American History Hit - Who was the Best President Ever?

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

What should we look for in a great President? Who was the greatest of all time? And is it harder for modern Presidents to make the top of the list? Don is joined by Professor Jeremi Suri, author of The Impossible Presidency and co-host of This Is Democracy.Edited by Sophie Gee and Freddy Chick. Produced by Freddy Chick. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Want to explore even more history? Sign up to History Hit, where you will discover history from around the world. From the American Revolution to prehistoric Scotland, there is plenty to discover. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand new release every week, exploring everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe to bring the past alive. In the black hills of South Dakota, a pine-scented breeze rises from the forest floor. High above, a lone sculptor dangles by ropes.

He leans into the mountain monument he carves, chiseling history itself. The stern faces of four U.S. presidents, granite guardians, peering watchfully across the landscape, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and the sculptor's personal favorite, George Washington. Steadying himself on our founder's cheekbone, the sculptor works shaping an eyelid, only to find himself lost in the gaze of America's first president. For the sculptor, there is no doubt. This is the greatest of them all. But was he right?

Was Washington truly the finest leader this nation ever had? It's the timeless question, an endless debate. Who was the greatest president in the history of the United States? Good day, I'm Don Wilde, I'm Don Wilde, and here. with another episode of American history hit. To the credit of the United States and its system of democratic elections, we have chosen a long list of chief executives who can legitimately vie for the esteemed, if subjective title, best ever president of the United States.

Stiff competition. Now, we lionize these men, all men, of course, incredibly so at this point. We've made icons of so many of them, saints in many quarters. Hard to imagine the British carving a Mount Rushmore of Prime Minister. Give them time, of course. But we in America love our presidents, especially the good ones. Last week, we asked, who was American history's worst president? No spoilers if you haven't caught that episode yet.

This week, we flipped the script, opposite poll, if you will, all about the elite, the crem de la crem, the legends, the heavyweights, in the ultimate contest, who was the greatest U.S. president? Let's get ready to rumble. Now, in the visitors corner, we have our friend and returning guest, Dr. Jeremy Surrey, Professor of History at University of Texas Austin, the big campus, author of acclaimed volumes like appropriately, The Impossible Presidency, the rise and fall of America's highest office, as well as the host of This Is Democracy podcast, which I highly recommend for the times we're in.

Jeremy, welcome back, so grateful your greed. Well, I'm glad we get to talk about the good guys this time. I know, right. We've got to balance these things out. This week's the other half of the equation. If you can have a worst president, as we discussed last week, then you have to choose the best, the premium stuff. But before we drink that nectar, let's talk about what makes a great president. I'll start you off. Being a guiding star, if you will, for people and for country, right?

Yes, absolutely. I mean, people look to the president, particularly after the Civil War and particularly in the 20th century, as someone who makes order out of chaos and provides people a sense of where we're going. What are we trying to do as a country? Where are our taxes and our other resources going? There has to be some vision. That's the right word for it. Yeah, they called it the bully pulpit.

It came to pass with Teddy Roosevelt, really. And he was a good one to talk about in that regard. Someone who cares about people understanding what's happening in their federal government, who takes these very complicated issues and translates them into something digestible for the masses. I think that's right. And also someone who believes he can improve the lives of citizens. citizens by getting them to focus and understand some issues they wouldn't otherwise understand. The most obvious example in the TR's case is his emphasis upon the natural world, creating

national parks, creating spaces for urban citizens to actually become healthy again and to improve their lives. Yeah, placing the greater good above all else, as opposed to special interests or campaign supporters, although God knows that plays a big role, even in the good guys' stories. Lincoln has the great phrase, the better angels of our nature. That kind of captures this point that we're making about what these presidents can do. They have to be good at the machinery of government. They have to be great at politics.

They have to understand the Congress and how it works, never mind the Supreme Court. Absolutely. I mean, I think there are three levels to this, right? There's the one we've already talked about, which is the level of purpose, inspiration. There's the ministerial element to it. The bully pulpit is who said that I'm emphasizing pulpit there more than bully. Then there is the, as you say, the machinery, the getting things done, the tactics, balancing this complex as government that's designed not to work, that's designed to have conflict between Congress, the courts, the states, making all of that work. And then there's the third thing, which is choosing good people. Presidents have a very important role in selecting generals and selecting cabinet heads.

And presidents have a limit, especially as we get into the second half of the 19th century, to what they can personally do. So who they empower is really important. I think it's a truism of leadership, right? You are judged by the people you choose as much as by what you yourself do. In our worst president episode, we talked about like the difference between the 19th century and the 20th century, huge of obviously huge differences. But what is common is the ability to face crises with vision and proactivity, as opposed to passivity and sitting back and waiting for things to happen.

