Most Effective U.S. President Ever

**Buddha** · April 01, 2005, 05:03 AM

Hi all. I'm new to this forum, been lurking for a bit and love all the debate and discussion as learning about geopolitics is one of my pet hobbies. I noticed the "what's your 5 least favorite presidents?" thread and thought it would be good to start my first thread on something with a more positive spin for today's troubled times. I hope people bothering to read this thread find it interesting and/or enlightening and also hopes it sparks some good wholesome debate or conversation. I also hope that fellow American citizens (i am Korean and born in Korea, but i've lived in the USA almost my whole life and am an American citizen) will read this knowing that we CAN do better when it comes to leadership and politics. For our non-American readers, I just wanted to show that despite a lot of the crappy stuff the American government has pulled in the last few years, there ARE good things too about America's heritage.

Here goes:

the most effective President of the USA in America's History is:....... JAMES K. POLK (1844 - 1848, 11th President)

huh??? who??? that's right James K. Polk

but why, u ask? Well, James K. Polk is probably the only president in US history to fulfill ALL of the major promises he made during his presidential campaign. A pretty good way to judge a president's effectiveness don't u think? Furthermore, he stated that after achieving these goals he would quit and not run for another term and made good on that promise as well. Integrity, i like that. He was elected in 1844 winning both the popular and electoral vote and at age 49 was the youngest man to hold the nation's highest office at that time in American history.

the campaign promises that he made:
1. Annex Texas
2. Settle the Oregon Territory dispute with Britain
3. Acquire California somehow
4. Increase free trade

his presidency:
1. Annexed Texas peacefully with the approval of Texas
2. Acquired all of the Oregon Territory below the 49th parallel (today's modern border between the US and Canada) peacefully, averting potential war with Britain
3. Acquired California as a result of the Mexican War along with a LOT of other territory (1846-1848). Congress had passed legislation opening up the possibility of annexing Texas BEFORE Polk became president. Mexico, deeply upset by this, immediately severed (sp?) diplomatic relations. Basically the Mexican War was probably going to happen with or without James K. Polk, as political developments were already underway before his presidency. In any case, good to know that the man could win a war that could be qualified as a total military success. In the war, the US troops were outnumbered and were fighting in the unfamiliar territory of Mexico. One could argue though that the Mexican troops were poorly equipped and didn't have good military leaders. The results however are undeniable: the USA acquired 500,000 square miles of new land, the largest onetime acquisition in US history excepting the Louisiana Purchase.
4. Signed the Walker Tariff of 1846. This tariff act significantly reduced existing tariff rates, opening up free trade which was good for the U.S. economy. This legislation and subsequent others like it greatly contributed to the economic prosperity that resulted in the coming decades (the Industrial Revolution).

So, let's go down the list shall we?
1. Check
2. Check
3. Check
4. Check

congratulations we have a winner! :grin A president who actually fulfills his promises :w00t

How is this possible? How can a man accomplish so much in just 4 years?

Q: Was he the smartest man alive?
A: Nope. Many contemporary critics often depicted him as unintellectual and unphilosophical. Polk probably wouldn't have argued with them about this one.

Q: Then was he the greatest, most charismatic orator ever? A modern day Demosthenes?
A: Nope. He was also often criticized as having "...no wit, no literature, no point of argument, no gracefulness of delivery, no elegance of language..." (John Quincy Adams 1834). Polk probably wouldn't argue with this one either.

Q: Surely then he must have crazy uber political and financial clout?
A: No, not really. When he ran for president, he was considered a "dark horse" candidate and most intelligent people didn't expect him to win initially. In fact, he's the first "dark horse" candidate to win in US history.

Q: Maybe in this day in age before TVs and radio his physical presence was so awe-inspiring that people just HAD to want to follow him?
A: Nope. He was actually kind of short and not particularly good looking. Looked a bit "ape-like" if you ask me. He also generally was in poor health.

Q: Did the aliens help him?
A: Uh.....umm.....no, although i don't have any proof that there AREN'T aliens and if said aliens helped him or not.

