Why do Americans like presidents so much?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лют 2022
- The presidency of the United States is taken seriously in a way no other world leader is. Why is that?
SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/jjmccullough?...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washingtonpost.com/people...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
HASHTAGS: #presidents #history #USA
FDR is really when the president culture really started. Before that the president was viewed primarily as an executive, but FDR’s use of the radio made him more personable with the public.
True, but Teddy Roosevelt also made famous use of the "bully pulpit," the President's inherent fame and clout to change the political agenda.
@@andrewbigelow966 In his classic 70s TV documentary series 'America', Alistair Cooke made a point of not mentioning any presidents between Lincoln and TR.
Also interesting that in the UK virtually every prime minister since Churchill has been accused of being 'too Presidential', not being 'primus inter pares' - 'first among equals'.
@@Elitist20, so they went the route of the Pope? Lol
The Pope was originally seen as a first among equals in the Pentarchy, but the Papacy started amassing more and more power which is part of what led to the East/West Schism in Christianity.
I think it goes further back than that. George Washington was practically a mythical figure during his own life.
Americans like the personal and hate the faceless. The president is a person, an individual they can blame or celebrate. The country is a great beast and the president is the damn fool who decides to ride it. The modern presidency begins with Teddy Roosevelt, though. He was the first president to win every single state East to West, and he would have won the South too, had it not been for the fact that Southern voters still could not bring themselves to vote for the party of Lincoln.
As an American I have never really thought about our president culture. I love watching your videos because they always inspire deeper thought and new questions. Keep up the good work!
Yeah me too I only thought of president more because of the 2016 Presidential thing
That's what I love about JJ's videos. If you just see the title the answer feels self explanatory, but he always comes at the topic from such an interesting angle that I learn new things even about subjects I've been studying or thinking about for years.
Same! I was looking at all the presidential gift shop knick knacks and wondering who would buy that stuff. It definitely feels a couple generations removed.
@@ledwestward It is a lot like British monarchy themed kitsch, and the deluded fans of King Donald I Trump are like rabid monarchy fans everywhere from Dear Leader Kim to Czar Vladimir Grosny.
Because we had Teddy Roosevelt as a president.
There is definitely an issue with people thinking the President has this Supreme power, which sets high expectations despite the President only being as powerful as his control of congress. People also think the President has complete control over the economy despite this not being the case.
Not to get too political but I just get so annoyed when people blame problems on a president that they have no control over. An example would be inflation and Biden. Biden has no control over the federal reserve but people still get mad at him over increased inflation (very simplified).
@@danielgreen1557 he is trying to pass multiple bills that will worsen inflation however. And the gas price increases can be partially blamed on him
@@markdin2988 Personally I have no problem with his proposed bills because they would increase spending but at the same time increase taxes. I’m all about increased taxes so I’m on board. The BI bill has already showed results and the BBB bill can see similar results as well if we can get it passed. People have a knee jerk reaction to taxes but they don’t realize how vital they are to not only the government but to the economy. Inflation is able to be stopped not only by monetary policy (the fed) but fiscal policy as well (congress) through an increase on taxes towards higher tax brackets .
@@danielgreen1557 I agree. So much of a presidents reputation is based on how well the economy does. But let’s be honest, Herbert hoover did not cause the Great Depression. George w bush did not cause the 2008 recession. These events require years and millions of people and events to occur. One single person, who can’t even pass laws without congress’s support, cannot make or break and economy
It's why I get annoyed when more left-wing critics of Biden go on about Bernie, as if Bernie would somehow have accomplished any more than Biden has.
I remember being confused why MLK was so important because he wasn't a president, I would often ask if he was one. I think this shows how centralized figures in history are around presidents.
Same with Benjamin Franklin
I actually thought he was the first black president when we learned about him in grade school and that was just forever in the back of my mind until Obama.
@@rn8427 wait he wasn't?
@@Juani_lol He never was president. He died during the presidency of George Washington.
