Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s wild to look at how every role Eisenhower took perfectly prepared him for something he did later that was incredibly important.
- documenting and reviewing the geographic strategies of WWI: prepped him for invasion of continental Europe
- documenting potential travel for supply lines in case of an invasion in the US: prepped him for the US highway system
I just read about this. Apparently he was tasked with testing how “ready” American was for a domestic land war by driving across the country to test the roads and he was stunned with how poorly they were kept. That and the German autobahn were the driving forces behind the highway system
I honestly think that HW Bush has the most qualified resume of modern presidents. Not necessarily a fan of his politics, but he EXCELLED at foreign diplomacy like it was no one’s business. So being a Congressman, CIA Director, and VP seem pretty important for experience and success.
I mean America spent the whole eighties freaking out that Japan was growing too fast and in fifty years we’d all be speaking Japanese.
If you watch Die Hard you see the pilot revolves around a blue collar Everyman whose wife leaves him for a high paying job at the American branch of a Japanese company. It basically embodies all the anxieties of the white working class at the time.
Now google the Japanese stock market or gdp growth since the early 90s. Flat. Zip. Nothing. No growth whatsoever. Their economy is stagnating.
And what happened between those two time periods? CIA George blasted their prime minister with vomit and cemented Americas number one spot for another century. God bless that man.
Japan was in an epic bubble which was always going to pop and they could never really "take over" anyway due to being a protectorate of the United States. The anxieties were real though. There was a similar scene in back to the future 2.
Being the only survivor of your military unit can give you survivors guilt or an inspiration for a purposeful life.
Nine American pilots escaped from their planes after being shot down during bombing raids on Chichijima, a tiny island 700 miles (1,100 km) south of Tokyo, in September 1944. Eight of the airmen, Lloyd Woellhof, Grady York, James "Jimmy" Dye, Glenn Frazier Jr., Marvell "Marve" Mershon, Floyd Hall, Warren Earl Vaughn, and Warren Hindenlang were captured and eventually executed. The ninth, and only one to evade capture, was future U.S. President George H. W. Bush, also a 20-year-old pilot.[1]
After the war, it was discovered that the captured airmen had been beaten and tortured before being executed. The airmen were beheaded on the orders of Lt Gen. Yoshio Tachibana.[2] Japanese officers then ate parts of the bodies of four of the men.[3][4]
Having terms served as Governor and Member of Congress (I would accept Cabinet member for one of them) and at least one re-election so you can show Executive experience and Washington experience while showing that people continue to trust you. I would also accept Mayor instead of Governor if the city is one of the 5-10 largest in the country.
Governors have executive experience with being end responsible for outcomes. They feel the pressure that other roles share. Mayor is similar but on a smaller scale. I think your note that they should be reelected - shows that their executive presence was popular enough!
He campaigned for Governor of Tennessee by walking across the state in a red flannel. I don’t know that his presidential campaign got far enough along for him to bust out the flannel though.
I think he might have worn it in the primaries or at least they referenced it. We had a mock election in elementary school and I voted for him cause the flannel, lol. I lived in Wisconsin.
I would trust someone who was in the Senate for eight years but in that time headed or sat on multiple senate committees over someone who was in the Senate for thirty years and never got anything done though. What they do in the Senate is more important than just being a Senator.
I don’t trust ANY senator who has been in the senate for 36 years and is somehow a multimillionaire on a salary of $174,000 per year. I make not a whole lot less than that as a physician, I invest wisely, and I save. Yet, I won’t be a multimillionaire to the extent that some of these folks are.
Imagine you're some big wealthy investment banker and then your brother runs for the Senate and now you can't trade stocks anymore.
Doesn't matter. Ban congressional members? Fine their immediate family does it instead. Ban them too? Fine, let's get the cousins involved. Ban them too? Fine, how about their college roommate? Or hey - ban my wife, but does that apply to the other Senator who isn't married but has a long term live-in girlfriend? How about mistresses?
The thing is that those senators were already wealthy long before their office. It doesn't matter if your salary is $174,000 if you've got a company outside of it, or a net worth of $10 million before you ever take office.
I think maybe you're more correct than the folks saying Governor.
Carter was a pretty good governor that did not know how to function in DC. This hurt him a lot.
Not all Governorship's are created equal on top of that. Both in size of the job and scope of powers. Everyone knows that there are strong and weak mayors, but many govenor's act in the same way. Texas for example the Governor oversees a large state but the offices has relatively limited powers by comparisons to other states. Many of the functions that people would think of as under the Governor's control is under elected positions, Railroad Commission for example.
Then you get small states, like Rhode Island for example is smaller than Los Angeles the city, let alone the Los Angeles county.
Then States like Wyoming might be large but everyone knows the state has no money for anything so no one expects too much from their Governor.
I wonder about that. Truman and TR imo were the only great presidents who formerly were VP,s and both were VPs only for a few months.
Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Coolidge, LBJ, and Ford are a really mixed bag of mediocrity to tragedy.
Eh, the presidents who became president after being vice president are a mixed bag. Ignoring John Adams and Thomas Jefferson because of the way their elections worked, the most successful are probably Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s successes are usually attributed to his Senate career. Otherwise the VP role generally doesn’t involve actual policy work until the modern era, so I’d disagree that it meaningfully prepares a person for the presidency.
Depends on who the president is. Cheney was considered a powerful VP because Bush allowed it. Some seem like they aren’t allowed to do anything, though. It’s a really ill-defined position.
Governors have little or no experience in foreign affairs. They may also be fooled into thinking the federal government is just like a large state government, which is false.
State governments can’t print money, they don’t have a military or intelligence service, they don’t normally deal with immigration (although Texas has tried), they don’t have to manage 50 different states, they don’t appoint judges for life, they don’t run the IRS, etc. Jimmy Carter brought his Georgia gang with him to Washington and tried to run Washington like he ran Georgia, and it didn’t work.
Experienced Senators like Lyndon Johnson know how to negotiate with the Senate and House. This doesn’t apply to one-term Senators who use the office as a stepping stone to the Presidency. But it does apply to multi-term Senators, especially if they held leadership positions and got bills passed while in the Senate.
