George Washington vs. Franklin D. Roosevelt

[ElectionsGuy]

Washington

[Blue3]

Both were imperfect (slavery, Japanese internment) and both were leaders in times of crisis.

Even though I agree with FDR taking a much more active approach to helping the economy, getting involved in world affairs, and staying in office a little longer (given the situations)... I think it is much better that we had Washington instead of FDR to set so many precedents and help determine what the character and "default" positions of the USA should be.

So, Washington.

[Supersonic]

Washington

[RogueBeaver]

Washington

[Gass3268]

FDR

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We would not have a USA without Washington. Even the most strident FDR fans would (hopefully) admit this.

[MurrayBannerman]

Washington by a country mile. He was literally the perfect man for the job.

[Blue3]

Washington by a country mile. He was literally the perfect man for the job.

The job was also created to fit the man

We would not have a USA without Washington. Even the most strident FDR fans would (hopefully) admit this.

At least I do.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.

[TNF]

The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.

[Mechaman]

The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.

Internment is kind of a bad thing too, guys.  But yeah, at least on the surface FDR didn't act as an instrument of the entitled elites to the extent that Washington did, who considered Alex Hamilton "like a son" to him.

[TDAS04]

Washington

[Blue3]

The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.

Washington was trying to return order after the failed Articles of Confederation, and get people to protest through the nonviolent means of the new American political system instead of by violent rebellion.

[Хahar 🤔]

There was nothing particularly noble about the formation of the United States.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Washington, without a doubt.

[Flake]

Washington was definitely better, since you know, the start of this country, but I would vote for FDR in a heartbeat.

[TNF]

The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.

Washington was trying to return order after the failed Articles of Confederation, and get people to protest through the nonviolent means of the new American political system instead of by violent rebellion.

Washington was trying to shut up the uppity farmers who didn't like being taxed to death for the sake of the expansion of wage labor, which they regarded as the largest threat to their livelihoods (and for good reason, of course). 'Non-violent protest' has never resulted in significant change in the 'new American political system' that came into being after the Coup of 1789. In every instance in which there have been revolutionary changes, force or the threat of it's use has driven societal change.

[Meursault]

I'm probably the political opposite of an American New Dealer/'social liberal' (and not, to wit, a conservative), and I don't think it's even really arguable that Roosevelt was much Washington's superior in terms of pure leadership qualities - charisma, the commanding of loyalty from subordinates, etc. If we completely ignore any question of ideology or historical placement, Washington was quite lacking in those traits that make for exceptional Presidents; much more of his reputation is based on his placement than are the reputations of those often taken to be his equals by commentators, like the Roosevelts, Jackson, Lincoln, Reagan, etc.

[Mordecai]

Washington by a country mile. He was literally the perfect man for the job.

The job was also created to fit the man

To be fair he rebuffed attempts to make him a monarch and set the precedent that the President didn't serve for a lifetime.

[Meursault]

Washington by a country mile. He was literally the perfect man for the job.

The job was also created to fit the man

To be fair he rebuffed attempts to make him a monarch and set the precedent that the President didn't serve for a lifetime.

But as far as pure leadership ability goes, Washington really was not brilliant at it. He was not a great public speaker (could scarcely speak at all, for the pain in his teeth); did not command the loyalty even of those who ostensibly supported his policy goals (Hamilton intrigued against Washington almost as much as against Jefferson); and did not inaugurate any great transformation in the way politics was done in the country, the basic outline of American bicameralism being present under the Articles.

Washington as "Father Of His Country" is the Greatest Of All Time. Washington the historical character would probably be remembered on a par with a Chet Arthur or a Benjamin Harrison - good, but not remotely memorable - if not for his status as the first President, or if he were President at some period after the first term of office. Roosevelt was unquestionably better at the job; most of the Great Presidents were better at it, though not necessarily that much so.

[WillTheMormon]

Both were great presidents for their times. Really depends on the state of the economy. If the economy's doing well (I.e. 2000) then Washington. If not (I.e. 2008) then FDR.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The first W