@@gustavsamuel all my life was a lie
I think there’s no understating how important Washington was to the presidency’s status. Your point about the early “Founding Father” presidents hits at this somewhat, but George Washington was absolutely legendary both historically and in his own time, and the office was tailor-made for him. He was (and is) so well-loved that the office is made sacred just by its association with him.
Also Washington was legitimately a good president who set a certain standard of excellency and was humble and intelligent enough to not take advantage of the power that he could have and allowed the country to stay on a more democratic course
@@williamking6787 A lot of the history surrounding Washington is explained by Washington's hatred of public life, love of farming, and declining health by the end of his second term (he would die two years after leaving office). Washington didn't like being in the public eye and only took on those jobs (general and president) because he cared about his fellow countrymen. He was always happiest at his Mt Vernon Estate and did whatever it took to ensure the country was on the right path so he could retire in peace. This has generally been corroborated by most of his writings (letters, documents, and journals).
@@luke_cohen1 Washington's inability to father children probably helped him commit to putting his country first too, since he would have no one obvious to give his powers to after he died. It's also part of the reason he freed his slaves posthumously I imagine.
@@TheAlexSchmidt Well, he had stepchildren through his wife but they both died from illnesses before he was elected president. Also, he hated hereditary leadership in general and did whatever he could to keep his family out of politics. A lot of very wealthy and powerful men have done this over the years (there's a lot of bs at that level), Washington was merely the most high profile case of it.
@@williamking6787 he was so intelligent that he took advantage of the power given by this state he founded, which granted him the right to humbly exploit unpayed work of enslaved fellow men created equal under Pesident.
You idolize a fictional person who's character is solely defined by his interaction and attidue concerning the dominant group of his time.
To put it bluntly, he was an agent of white America who did nothing to diminish this position, rather set America on a path of white dominance and oppression of other ethnicities.
But reading that flattened your democracy-dick that can somehow ignore the obvious conflict of founding a slave nation and embracing liberal democracy.
I know it was economically convinient and morally normal then. So just say it: Washington accepted the hierarchy of his time because it suited him, especially being a childless old man.
I remember that the first Japanese embassy to America in the 19th century were amazed and shocked that people didn't have any idea of what the descendants of George Washington were up to.
He didn't have any descendents, did he?
@@melaniekeeling7462 Not directly but his wife was a widow who had kids already, and those descendants are everywhere.
I didn't know that! It's a testament to how different the United States is from many older countries! Every Japanese person knows what the descendants of Emperor Jimmu, the legendary founder of Japan, are doing; yet the United States is such a modern and non-monarchical country, that I never asked _if_ Washington had any children, let alone where their descendants are! Thanks for the comment!
I think it is in part that America doesn't have a mythological origin story. Since we don't have a King Arthur, Romelus, or Tenochtitlán, we rely more on our presidents as a source of national origin.
Well you do it's just your the bad guys.
@@Ushio01 elaborate, please? Like I understand the idea of America as the bad guy in quite a few situations, I agree, but I’m confused by the mythological origin?
@@locus5619 I think he's talking about how since some countries are so old they don't have a provable origin story, so they have to go off of legends and folk tales. Unlike how we can with the president since the usa is relatively young.
@@locus5619 It's a dark joke since for Native American's your they mythological bad guys who came from the darkness to spread disease and death where ever you stepped.
Some argue the US has two origin stories, Jamestown and Plymouth, which is why the Civil War could be sentimentalized as a clash of these two myths of America’s character. Plymouth (Pious, Communal, Philosophical) vs Jamestown (Rugged Individual, Daring, Enterprising)
Can I just say how much I love JJ’s little stylized caricatures that he adds to his videos like this?
Same. Looking at the comments I feel like JJ's little bit about European rulers complete with his imaginary regal dynasty is way underrated.
I remember reading somewhere that he makes them himself.
@@jallobpz7444 it’s funny, I became a fan when he was starting out as a political cartoonist. Now he has so many more fans, but many don’t know he started out as a cartoonist
I think the idea of the president of the USA really speaks to the American dream in a weird way.
