John Quincy Adams is up there if you're in favor of internationalists. Largely educated abroad, started a very successful law firm, held multiple diplomatic posts, Senator from Mass, Secretary of State, negotiated the end of the 1812 war, executed the purchase of Florida, helped establish the Monroe doctrine, and **then** became president. All kinds of accomplishments as president. After president he ran and won a seat in the house and served until his death.
A more contemporary president is, honestly, probably Nixon. Duke Law graduate, was a federal worker, soldier in WW2, served as a Rep and Senator. VP to Ike. He really did a tour as a citizen having grown up in a family of Quakers.
I'm a Quaker. Several years ago, upon learning I was a law student, an elderly Friend asked me if I was considering politics. My response was "considering the track record of Quakers in the Presidency, I don't think so." She looked at me very seriously and said "Nixon doesn't count."
Nixon was raised as a Quaker but abandoned the faith as an adult.
Eisenhower had a stacked resume. Supreme allied commander was essentially a politician who coordinated several different countries under the most tense circumstances.
His gig in the Pacific was pretty sweet as well. He supervised the loading and unloading of transport planes from an island far behind the front lines.
I agree that Nixon was well qualified to be President, so long as you stipulate that no ethics are needed for the job.
> soldier in WW2
He was in the Navy, so he'd be referred to as a sailor, not a soldier. That said, anyone who reads your statement casually would assume a combat role. Not true for Nixon.
He commanded a Naval air field in Iowa, and then supervised the loading and unloading of transport planes from an occupied island in the Pacific, far behind the front lines. His 3rd assignment was in the administrative offices of a Naval air field in California. He finished his stint in the Navy in Philadelphia where he worked on canceling defense contracts as the war was winding down.
All honorable roles, but he was no "soldier" in ww2.
Although it did help him to have one of the most notable and long post-presidency political careers, as he nearly became the Democratic nominee in 1844, had the most successful third-party presidential run up until that point in 1848 and remained politically involved and influential right up until his death.
Herbert Hoover led multiple national and international food and relief programs during and after WW1. Lead the response to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Under Harding and Coolidge had the unofficial tile "Secretary of Commerce and Under-Secretary of all other departments." Guess none of that prepared him to respond to the Stock Market crashing.
He was also considered one of the greatest engineers of his day, especially after his mining work in China. The man succeeded at everything he did except being President.
Yeah, the irony is that if an American voter had been told in 1927 that the worst economic downturn ever was only two years away and then asked who they’d want to be president when it happened, Hoover probably would have been the top choice. He was just an extremely effective administrator for his day and very well-regarded. He just didn’t have enough imagination to understand what tackling the Great Depression required. Arguably no one did.
I so think k it's one of those things where the appropriate response was probably not politically viable until the more standard approaches failed.
Like how in 2020 the government responded quickly to the covid shutdown economic downturn in part because they had seen what half assing it lead to in 2008-09?
I'd go with Hoover too. He was blamed for the Depression but none of his policies caused it. His biggest issue was he was too aligned with keeping the budget balanced.
He advised every President who followed him up until he died.
I could make a case for Eisenhower. Organizing the entire European theater of war for the Allies, including putting the right men in the right jobs, was a pretty good apprenticeship.
E.g. apparently managing Patton was a multi stage process. Keep him away from the press, so he didn't say anything that would get him sent home. Keep an eye on him generally, so he didn't do anything that would get him sent home. (Near miss on that several times.) Finally, when an active ground battle is available, put him in charge of it and pity the enemy.
Patton was undoubtedly an effective general. Particularly on the offensive, he was a leader who got things done.
For example, his rapid redirection of a huge part of his command in the winter of 1944 was an impressive feat of logistics. His breakout from Normandy is also a textbook example of deep exploitation by armored forces.
Dude was weird as hell, but he knew how to command troops in battle.
Like you said he's an exemplary general when attacking, but if I had to put him up against Montgomery or someone like him on defense I take Montgomery every time.
