US Presidents

[temporal1]

We've only had 46. Maybe the 47th will be the one that fits these.

in my view, appleman, or Boaz, would ace all 5 points, and more.
but neither is available for the stated service.

not that these 2 are the only possibilities.
thankfully, there are many men with all these abilities+qualities. in the world, and others on this forum.

in my opinion, these are among the real life people who are not in the mainstream public eye, but who are responsible for making the world go round with some measure of morality and competence. they will not be in the mainstream spotlight. $$$$

thankfully, they are not rare. good, competent, moral men don’t sell copy. $$$$

look. the mainstream ignores Dr Thomas Sowell and Dr Alveda King!!
they aren’t even running for office!

as long as “the people” allow the mainstream to “run the show,” nothing will change.

[Laurell]

Andrew Jackson

Keep in mind the most admired US Presidents (Washington, Lincoln) were also warmongers.

Jackson had a lot of great things to offer, but was also strongly disliked. I was listening to a podcast that described him as one of the villains that was allowed to join the Freemasons

Back in my political days, I had a lot of admiration for Calvin Coolidge, and of course, as an identifying conservative, Reagan. Now that I have given up on politics, I see the value in people I would have considered villains and the problems in those I would have considered political saviors.

I think that to be president, you have to some have traits of a disordered personality and the ability to be callous about the well-being of others in one capacity or another.

[Josh]

Someone who was:
-gifted with administrative aptitude
-respectful of staff working under him
-respectful of others including political opponents
-able to bring people together in a measure of unity and peace in the nation, including a large percentage of those from other parties
-known for being honest and speaking the truth

Some would say Obama ticked quite a few of these boxes. Generally I think Reagan arguably ticked a few of these boxes also. I think Lincoln ticks a few of these as well, the rebellion notwithstanding. As I think does Washington, who himself advocated against partisanship (and he tried hard to fill his cabinet with various philosophies). Other names that would come to mind that tick quite a few of the boxes, Grover Cleveland, Eisenhower, FDR...

Of course all of them were human and had components to their tenure that don't tick the boxes. Others, like B Clinton, in many ways ticked many of the boxes, but had some really large/well known "errors" in truth-telling etc. Others like Carter are nearly universally loved/respected now, but many people fault his administrative aptitude, probably mostly because he inherited an economic malaise years in the making from the Great Society and Vietnam War.

Lincoln presided over a civil war. One can hardly call him a great unifier.

[joshuabgood]

Someone who was:
-gifted with administrative aptitude
-respectful of staff working under him
-respectful of others including political opponents
-able to bring people together in a measure of unity and peace in the nation, including a large percentage of those from other parties
-known for being honest and speaking the truth

Some would say Obama ticked quite a few of these boxes. Generally I think Reagan arguably ticked a few of these boxes also. I think Lincoln ticks a few of these as well, the rebellion notwithstanding. As I think does Washington, who himself advocated against partisanship (and he tried hard to fill his cabinet with various philosophies). Other names that would come to mind that tick quite a few of the boxes, Grover Cleveland, Eisenhower, FDR...

Of course all of them were human and had components to their tenure that don't tick the boxes. Others, like B Clinton, in many ways ticked many of the boxes, but had some really large/well known "errors" in truth-telling etc. Others like Carter are nearly universally loved/respected now, but many people fault his administrative aptitude, probably mostly because he inherited an economic malaise years in the making from the Great Society and Vietnam War.

Lincoln presided over a civil war. One can hardly call him a great unifier.

Conflict by itself doesn't mean a leader isn't a unifier. Real unifiers will step into snd toward the conflict and sometimes that causes a painful but necessary blow up as the leader surfaces what needs addressed to promote greater and real unity.

[Neto]

Someone who was:
-gifted with administrative aptitude
-respectful of staff working under him
-respectful of others including political opponents
-able to bring people together in a measure of unity and peace in the nation, including a large percentage of those from other parties
-known for being honest and speaking the truth

Some would say Obama ticked quite a few of these boxes. Generally I think Reagan arguably ticked a few of these boxes also. I think Lincoln ticks a few of these as well, the rebellion notwithstanding. As I think does Washington, who himself advocated against partisanship (and he tried hard to fill his cabinet with various philosophies). Other names that would come to mind that tick quite a few of the boxes, Grover Cleveland, Eisenhower, FDR...

Of course all of them were human and had components to their tenure that don't tick the boxes. Others, like B Clinton, in many ways ticked many of the boxes, but had some really large/well known "errors" in truth-telling etc. Others like Carter are nearly universally loved/respected now, but many people fault his administrative aptitude, probably mostly because he inherited an economic malaise years in the making from the Great Society and Vietnam War.

Lincoln presided over a civil war. One can hardly call him a great unifier.

Maybe in the sense that he forced "unity" on two sovereign nations....

[Josh]

Conflict by itself doesn't mean a leader isn't a unifier. Real unifiers will step into snd toward the conflict and sometimes that causes a painful but necessary blow up as the leader surfaces what needs addressed to promote greater and real unity.

Can you realistically say Lincoln ever brought about any "unity"?

The fact that he made your preferred side (and mine, incidentally) win doesn't mean he brought about "unity". He just did a good job at crushing the opposition. That's not "unity".

[steve-in-kville]

Kennedy.

[temporal1]

Kennedy.

JFK was an utter scandal. His Catholicism. His+Jackie’s youth. Her clothes!
His assassination did a lot of uniting. Many believed Bobby K was the better man, and was set to eclipse his brother.
i was young. this is my sense of the adult world around me at the time. his affairs were unknown to me until years later.

[steve-in-kville]

Kennedy.

JFK was an utter scandal. His Catholicism. His+Jackie’s youth. Her clothes!
His assassination did a lot of uniting. Many believed Bobby K was the better man, and was set to eclipse his brother.
i was young. this is my sense of the adult world around me at the time. his affairs were unknown to me until years later.

I was wondering who would be the first to react!

Seriously... I think a lot of Bush Jr. for how he handled 9/11. Reagan was kinds behind my time. Not sure what to say about Trump, although he was the first president I ever voted for.

Now as far as history, the Kennedy dynasty does interest me.

[Ernie]

1. Are you aware of any Presidential candidates in the past who were:
-gifted with administrative aptitude
-respectful of staff working under him/her
-respectful of others including political opponents
-able to bring people together in a measure of unity and peace in the nation, including a large percentage of those from other parties
-known for being honest and speaking the truth

2. Why do you think US citizens have not elected such a candidate so far?

3. Do you know of any countries who have elected such a person to their highest political office?