The stereotypical thing to tell your kid: "one day you can grow up to be the president"
That’s a good insight, the old cliché about how any man can grow up to be president
@@JJMcCullough absolutely. And people from all social classes and backgrounds have made it. From rich New Englanders to school teachers from Texas to middle class Californians
@@JJMcCullough I also think it's interesting that growing up I just assumed this was the sort of thinking people had everywhere, but the more I learn about other countries and other time periods the more unique it feels. Throughout human history, even to this day, there have been a lot higher barriers between the "ruling class" and the plebs/proletariat/commoners, etc. To the point where the word "villain" originally meant a villager of the peasant class who was considered morally inferior and incapable of rule because of their status at birth.
Obviously America still has a sort of ruling class and an inequality problem, but I think it's important to understand that such things are the norm in human history. The idea that someone can rise from the lowest level of birth up to the highest levels of power is the aberration in human history. This leads me to believe that even as we strive toward a better, fairer world we should probably be more careful about conserving this unique and arguably unnatural good that the American revolution helped bring about, both in America and abroad through our inspiration and influence.
@UCrooMMCh52S7j2Es68IrsJg on the top of my head I can think of 2 presidents that were in the military. Ulysses Grant (my favorite present) and Dwight D Eisenhower (my second favorite president).
I think another reason would have to do with how we think of any "celebrity". We sort of idolize them as if they were just characters on a political TV show. You can see this if you ever spend much time on social media where there's large corners of it dedicated to specific musicians or actors. An extreme example I can think of is with Hamilton where people would actually make fanart and fanfiction about the characters in the play, who were of course real people.
When looking at things like roman history I've come to appreciate the fact that our celebrity culture focuses more on actors and musicians than polatitans, presits, or generals. Minimizing that cult like fan loyalty to people with poltical power.
@@marcus7564 back then kids wanted to be soldiers and girls dreamed of a prince. Now kids wanna be actors, writers or musicians an girl don't care much about a prince, with exceptions
@@gars129 yea its got draw backs but when every partition male has the pressure to atain status through violence or poltical power its risky.
I feel like I’ve learned so much from your content as an American on my own country’s culture in a far more fair and balanced way through the years. Not willing to pull punches when something is absolutely broken, but doesn’t chop it up to “America bad” but rather “and this is how we got here.
He made me appreciate America more
I think another important factor is that in the US, the president is "the most important guy" both de facto and de iure. In my country, for example, the official head of state is the president, but the most influencial office is actually the one of the prime minister. So if you wanted to have a US-style "president cult" here, you'd stumbled upon a dilema which one of them to pick. Whereas in the US, this dilema is not present.
Wouldn't there be a cult around the most powerful of the two though?
While that is a factor I wouldn’t say it’s a very important one. Many other countries use a presidential system (pretty much all of Latin America for example), but none of them has the same “cult” as the US.
@@nicolasflores8544 The thing about Latin America is that it lacks one of the key features that JJ touched upon: stability. These countries were founded on a feudal system created Spain and Portugal, and, following their independences, very few found long-term stability.
@@knightshade2654 That’s my point, having a presidential system is a factor but not a defining one. Because the countries of Latin America suffered from a much bigger societal upheaval than the US, they didn’t have that initial unity and stability that allowed for a cult of the Founding Fathers (and later the Presidents) to appear. The fact that they had a presidential system didn’t matter that much.
@@IkeOkerekeNews Here in Australia there is a long-simmering debate about becoming some sort of republic, likely a presidential one, though there aredebates regarding how the prez will be elected; either popularly (something like in the US), or a "politician's president", voted in by members of parliament. Both have arguments for, and against, but our political establishment wants the latter even though most Australians apparently want some sort of popularly elected prez, minus the flaws we see in other countries, mainly the US. We likely will have a change of government soon, with an incoming Labor government favouring a republic, but want a "politician's prez". Oh well, time will tell.
