Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been thinking about the ways that we judge whether potential POTUS candidates are qualified for the job in modern elections and I got to wondering who people thought were the most qualified and least qualified historical Presidents based on their pre-Presidential accomplishments. To keep things from getting political, let's agree to exclude Obama and Trump. I would stipulate that a reasonable argument could be made for either of these two to be on the least qualified list, depending on what you mean by "qualified". I am certainly leaving that definition open; if you respond, you are welcomed to use whatever standards you see fit for qualification. Some possibilities might be prior political experience, prior executive experience, demonstrated leadership roles, or educational achievements. Like I said, I'm open to any qualification standards you'd like to put forth. It would be more interesting if you would explain a bit what your standards are and why the POTUS's you put on your lists are there.
I am also requesting that we ignore the actual events of the Presidency when answering this. For example, despite what he achieved as POTUS, it would not be unreasonable to include Lincoln on your list of least qualified Presidents. He had limited political experience, was self-educated, had no executive experience, and basically was only nominated because he had managed to stay clear of most of the more contentious political controversies of the day. The fact that he turned out to be one of our great Presidents should not preclude you from considering him as one of the more unqualified ones based on what was known of him before he was elected.
My thoughts on this: I am using the standards outlined above.
Most qualified:
Washington - he was in a tough spot; there really was NOBODY with political experience, at least not with experience in what was a brand new form of government at the time. He certainly had demonstrated leadership and executive ability, though, as the commander of the Continental Army during the Revolution.
Jefferson/Madison - I lump these two together because their qualifications were similar - a good bit of political experience and demonstrated leadership both during and after the Revolution.
Wilson - Certainly had tremendous educational accomplishment. Executive experience as president of Princeton and governor of New Jersey.
Least qualified
Lincoln - the case for him was made above
Grant - Certainly demonstrated leadership, but pretty much none of the other qualities.
Jackson - Like Grant, pretty much leading an army was his only qualification. No other political or executive experience.
Zachary Taylor was the least qualified. He had little in the way of formal education, spent his entire life as a soldier with zero interest in politics, and had almost no awareness of the goals and programs being advanced by the Whig party which nominated him.
He was nominated solely because he was a war hero and the Whigs only success since the Jackson era was the election of another war hero, William Henry Harrison. The Whigs believed that Taylor was a blank slate politically and that he could be steered in the proper Whig directions, there was no thought at all given to the idea of Taylor actually administering the nation.
All I'll say is that formal education should NOT be a factor in the determination of qualified or not.
Wisdom, logic, and insight can come completely separate from formal studies. I'm referring to natural giftedness. History has shown many notable leaders of that type. At the other extreme, there have been rotten presidents and persons in other high offices and positions who have had plenty of education from all the ideal schools, and still exhibited the worst of ideas and actions.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 07-27-2018 at 03:18 PM..
All I'll say is that formal education should NOT be a factor in the determination of qualified or not.
Wisdom, logic, and insight can come completely separate from formal studies. I'm referring to natural giftedness. History has shown many notable leaders of that type. At the other extreme, there have been rotten presidents and persons in other high offices and positions who have had plenty of education from all the ideal schools, and still exhibited the worst of ideas and actions.
Agreed, some of the most educated people I know have the least amount of common sense. Common sense and good instinct has to play a significant role in a good President.
I have been thinking about the ways that we judge whether potential POTUS candidates are qualified for the job in modern elections and I got to wondering who people thought were the most qualified and least qualified historical Presidents based on their pre-Presidential accomplishments. To keep things from getting political, let's agree to exclude Obama and Trump. I would stipulate that a reasonable argument could be made for either of these two to be on the least qualified list, depending on what you mean by "qualified". I am certainly leaving that definition open; if you respond, you are welcomed to use whatever standards you see fit for qualification. Some possibilities might be prior political experience, prior executive experience, demonstrated leadership roles, or educational achievements. Like I said, I'm open to any qualification standards you'd like to put forth. It would be more interesting if you would explain a bit what your standards are and why the POTUS's you put on your lists are there.
I am also requesting that we ignore the actual events of the Presidency when answering this. For example, despite what he achieved as POTUS, it would not be unreasonable to include Lincoln on your list of least qualified Presidents. He had limited political experience, was self-educated, had no executive experience, and basically was only nominated because he had managed to stay clear of most of the more contentious political controversies of the day. The fact that he turned out to be one of our great Presidents should not preclude you from considering him as one of the more unqualified ones based on what was known of him before he was elected.
My thoughts on this: I am using the standards outlined above.
Most qualified:
Washington - he was in a tough spot; there really was NOBODY with political experience, at least not with experience in what was a brand new form of government at the time. He certainly had demonstrated leadership and executive ability, though, as the commander of the Continental Army during the Revolution.
Jefferson/Madison - I lump these two together because their qualifications were similar - a good bit of political experience and demonstrated leadership both during and after the Revolution.
Wilson - Certainly had tremendous educational accomplishment. Executive experience as president of Princeton and governor of New Jersey.
Least qualified
Lincoln - the case for him was made above
Grant - Certainly demonstrated leadership, but pretty much none of the other qualities.
Jackson - Like Grant, pretty much leading an army was his only qualification. No other political or executive experience.
Grant had bad judgement of people and was easily taken advantage of by unscrupulous men. He was President in the most fractured period of our history, Reconstruction. He did some pretty noble things to protect the freed slaves.
Zachary Taylor was the least qualified. He had little in the way of formal education, spent his entire life as a soldier with zero interest in politics, and had almost no awareness of the goals and programs being advanced by the Whig party which nominated him.
He was nominated solely because he was a war hero and the Whigs only success since the Jackson era was the election of another war hero, William Henry Harrison. The Whigs believed that Taylor was a blank slate politically and that he could be steered in the proper Whig directions, there was no thought at all given to the idea of Taylor actually administering the nation.
Thanks for that one. I forgot about Taylor when I posted originally. I agree; he certainly belongs on the least qualified list.
All I'll say is that formal education should NOT be a factor in the determination of qualified or not.
Wisdom, logic, and insight can come completely separate from formal studies. I'm referring to natural giftedness. History has shown many notable leaders of that type. At the other extreme, there have been rotten presidents and persons in other high offices and positions who have had plenty of education from all the ideal schools, and still exhibited the worst of ideas and actions.
I meant educational achievement in a broad sense, and certainly not as an end-all, be-all. However, you certainly do look at formal education for some jobs. Don't you consider it when you need surgery, or are you willing to let someone with "common sense" perform the operation, and not worry about that pesky medical degree?
As I said, I intentionally left this whole thing vague; what you consider important qualifications for the presidency and what I consider important may well be different.
Grant had bad judgement of people and was easily taken advantage of by unscrupulous men. He was President in the most fractured period of our history, Reconstruction. He did some pretty noble things to protect the freed slaves.
I agree on Grant getting a bit of a bad rap, but this thread was not about what POTUS's achieved while in office; I'm sure you can find other threads (or create one) where a discussion of Grant's presidential accomplishments would be on-topic. I was interested mainly in focusing on how we would have judged the qualifications of each past POTUS prior to their election based on their accomplishments prior to becoming a Presidential candidate.
Lincoln was also elected to and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years before becoming US Senator. He also was admitted to the bar. I’d say his qualifications were just fine for the day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