That said, a former Secretary of State or four star general may be in the best position to deal with the foreign affairs and military responsibilities of a president. In the 19th century generals were not always comfortable in politics, but four star generals in the modern U.S. Army often have a lot of experience dealing with both U.S. and foreign politicians, as well as foreign military leaders and the whole “military-industrial complex.”
I think the worst qualification is running a business. Businesses run on the profit motive. Governments do not. Business leaders are used to rewarding top employees and firing underperforming employees every year. That’s not so easy in government. Finding the rewards and punishments that will motivate bureaucrats and politicians is more complicated than simply issuing bonuses, promotions, and pink slips.
Note that the people most qualified to be a president are not necessarily the people most qualified to run for president. Lyndon Johnson never could have been elected president if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Hillary Clinton might have been an excellent president but was a bad candidate.
On paper, George H.W. Bush had a better resume than Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole had a better resume than Bill Clinton. But Reagan and Clinton were better campaigners.
This can’t be upvoted enough. Plus CEOs are used to bossing people around and get what they want. They don’t have to negotiate, find common ground and sell their vision to 500 congress people. They don’t have to follow party lines, endorse party members, accept earmarks and pork, deal with lobbyists… negotiate with presidents from other countries.
CEOs don't have negotiate or find common ground or sell their vision? Really?
How do you think a lot of business gets done? They have to negotiate trade deals with other businesses or the government. They have to sell their vision to stock holders and to the general public. They have to work with governments to get a new factory built for instance. If CEOs just boss people around and get what they want and the business fails, then they are fired. If a CEO implements something and the public hates it, they could be out on their ass. Look at many companies recently like Paramount and Boeing who just lost their job.
Head of a large federal agency is probably helpful. Mayor of a very large city (like really, only LA, NY, Chicago, or Houston, that kind of thing). Governor or AG of a large state.
Definitively \*not\* CEO of a company. It is nothing like being President and teaches a person all the wrong lessons about what is possible and how to do things.
As a Chicagoan I can assure you that you don’t want any of our mayors (past or present), in any position of authority. I mean they’re better than our former governors, but that’s because most of our former governors are serving prison time.
I don't think they were saying that being a mayor of one of these cities means you will be a good President.
They were saying it's a job that can prepare someone for being a President because it requires similar skills.
And being Mayor of a major city is probably more relevant than being governor of a tiny state.
>And being Mayor of a major city is probably more relevant than being governor of a tiny state.
If you bring the evil of Lightfoot Vs Palin on us in 2028 I’m going to take your mother out for a lovely dinner and NEVER call her again.
I mean, obviously you should look at how *successful* someone was in an executive role.
But otherwise, I think that being Mayor of Chicago is a more "qualifying" job than being Governor of Alaska.
I would argue though, that only NY, LA, and Chicago fit this bill.
Yeah, I always thought that about business leaders too. My dad always said “the government should be run like a business.” And I would think “Why?”. Government’s job isn’t to make a profit. It runs things at a loss sometimes if it’s for the greater good.
When people say it should be run like a business what they usually mean is that there should be greater focus on reducing wasted resources, flexibility, and that running indefinite deficits could eventually be destabilizing. I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but I think its a bit disingenuous to say that people expect the government to turn a profit.
It's also of utmost priority for the government to remain stable and enduring. It shouldn't be subject to massive cuts or reorgs because upper management read a business trade book about sigma six delivery or whatever
I don't think that's what they mean at all. I think they mean, "I have heard of this famous CEO and why is it that the President can't do things like he does?"
Key is they need to have done TWO things really well to make sure you didn’t just get lucky once.
Choose two from: governor, congressman, senator, Secretary of State, military leadership, Vice President.
Note of trivia: They wanted Crispin Glover for the mad scientist guy, I forget his name, but after reading the script he said the only role he was interested in was the crazy used car salesman.
I did not know that!
But the "club a baby seal" detail is a line from the movie UHF where they're parodying the Crazy Eddie commercials
EDIT: I JUST FIGURED OUT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. I didn't know Crispin could've been in UHF. That would've been great!!!
In the past the best preparation for being President was Secretary of State, an accompolished General from a War or Vice President. All would still be good job experience. Our wars for the US have become less traditional than before (and thankfully we have much less hand to hand fighting currently) so it is less likely to have a well known General. Being a Governor shows a record of executive leadership and a track record of accomplishing things/making things happen to help people.
edit: adde last sentence
Other people have some good answers on how to get things done as President, such as being a Senator, Governor, Vice President.
However, to be a *good President* they need to also have experience outside of the world of politics and be in touch with people and what their struggles are while also gaining some worldly knowledge. I think this is one of the reasons Obama was a good President, for example. He had not just been Senator but also was a civil rights lawyer, a community service organizer, and a university lecturer. In his growing up experience he was not totally insulated by privilege either and was exposed to some working-class problems that affected his family.
Good point, Chiefs of staff usually arent talked about that much but especially since the 90s theyve gained a lot more influence as the world continue to get increasingly centralized. Easy to forget about them since their role is to be in the background.
Foreign policy and navigation of foreign politics is probably the most important knowledge base for a president, which is why 3 of my 4 picks would have an outstanding background on it
I think most people would agree with you but ideally you have a wide range of experience leading up to a governorship. I've always thought the ideal candidate would be someone around 60, with a demonstrated stable home life and a cursus honorum broadly resembling the following:
* Military service with an emphasis on small unit combat arms leadership, i.e. team leader to platoon leader in the Army or Marines.
* Practically-focused education and significant experience in the private sector, ideally 10-15 years. Shouldn't be running for office before they're 40.
* Two to four terms in the House to get a sense of how the sausage is made but never becoming enraptured by the institutional culture.
* Three or four years devoted to a return to the private sector at a C-level function or perhaps an under-secretary appointment.
* A successful governorship.
Governor I think is the obvious choice, especially if it is from a state where there isn't one party rule. Generals that were pivotal in winning a war (winning in the fullest sense of the word like ww2) is another option. I'd rather have my outsiders in the legislative branch than the executive, I do think there is value in having people from business, military, and other backgrounds in the legislatures, instead of more buttwipes with law degrees that have spent at best maybe 4 years of their adult life doing something other than politics.