Q: Ok i give up, how?
A: Well, there's really no secret to his success. The answer is that James K. Polk was the most singleminded, workaholic bastard that ever sat in the nation's highest office. He had no hobbies to speak of other than politics. He didn't even bother having any children because he was so busy. The man worked himself so friggin hard that he spent most of his presidency in poor health. What he lacked in intelligence, charisma, financial resources, etc, he made up for with simple brute force labor. He worked himself so hard that after he accomplished his presidential goals and finished his term, he dropped dead from exhaustion, having the shortest retirement of any president in history too. I think the current US president could learn a lot from him when it comes to how hard a president should work.

Well there u have it. I hope some of you enjoyed it or found it interesting. Whether you agree with Polk's policies or outlooks or not, i don't think anyone can argue that he wasn't effective or did not fulfill his promises. I feel my argument was defended pretty well. For those wondering, Polk is pretty consistently rated in the top 10 of presidents by the "professional" historians. Please feel free to comment, add your own opinion or whatever.

best regards.

Side note:
The "K" in James K Polk stands for "Knox." I bet you were wondering. *wink*

**Mordhak** · April 01, 2005, 05:20 AM

Hi, Buddha, and welcome to our forums! I'm sure you'll enjoy your stay with us.

Since I am but a European, my knowledge of American presidents is limited to history class. And with that limited knowlegde, I'd have to go for Thomas Jefferson.

Why? Because he is the author of the Declaration of Independence. I also remember that he served his country for half a century (don't quote me on this).

Also, he was with the first American presidents, meaning that there was a lot more work than today.

But then again, I hardly know anything about most of the other presidents.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · April 01, 2005, 05:27 AM

Most effective.. hmmmm

I would say first and foremost, FDR. Effective at the economy, effective internationally, effective politically.

And then Bush II. It would be hard to argue that Bush has not been an effective President. To turn your Presidency from not even winning the popular vote to becoming one of the most powerful Presidents in the 20th and now 21st Centuries isn't too bad. Politically his administration has done very well, winning his second election with a good margin and pushing through legislature that is not necesarilly wise. He's got the Republicans into the majority in both houses of congress. He's effectively started two wars, and arguably has effectively tackled terrorism.

**Buddha** · April 01, 2005, 06:00 AM

Thanks for the replies. I have to agree that guys like Jefferson and FDR certainly get a lot more press because they lived through important events in american history such as the Revolution and WWII and such. Both those guys are certainly usually included in most people's top tens. The only distinction i would make is that some of the reasons those men eventually became to be thought of as great is partially due to the events that were occurring during their times.

In the case of Polk, i just thought of the actual promises politicians make and like to see whether they fulfill their promises to the people. In this regard, i think Polk is unequaled. however, you can define effectiveness in other ways that are valid too. I also put Polk as my choice because i thought it was funny because even most american people aren't sure who he is and also because his presidency is so easy to summarize. basically he said he's do 4 things, then he did those 4 things and then he dropped dead from working so hard to fulfill his promises.

As for, GW Bush, even though i don't personally like him and certainly do not agree with the worldview and ideologies his particular faction within the republican party represents, i do have to give his administration credit for accomplishing their agenda effectively, especially at a time like this when the country is politically and socially very polarized. I may not agree or like the things they try to accomplish but i have to give credit where credit is due because the administration accomplishes its goals efficiently and relatively quickly. Most of your examples of that i must agree with.

**Rutilius Rufus** · April 01, 2005, 09:26 AM

Who wants to bet how long this thread lasts before flaming of the US commences?How many posts will it be? One? Two? or possibly a page?
Nothing against you Buddha, but it is going to happen.
And welcome to TWC.

**Italian** · April 01, 2005, 09:34 AM

James K Polk Hands down.

Not the best president ever, but accomplished the most including doubling the size of the United States while avoiding tension between europe.

**Augustine** · April 01, 2005, 01:30 PM

I agree. Polk deserves more credit than he gets.

Q: Was he the smartest man alive?
A: Nope. Many contemporary critics often depicted him as unintellectual and unphilosophical. Polk probably wouldn't have argued with them about this one.

Q: Then was he the greatest, most charismatic orator ever? A modern day Demosthenes?
A: Nope. He was also often criticized as having "...no wit, no literature, no point of argument, no gracefulness of delivery, no elegance of language..." (John Quincy Adams 1834). Polk probably wouldn't argue with this one either.