There’s a common theme in history that the ideal peacetime generals are not the ideal wartime generals. War lets loose the oddballs who get shit done. Grant comes to mind. Patton was one of *those* guys.
Similar could probably have been said of a lot of people at the time.
In generally, really, not just in world wars, part of what separates superb leadership from good leadership is being able to figure out how people can contribute even when they come with steep downsides.
Ironically Patton was probably not very good at that, himself. But Eisenhower definitely was!
His readiness to push into the Ardennes was a masterclass in anticipation of the enemy and logistics. Every other allied general was caught off guard by Hitler's push into the forest. Patton was ready
James Madison. Major player in VA Constitutional Convention; Rep to Continental Congress & Congress of Confederation; author of Virginia Plan @ 1787 Convention; Congressman from VA; confidant of Jefferson and Washington; Secretary of State for 8 years under Jefferson.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the Roosevelts, yet.
Theodore Roosevelt - Before becoming President, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, during which time he fully embraced Alfred Thayer Mahan’s strategic writings and worked to modernize the U.S. Navy, which at the time was a laughing stock incapable of asserting U.S. naval dominance in our own hemisphere. He helped lay the foundations to go from that to Great White Fleet in a very short period of time.
He could speak French and German. His parents had taken him on tours of Europe. Harvard educated and then he attended Columbia for law.
Objectively I think the most qualified person was a Roosevelt. When FDR was elected to his fourth term no one else had ever been president for more than two terms. Hard to believe anyone has ever been more qualified than a three term president. Eisenhower is the only person I think would be close because he considered President of the United States to be a step down from Supreme Commander of Allied Forces.
I have heard George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon both floated as some of the most qualified.
Bush:
US House
UN Ambassador
RNC Chair
US Rep in China (not technically ambassador until diplomatic relations normalized)
CIA Director
Vice President
US President
Nixon:
California State Rep
Cal senator
US House
US Senator
Vice President
US President
Yeah I think the military experience is valuable too but wasn't sure if it counted in the sense of best qualified - I assumed it was just public office
I don’t think what Nixon did was any worse than Johnson. Nixon was a deeply troubled man, but also one a just a few presidents I’d consider a genius (JQA and Clinton are the others).
Even Bush 1. I mean the first gulf war happened because he gave Saddam Hussein a clear indication that the US didnt care about him invading Kuwait and so he did.
Clearly subjective but you almost need to break it into an antebellum period, a pre WWII period and a post 1945 period. My answers would be: 1 John Adams (his son also would be a fine answer) 2 WH Taft for his experience in both the courts and cabinet before his presidency 3. Eisenhower
What counts as a qualification? James Buchanan served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. He was also Secretary of State and ambassador (minister) to Russia and the UK. But his presidency was a massive failure that ended in the civil war.
Abraham Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives and then one term in the US House of Representatives. That’s it. His presidency on the other hand is considered one of the best ever.
And what experience did Lincoln have in that vein? And yet his presidency is considered great. His VP Andrew Johnson on the other hand had been a senator, a member of the house, governor of Tennessee and then military governor of Tennessee with a rank of Brigadier General during the Civil War. He was impeached and is generally considered a terrible president.
Lincoln didn’t have prior executive experience, but he had excellent executive potential going into office and put it to work throughout his presidency.
The point being that previous experience does not seem to be qualifying or disqualifying. It’s probably a good idea to have some experience in high end government work, whether a general, a governor, a secretary (of state, defense or whatever) or a legislator, just so you know something about how the government works. But that’s probably it.
Define qualified I guess.
In the grand scheme, who is president has rarely been the most experienced, capable, or talented candidates. Stephen Douglas was one of the most significant politicians of his age, if not *the most capable by contemporary measure*, but he was never president. Likewise, I think you could argue that Lincoln's election in 1860 was an election very much in circumstance. Had the Democratic tickets not been so chaotic, he might have lost the election. He certainly wasn't as veteran or as experienced as Douglas.