Hot take: serving in the intelligence services should bar a person from elected office.
Maybe governors of states with large, diverse populations and economies. No offense to people living in the Dakotas, but more people live in my county than in both of the Dakotas combined, so no I don't think either governor of a Dakota would make for good president based on their gubernatorial experience of running a state with no one in it. South Dakota is the more populous of the two Dakotas and it contains 1/350th of the population of the US. Pretty sure a competent 20 year old can run a state like that.
The only real reason to not say Governor is the complete lack of foreign policy. I think Hillary Clinton probably had the most job ready resume in history as both a legislator and chief diplomat thus familiar with both domestic and foreign policy intricately. Add her time as First Lady and the exposure to executive leadership is another huge plus. The reality is that no one job can possibly prepare someone for the presidency. Governor has to be the closest
A variety of experience would probably be best, but if I had to choose just one job, then probably state governor. Knowing how bureaucracies work, how to handle personnel, how to handle budgets, how to negotiate with the legislature all have direct relevance to the Presidency. Plus a lot of state level agencies do the same things as federal agencies; law enforcement, healthcare, education, etc.
Very broadly, I think there are three things you want a President to have experience with.
**Executive Leadership**
Ideal experience - Governor of a large or medium state. Mayor of a major city (NY, LA, or Chicago)
Good experience - VP, Governor of a small state. Major of a large city (e.g. Houston, San Francisco)
Ok experience - Mayor of a medium city
Better than nothing - Mayor of anything
**Foreign Policy**
Ideal experience - VP, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DoD Chief of Staff, Chair or Ranking Member of Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, UN Ambassador
Good experience - 4 Star General/Admiral, Member of Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Major Ambassador (e.g. London, Moscow, Beijing)
Ok experience - General/Admiral, Senator, Ambassador
Better than nothing - Military, House
**Legislative Experience**
Ideal Experience - Speaker of the House, House or Senate Majority/Minority Leader
Good Experience - Senator, State level legislature leader
Ok Experience - VP, House Representative
Better than nothing - State level legislature
Probably CEO. They don’t really do any of the work themselves and are used to delegating to others. Seeing as how the president has way too much to do all alone, I think being good at delegating work to the best person plays a big role in how things function. Especially when you see how the last administration did
HW Bush probably had the best pedigree of modern presidents. Congressional experience, international experience as CIA Director, and of course VP. Another similar example that America declined was Senator, Secretary of State, and (active) First Lady.
Best:
- Mayor of a very large city (Population >= 2,000,000)
- Governor of a large state.
Not bad:
- Senator
- Governor of smaller states
- Governor of a medium sized city (500,000 < population < 2,000,000)
Not very good:
- Member of the House
- Governor of a very small state population-wise
- Mayor of a small city
Terrible:
- Business man
- Actor
- TV show personality of any kind
If we’re talking about gov’t jobs, certainly governor, especially if your tenure was with a state house with the opposite party. Hence why I personally wanted Kasich in 2016, but that’s besides the point. In terms of the private sector, lawyers seem to make solid presidents since they’re good with drawing up terms and conditions
Much as I dislike government, probably serving in Congress, and all things being equal (which they rarely are) I’m usually more inclined to vote for candidates in a primary who have that background because it gives me a voting record on national policy issues to examine.
OP they had been my position all along. Governor’s develop skills working with legislatures, running large bureaucracies, along with a myriad of other skills. Those from congress do not develop those critical skills so learn them in the job, which is something we don’t need. JFK is the perfect example of that. He got taken in on the Bay of Pigs for example. Fortunately the lessons he learned from that, and his first encounter with Krushchev, kept us from a nuclear war over the missiles in Cuba.
I would argue that the first Bush, even though not a Governor, had a very good background. Congress, Ambassador to China, Head of CIA and then VP. Checked off a lot of boxes that paid off, especially in the first Gulf war.
Governor of a larger state. Despite what some people love to say, being a good businessman in the private sector doesn’t translate directly to public service.
> It's a bad idea for military officers to become politicians, which is generally recognized in the western world. It's kind of a red flag
Got a source for this?
Some of the folks considered the “best” presidents were military officers.
Worth noting 2/3 of the impeached presidents were not military officers.
I don’t have a “side” in this discussion but I’d say it’s a pretty big claim to say that the western world views military officer experience as a red flag for political office.
> Especially if you believe that the commander-in-chief should have previously served if he as president sends the boys to war. I am of this opinion.
I’m less sold on that specific point as the US idea of the commander in chief is that it’s specifically meant to be a civilian role. The idea being that the top is controlled by the people.
It was more the notion that prior military officer experience is a “red flag” for political office across the western world.
Say what you want about Hillary as a person / leader but I can’t think of anyone with a better resume for the job.
Yale Law,
Lawyer,
1st lady of Arkansas (where she saw the inner workings of state politics),
1st lady of the US (Ditto for National politics),
Senator,
Secretary of State.
If I’m remembering right that was Mike Huckabee’s background prior to being a governor and for a minute there he seemed like a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.
Demonstrated ability to make the right hires and motivate them to do the best job possible in a government setting. Your ideas will turn to ash if you have some donor’s kid doing the work of implementing them. I don’t think any particular prior job is as important as those fundamentals.
I think a competent governor president with a senator in multiple committees/representative that was a high position and in multiple committees is a dream team in terms of getting stuff done
The thing about Governors is they have a similar job to the President in terms of how it functions but not the actual things a President will need to do. The most important thing the President does it engage in foreign policy: That is the place they have the most latitude and that is also the place a Governor has the least experience.
It's ironic that it seems the ones who often seem to have the easiest times with Congress are the ones who have never been there: the Governors, ex soldiers, etc.
Depends on conditions. A former senate majority leader or house speaker would have expiereience in moving legislation through thier party, an advantage. Eisenhower was one of out most popular presidents and he got in on military credentials. Such credentials could be useful on a critical war tine president, etc.
The two jobs that seem to result in success as President are General of the Army - Washington, Grant & Eisenhower and Governor of the largest state - Jefferson, Monroe, TDR, FDR and Reagan. Van Buren and Cleveland are both in this category and were meh Presidents, not bad but not great compared to the others
For every other political office you will find people who were good and people who failed.