Q: Surely then he must have crazy uber political and financial clout?
A: No, not really. When he ran for president, he was considered a "dark horse" candidate and most intelligent people didn't expect him to win initially. In fact, he's the first "dark horse" candidate to win in US history.

Q: Maybe in this day in age before TVs and radio his physical presence was so awe-inspiring that people just HAD to want to follow him?
A: Nope. He was actually kind of short and not particularly good looking. Looked a bit "ape-like" if you ask me. He also generally was in poor health.

Sounds like Bush, except for the poor health part. :grin

**Aged One** · April 01, 2005, 01:36 PM

Ronald Reagen "defeated the evil empire with out fireing a shot"

**RGB** · April 01, 2005, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Aged One@Apr 1 2005, 01:36 PM
Ronald Reagen "defeated the evil empire with out fireing a shot"

Last time I looked the US was still there.

Whattever do you mean defeated? :rolleyes

I'd vote for Polk as well. He's the kind of guy I'd want to be King in my RTW campaign.

**Aged One** · April 01, 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by RGB@Apr 1 2005, 01:40 PM
Last time I looked the US was still there.

Whattever do you mean defeated? :rolleyes

Don't worry putin has potential. He could revitalize russian nationalism and decide he needs to secure his borders by making eastern europe a "protectorate" once again. Threaten western europe, new cold war, U.S. saves western europe again, same old song second verse.

**Francisco Montana** · April 01, 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Mordhak@Apr 1 2005, 05:20 AM
...I'd have to go for Thomas Jefferson.

Why? Because he is the author of the Declaration of Independence. I also remember that he served his country for half a century (don't quote me on this).

Let's not forget he also doubled the size of the United States when he swindled Napolean out of the Louisiana Territory. Man, if that wasn't a stroke of genious to add to his authoring of the Decloration of Independance. For the record, he also wrestled with the issue of slavery in the Decloration. He wrote entire paragraph which explained the evils of slavery and the nessesity of the U.S. to abandon it with it's creation. Unfortunatley, in order to keep the colonies united, he was forced to remove it by the South.

He had incredible forsight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One interesting slant to this topic would be 'Most effective American'.

With that question, I would be hard pressed to find someone more prominent and influential than Benjiman Franklin.

Just food for thought.

BTW, I knew the 'K' was for Knox, and your arguments for Polk are very persuasive.

**conch6thuf** · April 01, 2005, 02:05 PM

No question about, hands down by far, T.R. "The American Lion" Teddy Roosevelt. Speak softly but carry a big stick, The Great White Fleet (Battleships painted white and paraded in foreign ports) Gunboat Diplomacy.

**smack** · April 01, 2005, 04:40 PM

Re-Elect Polk! Ah, darn.

I wonder what the 'real' answer to your question is? I think it's something we can never know. Here would be my criteria for 'Most Effective President':
1. Was the only person capable of effecting the change they did, at the time.
2. Made the most non-obvious choices that were purposeful and benefitted the country long term
3. Achieved the most difficult goals/tasks of any president.
4. Achieved their real agenda.

The question I have about Polk is: Were those achievements difficult? Was he the only one who had the character to achieve them, or were they obvious and/or easy choices to some degree?

My vote would be with Washington, simply because he 'effected' the USA, showed stones on the battlefield, and kept the ball rolling on founding the country. Who knows what would have happened if some lesser man had stood in his place?

**Damage_Inc** · April 01, 2005, 08:28 PM

George Washington.

He set the example. Most importantly he set the example for Generals who became president after him. For them not to get any ideas of military dictatoship.

**Ó Cathasaigh** · April 01, 2005, 09:11 PM

Welcom Buddha, and i like your since of humour.

**Henry of Grosmont** · April 01, 2005, 09:13 PM

F.D.Roosevelt. Period.

**Hanno the Navigator** · April 01, 2005, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Aged One@Apr 1 2005, 01:47 PM

Don't worry putin has potential. He could revitalize russian nationalism and decide he needs to secure his borders by making eastern europe a "protectorate" once again. Threaten western europe, new cold war, U.S. saves western europe again, same old song second verse.

