Opinion What Measures Make a President Successful?

[Hellowhosthat]

What do you mean by "meaningless shit"?

90% of the junk people buy on temu.

 

[Sinister]

FDR had the goal of getting +50% of Americans into the middle class. That was successful. Continuation of many of those basic policies got that number to 74% before Neoliberalism

 

[Islam Imamate]

90% of the junk people buy on temu.

Sure but a general trade war would implicate a lot more than just that. We import basics like steel as well as higher value goods like solar panels.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why not average rainfall then? That's an objective measure, would judging president's based on that make more sense than a subjective assessment of overall approval and favorability?

There is no need to be rude. You immediately called me a hack for no reason. That was rude. This is rude.

Not entirely subjective because you'd presumably evaluate these agendas according to a holistic set of measures both subjective and objective.

Which is what I was trying to obtain from you. The most important objective measures.

If there's healthcare reform that's supposed to make drugs cheaper and more accessible then there are objective measures you'd look at to see if the policy worked. But if that's not the agenda then you wouldn't look at those measures as a barometer of success necessarily.

That’s my entire point. I’m simply trying to understand what your most important measures are.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Firstly, handling their branch within their Constitutional authority. Do they enforce and uphold the current laws in place? Do they avoid putting cases through the courts about actions they don’t even believe they can do? Even certain things within their authority but abused can be a problem. This aspect is important to me before policy begins as it should be expected and the minimum bar for the role.

Next, working with Congress to pass good legislation and/ or veto bad legislation. This can fall into one’s ideological leanings so your going to get different grades from person to person, though over time I think it becomes more clear whether a bill was popular/ effective if it remains and isn’t repealed later on. I’m not going to do a whole post every policy position I have to reflect in this answer but something more specific I’d point out is the president should do well during times of economic crisis to allow for the best possible rebound rather than long term damage from doing nothing.

Lastly, the president is in large control of foreign policy. Maintaining strong relationships with allies and being long term oriented toward hostile countries is important. This is a place where you need some continuity between administrations as you don’t want international players simply waiting for another election to get their way. I know it can’t be 100% continuous and some times call for change but it should be well thought out and have a good reason behind it.

There’s more but that’s what’s on my mind initially.

Thank you for a thoughtful answer.

 

[Islam Imamate]

There is no need to be rude. You immediately called me a hack for no reason. That was rude. This is rude.

I didn't immediately call you a hack though, after my 2nd post in our exchange you gave me a hack reply and I called it out as one in the third post.

You seem to have a thin skin lately, if you can't handle this mild level of criticism in the WR idk what to tell you.

Which is what I was trying to obtain from you. The most important objective measures.

And I explained why I don't think that's a good way to think about it

That’s my entire point. I’m simply trying to understand what your most important measures are.

There are important metrics like life expectancy, growth, and unemployment but they have to be evaluated in context.

A president who oversaw higher unemployment rates at the end of their term could've been effective at managing a recession and one who saw lower unemployment could've been squandering a boom period.

Venezuela under Chavez saw improvement under Chavez but that's more so to do with global oil prices. The corruption he normalized and the mismanagement and plundering of the state oil company under his watch precipitated the collapse under Maduro when oil prices fell. Chavez was therfore not a good president despite whatever improvements seemed to have happened under his watch.