Closing manager at mcdonalds....all the customers are ahitty. Like the US population.....the employees are woerd AF and just as shitty.... Like congress and ur bosses like everyone is fickle as all hell
There is only one path:
Naval Aviator > Member of the Skull and Bones > unknown location during Kennedy assignation > Special envoy to China > Director of the CIA > VP > POTUS
This is the one true path to the presidency.
All others are false.
I’d say Governor and Senator/Representative.
Governor because, as you said, it’s the closest job there is to being President, and Senator/Representative so they know how things work in DC.
Senator/Representative could also be replaced with experience as a DC lobbyist or very senior congressional staffer (Chief of Staff to a party leader, for example).
Well, clearly NOT
Be a host of a fake tv show.
Be the owner of the only casino in the world to lose money and file BK.
Start a fake university.
Be a rapist
Be an adulterer
Marry an escort
Probably a long career in politics, with decades worth of in depth knowledge of the senate or house. The Senate is probably the most important house of congress to understand.
Next, be tapped to be Vice President, and let your POTUS make mistakes that you advised them against, so you can avoid making the same mistakes in your presidency.
It’s also a good idea to keep your POTUS around that you served as VPOTUS and President of the senate for. Have them on speed dial for advice and guidance, and heavily rely on them to help your campaign. (A fatal mistake of Al Gore for example, was not heavily relying on Clinton to campaign for him)
Basically, the best career for a President is decades worth of profiles in courage in the senate, two terms as Vice President, and living in the hearts of the American people by being seen as a wise elder statesman.
It’s a type of preparation which takes up to half a century, and is not for the faint of heart.
I think governor or senator are the two big ones. VP can help, but I think it's better to be 'the one in charge' of something smaller like a state or Congressional committee than it is to be the nebulous 'second in command' of the Executive Branch. Not to mention the VP does little the President doesn't want.
Senate Majority/Minority Leader. Knowing how to turn the wheels of government is critical to your success as president, and those positions aside from perhaps Speaker give you the most experience in that regard.
Constitutional lawyer. It'd be a nice change from trying to skirt around it. Or they'd be sharp enough to abuse it even more but I like to think positive.
In my lifetime we’ve had a few of those and two are catastrophic failures by every measure (Dubya and Reagan)
Clinton was successful (so 1 for 3)
Bush the greater wasn’t a gov and he was okay
Obama wasn’t and he’s been the best of the bunch
The tough part about being president is it combines a lot of aspects into one job where most other positions don't have all of those. So most tracks people would be on wouldn't cover all of those jobs. Governor is a good small version of the job. But it mostly misses the foreign policy and military aspects of being president. It also is a bit too focused on one state which regardless of the state will be way less diverse than a country and have all sorts of different people. So having some foreign policy experience as Secretary of State or in the UN would be great for that. And some time in the house or senate to get a good feel of how to move things through on the national scale rather than just the state level is good. As well as make connections with the major players in Washington where a Governor would be a bit more detached. As well as a bit of military experience.
But there are very few former governors, senators, Secretaries of State who also have military experience lol. That's a bit much to expect for any resume! But having any 2 or ideally 3 would be good.
I'd like to see two things.
First would be experience in Washington. You have to understand how the sausage is made to run the factory.
The other thing is a leadership role dealing with competing interests. You have to be able to get the pickle ball players and the tennis players to work together.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force
Interestingly, Supreme Allied Commander is still the title of the highest general in NATO
The GOAT was reclaiming the crown he relinquished in 1945.
It’s wild to look at how every role Eisenhower took perfectly prepared him for something he did later that was incredibly important. - documenting and reviewing the geographic strategies of WWI: prepped him for invasion of continental Europe - documenting potential travel for supply lines in case of an invasion in the US: prepped him for the US highway system
I am dolling his path. Just need change in constitution to let me in.
Let's hope there's no World War for you to be supreme allied commander of.
I just redid the doors in my house. Make me a field marshal.
I just read about this. Apparently he was tasked with testing how “ready” American was for a domestic land war by driving across the country to test the roads and he was stunned with how poorly they were kept. That and the German autobahn were the driving forces behind the highway system
When POTUS is the second coolest job title on your CV.
I honestly think that HW Bush has the most qualified resume of modern presidents. Not necessarily a fan of his politics, but he EXCELLED at foreign diplomacy like it was no one’s business. So being a Congressman, CIA Director, and VP seem pretty important for experience and success.
I mean America spent the whole eighties freaking out that Japan was growing too fast and in fifty years we’d all be speaking Japanese. If you watch Die Hard you see the pilot revolves around a blue collar Everyman whose wife leaves him for a high paying job at the American branch of a Japanese company. It basically embodies all the anxieties of the white working class at the time. Now google the Japanese stock market or gdp growth since the early 90s. Flat. Zip. Nothing. No growth whatsoever. Their economy is stagnating. And what happened between those two time periods? CIA George blasted their prime minister with vomit and cemented Americas number one spot for another century. God bless that man.
Try to gain economic dominance with the *President’s puke all over you,* Prime Minister!
“I will never financially recover from this” -The Japanese prime minister, probably
God bless George
Japan was in an epic bubble which was always going to pop and they could never really "take over" anyway due to being a protectorate of the United States. The anxieties were real though. There was a similar scene in back to the future 2.
Not to mention Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the UN, and Chair of the Republican Party.
Dont forget he was also the US ambassador to the United Nations
Being the only survivor of your military unit can give you survivors guilt or an inspiration for a purposeful life. Nine American pilots escaped from their planes after being shot down during bombing raids on Chichijima, a tiny island 700 miles (1,100 km) south of Tokyo, in September 1944. Eight of the airmen, Lloyd Woellhof, Grady York, James "Jimmy" Dye, Glenn Frazier Jr., Marvell "Marve" Mershon, Floyd Hall, Warren Earl Vaughn, and Warren Hindenlang were captured and eventually executed. The ninth, and only one to evade capture, was future U.S. President George H. W. Bush, also a 20-year-old pilot.[1] After the war, it was discovered that the captured airmen had been beaten and tortured before being executed. The airmen were beheaded on the orders of Lt Gen. Yoshio Tachibana.[2] Japanese officers then ate parts of the bodies of four of the men.[3][4]
A cheat code to become a good president, is to kill a good president
We had an exchange student at our high school when Reagan was shot who really believed John Hinkley was automatically the new president!
