Strong or Weak?

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt have what in common?

They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.

Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.

Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.

When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.

Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.

But what if Congress stays deadlocked?

Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?

The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?

There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.

That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.

Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.

John Tyler (1841-1845)

John Tyler is the man with the shortest Vice Presidency (31 days) and the most children of any president (15 plus possible mulatto children).

He also was probably the biggest side-changer (at least 2, possibly 3).

Prior to being nominated for VP by the Whigs, he was a Jacksonian Democrat. But some policies made him decide to ally with the Whigs. And so in 1836 he was a VP nominee for the Whigs, and in 1840 he won the Vice Presidency with William Henry Harrison.

Harrison died quickly, and Tyler made the bold move of becoming a full president, not acting. He did some stuff, including annex Texas and help make the veto evolve into not a Constitutional matter, but instead a matter of policy. His actions were more Democratic than Whig, so the latter group kicked him out of their party.

By this point, he's been a Democrat and a Whig and been thrown out to be on his own.

The really cool side change to remember about Tyler is the one where he joined the Confederates.

That's right. During the Civil War, he sided with the CSA. And he was a Sworn Enemy of the United States. No other president became a sworn enemy of the US. Some of the things Andrew Johnson did as president made him seem like an enemy, but he wasn't officially an enemy.


I honestly don't care too much about Tyler's policies, nothing can top the leader of our country becoming an enemy. Granted, he died January 18, 1962, so he didn't really do anything as a rebel, but imagine if Texas seceded and faught the US, with the support of George Bush. That's the rough equivalent. And damn that just sounds so cool.