Activist Vs. Passive Presidents, 1901 To The Present

There have been 19 Presidents since the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1901, upon the assassination of William McKinley.

Some have been activists, hard workers, dynamos, who saw the Presidency as a position that required constant attention, and avoided much vacation time, but even when on vacation, these activist Presidents were always working and alert to changing events.

Among the 19 modern Presidents, the following 11 Presidents would qualify as part of the activist category:

Theodore Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry Truman

John F. Kennedy

Lyndon B. Johnson

Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter

George H. W. Bush

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

The other 8 Presidents since 1901 were much more passive, avoided work, were quite frankly lazy, and took lots of vacation time, often were not alert to changing events, and delegated authority to others:

William Howard Taft

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan

George W. Bush

Note that all eight passive Presidents were Republicans, while only Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush were activist Republicans, joining the 8 Democratic Presidents in that category!

Also, note that the eleven activist Presidents all were highly intelligent and curious about the world around them, while the eight passive Presidents were generally less naturally intelligent, with the exceptions of William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, both highly intellectual and accomplished, although both were seen as unsuccessful in office, and defeated for reelection!

2 comments on “Activist Vs. Passive Presidents, 1901 To The Present

  1. Robert Thomas July 20, 2017 10:14 pm

    I have a comment about activist presidents. Firstly, my definition of an activist president that I want to consider here is one who gets involved in writing legislation; that will be my focus.
    The Guardian yesterday had a headline stating that Trump has not had any legislative achievements. For years, presidents have been hounded about such things from various entities. Some presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, took a very active hand in writing legislation. Today, it is part of the American scenery to grade a president on what he has achieved in having his legislation passed.
    Is all that in harmony with the Constitution? I think not. The president signs legislation into law and is responsible for enforcing it. He has no power to write legislation. As often is the case, presidents invite lawmakers to the White House to discuss proposed legislation. Is that in harmony with the Constitution? I think not. The president is not in a position to write legislation. He doesn’t go to the Capitol and cast a vote in the House or Senate. He’s not part of any committee that’s assigned to draft legislation. His functions, responsibilities do not include such activities. The Chief Executive has his hands full with the work he is responsible for.
    How, then, can a president influence legislation without poaching on the Legislative Branch? Speeches. There is where a president can make an impact upon legislation without making forays into the Legislative Branch of the federal government. In his capacity as president, he can reach all the people at any time; he can target some people any time; he has the power to comment on any subject anywhere, and if his thoughts are concentrated on some area in which he feels that a law or laws could improve the lives of the American people, he can make his case by speeches, convincing and exhorting the people to let their congressmen know that they agree with him. This is a duty of the president, though not specified in the Constitution. It comes as a logical conclusion that that is the correct way for a president to influence legislation. All other methods that have heretofore been used are in variance with the Constitution, and accordingly, chaos and such has erupted from them.

  2. Ronald July 20, 2017 10:21 pm

    Thanks, Robert, for your perspective.

    I see what you are saying, but in the modern world, the President takes on more authority than was thought before Theodore Roosevelt.

    This is an expansion of the Presidency, no debate, but I think, appropriate, while you, clearly, do not!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.