It really is the distinctive nature of these great presidents. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, you can talk about any of these kinds of guys as standing up when the moment called for them. I think that's right. And I think we take that for granted. We think that a crisis brings out the best. It often brings out the worst in people, as we talked about in a prior episode, the great presidents, the great leaders, they become something different and better in crisis. They lose their own ego in solving the problems for others, and they become creative in a way they weren't creative before. Yeah. This isn't even on my list. say that, I think about a comment we made before, which is, who are you surrounded by? You know, a great leader can hear negatives. A great leader is willing to take constructive criticism in the heat of battle, so to speak. But in so many cases, in the worst case, guys, you find

them surrounded by sycophants and people who just make them feel good about themselves, which is so tempting for so many leaders, I suppose. I was just going to say that this, I mean, Machiavelli anticipates this. I love Machiavelli because he says the, you know, the great prince, the great leader is not to know at all. It's the person who asks the right question. questions, and we find that, right? The great presidents were not the no-at-alls. They were authoritative figures, but they surrounded themselves with people who were able to answer questions that the country needed answered in ways that sometimes were unpredictable for where that president started his career. The last item on this list is a sort of vague one, but it's

really important. How did they shape the office? How did they take it from one place to the next? The obvious case of this is George Washington, who's got an office to, you know, he's got raw clay there to form. But it goes for Andrew Jackson, it goes for FDR. How do they take it from one place to the next? Right. Well, one way to think about it is that in many periods of our history, such as the one we're living through now, the world is changing much faster than the office of the presidency. And the founders intended for the office to be made of clay a little bit, as you said, to change, right? And the effective presidents are the presidents who adjust the office to serve the times while still maintaining constitutional limitations, the unsuccessful presidents are presidents

who either don't adjust the office or adjust it in the wrong ways. Yeah, right. In the criteria of how to choose a best president, should we talk about their policies or is that not part of this conversation? Because that's really subjective. Is that part of what makes a great president or is it more how they do the office and how they change the office? No, I think as historians, we have to talk about their policies.

and one of the reasons we are dealing with history here, not current, is because at least with history, we know some of the outcomes. And so Lincoln's policy of finally in 1863 abolishing slavery turns out to have been the right thing to do for the future of the country, right? We didn't necessarily know that in 1866, but we certainly know that now. It wasn't just morally correct. It actually helped the American economy. It helped American politics. And so, yes, we have to judge policy intentions and policy outcomes when we're, we're thinking about great presidents. You can't be a great president if your policies failed.

I ask it, though, because it's hard to be objective from one side to the other. Conservative celebrate Calvin Coolidge. You know, liberals celebrate FDR. It's like, well, but that's why we debate as historians, but no one celebrates going back to last episode, the policies of Andrew Johnson. That's true. Or James Buchanan. There's no, there's no monuments to their policies. You can't do that. LBJ, though, is a good example where his policies have sort of not won the test of time. Well, it depends, right? I mean, and that's a really, interesting debate. So, and I'm sure you've had this debate, you know, some historians will say, yes, he was a terrible president because look what he did in Vietnam and maybe overspent at home.

Others will say that he was the greatest civil rights president because of the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 that no other president would have gotten through that fundamentally integrated American society an important way. So that's a worthwhile historical debate. That's actually why we care about these things. Yeah. There's so much about this story that is, shared with this previous episode, I really invite people to go back and listen to last week's episode on worst presidents because we cover some of the same territory about the subjectivity versus objectivity of these guys. And my last question before the break here is, you know, how much should we credit great presidents with making the country great? It can be a

misguided option, isn't it? Yes, because one person's greatness is another person's suffering. Every one of the greatest presidents harmed other people. That's the nature of politics, right? And so I don't think we should think about it as presidents making the country great. What we should think about it is presidents helping, great presidents helping to solve certain problems and move the country forward to a new set of problems and a new set of challenges. So FDR inherits a great depression and he's able to do some things to make it a little bit better. That's success. Lyndon Johnson inherits a huge civil rights problem and does some things to make it better. But that's not greatness. That's not perfection. The greatest presidents were

far from perfect. Yeah, the dilemma for me is always why don't we talking about the governors as much as we're talking about our presidents, but never mind. So we've got a job to do, Jeremy and I. We're going to think about this during the break, and when we come back, we will declare the greatest of all time. Okay, we're back. We're choosing America's greatest presidents of those not presently alive, I should add. This is a history project and not a current events one. So in prepping today, Jeremy, just curious, I typed who were the best top four presidents into AI. And these are the names that came up. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. No surprise. So those are the four biggies always. But Rushmore puts TR up there too. You know, I got those five