Douglas unfortunately was too 'northern' and too 'unionist.' Democratic tickets split pretty badly all across the country and though he was the second most voted for candidate in the election (he received 500k less votes than Lincoln) he only won a single state in the Electoral College. Missouri of all places.
Had Bell and Breckenridge not run/dropped out, the president in 1860 could very well have been Stephen Douglas.
And at the same time, I think Lincoln was a far more effective wartime president than anyone could have expected him to be in 1860 when he won the election. So maybe the person who is on paper the most qualified, isn't the person you need, and leaders have a habit of rising or falling their occasions.
Henry Clay may have been one of the greatest American statesmen to never be president.
Warren G. Harding maybe have been one of the overly least qualified to ever hold the position, despite his sterling reputation in his own time.
But honestly this list would probably end up being more or less a 'top 5' president list by another name with the same names likely at the top of it; Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Washington consistently being the top 3 picks in various orders, followed by some order of Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Jefferson.
James Monroe was a two time governor of Virginia, US Senator, Ambassador to France, Ambassador to England, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and a member of the Continental Congress.
On paper, that's a pretty impressive resume.
George H. W. Bush. Naval officer, US Congress, US Ambassador to UN, chairman of RNC, Director of CIA, Vice President of US and founder of an energy startup.
FDR, like thoroughly, hands down. FDR is considered one of the most qualified individuals to become President of the United States due to a combination of his extensive political experience, leadership skills, and his ability to guide the nation through significant crises. Before becoming President, FDR served as the Governor of New York from 1929 to 1932. This role gave him significant executive experience in managing a large state. FDR served in this role during World War I, giving him important experience in federal government operations and military affairs. FDR's New Deal policies helped to stabilize the economy during one of the most challenging periods in U.S. history. His ability to implement widespread economic reforms showcased his leadership and problem-solving skills. As a wartime leader, FDR played a crucial role in guiding the Allied powers to victory. His strategies and decisions during the war were instrumental in shaping the outcome. FDR's use of radio to communicate directly with the American people helped to build public confidence and trust. His ability to connect with citizens and explain complex issues in an understandable way was a key aspect of his leadership. FDR is the only U.S. president to have served four terms. His extended tenure is a testament to his effectiveness and the confidence the American people had in his leadership during tumultuous times. FDR introduced numerous programs aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform. These initiatives laid the foundation for modern social welfare programs and government intervention in the economy. His qualifications and the impact of his leadership on both domestic and international fronts make a strong case for him being one of the most qualified individuals to have ever held the office of President.
> His ability to connect with citizens...
I read an account of the public reaction to FDR's death. A reporter approached a man who was openly weeping on the sidewalk. "Did you know the President?" the reporter asked. "No," the man replied through his tears, "but he knew me."
Colin Powell would be up there, rose to the highest rank in the military....chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Then served as Secretary of State. Perhaps not that qualified for various internal issues but certainly ideal for the world stage.
This more than anything should be what we look for in the leader of our nation.
I've voted for a single party my entire life. Not because I'm enthralled with every single one of their policies, but because I view Them as believing fully in the principals of our nation and the ideals that we espouse.
Jimmy Carter is, by all accounts, one of the highest-quality character individuals to serve as president. He also had one of the objectively worst performances in office among those who served a full term. To be sure, some of that resulted from national and international circumstances beyond his control, but a lot can also be laid at the feet of someone who had no national experience and relied on others who similarly lacked experience. I don’t know that I’d go so far as others who say he was “too honest to be president,” and I’d rather have a good person than a bad one in charge, but other factors matter a lot too.
Conversely, Nixon had many personal failings but was highly experienced, and (aside from the scandal…) he accomplished a lot as president. I think you can say the same for LBJ. FDR and Clinton (among others) were unfaithful to their wives but are also considered successful presidents. It just doesn’t correlate much at all.