Another factor is also how big of a deal elections are in American society. They're consistently every four years and are therefore a good way to mark the passage of time, unlike in parliamentary systems when snap elections can be called any time. They're also a lot more publicized and drag on for a lot longer than most other democracies. In countries like Canada and the UK, campaigning is restricted to a few weeks before the election--in the US, party nominees start bombarding you with ads a full two years before the national election. It's hard not to care about the President when you're constantly reading about them and seeing the on the news for over a year, every four years.
I suppose elections can feel more like special events when they happen less often.
@@BladeEdge86 Americans actually have on average more elections than most of the world's other Democracies, I believe only the Swiss have higher frequency elections.
Keep in mind the US legislature is elected every 2 years not 4 and Local positions every year
So technically the American are almost always having elections
It's only the president that takes 4 years per cycle
@@BasicLib good point.
Hamilton had to use his powers of persuasion to convince his readers that biannual elections were not too infrequent, as many states had annual ones. In fact, the lower house of the Rhode Island legislature had, at the time, a term of office of six MONTHS!!!! Midterms (the elections between presidential elections) are also a great way to clip the president's wings. Take into account what we call the "six year itch". If a president does get a second term, it's halfway through his second that the People tend to turn against him and vote into office a hostile Congress. In Britain you have to wait FIVE YEARS (!!!!!!) for your chance to dislodge H.M. Government from power. In the US, we can force a change in direction every two years, if not actually force him into retirement.
And yet voter turnout in US elections is consistently lower than other Western democracies
@@BasicLib Congressional elections are every two years and most state assembly races are every two years. US senate races are every six years and in most states state senate races are every four years. I haven't heard of local positions up for election every year, though I am sure this varies depending on where you live. Special elections can also happen in some jurisdictions, my state of California just had a recall election last year. I suppose the frequency of elections does vary a great deal in parliamentary systems on how stable vs polarized the political situation is, while this isn't as much of a factor in America.
I just think the US presidents themselves are a really interesting, colorful bunch. Also because elections are every 4 years, it's an easy way to mark the passage of time, and it makes it easier to learn history, in my opinion.
Another thing to consider: the US only has two prominent political parties. There are some others, but they never actually get much traction. Because of this, the president is generally going to be supported by half the country, either conservatives or liberals. If we had six or seven big parties, we could have a president that's supported by only like 15% of the country.
The Republican Party did start out as a third party, they replaced the Whig Party which tore itself apart over slavery, and the Whig Party replaced the Federalist Party (right after the Democratic-Republicans enjoyed a nice little political monopoly for a few decades or so) that died out after John Adams unpopular tenure. With the way things are going I think the Democratic Party is likely to suffer the same fate sometime within the next 10-20 years and will most likely either be replaced by an already existing third party or an entirely new one. The Populist Party never became a major party, but had a profound influence on the Democratic Party during the Progressive Era with some state and local candidates being endorsed both the Democratic Party and the Populist Party, and Democratic Party presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan being active in both.
@@night6724 Those political parties were also part of a two-party system when in power.
And yet Ireland's presidents are almost universally adored, despite us having far more parties.
@@qwertyTRiG Are Ireland's parties as divided as the US's are?
@@qwertyTRiG Are the Taoiseachs as universally celebrated? Imagine the powers of the Irish President *and* Taoiseach together in one office, and place that into a system where Democrats and Republicans have far greater divergences in policy preferences and world-views than their Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil counterparts.
I honestly feel like a big part of it is because they're elected at regular intervals, the presidents, particularly charismatic ones like Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Kennedy, tend to be a good representation of the social and political movements of the day, with stark contrasts between two presidents who serve back to back (like John Quincy Adams and Jackson, or more recently Obama and Trump) signalling a dramatic shift in cultural norms and/or political movements.
Good points!
Thank you for being honest.
John Quincy Adams didn't serve 2 terms
@@RandomVidsforthought I didn't say he did.
@@charlieputzel7735 Ok i apologize for the misunderstanding
To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of it is the longevity. The idea of one continuous chain of people stretching back almost 250 years without interruption seems almost unreal. It feels good to take part in a tradition that existed centuries before you were born, it gives you a sort of connection to the people of the distant past.