names. I think that would be the common list. So we'll focus on these as we move towards our choice. Each one in their own way covered the qualities we listed out before the break. Guiding Star of the Nation, politically savvy, handles crises moments like a pro, actively shapes the office he occupied. Every one of these guys did it all. So for our purpose today, let's focus on that quality, which most especially typified those presidencies, okay? So George Washington, point one, my goodness, has the national capital and obelisk centerpiece named for him. Pretty good. But this would be especially due to him taking Article 2 of the Constitution and deciding how it's going to work. Yes, and I think just to drill down on that

a little further, here is a man who used the office to bring a country together, people who did not think of themselves as one country, did it through modesty and persuasion, not through coercion and force, and set a precedent for presidents to govern in a way that is consensus building, to govern in a way that emphasizes building, investing in a national economy, a national infrastructure, but at the same time recognizes that presidents are not kings and that they have limited powers and they have limited time in office. I encourage your listeners to read Washington's farewell address of 1786, actually, excuse me, oh, 1796, still rings out to us and captures what I think we would call modest and effective leadership. Yes, he's in between two factions

already. We're not to the point of parties when he starts, but he's got Hamilton on one side, Jefferson to the other, you know, how's this nation going to go? I just can never get away from the fact that this man is staring at a blank canvas, essentially. This is extraordinary. Of course, he's been through 10 years of the Articles of Confederation. So, He knows what hasn't worked before this. So now they're reshaping this idea. Yeah, and one thing he realizes, and this is a point Gary Wills, I have to give him credit made it years ago about Washington, is he understands in that moment the power of resignation.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, he's the commander of Revolutionary Forces, and he resigns his command. He doesn't make himself king. And then he's president when there are no term limits, and he resigns and doesn't make himself permanent president. And in doing that, that actually increases his credibility. It increases his persuasiveness. And what Will's wrote, I think appropriately, is that it creates a democratic ethos,

an ethos of leaders like Cincinnati, the great Roman figure, coming to serve and then returning home. It creates an image of public service that is so different from the right to rule that monarchies claim. Yeah. I mean, he does have the legacy now, because he's resigned. of being the general and of winning a war, that like Eisenhower has a lot going for him at this point. But this guy doesn't have handlers.

He doesn't have any communication, except for, you know, periodicals and pamphlets and newspapers. Yet somehow he gets around this nation, this idea of virtue in Washington, which is fascinating because that's going to be challenged over and over and over again. And he becomes that pinnacle of virtue. He embodies it, but he also was clever in creating an image around it. Much of his, for instance, he spent a lot of time practicing his horsemanship, understanding that the way he sat on a horse conveyed a certain message to that generation. He understood image, but his image was based on reality, not on handlers, as you say,

not on something that was made up. Yeah, right. It's in Chernow's biography about how much he saw this as a business opportunity as well. You know, all the creating Washington was really the beginning of a canal service to the middle of the country, that which he had explored as a young man in the French and Indian War and all that stuff. So there's always that side of it. You never know really what's going on in these men's heads. But we're talking about what came down the pike to us and why this does.

He's the first and last president to lead soldiers in battle. The Whiskey Rebellion, 1794. He's a president going into battle. He doesn't get there, thankfully, but he forces the issue on the people. He's a president going into battle with forces from various states commanded by their governors. It's such a different country then, right? He has to ask the governors of various states to provide soldiers to go deal with these pesky farmers in western Pennsylvania. And those soldiers who come from various other states are led by their governors in battle.

My, how the National Guard has changed that story. I think it's fair to call him fundamentally modest, seeks to remain a man of the people. Certainly articulates that in his farewell address. He's fundamentally warning us of the dangers of monarchy. He is on that side of that debate. And as such, you know, famously resigns after two terms when he could very easily have gone on and sets the pattern for future presidency. Absolutely right. And he warns us about parties, too.

That's what the farewell address is partisanship. And, yeah, it's actually, in many ways, it's very prescient. Yeah, a few weeks ago, we had Joe Rupour on. And that was a large part of our conversation about, you know, the differences today is we are getting so tangled up in party politics as George Washington. warned us about. That's so much the story of what's happening today. Thomas Jefferson, case for the greatest president. Principal author of Declaration of Independence, of course, gave America its founding creed. All men are created equal, which, you know, was ironic for him, but is a great phrase that rings through the ages. Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, I mean, so much of the

leap forward only three presidencies in is due to Thomas Jefferson. Where do you put him on this list? I think he's more problematic than some of the others. He was a very good president, but Jefferson was partisan, and that was one of his limitations. In addition, Jefferson made some very rash moves that were ideologically consistent, but had very harmful policy effects. For example, the embargo acts that actually limited American trade with Great Britain because Jefferson was angry. This is the lead up to the war of 1812, right? It was angry that the British were interfering with American commerce, but that harmed, that deeply harmed American merchants, particularly in the North, who couldn't trade with Britain. So the embargo acts were a terrible mistake, I think. Also, his prosecution of the war against the Barbary pirates was a total disaster. It's the first time the Marines are sent abroad from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, right? But it didn't work. He didn't listen to those around him who said, the best way to deal with pirates in that part of the world is to pay them off, not to try to go and run a crusade against