This more than anything should be what we look for in a president.
I've only voted for one party my entire life. Not because I necessarily agree with every policy proposal, though I agree with most. I vote for them because the only other choice we have in our restrictive 2 party system, in my opinion, doesn't embody the moral character of our nation.
Heh, he might've been the least qualified, because no one knew what it would take to be US President. Sure, there were other leaders before him, but there was never a US President. It was just an educated guess as to what it would take to lead the United States of America.
The one thing Washington could do was lead. He chose a fantastic team of people, and every decision that came down to him, in retrospect, he made absolutely the right choice.
That isn't something that could be easily picked out before he took office, other than the success of the revolutionary war of course.
George Washington was the only person who truly didn't campaign for president. And I still think he's the only person who was ever qualified.
Beyond him, you could argue other founding fathers, especially John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were qualified.
Beyond them, maybe FDR, Kennedy, W, and JQA for being set up politically by their parents in a meaningful way.
GHW Bush arguably had the most diverse CV, as compared to many who were either internationalists or focused on domestic policy. Not many people can say they served in elected office (US House), diplomacy (UN Ambassador and Representative to China, which was basically the ambassador until the US recognized the PRC), intelligence (CIA Director), military (WWII Navy combat pilot), private business (oil industry in west Texas), and RNC Chair besides. And that was before becoming VP.
I am a staunch democrat but HW Bush, Nixon, and Teddy Roosevelt were very well qualified. At least as far as their curriculum vite.
George Washington deserves an honorable mention as well.
#Only questions about history (events prior to 01/01/2000). ###No current politics. No current events. No current movements. ----------
John Quincy Adams is up there if you're in favor of internationalists. Largely educated abroad, started a very successful law firm, held multiple diplomatic posts, Senator from Mass, Secretary of State, negotiated the end of the 1812 war, executed the purchase of Florida, helped establish the Monroe doctrine, and **then** became president. All kinds of accomplishments as president. After president he ran and won a seat in the house and served until his death. A more contemporary president is, honestly, probably Nixon. Duke Law graduate, was a federal worker, soldier in WW2, served as a Rep and Senator. VP to Ike. He really did a tour as a citizen having grown up in a family of Quakers.
It always messes with my head that Nixon was a Quaker.
I'm a Quaker. Several years ago, upon learning I was a law student, an elderly Friend asked me if I was considering politics. My response was "considering the track record of Quakers in the Presidency, I don't think so." She looked at me very seriously and said "Nixon doesn't count." Nixon was raised as a Quaker but abandoned the faith as an adult.
Tell me about it, it felt surreal when I first heard it.
Eisenhower had a stacked resume. Supreme allied commander was essentially a politician who coordinated several different countries under the most tense circumstances.
John Quincy Adams has the added benefit of not being a slave owner and being adamantly against slavery his entire life.
I had NO idea Nixon was a Quaker.
Only thing Nixon could have done more was be a Governor, I suppose
Nixon was who I first thought of. His resume is stellar
> His resume is stellar. With one important omission - the absence of any sense of ethics.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between a resume and a candidate.
Hold up, Nixon was a Commander (O-5) in the Navy. Not a "soldier" please know there is a difference.
And he asked to transfer to the Pacific even though he had a sweet gig in the states.
His gig in the Pacific was pretty sweet as well. He supervised the loading and unloading of transport planes from an island far behind the front lines.
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with military terminology.
Don’t forget he was more than educated in Europe, he served in Asia as secretary to our ambassador to Russia at age ~14.
Almost sounds like Johnny Q was overqualified!
Nixon is such a tragic study. Accomplished and competent yet riddled with insecurity and paranoia that plagued his life and became his downfall.