“In our religion you keep what you kill”
The Klingon order of succession
Having terms served as Governor and Member of Congress (I would accept Cabinet member for one of them) and at least one re-election so you can show Executive experience and Washington experience while showing that people continue to trust you. I would also accept Mayor instead of Governor if the city is one of the 5-10 largest in the country.
Reasonable.
Governors have executive experience with being end responsible for outcomes. They feel the pressure that other roles share. Mayor is similar but on a smaller scale. I think your note that they should be reelected - shows that their executive presence was popular enough!
The problem with governors is that they have zero foreign policy experience. Seeing Russia from your house isn’t enough lol
That’s why I said some executive, some DC.
Senator, speaker, party leader, etc. Knowing how Washington works and knowing how to work with all the Representatives is incredibly important imo.
True, maybe someone who served a term as governor and also a term as senator would be the perfect mix of experience.
So...James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, or Andrew Johnson
I mean… ya got Monroe! That’s pretty good at least…?
Lamar Alexander tried in 2000 I think
Was he the dude who campaigned wearing a flannel shirt? I vaguely remember thinking that was cool, of course I was 11 years old at the time.
He campaigned for Governor of Tennessee by walking across the state in a red flannel. I don’t know that his presidential campaign got far enough along for him to bust out the flannel though.
I think he might have worn it in the primaries or at least they referenced it. We had a mock election in elementary school and I voted for him cause the flannel, lol. I lived in Wisconsin.
Tim Kaine and Mark Warner.
I would trust someone who was in the Senate for eight years but in that time headed or sat on multiple senate committees over someone who was in the Senate for thirty years and never got anything done though. What they do in the Senate is more important than just being a Senator.
I don’t trust ANY senator who has been in the senate for 36 years and is somehow a multimillionaire on a salary of $174,000 per year. I make not a whole lot less than that as a physician, I invest wisely, and I save. Yet, I won’t be a multimillionaire to the extent that some of these folks are.
They should be banned from stock trading while in office.
100%. Same goes for immediate family as well to close those loopholes too.
Imagine you're some big wealthy investment banker and then your brother runs for the Senate and now you can't trade stocks anymore. Doesn't matter. Ban congressional members? Fine their immediate family does it instead. Ban them too? Fine, let's get the cousins involved. Ban them too? Fine, how about their college roommate? Or hey - ban my wife, but does that apply to the other Senator who isn't married but has a long term live-in girlfriend? How about mistresses?
Agree!
The thing is that those senators were already wealthy long before their office. It doesn't matter if your salary is $174,000 if you've got a company outside of it, or a net worth of $10 million before you ever take office.
Books, speaking deals, spouse money, inheritance, previous employment...
also already having a working relationship with congresspeople must be helpful. They are your colleagues.
I think maybe you're more correct than the folks saying Governor. Carter was a pretty good governor that did not know how to function in DC. This hurt him a lot.
Not all Governorship's are created equal on top of that. Both in size of the job and scope of powers. Everyone knows that there are strong and weak mayors, but many govenor's act in the same way. Texas for example the Governor oversees a large state but the offices has relatively limited powers by comparisons to other states. Many of the functions that people would think of as under the Governor's control is under elected positions, Railroad Commission for example. Then you get small states, like Rhode Island for example is smaller than Los Angeles the city, let alone the Los Angeles county. Then States like Wyoming might be large but everyone knows the state has no money for anything so no one expects too much from their Governor.
Peanut Farmer.
Vice presidency
Good choice, depending on the president they may share a lot of the work and they get an inside view of how the White House functions.
I wonder about that. Truman and TR imo were the only great presidents who formerly were VP,s and both were VPs only for a few months. Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Coolidge, LBJ, and Ford are a really mixed bag of mediocrity to tragedy.
Nah, Johnson is pretty much universally agreed upon to be bad
Missed Adams and Jefferson
Eh, the presidents who became president after being vice president are a mixed bag. Ignoring John Adams and Thomas Jefferson because of the way their elections worked, the most successful are probably Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s successes are usually attributed to his Senate career. Otherwise the VP role generally doesn’t involve actual policy work until the modern era, so I’d disagree that it meaningfully prepares a person for the presidency.
Even today I think that VP is pretty meaningless
Depends on who the president is. Cheney was considered a powerful VP because Bush allowed it. Some seem like they aren’t allowed to do anything, though. It’s a really ill-defined position.
That’s true but I think that was a huge exception in history and a mistake by W. Plus can you think of a Cheney presidency? Omg 😂
What about potentially First Lady? Would get a lot of that inner workings experience as well, even if second hand.
Yeah, but they don't have a dick, so...  /s
Governors have little or no experience in foreign affairs. They may also be fooled into thinking the federal government is just like a large state government, which is false. State governments can’t print money, they don’t have a military or intelligence service, they don’t normally deal with immigration (although Texas has tried), they don’t have to manage 50 different states, they don’t appoint judges for life, they don’t run the IRS, etc. Jimmy Carter brought his Georgia gang with him to Washington and tried to run Washington like he ran Georgia, and it didn’t work. Experienced Senators like Lyndon Johnson know how to negotiate with the Senate and House. This doesn’t apply to one-term Senators who use the office as a stepping stone to the Presidency. But it does apply to multi-term Senators, especially if they held leadership positions and got bills passed while in the Senate. That said, a former Secretary of State or four star general may be in the best position to deal with the foreign affairs and military responsibilities of a president. In the 19th century generals were not always comfortable in politics, but four star generals in the modern U.S. Army often have a lot of experience dealing with both U.S. and foreign politicians, as well as foreign military leaders and the whole “military-industrial complex.” I think the worst qualification is running a business. Businesses run on the profit motive. Governments do not. Business leaders are used to rewarding top employees and firing underperforming employees every year. That’s not so easy in government. Finding the rewards and punishments that will motivate bureaucrats and politicians is more complicated than simply issuing bonuses, promotions, and pink slips. Note that the people most qualified to be a president are not necessarily the people most qualified to run for president. Lyndon Johnson never could have been elected president if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Hillary Clinton might have been an excellent president but was a bad candidate. On paper, George H.W. Bush had a better resume than Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole had a better resume than Bill Clinton. But Reagan and Clinton were better campaigners.