them. So I think Jefferson deserves enormous credit for the Louisiana purchase, but that ran against his ideas, actually. So he was a middling president. He did a lot of good things, but he made some big mistakes also. Right. But he's a visionary of the Empire of Liberty, this idea that this thing can be built based on these ideals that the people rank first and never mind all the rest. It's an enlightenment idea that he carries forth. My African-American family and friends would stare me down at this point. Are you kidding me, you know, given his real legacies, or one of his real legacies, which is that of being a very large slaveowner. There are plenty who would nominate, by the way, Andrew Jackson, as another slaveowner for president, if not the greatest in many people's

minds. I mean, he was a war hero, a national figure, Battle of New Orleans. And he was the guy that really underscored the idea of populism, that it was time for this country to not be run by an oligarchy, but rather by the people themselves, which is interesting. Yes, and it needs to be said, he was very serious about that. He really believed and successfully brought into politics all kinds of immigrant workers and farmers and others who had been not represented by the Virginia and Massachusetts dynasties. And his argument was that as a frontier settler himself, he understood their world. And he really sought to make the government serve their interests. It was not a cover for his own personal interest and a group of oligarchs. This was actually a true

belief on his part that the government had to really revolve around the interests of those white men on the frontier who were trying to make their lives in these very difficult circumstances, such as in Tennessee. Yeah. And his is a theme that resonates through to today, for sure, the strengthening of the presidency. He really sets this off. You know, what later can be seen in different forms under administrations like even FDR and LBJ.

You know, the presidency is an active office that needs. to be strong and balanced to the Congress. That is absolutely correct, but we need to put it in the context of the 19th century. He believed the president should be stronger, and he believed the president should be more responsive to the people than to Congress with the courts. But he also thought there were still limits to what the president could do. He by no means believed that it was his job to dictate how local communities police or how people live their lives.

In fact, just the opposite. He wanted to protect slavery so people could make their own choices in their own communities. That's how he saw it. obvious how he's going to feel about the civil war had he been that president, given slavery and so forth. But the idea of the South Carolina, you know, the nullification of that and what he would have done with seceding states is a fascinating counterfactual. Well, so he, I mean, for Jackson as a hard scrabble frontier settler who made, you know, made his way, the union was crucial. The union is what protected people on the frontier. And so he was a unionist through and through. And that's, of course, why he had this terrible conflict with his vice president, John C.

Calhoun. Yeah, I mean, but let's put him into James Vecan's place as his fellow Democrat and see what happened then. Of course, Lincoln is in the center of our argument here, made politics more than about power. He made it about inspiration. His presidency eventually embodies the idea that the president had to stand for something bigger and deeper. He came from a place where he was willing to appease in many ways to keep this union whole, but it transforms under him. And that's so much of what is the story of his presidency. I think the case for growth you can make for Lincoln. If leadership is about growing and adjusting to unforeseen and foreseen but difficult circumstances, this man does it.

He never expected that he would have to actually get involved in the details of the generalship to win this war. But he did, of course, because he had a series of generals until Grant, who couldn't lead. He had to get into economy. He creates the greenback. He creates the first income tax. He creates our public university system through the moral land. Grant Act of 1862. He does so many things, some of which he had thought about, some of which he has to learn on the job and that ability to grow for the purposes of serving the union. And then just

as you said, Don, also to find the rhetoric, to find the words. I mean, the man has two to three years of education. And yet he writes two of the five best speeches in our history, right? The Gettysburg addressed and the second inaugural. And the first inaugural ain't bad either, right? I mean, and that matters because he gives us the words to understand what we're doing. It's hard to say enough about that. I know. Not an ego, at least it seems to me, and that's the report. And yet, here he is in these moments of grandiose opportunity to stand up and say what needs to be said. And he says it better than anybody. I mean, you've got to go back to the Romans to find equivalents or Shakespeare. You know, it's just amazing how he meets these moments. He had to have been flying blind. You know, we never talk about

this. Nobody gets stuck into the positions he was stuck into and knows that they're going to be able to meet the moment so effectively. He's just scribbling things down on the back of envelopes and finding out that he's good at this. That seems to me a really important characteristic of Lincoln. And I think it might tell us something because since he didn't have a prior plan, he's really thinking about the moment. He's taking the moment in. Yeah, and surrounded by famously a team of rivals. You know, he was willing to be told, you know, this might not be a really good idea here, Abe, and take that into consideration and push back. Yeah.