Of course the British monarchy is way older, even if the monarchs haven't been important for several monarchs now.
@@themoviedealers heck the line of popes stretches 2000 years
@@redstonemaddness and the line of British prime ministers
@@themoviedealers There was the brief gap in the monarchs under Cromwell though.
@@TheAlexSchmidt True but both the line of British monarchs since Cromwell and prime ministers since Sir Robert Walpole stretch back further than US presidents.
Yeah Presidents are overrated.
ur overrated
Do an episode on how the Swiss form of gov't compares to ours!!!
I see what you did there. Hello Mr. Beat.
Hahaha I was thinking about your favorite president video when JJ mentioned George Washington!
I personally prefer kings. Can we go back to that time where majority of governments were run by kings, emperors and whatnot?
I think part of the idolization stems from the idea that ~anyone, even you~ can be president in america (if youre american at least 😅) so the position of president is seen as aspirational from a very young age. on top of that because no president has inherited their title we also see them as being 'self made' which fits perfectly with the american dream narrative that anyone can become anything with enough hard work.
Gotta love the good old American "Lie"
Please explain how this is a lie? She just stated that no president has inherited their title.
As opposed to parliamentary systems, where the path to becoming leader is a lot more opaque, especially at a more formative age. Any American kid can see how you become president: people vote for you, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Any teen can see that it's only slightly more complicated, that you need to win a primary election before that. People regularly go from virtually unknown to president in just 18 months (Carter, Clinton, Obama, Trump).
While the American child is only two election wins away from the presidency, what about a British kid? It's simply a lot more complicated to work your way to becoming party leader through internal politicking. And God help you if your nation relies on coalition governments, where most people have little clue how anybody gets chosen
I guess i never wondered this but it is a weird feature of American patriotism
I wouldn't say patriotism but nationalism. American patriotism around the presidency I think would actually come from how we always talk about the bad of every president. Even the cult of Washington recognizes he owned slaves and was an aristocrat. We love the traditional but know that everyone is still human
@@cheeseninja1115 Patriotism can mean more than a single thing, you do realize?
I'm definetly making a series of videos about each of the German chancellors next year, where I might explore this topic. It's curious. Us Germans apparently really want our leaders to be as un-charismatic as possible.
An Obama-like figure could not work here, at least for now. It's seen as dubious, if a politician is too entertaining. Neither the public, nor the media really want to hear about a chancellor's spouse or private life.
That's obviously a consequence of the N@zi era. Sure. We might be especially weary of the charismatic leader-type... But I also think, a big reason might be the work ethos in this culture. Our view of the chancellor (and any politician for that matter) is really job-focused. It's rarely about their values. We seem to actively dislike emotional speeches and high concept appeals to the character of the nation.
Whereas the US president has to be able to give a rousing speech, that can unite the country in the face of an invading alien army 😉 the German one needs to be a human pocket calculator, that happens outside of pop culture. Again, anything else is seen as dubious. Weird.
In theory, we have a guy who should act in a more "charismatic" way. The president. But since our presidents are always kind of invisible, except for Christmas speeches, they aren't as relevant.
I like this analysis. I think people tend to over-ascribe everything about modern Germany to “the legacy of fascism” so the idea that it might actually reflect something else about German culture is interesting to me.
Thank you for the analysis it sounds so well german that you want the chancellor to be like a pocket calculator
@@JJMcCullough To be fair: Everything in German political life CAN definetly be traced back to f@cism! But in a lot of cases that argument is quite reductive. People go to easy on themselves and rarely dig deeper. :)
@@SuperKing604 Thanks. 😂 Although I gotta admit: I didn't come up with that phrase. Chancellor Scholz has repeatedly been dubbed "human pocket calculator" by the press.
Didn't the founders explicitly NOT want the president to be a "big deal"? They didn't want a king, so they purposefully gave their chief executive a bland name - one who merely "presides" - the name they gave to facilitators of large meetings (e.g., "president of the senate"). Definitely no "royal highness" or "his majesty".
