As I didnt know much about the candidates for potus 2012 I started reading about them a little.

Two thoughts came to my mind while reading about the upcoming elections:

1. "Omg, the US are sooooo ****ed"

2. The USA had some outstanding presidents in the past. But who of them might actually have been able to solve the country´s current problems?

As my knowledge about presidents and their résumé is rather limited i didnt really get far with thought #2 - thats why I thought "let´s ask some of the 2+2 history guys".

And yes, I know the question is highly speculative.

It might also be easier to answer the question for each of today´s problems separately instead of for the general situation.

My thoughts so far:

Economy/unemployment: When it comes to economy/unemployment I thought that FDR might be the best choice. Then again he basically needed a WW to get the economy going again which might not be the best solution...

A divided country: It seems to me that the US society is more and more polarizing. Some call it a cultural war within US borders. So somebody to unite the country might be a good idea. Grant maybe?

Social situation/poverty etc: no idea.

Debts: Has any president ever been able to actually reduce debts? Clinton at least managed to get the budget balanced.

The international situation: Nato, China etc. no idea again

Overall: the best choice overall...again: no idea

Ec/Ue- I guess FDR is fine, but id probably have to think about this more in order to be sure

Uniting the country- Prob Washington

poverty, etc- Ehh i guess JFK but again id have to think about it some more

Debts-Clinton had a balanced budget so if thats the only criteria i guess hes fine but some of his economic policies were bad long term. (Mortgage)

Foreign affairs- Prob Jefferson

Overall- I'd say just because i think they were prob the 2 best overall just off the top of my head. Either FDR or Lincoln

Thomas Jefferson. I didn't like Jefferson and thought he was the exact wrong man for his times but we could use him now.

"He who governs least governs best"

We need someone to rectify the monster size of govenment which has gotten out of control. Jefferson would do that. When we needed a strong federal government he was against it. But now with its exponential explosion of growth it needs reeling in fast. Government is the problem and not the solution. FDR is the exact wrong choice! He started the whole mess to begin with

As a foreigner I would not mind to see Eisenhouwer come back but that is mainly because of what he said in his military-industrial complex speech. However I doubt that any president can fix that problem the way the government works now. So you would need to start with a president that just limits the size of the government and the power of individuals within that government.

Anyone who thinks a president alone can solve our problems (assumption: he does not become a dictator a la Hitler) is sadly mistaken.

Our whole system is rigged via the golden rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules.

focus not on who we need as president (elected savior?) but on how our system works
Currently, any candidate who is not beholden to the ultra wealthy is unelectable. E.g. going back in time and changing the outcome of the 2008 presidential election would not have had any significant impact on how the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bailout went.

FDR has the best expertise for this situation (See: End of Great Depression)

You need someone would not let congress cripple the economy.

I could go for either Roosevelt to be honest.

FDR v. Teddy would be a heckuva campaign. Teddy would win cause americans are suckers for macho -- unless he got caught saying something really stupid that would be played 10,000,000,000 times on the web.

FDR would simply swiftboat his rough rider opponent. If FDR has Fox in his corner it is game over at this point.

Teddy's "macho" image would never play to today. He was a short man with a high, nasally voice; in the era of TV, he'd never win an election.

Has to be either FDR or Lincoln. Somebody that both parties will respect enough to actually let them make significant changes.

Are you kidding? Conservatives consider "new deal" FDR the first coming of the anti-christ.

This thread is likely swaying way too far from history and towards politics but if the problem is a monster bureaucracy of a too big governement strangling the country (it is!) the worst possible savior would be the ultimate king of big government.

Calvin Coolidge would be a good choice too imo

Predictably, this thread is crossing far too much into Politics.

Clinton fought against balancing the budget, he wanted to spend more.

It was a determined congress, and more importantly the luck of having an economic bubble (tech stocks) occur during his presidency that led to the balanced budget.

Picking past presidents based on what happened during their term that they had little to do with themselves, is pretty meaningless.

I say we re-animate Eisenhower's body.

Indeed, if the trend continues the thread will be closed. It is hard enough to stay within the parameters of history given the thread title. Making an honest effort would help but it is hard for most to emotional detach themselves from the present or to be objective in analysis.

-Zeno

I nominate Andrew Jackson. He fought and won a lot of duels. We could using a dueling POTUS right about now.

if this were true then people wouldn't be criticizing obama in the first place...

uh, that doesn't make his comment any less true. It essentially means that most people are unaware how government and legislation works. That's not to say that Obama does or doesn't deserve criticism, however. Anyway, yes, this thread has far too many political undertones for it to stay open for much longer.

AJ was a hardcore bad-ass, but I am not sure a President who would " shoot first, ask later " would help us. Jackson was a tough man, his nickname " Old Hickory " was spot on.

Jackson also recognized that the constitution does not make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what the constitution means, and he properly exercised his powers against the will of the then current Supreme Court. We need a president like that today.

A modern day trail of tears would be cool too. Watching people cry is schadenfreude FTW!

" John Marshall (Chief Justice of the USA) has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ... Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they'll go. "

Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson referring to the Case: Worcester v. Georgia

P.S. He hated the Banks just as much as the Supreme Court....

Any potential at a good thread for history is gone. Thread Closed. Would be difficult to sustain under any circumstances given the OP anyway.

Take this to politics where it belongs.


-Zeno