And probably more so than any other president, as far as I know. I think that's right. But I think part and parcel of that also, Don, was his ability to work with people who had different views and tell stories. I mean, he was a great storyteller. Most of our great presidents were great storytellers. Yes. And stories work when they're well told because they bring people together in a way that

arguments, when you say I'm on this side versus that side, that tends to polarize people. Well, in the end, a brilliant lawyer. as that goes, and use those words of the Declaration of Independence, you know, to strengthen his argument for why this whole thing should work out, Gettysburg Address. Absolutely. Absolutely. Last point on Lincoln, there's hours and hours we could talk about this, but he revered

Andrew Jackson, which is why I wanted to put Andrew Jackson in here. We had to talk about him. Why did he revere him because he had an ability to communicate to ordinary Americans, which he really admired? And he was one of them. I mean, Lincoln's from such a modest background. He was not of, again, the Virginia elite. He was actually of the Kentucky poor.

And the fact that Jackson could speak to inspire and engage people like a young Abe, that made Jackson a hero. Now, Abe also revered Henry Clay, who of course was Andrew Jackson's rival. He revered Henry Clay because there was a part of Lincoln that was a wig, which is to say someone who believed that the country needed more economic development. Here he disagreed with Jackson. He believed in infrastructure investments. He believed in Westward settlement and the federal government. helping business in that context. When he was a lawyer in Illinois, he was often a lawyer for the railroads, for the largest corporations. He believed in corporate growth in the U.S.

Yeah. Next on that list, and I think he's right in that same theme, is Teddy Roosevelt. First, progressive president, you know, progressive era is underway, even more progressive than Wilson. He is more willing to be racially inclusive as well. Yes, absolutely. I mean, Theodore Roosevelt, first of all, revered Lincoln. There's a famous photograph. I have it in my book. of young Theodore as a boy staring out the window as Lincoln's funeral cortege goes by his home on Fifth Avenue. And what Theodore Roosevelt took from Lincoln was the power of words to inspire people and the ability of the government to the federal government to help improve people's lives. And that's what he was seeking to do.

And he also believed this had to be not racially equal, but racially inclusive. Those are two different things. That African Americans were part of the story. he did not view them as equals, but that they were part of the story, as were immigrants. And Theodore Roosevelt's approach to this was to use the bully pulpit to pursue legal changes that would make a big difference in people's lives, supporting child labor laws, for instance, breaking up what were monopoly trusts, as they were called. And then he tried to bring some of the best thinkers into the White House orbit to help with this.

Gnford Pichaud to help with thinking about environmental issues, people of that sort. Yeah, well, I'm going to be pulling for. are on this list because I think in the modern era, he is the beginning of it all, you know, in terms of understanding that this has to be taken out into the public, putting himself on the line. My God, the man had, you know, was almost killed in an assassination, continued his speech after the fact. It's amazing. Amazing strength of character. You know, I once sat in the lobby of the American Museum of Natural History, and they have a whole room, of course, dedicated to the guy, and all of his quotes are on the wall. It was some Sunday in a lackluster period in my life,

I nearly wept just reading these quotes and the reminder that there were these guiding voices in our American life that really matter. And TR's certainly one of them. He ends up breaking up the monopolies, of course. That's another part of his policing of America, which really came out of that same thing. He was a New York police chief. As you say, creates national parks, puts power behind improving the standard of living, which was the note you were making, that there is this improvement in society that can be done. And by enacting the presidential power behind that, which was, I guess, never really done before that yet. We were coming out of the Gilded Age.

He made it an issue that this society needed to come together to improve it for the greater good, not just for some of us. I think that's right. And he really believed that immigrants, African Americans, and others had to be part of that. It's not just the belief that government can help. Part of what's being a progressive is believing that other non-traditional groups have an important role to play. and need to be at the center of policy as well, not to be treated as equals in the way we would today, but still to be treated as stakeholders

who can contribute enormously. He recognized that. I think much of that is growing up in New York and at a time like today of large immigration populations coming to the country. Exactly. All these things just pressing upon him from all directions and he decides to be the guy that takes action.

The other guy that takes action is his relative, FDR, you know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is, I guess, the second cousin to TR, but would have grown up in the shadow of that man, you know, in his politics for sure, finally becoming governor of New York and all of his work is within the cabinets of the presidency. FDR most defines the modern presidency for sure, the modern version of Washington, D.C., what the federal government has been created to do. It comes out of the Great Depression. There's really not enough to say about this guy in terms of how he changes the shape of the office. office on the level of a George Washington, right? Absolutely. I mean, there's the intellectual image part of this. He becomes a national healer. It's the first time in our history that people look to the president to heal their problems.

