Dem
47
GOP
53
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
M.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I was talking to an old friend (actually Sra. Wilson, my 9th grade Spanish teacher... I'm in my 50s and we're still close!). We were commiserating about the state of the country, and started talking about how to clean up the mess we've got now. So the question: Which president from history would be the best choice to walk in and put the federal government back on track?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
M.J. in Oakdale, MN: First in war, first in peace and first in our nation's heart: George Washington.
Any other president would inevitably be claimed by one party or the other, and in our divisive political environment would be rejected by whoever the "opposition" party was. Only George could right this ship and meet with general (if not universal) concurrence. And then, once again, the American Cincinnatus could return to Mt. Vernon and rest in peace, watching over his nation.
J.M. in Norman, OK: I don't know enough about James Madison to guess how he might handle this moment in history, but I would absolutely delight in any disagreements he might have with the originalists on the Supreme Court.
S.P. in Tijeras, NM: Seems obvious to me: the original Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.
Q.F. in Boulder, CO: Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite liberal progressive presidents. He'd forge ahead like a bull in a china shop, calling out the filth and corruption that is today's Republican cult. He'd kick butt first, and never ask questions. If we are going to have government remade, let's do it with a forceful, action-oriented Rough Rider. I don't want diplomacy, I want victory.
Side note: Have you ever noticed that all of our great presidents—Washington, Lincoln, Mt. Rushmore, all of them—were liberal, progressive, or both?
N.O. in Olathe, KS: I can think of no one better than Franklin D. Roosevelt, provided he was able to enjoy some of the congressional majorities he enjoyed in his administration. He was a skilled politician who was able to do the necessary cat-herding, and was still able to stand up to the bigger power-brokers in the U.S. at the time. He also had the vision to help craft solutions to a lot of systemic issues in the U.S. during the 1930s, many of which still exist in some shape today. Finally, he was quite good in foreign policy, and was able to leverage the U.S.'s considerable resources to oppose dictators when necessary.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD: We need a president who can handle building a new world order after the old one resets. A president who can build the government to support people abandoned by it. Someone who can subtly push back against racism and other hate, without pissing off the racists, because they are too large a voting bloc. We possibly will also need a president who can rebuild the economy after tariffs wreck it. We need a president who can communicate clearly to the American people directly.
There can only be one: FDR.
T.B. in Leon County, FL: FDR. We'll need 12+ years of continuity for the required make-over.
D.C.B. in St. Louis, MO: I would say either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower. Both were good politicians and great organizers. Fixing up the government after Trump will not require a roadmap—Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson provided two good ones. The job will be more about restoration and bringing good managers back into government to repair everything Donald Trump, Elon Musk and J.D. Vance have vandalized.
J.T. in Philadelphia, PA: The realistic answer is, of course, no president from history could put the government back on track because the world has changed, the nation has changed, and politics has changed too much.
But as this is a fantasy, so I'll try to go with that. It would have to be someone from the loosely defined "modern era," so someone since FDR. In terms of getting things done, it seems LBJ would be able to get the Congress to act, but he could only do that because of all the relationships he had forged over the years, so he'd have no luck with the current legislators.
Also, not only would the government have to get back on track, but somehow a significant fraction of the citizenry would have to back the president, so that means it would have to be a Republican, because in the current environment no significant number of Republicans are going to look favorably on any Democrat.
Thus, it would have to be Ike. All the other Republican presidents have too much baggage. True, Eisenhower's popularity came from his success as a general in World War II, and that seems to have faded from most people's memories. Still, he was a Republican, so he'd automatically get the support of most of those who favor the R's. And the Democrats would just need to be reminded of this passage from a letter that he wrote:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: LBJ. He was very, very good at twisting the arms of legislators and generally used that skill to make them do things that were good for the country.
My late father, who was a history professor, said no other President understood how Congress really works better than LBJ did. He once parodied LBJ's approach: "Young man, I am not telling you how to vote, you do what you think is best for your district. But if you don't vote for this bill, your district won't get a cent of highway funds next year and the next county over will get all the bridges they want. You decide."
K.F. in Berea, KY: I'd go with Lyndon B. Johnson. He would've put Joe Manchin and that other one over his knee, showed his johnson to Mike Johnson, and wouldn't let Fox bully him into not going for what he wanted done.
M.B. in Ward, CO: My choice would be Bill Clinton. I didn't agree with a lot of his outcomes, such as an increased police state. And I'm still amazed that the workplace sexual violation that was the Lewinsky Affair was labeled by the American people as "consensual." But I'm a process kind of guy. If the process is good, then the outcome is just politics, and politics is better than the alternative, or worse than anything except any of the alternatives.
I thought, and still believe, that if W. had appointed Bill Clinton, instead of L. Paul Bremer, to run Iraq post-war, then history would be very different. Ol' Billy Bob Clinton would have been able to (could?) clean up Elon's and the Donald's messes better'n about anyone else, I'd say.
B.J. in Arlington, MA: Joe Biden. He already demonstrated the ability to do it.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY: I don't think there are any presidents from history well suited to "put the federal government back on track." Washington led an army in the field against the Whiskey Rebellion, and Lincoln eventually was able to put down a Civil War, but neither of them would be prepared for our current situation where the insurrection is coming from inside the White House. If there is a lesson to be learned from history here, it is that other nations will ally with each other against us if we take this nonsense outside our borders, and a superpower might decide to meddle in our affairs the way the U.S. did in various other countries during the Cold War. That'll be the end of our republic we've been working on for the past 2.5 Centuries, so it's up to us to put our own house in order. We are the heroes we've been hoping for. Next up, 2026 Midterm Elections. See you there.
Here is the question for next week:
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Since it seems Trump v2.0 is just Trump v1.0 with a new label, which Cabinet or Cabinet-level officers do you think will resign or be forced to resign first, and why? Elon doesn't count.
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Job Insecurity"!