But of course we like to make celebrities of people...
John Adams had the first senate spend months debating titles and forms of address for the President. Washington told him he wanted to be called "Mr. President, and nothing more"
Yeah. Washington would be disappointed about that. Although, I don't think he'd be too surprised.
In a way i feel as if the Founding Fathers of America would be both elated that America is doing so well and horrified at what the Presidency has become.
Indeed.
Yeah but i think americas success, wealth and military strength would maybe blow there minds more.
Who the fuck cares what they think, if you could go back in time and show literally any US President before, like, Jimmy Carter the list of all heretofore officeholders their first and only response would be "How in the hell did you let a black person become president?" I'm paraphrasing of course, they would use _different terminology_ if you catch my meaning.
@@Weebusaurus you think so? Or were you told so?
@@ggalahadx what?
On a more partisan note we may also carry dramatic memories of certain elections that act as cultural tochstones that happen very regularly unlike lets say British or Canadian elections which can happen basically at the whims of a prime minister and more broadly associate certain presidents with life developments.
I was born in 1998 and associate Bush with my childhood, Obama with my teen years, Trump for most of my college years and Biden with young adult me.
I think that's a combination of the ideas of no early leaves and the 4-8 years in office defining decades. Because only a few presidents have ever not finished their terms we get a continuous stream of influence from that one person which could last almost a full decade of our lives fiting nicely into childhood, teens, and adulthood.
Born in 88. Reagan still in office. Too young to remember Bush Sr but remember most of Clinton's administration. Dubya Bush was all of middle and high school for me and Obama was elected during my third semester at community college and elected in my fourth and final semester. Been at the same job since August 2013 and my tenure has seen Obama, Trump and Biden.
I was born in 1996 and I find this comment so relatable.
I think part of the obsession stems from the fact that Constitutional Monarchies have a monarch whose role in the modern era has become purely symbolic, while those states also have a secular Prime Minister / Presidential office. Whereas in the US, the President fulfills both the symbolic and secular roles, which gives them a lot more historical weight.
Ultimately I prefer that American system, because I have no respect for monarchies. I would go so far as to say I have very little respect for symbolism in general, although that's not to say it isn't interesting.
It's weird how we give the president all this power and then give him all the roles of a king and nobody thinks that's weird
Part of the American colonists’ beef with King George is actually that he didn’t act very kingly as a constitutional monarch. They wanted him to take their side against the Parliament, so it makes sense that they set up a strong President who could veto laws passed by Congress.
I earnestly think it is good when these two things are kept strictly separate.
If one follows the other, personality cults are created.
@@fds7476 I agree there is an advantage in keeping head of state separate from head of government. If HoS and HoG is a different person, it is easier to criticize the government without accusations of being unpatriotic because you aren't criticizing the person who is supposed to be the ceremonial embodiment of the nation.
As an Irish person, I'm so happy to see Michael D. Higgins pop up in another JJ video. And Sabina Higgins, too!
I wanna see jj make a video about the music associated with certain ceremonies and the history of why that song is used in that ceremony, like here comes the bride, happy birthday, or that sad funeral organ song
Something else I would add is that America elects their leaders directly while in many other countries the people elect a party who then elect their own leader. This allows for a more personal connection
Technically speaking, we don’t elect our president directly. There’s an electoral college, and that’s a controversial issue in its own right.
@@merrickdodge9760 you’re right, but for the purposes of my argument that doesn’t really matter.
As a guy from the Philippines, it’s very interesting to see how the way history is taught in the U.S. through the terms of Presidents is very similar to ours, though it’s not that surprising, given how we’re very influenced by them.
Unlike America however, our presidential timeline isn’t as straightforward and clear cut, like how the title of the country’s “First President” is disputed, or how Jose P. Laurel, an officially recognized president, served under a collaborationist government during WWII and also served around the same time as two pro-Aliies presidents in exile (Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña).
That being said, how is history taught given that Ferdinand Marcos is on that list. From what I see in the comments, people like him aren't exactly equated to other leaders.