This is throughout the oral histories of this period and those who still have relatives, they'll say this to you. I listened to him on the radio and he was a father figure, right? They thought he was this Hulk. Well, TR would have been on that radio had they had it. Right. And so part of this is the use of technology, of course. So FDR, it becomes an empathizer in chief. He creates the empathetic presidency. I feel you're paying presidency. And then he builds the office out on a scale that is really still hard for us to understand.

Washington, D.C., when he becomes president in 1933, is a small village. It's a swamp land. By the time he leaves the presidency in 1945, it is a metropolis of government agencies, government actors, doing things to defend the president. country abroad and build the country at home and serve communities that have been ill-served before. Right. He is such a defining element of the 20th century America presidency that even presidents

who reject his policies later on admit to have been fans of his early in their career. Reagan being, of course, the most obvious. You know, he said during the campaign, then defines himself as opposing those necessary measures for the time, but the overreach was obvious. obvious to him. Many people feel that way about Franklin Roosevelt, but it's hard to find somebody who calls him out as an evil, as he was at the time, by the way. I mean, gigantic opposition to him. I mean, Father Coughlin, I mean, just hates him. He's all this anti-Semitism involved. And there was just a lot of opposition, which speaks to the strength of the man as well. He had to have had

a laser vision, which is so incredible to consider in the body of a man who is fighting polio. I mean, as bad as it gets almost. Well, I think that's where a lot of it came from. You know, he spent, although he came from one of the most privileged families, he spent years in the 1920s living in Warm Springs, Georgia, with some of the poorest suffering polio victims in the country. And he came to understand their lives. He learned how to communicate with them, first of all.

He learned the political skills to win their votes, but he also learned to understand where they were coming from. And then when he was in office and faced enormous opposition, you're right, especially for, from business leaders and others, anti-Semites, racist, and various others, isolationists, too. Roosevelt had something few other presidents have. Maybe Lincoln had this, maybe Washington. He had a profound self-confidence.

That's different from ego. Every president has a big ego. Self-confidence is the ability not to think that you have all the answers, that you know everything and that people need to kiss your rear end, but it is more that you believe in yourself and you believe that you can work with others who were different from you and you can change and still be the great person that you are. In every meeting over his long presidency, Franklin Roosevelt knew that he was still Franklin Roosevelt.

And he was willing to put up with a lot of criticism, a lot of difference of point of view, because he knew he could make sense of that and still run his presidency, taking the best ideas, not forcing the best ideas to simply tell him he was great. Yeah, he knew that he couldn't avoid the people. And that, you see those pictures of him in the office surrounded by press who are having what were very often these press conferences right in the Oval Office. Am I right? I mean, that's the picture in my mind. Absolutely. He brought people around him since he couldn't go to them. He brought them around him. He also brought in all kinds of people from around the country. Eleanor Roosevelt's role was to give him information and bring him around people or bring people to him who could share information with him. He was confident enough, Don, that he was willing to. listen to things he didn't want to hear and then adjust. Most leaders I've studied don't want to do that. Their egos are so large. They don't want someone to come in the door and tell them something

they don't want to hear. Well, I think that that kind of ego is equated or at least balanced with this insecurity element. If you're going to be that big a personality, it always has this other anchor going on and that opposition is happening all the time, the psychology. But he had this intangible that he could be, you know, incredibly clever on his feet, so to speak, with even reporters asking him very negative questions. He had a look that they talked about. He could stare somebody down. He did not balk at profanity.

He was a hardcore, you know, club room guy. You know, he could really go toe to toe. And he was charming. He could charm people. And he sometimes took this too far. I mean, one could criticize him for perhaps feeling he could charm Stalin more than maybe he could, right? But he knew how to command a room even though he couldn't walk, really.

And he knew how to take information. from people and use it for his purposes. That's self-confidence. That's not ego. Yes. So we've been sort of locating what was that central quality of that list that we gave in the early part, Guiding Star and so forth. I would link facing crisis to FDR most generally is his greatest quality and why he might be the greatest U.S. President. I agree. Facing crisis, not simply doubling down on things that failed, being willing to adjust, being willing to experiment, and also being able to give people hope. This is so important.

The easiest thing in crisis is to just go deeper into fear. And what does fear do? It leads people just to shut down. He created hope. He created optimism. That big smile, right? Happy days are here again. He didn't say everything was perfect.