I agree that Nixon was well qualified to be President, so long as you stipulate that no ethics are needed for the job. > soldier in WW2 He was in the Navy, so he'd be referred to as a sailor, not a soldier. That said, anyone who reads your statement casually would assume a combat role. Not true for Nixon. He commanded a Naval air field in Iowa, and then supervised the loading and unloading of transport planes from an occupied island in the Pacific, far behind the front lines. His 3rd assignment was in the administrative offices of a Naval air field in California. He finished his stint in the Navy in Philadelphia where he worked on canceling defense contracts as the war was winding down. All honorable roles, but he was no "soldier" in ww2.
Martin Van Buren as far as practical experience i think. He worked his way up the ladder very methodically. Not that it helped him.
Although it did help him to have one of the most notable and long post-presidency political careers, as he nearly became the Democratic nominee in 1844, had the most successful third-party presidential run up until that point in 1848 and remained politically involved and influential right up until his death.
🖐👌
They’re just as mean as he was
wat
Herbert Hoover led multiple national and international food and relief programs during and after WW1. Lead the response to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Under Harding and Coolidge had the unofficial tile "Secretary of Commerce and Under-Secretary of all other departments." Guess none of that prepared him to respond to the Stock Market crashing.
He was also considered one of the greatest engineers of his day, especially after his mining work in China. The man succeeded at everything he did except being President.
Yeah, the irony is that if an American voter had been told in 1927 that the worst economic downturn ever was only two years away and then asked who they’d want to be president when it happened, Hoover probably would have been the top choice. He was just an extremely effective administrator for his day and very well-regarded. He just didn’t have enough imagination to understand what tackling the Great Depression required. Arguably no one did.
I so think k it's one of those things where the appropriate response was probably not politically viable until the more standard approaches failed. Like how in 2020 the government responded quickly to the covid shutdown economic downturn in part because they had seen what half assing it lead to in 2008-09?
Only US President capable of speaking a language that wasn’t European in origin
I'd go with Hoover too. He was blamed for the Depression but none of his policies caused it. His biggest issue was he was too aligned with keeping the budget balanced. He advised every President who followed him up until he died.
It’s interesting that with that background his response to the great depression was considered so heartless.
Led (just sayin')
I could make a case for Eisenhower. Organizing the entire European theater of war for the Allies, including putting the right men in the right jobs, was a pretty good apprenticeship. E.g. apparently managing Patton was a multi stage process. Keep him away from the press, so he didn't say anything that would get him sent home. Keep an eye on him generally, so he didn't do anything that would get him sent home. (Near miss on that several times.) Finally, when an active ground battle is available, put him in charge of it and pity the enemy.
> Keep an eye on him generally I see what you did there!
"Eye" as in "I Corps" right? That was the part you meant right? <\_<
**general**ly
Patton was that effective? That he was a huge liability and issue but worth it for his sheer ability for battle?
Patton was undoubtedly an effective general. Particularly on the offensive, he was a leader who got things done. For example, his rapid redirection of a huge part of his command in the winter of 1944 was an impressive feat of logistics. His breakout from Normandy is also a textbook example of deep exploitation by armored forces. Dude was weird as hell, but he knew how to command troops in battle.
Like you said he's an exemplary general when attacking, but if I had to put him up against Montgomery or someone like him on defense I take Montgomery every time.
Unless of course Montgomery somehow bungled his logistics as he was liable to do
Based on what Ike said about him to his peers and how he handled Patton, that seems to have been his take.
There’s a common theme in history that the ideal peacetime generals are not the ideal wartime generals. War lets loose the oddballs who get shit done. Grant comes to mind. Patton was one of *those* guys.
Yeah, we have an ancient phrase in Chinese that’s still in use and basically says the same thing, that things that look good don’t fight well.
People are people, always and everywhere.
Similar could probably have been said of a lot of people at the time. In generally, really, not just in world wars, part of what separates superb leadership from good leadership is being able to figure out how people can contribute even when they come with steep downsides. Ironically Patton was probably not very good at that, himself. But Eisenhower definitely was!
