His Excellency's Greatness

Many hail Former President George Washington as the father of our country, and generally, as an effective leader.

This essay deals with a survey of presidential rankings with particular attention to George Washington’s place. Do the American people remember His Excellency as a great president, and why? Aside from his placement on one-dollar bill, George Washington, a general, president, and father of a nation was not only an accomplished man, but also a man of many good characteristics upon which I will elaborate. In this essay, I will discuss the surveys in a publication by Nichols called The Presidential Ranking Game, and will explain how Washington’s ranking is accurate, given his story (Nichols, 2012).

What makes a good president? A good president is one that meets at least four basic criteria. While there are many good and effective presidents in history, what makes a truly great president set apart are war hero status, reordering, years served, and being a founding patrician. I take these four criteria from The Presidential Ranking Game because they are fairly comprehensive and descriptive of George Washington. Regarding the war criterion, I am associating Washington with his role as the war hero of the American Revolution. Although Washington did not serve as President during an American war, the American people deeply associate him with his role as General, and therefore have a war hero conceptualization of Washington, boosting his rankings.

According to The Presidential Ranking Game, presidents are evaluated by the American people in a rank from one to 44, and as a score out of 100, depending on the survey. Although Nichols referred to more than one survey, the Siena 2010 poll will be central in this paper. This poll ranks George Washington at number four, with a score of 85.5 out of 100.

War makes for an effective metric of evaluation because war tests an individual’s strength of character, intelligence, and resilience. The American people hold war heroes in high regard, especially in a domestic war. The American War for Independence was an existential crisis for the 13 colonies that had just declared independence from the British Empire. This was also a civil war in a sense, as many colonists wished to maintain ties to the Crown. The war presented not only the present issue of removing the physical threat of the Royal Army, but also in uniting a divided people behind one flag. The reason war is such a crucial metric by which we can evaluate a president is because not only does a country rely upon its leaders for its mere survival, but because a country often looks to its leaders for guidance. The American Revolution sparked a national debate. Should the American Colonies be sovereign and independent of the British Empire? What constitutes good governance? By what right does a government rule a people? These were questions the colonists had to answer, and with the help of George Washington’s successful leadership in battle and politics, they were able to do so.

The first element of George Washington’s lasting fame and perception of greatness stems heavily from his role as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces during the American War for Independence. This certainly boosts George Washington’s score, as the Siena 2010 poll ranks him at four. Part of the reason for Washington’s high ranking is likely because without Washington leading the Continental Army, the United States probably would not have gained its independence.

According to James A. Crutchfield, Washington greatly contributed to the uniting of the American Colonists during the war. Continental Congress, setting precedent for most successive generations, was divided. The British Empire would face little opposition to a handful of dissident colonists, maintaining control of the Crown’s share of North America. With one man encapsulating the vision of an independent America, colonists were more easily persuaded by a single, capable man than they were by a fighting and split congress (Crutchfield, 2005, 79).

An effective president finds an opportunity in which he can unite his constituents and display his name. American citizens in recent years are more moved emotionally by the rhetoric and action of the sitting U.S. President than they are by debates on the House floor. A dynamic and active commander-in-chief who claims to fight for “your wives, your houses, and all that you hold dear…” is far more likely to unite a people behind a war they may not have previously supported (Crutchfield, 97). Despite the many odds against George Washington in the War for American Independence, he succeeded by winning the hearts and minds of American colonists, effectively disengaging the grip of the British Crown.

President Washington came to power in an opposed Congress and a vulnerable regime, making him a reconstructive president. This language pertains to the concept of political time. Political time takes presidents into consideration given their historical place in time regarding their predecessors and successors. There are four different types of presidents, being disjunctive, reconstructive, articulating, and preemptive. Reconstructive presidents need personal competence and technocratic repair (Skowronek, 1993, p. 92). They include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. These presidents all recognized an issue within the governmental structure and essentially rebuilt or reconstructed the situation they inherited. According to Skowronek, The presidents…were, like Reagan, opposition leaders standing steadfast against already discredited political regimes. These were men of very different background, character, and political skill. They employed very different resources and acted in accordance with very different norms and techniques of governing (Skowronek, 1993, 93-94).

Reconstructive presidents rise to the challenge of altering a large part of the political process and establishing a newly understood way of practicing politics. Andrew Jackson fought the national bank, and Ronald Reagan gave power to the socially conservative movement that is still present today. Those presidents faced strong opposition while masterfully maneuvering around obstacles and reordering the office of the presidency for their successors. As the first president, George Washington set precedent in most every action. The challenges Washington faced were to establish precedent as the first president while also seeing out the faithful execution of the laws under the new and untested constitution. Until his inauguration, the executive branch had only been discussed, but never observed. Anti-Federalist sentiment worried that the president would become a king and would quickly reestablish another monarchy (Milkis, 2016, p. 62). The Federalists however stressed the importance of an energetic executive who would be capable of making decisions efficiently and without the slow labor of a debating parliament or congress (Hamilton, 1788). Washington cleverly balanced exerting his personal advances of power while also allowing the Constitution to rule.

The United States of America was an experiment both philosophically and practically. The British Empire thought it would reclaim the rebellious colonies in 1812 when they believed that the experiment would expire, making the new nation an easy gain. No founding father, philosopher, or sage truly knew what would become of the United States, and much of the nation’s success would rely upon the wisdom and talent of the first president. This experiment involved blending the leadership of a monarch-like leader with a republican government. How much power would be appropriate for a government with distinctly democratic elements? Many questions were answered in Washington’s two terms, setting a much-needed precedent lest a nefarious despot take the office in the future. According to Joanne B. Freeman, “…somehow he had to embody the new government’s dignity and authority without rising to monarchical success” (Milkis, p. 75). Washington exercised his role as president with caution and discretion while he carefully, yet firmly extended his authority over the executive branch.

His reconstructive success in cautiously setting the example for future presidents is a large part of why his number four ranking in the Siena 2010 poll is so accurate. As the first president, the American people must remember him, regardless of how well he performed. His presidency, the success that it was, left such a fond memory in the hearts of the American people that they requested he run for a third term.

This brings me to my next point, that of Washington’s two-term presidency. The Siena 2010 poll lists years served for presidents as intermittently significant, but Washington’s two terms should be taken into high consideration because of what he was able to accomplish without predecessors. Presidents who serve two terms have more time to accomplish tasks that one-term presidents could not otherwise tackle. Because most American presidents have served for two terms, not being elected to office a second time is often seen as a failure, or at least as an indication of low popularity at the time of the election.

Washington certainly deserved his two terms in office because of what he had done for the nation as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces during the war. This, of course brought him excessive fame so that “Every American considers it his sacred duty to have a likeness of Washington in his home, just as we have the images of God’s saints” (Cunliffe, 1958, p. 13). Despite the overwhelming support for Washington, an election was still held, naming Washington as the President and John Adams, the runner-up, as the Vice President. Marcus Cunliffe continues his commentary on Washington’s national perception by explaining the almost divine status he had achieved. Cunliffe says that [H]e was originator and vindicator, both patron saint and defender of the faith, a curiously timeless fashion, as if he were Charlemagne, Saint Joan, and Napoleon Bonaparte telescoped into one person (Cunliffe, 13).

End Sample