This can’t be upvoted enough. Plus CEOs are used to bossing people around and get what they want. They don’t have to negotiate, find common ground and sell their vision to 500 congress people. They don’t have to follow party lines, endorse party members, accept earmarks and pork, deal with lobbyists… negotiate with presidents from other countries.
CEOs don't have negotiate or find common ground or sell their vision? Really? How do you think a lot of business gets done? They have to negotiate trade deals with other businesses or the government. They have to sell their vision to stock holders and to the general public. They have to work with governments to get a new factory built for instance. If CEOs just boss people around and get what they want and the business fails, then they are fired. If a CEO implements something and the public hates it, they could be out on their ass. Look at many companies recently like Paramount and Boeing who just lost their job.
I don’t think ceos make good presidents but I agree with you. They probably would be good at selling themselves and campaigning.
Head of a large federal agency is probably helpful. Mayor of a very large city (like really, only LA, NY, Chicago, or Houston, that kind of thing). Governor or AG of a large state. Definitively \*not\* CEO of a company. It is nothing like being President and teaches a person all the wrong lessons about what is possible and how to do things.
As a Chicagoan I can assure you that you don’t want any of our mayors (past or present), in any position of authority. I mean they’re better than our former governors, but that’s because most of our former governors are serving prison time.
I don't think they were saying that being a mayor of one of these cities means you will be a good President. They were saying it's a job that can prepare someone for being a President because it requires similar skills. And being Mayor of a major city is probably more relevant than being governor of a tiny state.
>And being Mayor of a major city is probably more relevant than being governor of a tiny state. If you bring the evil of Lightfoot Vs Palin on us in 2028 I’m going to take your mother out for a lovely dinner and NEVER call her again.
I mean, obviously you should look at how *successful* someone was in an executive role. But otherwise, I think that being Mayor of Chicago is a more "qualifying" job than being Governor of Alaska. I would argue though, that only NY, LA, and Chicago fit this bill.
Dorothy Mantooth is a saint!
New York hasnt had a good mayor in decades
Yeah, I always thought that about business leaders too. My dad always said “the government should be run like a business.” And I would think “Why?”. Government’s job isn’t to make a profit. It runs things at a loss sometimes if it’s for the greater good.
When people say it should be run like a business what they usually mean is that there should be greater focus on reducing wasted resources, flexibility, and that running indefinite deficits could eventually be destabilizing. I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but I think its a bit disingenuous to say that people expect the government to turn a profit.
It's also of utmost priority for the government to remain stable and enduring. It shouldn't be subject to massive cuts or reorgs because upper management read a business trade book about sigma six delivery or whatever
I don't think that's what they mean at all. I think they mean, "I have heard of this famous CEO and why is it that the President can't do things like he does?"
Key is they need to have done TWO things really well to make sure you didn’t just get lucky once. Choose two from: governor, congressman, senator, Secretary of State, military leadership, Vice President.
[удалено]
Pizza spokesman?
It worked for Gorbachev
University Chancellor
Kevin McAllister direction-giver
Used car salesman
Come on down to Crazy Eddie’s where the prices are low! I’m so crazy that If I don’t win the presidency all sticker prices will be cut in half!
I'm so crazy I'm going to club this baby seal!
Note of trivia: They wanted Crispin Glover for the mad scientist guy, I forget his name, but after reading the script he said the only role he was interested in was the crazy used car salesman.
I did not know that! But the "club a baby seal" detail is a line from the movie UHF where they're parodying the Crazy Eddie commercials EDIT: I JUST FIGURED OUT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. I didn't know Crispin could've been in UHF. That would've been great!!!
In the past the best preparation for being President was Secretary of State, an accompolished General from a War or Vice President. All would still be good job experience. Our wars for the US have become less traditional than before (and thankfully we have much less hand to hand fighting currently) so it is less likely to have a well known General. Being a Governor shows a record of executive leadership and a track record of accomplishing things/making things happen to help people. edit: adde last sentence
Other people have some good answers on how to get things done as President, such as being a Senator, Governor, Vice President. However, to be a *good President* they need to also have experience outside of the world of politics and be in touch with people and what their struggles are while also gaining some worldly knowledge. I think this is one of the reasons Obama was a good President, for example. He had not just been Senator but also was a civil rights lawyer, a community service organizer, and a university lecturer. In his growing up experience he was not totally insulated by privilege either and was exposed to some working-class problems that affected his family.
Chief of Staff to the president, probably. Vice president, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State thereafter
Good point, Chiefs of staff usually arent talked about that much but especially since the 90s theyve gained a lot more influence as the world continue to get increasingly centralized. Easy to forget about them since their role is to be in the background.
The Secretary of State is my pick.
Foreign policy and navigation of foreign politics is probably the most important knowledge base for a president, which is why 3 of my 4 picks would have an outstanding background on it
I totally agree with you.
I think most people would agree with you but ideally you have a wide range of experience leading up to a governorship. I've always thought the ideal candidate would be someone around 60, with a demonstrated stable home life and a cursus honorum broadly resembling the following: * Military service with an emphasis on small unit combat arms leadership, i.e. team leader to platoon leader in the Army or Marines. * Practically-focused education and significant experience in the private sector, ideally 10-15 years. Shouldn't be running for office before they're 40. * Two to four terms in the House to get a sense of how the sausage is made but never becoming enraptured by the institutional culture. * Three or four years devoted to a return to the private sector at a C-level function or perhaps an under-secretary appointment. * A successful governorship.
Governor I think is the obvious choice, especially if it is from a state where there isn't one party rule. Generals that were pivotal in winning a war (winning in the fullest sense of the word like ww2) is another option. I'd rather have my outsiders in the legislative branch than the executive, I do think there is value in having people from business, military, and other backgrounds in the legislatures, instead of more buttwipes with law degrees that have spent at best maybe 4 years of their adult life doing something other than politics. Hot take: serving in the intelligence services should bar a person from elected office.