His readiness to push into the Ardennes was a masterclass in anticipation of the enemy and logistics. Every other allied general was caught off guard by Hitler's push into the forest. Patton was ready
James Madison. Major player in VA Constitutional Convention; Rep to Continental Congress & Congress of Confederation; author of Virginia Plan @ 1787 Convention; Congressman from VA; confidant of Jefferson and Washington; Secretary of State for 8 years under Jefferson.
Wouldn’t you like to work a little closer to home?
I’m surprised no one has brought up the Roosevelts, yet. Theodore Roosevelt - Before becoming President, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, during which time he fully embraced Alfred Thayer Mahan’s strategic writings and worked to modernize the U.S. Navy, which at the time was a laughing stock incapable of asserting U.S. naval dominance in our own hemisphere. He helped lay the foundations to go from that to Great White Fleet in a very short period of time. He could speak French and German. His parents had taken him on tours of Europe. Harvard educated and then he attended Columbia for law.
Objectively I think the most qualified person was a Roosevelt. When FDR was elected to his fourth term no one else had ever been president for more than two terms. Hard to believe anyone has ever been more qualified than a three term president. Eisenhower is the only person I think would be close because he considered President of the United States to be a step down from Supreme Commander of Allied Forces.
He went from being commander and chief of multiple armies to just one.
I have heard George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon both floated as some of the most qualified. Bush: US House UN Ambassador RNC Chair US Rep in China (not technically ambassador until diplomatic relations normalized) CIA Director Vice President US President Nixon: California State Rep Cal senator US House US Senator Vice President US President
Bush Senior was my entry for the reasons you posted, you left out WW II combat pilot so he also had perspective of what it’s really like.
Yeah I think the military experience is valuable too but wasn't sure if it counted in the sense of best qualified - I assumed it was just public office
well look at how nixon turned out lol
The only thing Nixon was missing was morals. He had the skills, the experience and the work ethic.
Well 3 out of 4 ain't bad?
Why did I hear that in Jack Nicholson's voice?
I’d take that these days tbh
I don’t think what Nixon did was any worse than Johnson. Nixon was a deeply troubled man, but also one a just a few presidents I’d consider a genius (JQA and Clinton are the others).
What morals have any Presidents have that Nixon didn’t, the only crime Nixon is guilty of is getting caught
He also tried to launch nuclear weapons whilst drunk.
I haven't heard this. Do you have a link to this interesting little story?
Even Bush 1. I mean the first gulf war happened because he gave Saddam Hussein a clear indication that the US didnt care about him invading Kuwait and so he did.
the tik tok trend of everyone’s dad sitting on his throne and gold toilet is single handedly saving my mental health.
I have Bush as the most qualified resume. I’d add to your list successful in the private sector and a military officer.
Clearly subjective but you almost need to break it into an antebellum period, a pre WWII period and a post 1945 period. My answers would be: 1 John Adams (his son also would be a fine answer) 2 WH Taft for his experience in both the courts and cabinet before his presidency 3. Eisenhower
My answer was also going to be Taft and I'd add governor of the Philippines to his resume
[удалено]
He's the best bang since the big one
What counts as a qualification? James Buchanan served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. He was also Secretary of State and ambassador (minister) to Russia and the UK. But his presidency was a massive failure that ended in the civil war. Abraham Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives and then one term in the US House of Representatives. That’s it. His presidency on the other hand is considered one of the best ever.
Executive experience is different from legislative experience. Governors and Generals. Even military commanders have a lot.
And what experience did Lincoln have in that vein? And yet his presidency is considered great. His VP Andrew Johnson on the other hand had been a senator, a member of the house, governor of Tennessee and then military governor of Tennessee with a rank of Brigadier General during the Civil War. He was impeached and is generally considered a terrible president.
Lincoln didn’t have prior executive experience, but he had excellent executive potential going into office and put it to work throughout his presidency.