He never said he was going to fix things. And for more than a decade, Americans were living worse than they had the decade before. But he was able to be able to, to give people hope that they would go on and that it would get just a little bit better. That's why putting people to work was so important to him. He said, if people don't have a job, especially men in that era, if they don't have a job, they don't have hope for the future. We need, even if we as the government are creating these jobs, we need to give them jobs for hope. I still think that's true,

Don. I see that with my students. They need a job when they graduate to have hope. Exactly. Compare him to Lyndon Johnson, who, you know, in the face of his crisis, you just remember, I mean, he had very hopeful moments. He had some great oratory in Congress and so forth. But it was such a different vibe. You know, it was a very dark feeling of those middle 60s. And ironically, you know, he was FDR's man or one of them in Congress all those days. Love the man, admired him.

It's true. And Johnson had his great crisis moments, too, after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. True. He's able to pull the country together. People forget this. He wins a majority in the popular vote and in the Electoral College in 1964. That is comparable to FDR's in 1936. 36. So he was able to bring people together. It wasn't inevitable after Kennedy's assassination,

and he used that energy to push forward a civil rights act that never would have passed. He got Southern Democrats, Jim Crow Democrats, to vote for this. So we've got to give him credit for that. But the problem Johnson had, among other things, he didn't have the self-confidence that FDR had. And in the context of the Vietnam War, I think that aid him alive. He was not able to really do what he needed to do, which was to get out of that war. He did not have the self-confidence to leave a war that we were losing. Instead, we just kept making it worse. And as you say, by 1966-67, it was a very dark, isolated time for the White House. Okay. Jeremy, I'm going to go first on this. Hold the audience in suspense of your choice,

but I'm going to pick TR. I kind of hinted at that already. I love TR. I've been moved by TR. I think that he kicks off the 20th century with that which all of his successors, including his relative FDR, have to take and make something of that. The personality presidency that he is, the courageous presidency that he is, the boldness, man, it's TR for me. That's my U.S. president. I want that guy. So, I mean, yes, I love TR, is I love FDR and I love Washington, but Lincoln is the Zeus of presidential gods. For me, Abraham Lincoln defines the nation as no one else had since Thomas Jefferson

in writing the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson did that when he wasn't president. Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, his words in the second inaugural, and then his behavior is action, not only to hold the union together, but to provide the foundations for the union we still live in, creating our public university system, public land system, creating a modern capitalist economy,

the dollar that we use. So many of the things that define who we are came from his presidency, this man of very little education, self-taught, living in the worst crisis of our country, and living also with a crisis at home, managed to transform and redefine who we are. And he's still a model. I also would say, if we're going forward, you said this actually, Don, right? I mean, what are we looking for today? We're never going to get another Lincoln, but we need those Lincoln qualities in someone in each of our societies, not just in the U.S. today. Well, that's why you're a professor of history and I'm a podcast host. No. You gave a great answer too. Well, it's emotional. I gave an emotional answer, but you're giving a more substantial

one, which I agree with in so many ways. It's often the knee-jerk with Lincoln, but for good reason. I mean, the guy's just amazing. You know, and I'll agree with you in this count. There's one America before Lincoln. There's another America after Lincoln. He not only shaped the office, he shaped the nation. It's incredible. Precisely. Now, don't go away. We're coming to come back. after this break for a bonus round to reveal the most underrated president, and you may be surprised by that. So, Jeremy, in another 200 years time, will it still be the same four guys at the top of the list, you suspect? Oh, I hope not. If so, it's a very poor America, then.

Probably in America that doesn't exist. I mean... Yeah, we need... Right, leaders are not everything. We have to get beyond just a great man view of history, but great people matter. Leaders matter enormously, and we're learning that. Boy, are we learning that in our world today? It's harder to be a great president now than it was earlier, do you think? Is that fair to say?

Yes. Well, I don't know if it's harder, but it's very hard. And it's very hard because our societies are so big and so complex. And so it's very hard to persuade a lot of people. And it's very easy, particularly in a social media environment now, for people to pull you apart, to make things up that tear you down. That's what the thesis of your book, The Impossible Presidency, really is this, that the government has grown so large and the presidency really hasn't figured out how to keep pace with it. Is that right? That's absolutely right. And presidents are trying to do too much and they die by a thousand cuts. And I think that's what's happened with every president, certainly from Lyndon Johnson forward. And how is that manifesting through their public presentation or through inefficient politics? Well, it's manifesting in a few ways. First, of all, people lose sight of what the vision is. What was Richard Nixon really about? It's hard to say even for his defenders, right? So they lose sight of what the vision is. Presidents also underachieve. They make promises in the campaign, and then when they go up, people look and say, you didn't get close. The promises exceed expectations of what's possible, but then the reality is worse than what is what's possible. And then the third thing is presidents get pulled into, especially foreign wars, that they don't want to fight and shouldn't fight. And so there's mission creep.