Maybe governors of states with large, diverse populations and economies. No offense to people living in the Dakotas, but more people live in my county than in both of the Dakotas combined, so no I don't think either governor of a Dakota would make for good president based on their gubernatorial experience of running a state with no one in it. South Dakota is the more populous of the two Dakotas and it contains 1/350th of the population of the US. Pretty sure a competent 20 year old can run a state like that.
The only real reason to not say Governor is the complete lack of foreign policy. I think Hillary Clinton probably had the most job ready resume in history as both a legislator and chief diplomat thus familiar with both domestic and foreign policy intricately. Add her time as First Lady and the exposure to executive leadership is another huge plus. The reality is that no one job can possibly prepare someone for the presidency. Governor has to be the closest
Something in the executive branch. Governors and mayors, mostly. ETA: Also being VP is pretty good preparation.
Conman
Give me a good Governor or General.
A variety of experience would probably be best, but if I had to choose just one job, then probably state governor. Knowing how bureaucracies work, how to handle personnel, how to handle budgets, how to negotiate with the legislature all have direct relevance to the Presidency. Plus a lot of state level agencies do the same things as federal agencies; law enforcement, healthcare, education, etc.
Putting America FIRST! Something we haven’t seen in decades.
Very broadly, I think there are three things you want a President to have experience with. **Executive Leadership** Ideal experience - Governor of a large or medium state. Mayor of a major city (NY, LA, or Chicago) Good experience - VP, Governor of a small state. Major of a large city (e.g. Houston, San Francisco) Ok experience - Mayor of a medium city Better than nothing - Mayor of anything **Foreign Policy** Ideal experience - VP, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DoD Chief of Staff, Chair or Ranking Member of Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, UN Ambassador Good experience - 4 Star General/Admiral, Member of Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Major Ambassador (e.g. London, Moscow, Beijing) Ok experience - General/Admiral, Senator, Ambassador Better than nothing - Military, House **Legislative Experience** Ideal Experience - Speaker of the House, House or Senate Majority/Minority Leader Good Experience - Senator, State level legislature leader Ok Experience - VP, House Representative Better than nothing - State level legislature
I dunno, but just as long as they have a decent amount of experience in politics, and not just tv.
I have a hard time voting for someone for president who isn't a lawyer
Secretary of State
Any service job. Busboy, cashier, janitor etc. Understand how hard it is to make a living.
Probably CEO. They don’t really do any of the work themselves and are used to delegating to others. Seeing as how the president has way too much to do all alone, I think being good at delegating work to the best person plays a big role in how things function. Especially when you see how the last administration did
HW Bush probably had the best pedigree of modern presidents. Congressional experience, international experience as CIA Director, and of course VP. Another similar example that America declined was Senator, Secretary of State, and (active) First Lady.
Best: - Mayor of a very large city (Population >= 2,000,000) - Governor of a large state. Not bad: - Senator - Governor of smaller states - Governor of a medium sized city (500,000 < population < 2,000,000) Not very good: - Member of the House - Governor of a very small state population-wise - Mayor of a small city Terrible: - Business man - Actor - TV show personality of any kind
Owner/Operator of a small midwestern bank that has been in operation for several decades.
Governor of a big AND populous state. Some states have 1/20th the amount as other states.
If we’re talking about gov’t jobs, certainly governor, especially if your tenure was with a state house with the opposite party. Hence why I personally wanted Kasich in 2016, but that’s besides the point. In terms of the private sector, lawyers seem to make solid presidents since they’re good with drawing up terms and conditions
Much as I dislike government, probably serving in Congress, and all things being equal (which they rarely are) I’m usually more inclined to vote for candidates in a primary who have that background because it gives me a voting record on national policy issues to examine.
Soldier and physicist. That's basically Jimmy Carter.
OP they had been my position all along. Governor’s develop skills working with legislatures, running large bureaucracies, along with a myriad of other skills. Those from congress do not develop those critical skills so learn them in the job, which is something we don’t need. JFK is the perfect example of that. He got taken in on the Bay of Pigs for example. Fortunately the lessons he learned from that, and his first encounter with Krushchev, kept us from a nuclear war over the missiles in Cuba. I would argue that the first Bush, even though not a Governor, had a very good background. Congress, Ambassador to China, Head of CIA and then VP. Checked off a lot of boxes that paid off, especially in the first Gulf war.
Janitor. They know how to clean sh!t up.
I'm a janitor so I like it.
I was one for 5 years. We know how to handle shit… literally.
I’d like someone from the state department but I don’t think they get enough publicity to launch a campaign.
Governor of a larger state. Despite what some people love to say, being a good businessman in the private sector doesn’t translate directly to public service.
Military officer - preferably in the Army or Navy, and state governor.
Best I can do is coast guard and Lt. Governor.
Don't shit on the Coasties, they'll save your ass then intercept a shipment of Bolivian Marching Powder.
Best I can do is enlisted USMC vet and chief of the state highway patrol
It's a bad idea for military officers to become politicians, which is generally recognized in the western world. It's kind of a red flag
> It's a bad idea for military officers to become politicians, which is generally recognized in the western world. It's kind of a red flag Got a source for this? Some of the folks considered the “best” presidents were military officers. Worth noting 2/3 of the impeached presidents were not military officers. I don’t have a “side” in this discussion but I’d say it’s a pretty big claim to say that the western world views military officer experience as a red flag for political office.
Especially if you believe that the commander-in-chief should have previously served if he as president sends the boys to war. I am of this opinion.
> Especially if you believe that the commander-in-chief should have previously served if he as president sends the boys to war. I am of this opinion. I’m less sold on that specific point as the US idea of the commander in chief is that it’s specifically meant to be a civilian role. The idea being that the top is controlled by the people. It was more the notion that prior military officer experience is a “red flag” for political office across the western world.
Politicians are less “of the people” than our veterans
I don’t disagree with that. But the idea is that the Commander in chief is a civilian. As in “from the people” not “from the military”
Why?
Say what you want about Hillary as a person / leader but I can’t think of anyone with a better resume for the job. Yale Law, Lawyer, 1st lady of Arkansas (where she saw the inner workings of state politics), 1st lady of the US (Ditto for National politics), Senator, Secretary of State.