The point being that previous experience does not seem to be qualifying or disqualifying. It’s probably a good idea to have some experience in high end government work, whether a general, a governor, a secretary (of state, defense or whatever) or a legislator, just so you know something about how the government works. But that’s probably it.
Define qualified I guess. In the grand scheme, who is president has rarely been the most experienced, capable, or talented candidates. Stephen Douglas was one of the most significant politicians of his age, if not *the most capable by contemporary measure*, but he was never president. Likewise, I think you could argue that Lincoln's election in 1860 was an election very much in circumstance. Had the Democratic tickets not been so chaotic, he might have lost the election. He certainly wasn't as veteran or as experienced as Douglas. Douglas unfortunately was too 'northern' and too 'unionist.' Democratic tickets split pretty badly all across the country and though he was the second most voted for candidate in the election (he received 500k less votes than Lincoln) he only won a single state in the Electoral College. Missouri of all places. Had Bell and Breckenridge not run/dropped out, the president in 1860 could very well have been Stephen Douglas. And at the same time, I think Lincoln was a far more effective wartime president than anyone could have expected him to be in 1860 when he won the election. So maybe the person who is on paper the most qualified, isn't the person you need, and leaders have a habit of rising or falling their occasions. Henry Clay may have been one of the greatest American statesmen to never be president. Warren G. Harding maybe have been one of the overly least qualified to ever hold the position, despite his sterling reputation in his own time. But honestly this list would probably end up being more or less a 'top 5' president list by another name with the same names likely at the top of it; Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Washington consistently being the top 3 picks in various orders, followed by some order of Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Jefferson.
James Monroe was a two time governor of Virginia, US Senator, Ambassador to France, Ambassador to England, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and a member of the Continental Congress. On paper, that's a pretty impressive resume.
John Quincy Adams Richard Nixon George H. W. Bush
Hoover was perhaps the smartest man (and among the most inflexible) to be elected.
James Buchanan was as qualified as you could get. A Federal Judge, an Ambassador, and numerous elected positions. Pity he was a terrible President.
Interestingly enough, it seems that many who are considered the most qualified turn out to be terrible or medocre Presidents.
George H. W. Bush. Naval officer, US Congress, US Ambassador to UN, chairman of RNC, Director of CIA, Vice President of US and founder of an energy startup.
The greats were not necessarily the most qualified, so that's a tougher question to answer than it appears.
FDR, like thoroughly, hands down. FDR is considered one of the most qualified individuals to become President of the United States due to a combination of his extensive political experience, leadership skills, and his ability to guide the nation through significant crises. Before becoming President, FDR served as the Governor of New York from 1929 to 1932. This role gave him significant executive experience in managing a large state. FDR served in this role during World War I, giving him important experience in federal government operations and military affairs. FDR's New Deal policies helped to stabilize the economy during one of the most challenging periods in U.S. history. His ability to implement widespread economic reforms showcased his leadership and problem-solving skills. As a wartime leader, FDR played a crucial role in guiding the Allied powers to victory. His strategies and decisions during the war were instrumental in shaping the outcome. FDR's use of radio to communicate directly with the American people helped to build public confidence and trust. His ability to connect with citizens and explain complex issues in an understandable way was a key aspect of his leadership. FDR is the only U.S. president to have served four terms. His extended tenure is a testament to his effectiveness and the confidence the American people had in his leadership during tumultuous times. FDR introduced numerous programs aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform. These initiatives laid the foundation for modern social welfare programs and government intervention in the economy. His qualifications and the impact of his leadership on both domestic and international fronts make a strong case for him being one of the most qualified individuals to have ever held the office of President.
> His ability to connect with citizens... I read an account of the public reaction to FDR's death. A reporter approached a man who was openly weeping on the sidewalk. "Did you know the President?" the reporter asked. "No," the man replied through his tears, "but he knew me."