Nah, he won't. Too many rubles in the hands of the Vory (the Russian 'mafia&#39

and the oligarchs, an army worth shite and a population that is too messed up to care. This guy has not gone through KGB higher education without it showing. He'll continue to do what he's good at, make himself indispensable to the West all the while pulling through as much of his own agenda as he can. He's really too shrewd to take on the West head-on. Really more like a post-communist Czar, this man.

About GWB being successful in his foreign politics gambles, most arguably. In 5 years time, we will see. Iraq has been under a state-of-emergency rule for nearly 5 months now, which translates to all the niceties of a dictatorship. Child mortality has doubled, the health of the population has declined, the oil's not really forthcoming because of the frequent attacks on pipelines (oil export still is below pre-invasion levels IIRC). It is a harsh thing to say, but the average Hassan was indeed better off under Saddam. That was a devil he knew. As Brecht said very truly: First comes lunch, then comes morals. With Saddam, the odds of receiving a painful early death were much more up to each individual than they are now. You might want to consider the journal Lancet, volume 364, page 1857, for a study of this issue.
The political power in Iraq is in the hands of the restive Kurds (whom nobody except themselves really wants to see become more powerful) and some Shia fundamentalists backed by Iran (Jafaari is a staunch supporter of Sharia law, yet our media touts him as a 'moderate', I don't want to see the 'hardliners&#39

who turn a blind eye to the infiltration of wannabe Jihadis over the Iran-Iraq border. The US military power is essentially tied up in Iraq (and Afgnanistan, which had another record opium crop last season), with Vietnam vets being pulled back into service for rear-area duties so that the rear-area troops who are younger and thus more capable for active combat can be sent to areas where things are heating up (Mosul ATM)... if either Iran or North Korea decide to play it rough, the US will only be able to send a few cruise missiles their way, but that's about it. In the case of Iran, they won't be able to do anything, really, because any attack on Iran would mean that Iraq cannot be held any more (plus, the troops there are sitting ducks for any Iranian rocket strike).
Thus, the success of Bush's foreign policy gamble depends on whether the crazy bastard in Pyongyang and the sicko fundamentalists in Tehran decide to play it nice or rough. Not a good thought.

Indeed, it can be argued that Dubya's foreign policy it the worst ever of an US president, because he has dead-ended the States into a position where, for the first time since 1812 at least, it is at the mercy of people it could very well consider its enemies, antagonists at the very least. Has such military might ever been squandered so aimlessly before in modern history, I wonder?

Recent reports suggest Zarqawi's running a C-weapon lab somewhere near the Georgian-Chechen border - this really should not happen, but then this smells like FUD to me. Zarqawi never had the clout of Osama, he's really a small-time ghetto punk of moderate intelligence who does not pull half as many strings as he claims, not even in Iraq. The biggest danger really is that our media, who seem unable to deal with more than one Arab name at a time, focus so much on him that he achieves celebrity status, just like Osama... al-Qaeda as a global network was really 'made' by the West, mainly by a hysterical media that didn't waste time for careful analysis but elevated it to a near-mythical status that naturally made it attractive for all those do-no-gooder young strapping Islamists with time to spare. The man Osama is a terrorist guru rather than a terrorist commander. This is infinitely more dangerous; you can achieve victory by killing commanders, but whether you kill gurus or not just does not matter. Other intelligence assessments suggest some al-Qaeda groupies are researching into Internet terrorism (hacking into N-plants, dams etc and messing with the hardware. Not good). This thing is hardly over, and the USA have lost virtually all freedom of maneuver. It all hangs on unreliable allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia staying in the US camp... and even there, there's not much the USA can actually do to ensure this.

Then again, the rate of fatal attacks on US troops in Iraq could be declining for the first time in the last 2 years for good. Either that, or there's going to be a major attack in the next 2 weeks. We shall see. From the Iraqi perspective, there is no real sign of things getting better soon.

All this being said, I should note that despite what anyone thinks about Dubya, the Neocons or whomever, the other side is much less palatable to any decent human being. The agenda of people like Dubya or Rumsfeld may be pretty flawed, BUT they are at least realistic enough not to seriously consider spreading a fanaticized religion on a global scale. Maybe they would want to, but they've got other fish to fry. No such considerations on the side of the hardcore Islamists who wouldn't stop until every woman in the world only dares to leave the home in a burqa (which, by the way, has not noticeably declined in use in Afghanistan).