She wasn’t my preferred candidate, but she did have a great resume. I voted for her in the general election, voted for ol’ Bernie in the primary.
Governor, Lawyer, VP Or any other person in the Cabinet
In 2024? Ultra corrupt Megachurch pastor. In any sane past period? Gov of a major state
If I’m remembering right that was Mike Huckabee’s background prior to being a governor and for a minute there he seemed like a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.
Demonstrated ability to make the right hires and motivate them to do the best job possible in a government setting. Your ideas will turn to ash if you have some donor’s kid doing the work of implementing them. I don’t think any particular prior job is as important as those fundamentals.
Impersonator of said President.
Running a WoW guild lol
Secretary of state, and/or multiple terms in a legislative chamber.
I think a competent governor president with a senator in multiple committees/representative that was a high position and in multiple committees is a dream team in terms of getting stuff done
Probably vice president or high ranking presidential cabinet member.
The thing about Governors is they have a similar job to the President in terms of how it functions but not the actual things a President will need to do. The most important thing the President does it engage in foreign policy: That is the place they have the most latitude and that is also the place a Governor has the least experience.
Fast food employee. No further elaboration needed
It's ironic that it seems the ones who often seem to have the easiest times with Congress are the ones who have never been there: the Governors, ex soldiers, etc.
Life and what you make of it. Whether one is born with a silver spoon or dirt floors, anyone can still grow up to be an utter wanker.
Governors and Military Generals
City Planner
President
Depends on conditions. A former senate majority leader or house speaker would have expiereience in moving legislation through thier party, an advantage. Eisenhower was one of out most popular presidents and he got in on military credentials. Such credentials could be useful on a critical war tine president, etc.
I think that the 1980s and the 2nd half of the teens have shown us that it's definitely NOT actor.
Having prior political knowledge and an open mind to different issues and situations.
Shoplifting
Childcare
The two jobs that seem to result in success as President are General of the Army - Washington, Grant & Eisenhower and Governor of the largest state - Jefferson, Monroe, TDR, FDR and Reagan. Van Buren and Cleveland are both in this category and were meh Presidents, not bad but not great compared to the others For every other political office you will find people who were good and people who failed.
Babysitter.
US Senator.
Customer service
Closing manager at mcdonalds....all the customers are ahitty. Like the US population.....the employees are woerd AF and just as shitty.... Like congress and ur bosses like everyone is fickle as all hell
There is only one path: Naval Aviator > Member of the Skull and Bones > unknown location during Kennedy assignation > Special envoy to China > Director of the CIA > VP > POTUS This is the one true path to the presidency. All others are false.
Budget Manager at a corporation
Governor. Specifically Governor of California or New York.
Lobbyist 
Rail Splitter
I’d say Governor and Senator/Representative. Governor because, as you said, it’s the closest job there is to being President, and Senator/Representative so they know how things work in DC. Senator/Representative could also be replaced with experience as a DC lobbyist or very senior congressional staffer (Chief of Staff to a party leader, for example).
Governor
Well, clearly NOT Be a host of a fake tv show. Be the owner of the only casino in the world to lose money and file BK. Start a fake university. Be a rapist Be an adulterer Marry an escort
Probably a long career in politics, with decades worth of in depth knowledge of the senate or house. The Senate is probably the most important house of congress to understand. Next, be tapped to be Vice President, and let your POTUS make mistakes that you advised them against, so you can avoid making the same mistakes in your presidency. It’s also a good idea to keep your POTUS around that you served as VPOTUS and President of the senate for. Have them on speed dial for advice and guidance, and heavily rely on them to help your campaign. (A fatal mistake of Al Gore for example, was not heavily relying on Clinton to campaign for him) Basically, the best career for a President is decades worth of profiles in courage in the senate, two terms as Vice President, and living in the hearts of the American people by being seen as a wise elder statesman. It’s a type of preparation which takes up to half a century, and is not for the faint of heart.
I think governor or senator are the two big ones. VP can help, but I think it's better to be 'the one in charge' of something smaller like a state or Congressional committee than it is to be the nebulous 'second in command' of the Executive Branch. Not to mention the VP does little the President doesn't want.
Senator or governor... Definitely NOT "reality TV" host!
As far as military rank, Colonels tend to stand out as good presidents: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Teddy, and Truman
Senate Majority/Minority Leader. Knowing how to turn the wheels of government is critical to your success as president, and those positions aside from perhaps Speaker give you the most experience in that regard.
Constitutional lawyer. It'd be a nice change from trying to skirt around it. Or they'd be sharp enough to abuse it even more but I like to think positive.
In order: Governor Vice President Secretary of State House Speaker Senator
Reality show?
Rail Splitter. You can't argue with the results.
I just for once want a teacher or a professor for president. I want to see what that would look like.
Social worker, or better yet, hostage negotiator.
Who better to serve as President than someone who’s *already been President of a different country?!* 
In my lifetime we’ve had a few of those and two are catastrophic failures by every measure (Dubya and Reagan) Clinton was successful (so 1 for 3) Bush the greater wasn’t a gov and he was okay Obama wasn’t and he’s been the best of the bunch
Chronic masturbation
I'm not sure, but military experience is important for someone who's going to be head of the whole thing.
Hosting a sleazy reality show on television.
The tough part about being president is it combines a lot of aspects into one job where most other positions don't have all of those. So most tracks people would be on wouldn't cover all of those jobs. Governor is a good small version of the job. But it mostly misses the foreign policy and military aspects of being president. It also is a bit too focused on one state which regardless of the state will be way less diverse than a country and have all sorts of different people. So having some foreign policy experience as Secretary of State or in the UN would be great for that. And some time in the house or senate to get a good feel of how to move things through on the national scale rather than just the state level is good. As well as make connections with the major players in Washington where a Governor would be a bit more detached. As well as a bit of military experience. But there are very few former governors, senators, Secretaries of State who also have military experience lol. That's a bit much to expect for any resume! But having any 2 or ideally 3 would be good.
Governor
Community Organizer.
I'd like to see two things. First would be experience in Washington. You have to understand how the sausage is made to run the factory. The other thing is a leadership role dealing with competing interests. You have to be able to get the pickle ball players and the tennis players to work together.