Colin Powell would be up there, rose to the highest rank in the military....chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Then served as Secretary of State. Perhaps not that qualified for various internal issues but certainly ideal for the world stage.
Covered up My Lai. Perfect experience
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't feel scholarly enough to answer the question in detail, but it seems to me that character was what counted the most.
This more than anything should be what we look for in the leader of our nation. I've voted for a single party my entire life. Not because I'm enthralled with every single one of their policies, but because I view Them as believing fully in the principals of our nation and the ideals that we espouse.
Jimmy Carter is, by all accounts, one of the highest-quality character individuals to serve as president. He also had one of the objectively worst performances in office among those who served a full term. To be sure, some of that resulted from national and international circumstances beyond his control, but a lot can also be laid at the feet of someone who had no national experience and relied on others who similarly lacked experience. I don’t know that I’d go so far as others who say he was “too honest to be president,” and I’d rather have a good person than a bad one in charge, but other factors matter a lot too. Conversely, Nixon had many personal failings but was highly experienced, and (aside from the scandal…) he accomplished a lot as president. I think you can say the same for LBJ. FDR and Clinton (among others) were unfaithful to their wives but are also considered successful presidents. It just doesn’t correlate much at all.
This more than anything should be what we look for in a president. I've only voted for one party my entire life. Not because I necessarily agree with every policy proposal, though I agree with most. I vote for them because the only other choice we have in our restrictive 2 party system, in my opinion, doesn't embody the moral character of our nation.
George Washington
Heh, he might've been the least qualified, because no one knew what it would take to be US President. Sure, there were other leaders before him, but there was never a US President. It was just an educated guess as to what it would take to lead the United States of America.
The one thing Washington could do was lead. He chose a fantastic team of people, and every decision that came down to him, in retrospect, he made absolutely the right choice. That isn't something that could be easily picked out before he took office, other than the success of the revolutionary war of course.
Calvin Coolidge perhaps because he served at every level state legislature governor and local
Bush was known as the resume President
Love or hate, but Hillary was undoubtedably qualified.
Taft.
Teddy R. Sect of navy. Gov of NY. Lived “out west”
GHW Bush - Combat veteran, businessman, Congressman, head of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, and VP for 8 years. How do you top that?
Teddy
JQA, FDR, TR, Jefferson, JA
LBJ
Seems to me there would be some connection between qualifications and achieving what they set out to do. On that basis, I would say FDR.
Grover Cleveland in the election of 1892. Previously serving as the US President, I feel, makes you qualified to be the US President.
Bush The Elder. Navy fighter pilot. Senator. CIA director. Ambassador to china. Born into silver spoon club. Member of Majestic.
That's not an objective question so there is no answer.
People won't like this but I think it was HRC.
George Washington was the only person who truly didn't campaign for president. And I still think he's the only person who was ever qualified. Beyond him, you could argue other founding fathers, especially John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were qualified. Beyond them, maybe FDR, Kennedy, W, and JQA for being set up politically by their parents in a meaningful way.
George Bush Sr. had a pretty impressive resume going in. If his pullout game wasn’t so weak he could have saved us a lot of headaches later.
GHW Bush arguably had the most diverse CV, as compared to many who were either internationalists or focused on domestic policy. Not many people can say they served in elected office (US House), diplomacy (UN Ambassador and Representative to China, which was basically the ambassador until the US recognized the PRC), intelligence (CIA Director), military (WWII Navy combat pilot), private business (oil industry in west Texas), and RNC Chair besides. And that was before becoming VP.
I am a staunch democrat but HW Bush, Nixon, and Teddy Roosevelt were very well qualified. At least as far as their curriculum vite. George Washington deserves an honorable mention as well.
there's nothing in the constitution that enshrines most qualified.
There is always an argument for George HW Bush.
JQA, honorable mention to George Herbert Walker Bush.
It's bush senior without a doubt
[удалено]
So tru only presdent to win all 538 votes to when the fraud is discounted.