The Great Presidents?

What makes a great president? This is a question that has been on the minds of people for centuries. Scholars, politicians, or anyone generally interested enough in the political spectrum has tried to develop their own personal criteria for what makes a president great. In the article entitled “No More Great Presidents,” republican blogger Robert Higgs attempts to make a solid argument about the standards that define an outstanding president, as well as the weaknesses that expose them as rather dubious individuals.
Higgs begins his article by stating that he thinks a great president is “one who acts in accordance with his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I agree with this statement and others that Higgs makes throughout his blog supporting his ideals for an honorable executive leader. Although, I believe where he went astray from a solid argument is in his attempts to state what makes a bad president as well as his deliberate attacks towards the Democratic Party. Higgs continues his article writing about a New York Times ranking of the presidents conducted in 1996 by all left-liberals. He says “I have a theory: left-liberal historians worship political power, and idolize those who wield it most lavishly in the service of left-liberal causes.” I personally am not a democrat, but it seems he has an overly disdainful attitude towards liberals that causes me to believe he is writing with a bitter mindset rather than thinking critically. He is also quick to make assumptions and accusations concerning the decisions and policies rendered by the American presidents. In reference to the presidential ranking conducted by the New York Times Higgs states “all but one of the presidents ranked as Great or Near Great had an intimate association with war, either in office or by reputation before taking office. The lesson seems obvious. Any president who craves a high place in the annals of history should hasten to thrust the American people into an orgy of death and destruction.” I think it is an audaciously arrogant correlation to make. In short he is trying to say that the general public, especially liberals, define a great president by their barbarous war efforts. Furthermore, it’s simply ridiculous to place the blame of wars perils upon a single individual. Considering the way our government was constructed the president never has, nor ever will, possess enough power to be the sole individual responsible for a war of nations.
My concern about this article is whether or not Higgs is really interesting about presenting the values and conduct of what he thinks makes a good president. Unfortunately, unless Higgs intends so, his overbearingly cynical attitude is quite evident. As previously stated, I do agree with Higgs overall statement of what makes an outstanding president and what the proper role of the government ought to be. I just don’t think he made a sound argument do to his inability to prove his stance without repeated accusations backed by false or missing evidence.