Our present situation is going further in the direction of, oh, this office can do this just by the president grabbing more and more power. But it's trying to double down, isn't it? It is. And what we're seeing is a centralization of power in all of our societies. It's not just a U.S. story. And an effort by central leaders to take more authoritarian decisions because they're overwhelmed. They're sort of like that parent who has kids doing too many things. And instead of actually listening to your kids, you start giving more order.

because it's more efficient. But actually, that's harming your kids. You have to do fewer things and listen to your kids rather than just give more orders for more things. But that's what we're seeing, more orders. Does the office of the presidency need to downsize? Is that what you're saying? Precisely.

That's the argument I make in the Impossible Presidency, which I made in 2017 before a lot of the things that have happened since, then I believe it even more now. Presidents need to do fewer things and do them well. Interesting. And communicate that, which they're not very good at doing these days. You brought this up, I think, in our prior episode on the worst presidents. There are big economic issues that actually cut across partisan lines.

Employment for a new generation, especially in light of AI, debt, inequality. These are not Democrat or Republican issues. People care about them on both sides. Presidents need to focus on that. And in my mind, focus less on abortion. I don't care where you stand on that. You're never going to get more than half the country. country. The president is not elected to make reproductive decisions, but the president is elected

to help stabilize and push forward the economy toward prosperity. And that's what president should focus. So here's our last subject of the day. I like this. Who is our most underrated president? The dark horse, you know, who's this guy that did a pretty good job, but we always sort of, he's under the I'll start you off, okay? Because I think Grover Cleveland was on his way to being a making a big difference. Of course, he loses after his first term. He was the only president that had separate terms. And now he's the first of them.

And his second term, he's handed a absolute bum economy. I mean, really bad news. I'll also scream and shout about Ulysses S. Grant, you know, to my friends. The guy, this is interesting. We're doing a future episode on this, which is would Grant have saved his presidency by a third term? I suggest in this episode that we're going to do, he was pondering it. He was thinking about coming back and breaking the Washington rule, which was not, you know, legal in those days, and coming back and doing a third term based on the inadequacies of his second term, which incorrectly are chalked up to his drinking and all kinds of things. He was bad at being a president in his second term for sure, but he could have learned from his first term what he needed to do in his third.

I'll leave it at that. I will just agree with you. I'll give a different answer, but I'll agree that Grant's first term from 1869 to 1873 is terribly under. He did some very important things. He created the Justice Department. And the Justice Department actually becomes the engine for enforcing the law when states won't enforce the law. I love today when people say the Justice Department shouldn't get into civil rights. No, that's why the Justice Department was created by Grant. And it did a very effective job. And in 1870, 1872, you had more African Americans elected to office because of voting protections that grant,

through the federal government put in place, then you would have again until 1970. There were more African Americans in Congress and in state legislatures in 1870 than there will be till 1968. That is an enormous achievement, not just on civil rights, but in bringing people into the political system,

what else is democracy about? So I think that's been underrated and lost and Grant deserves credit. My other vote for the most underrated president is Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower does some extraordinary things There are limitations. He doesn't do enough on civil rights. He's very reluctant to send forces to Little Rock in 1956. But Eisenhower, in terms of setting the stage for a very successful set of Cold War foreign policies,

deterring and containing the Soviet Union while at the same time not going to war, Eisenhower is very hesitant to get into wars like Vietnam. There's a lot of wisdom there from his own experience. And then at home, even though he's a Republican and a fiscal conservative, he makes some incredibly important investment. New Deal-like investments, interstate highway system, creation of NASA, the President Science Advisory Committee, the thing I'm really committed to,

federal aid for students to go to college. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 is how people like me got to go to college providing federal funds for middle-class kids to get a college education. That's Dwight Eisenhower Republican doing that, and it's so important for our country for the next 70 years. Yeah, we could use another Dwight Eisenhower.

According to my producer, Freddie, we could also use a Chester Arthur who starts out really bad but ends up really good, you know? Yeah, okay, but that's because he started really, really bad. But to his credit, he was changed by the office more than he changed the office, and so we'll give him a little chip for that. All right. Professor Jeremy Surrey wrote the Impossible Presidency, which we've referred to many times in this episode, so I encourage you to get it, especially in the days that we are now in.

Read it now to explore all these issues. and listen to his podcast. This is Democracy. How often does that come out, Jeremy? Every other week. And if you're a student at UT Austin, take this guy's class. Thanks, Jeremy. It was a lot of fun to talk again. Thank you so much. Thank you, Don. Hello, folks. Thanks for listening to American History Hit. Each week, we release new episodes, two new episodes dropping Mondays and Thursdays.

All kinds of great content, like mysterious missing colonies to powerful political movements, to some of the biggest battles across the centuries. Don't miss an episode. By hitting like and follow, you help us out, which is great, but you'll also be reminded when our shows are on. And while you're at it, share with a friend. American History Hit with me, Don Wildman. So grateful for your support. Bye for now.