
When we refer to Alexander "the Great", we're not talking about his personal conduct, or his efforts to create a better world, or what effect his actions had on forestalling or preventing later evils. We're talking about his lasting impact on history. He was the main character of his era; he shaped the world around him, and everyone else lived in his shadow.
By that standard, the only American President that I could imagine being remembered as "the Great" 2000 years from now is Washington. Though some come closer than others.
This does highlight a problem with my heuristic: unlike most of his peers, for whom the Presidency was far and away the centerpiece of their political careers, for Washington it was something of a capstone to the 14 preceding years in which he had already been arguably the most important player in the American nation-building effort. It's hard to remember Polk as "the Great" when he was only relevant in national politics for 4 years. Alexander may have died young, but he still reigned for 13 years.
🖐😊 recovery and return!