Now imagine being from somewhere like Russia, where most of your life you only know one president 😐
I can certainly see patterns between the stability of the USA and the number of presidents over that time frame.
*Stable Periods:*
1789-1837 (48 yrs) featured 7 presidents (average tenure=6.9 yrs)
1933-1961 (28 yrs) featured 3 presidents (average tenure=9.3 yrs)
1981-2017 (36 yrs) featured 5 presidents (average term=7.2 yrs)
*Unstable Periods:*
1837-1897 (60 yrs) featured 16* presidents (average term=3.8 yrs; not counting Cleveland twice)
1961-1981 (20 yrs) featured 5 presidents (average term=4 yrs)
1961 to 1981 are even more unstable that terms served because during that time you had 1 assasination 1 guy who decided not to run for a second term 1 guy who resigned and another guy who literally no one voted for before he became famous. Carter was the only standar president of that era.
@@switchplayer1016 Well, I could narrow the other period down to just 1837-1869 which had 10 presidents in 32 years! Not a *single one* of these presidents made it to 2 full terms. There were 3 deaths in-office (one due to assassination) and all 3 successors were so unpopular, they didn't even get renominated by their respective parties (as was the case for Pierce and Buchanan). That only leaves you with Polk (a special case because he only sought one term anyway) and Van Buren.
We fought a war to escape the tyranny of being ruled by a monarch. And yet we cling to anything and anyone (political dynasties, sports heroes, entertainment celebrities) that even remotely resembles one. Not sure if is just an American thing, or a part of human nature at large.
That's not true you fought a war because you didn't want to pay taxes administered by the British parliament because as a colony you had no representation in said government. The UK has been a constitutional monarchy since 1721 under George I. George III who was king during the US revolution had little more power than the Queen today.
Considering how much of human history is people being ruled by a king, emperor, dictator etc it's a people thing.
Which is not that surprising ruling by committee isn't efficient and without modern communication and transportation would mean trying to do anything would take too long before the 19th century. Exceptions would be small city states without large land empires.
@@Ushio01 yup. Not only that but it was a small minority that wanted to leave. Most of the general public wanted to remain part of the UK. Case in point the large number of people that fled to Canada after the war
I think its a human thing, we gravitate towards charisma like a moth to a flame. Successful celebrities/athletes/politicians/religious leaders/preachers all tap into that part of our brain. Think of the rock, dalai lama, Michael Jordan and barrack Obama.
I believe is human nature. I’ve seem lots of places do it as well. But as somebody else pointed out in the comments, USA doesn’t have a mythological origin like Greece or Rome. Therefore it derives inspiration for meaning and character with public figures such as the president.
@@Ushio01 Still salty, eh mate? ;) I'll simply refer you to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", which is a densely packed but fairly brisk read at 47 pages. While published in 1776, it is today America's number 1 best seller and is still currently in print. So check it out at your local library or look it up online as it is public domain.
Suffice it to say that while isolated hostilities did initially occur due to a desire to correct the colonial taxation issue, all out war did not break out until a demand for total independence from the Crown became a mandate from the people. Having said that, there did seem to be lingering desire to find some kind of surrogate to fill the void. Cheers :)
This dudes hair game (and videos) are always on point.
Omg i know. As a short haired person im always in aw of the fullness, the body and the waves ahah
Best coffee in Washington is at The Java House.
1645 Q street, North West- underneath the Cairo, the only 12 story building in DC.
Liking so JJ can see
Well, their tea is spot on as well!
I always enjoy the added humour you add in these videos with your choice of photos and videos, like the unveiling of Paul Martin's portrait while speaking about "great leaders"
Paul Martin wasn't terrible, and his fiscal restraint was underappreciated, but he doesn't exactly come to mind when you mention great leaders
As a european, I definitely think neatness is a big part of it. Other countries have a list of kings that at some point transitions into a list of prime ministers, with or without the monarch remaining as a symbolic figurehead, resulting in a collection of big historical figures that don’t form a coherent list. I might list Stauning, Krag, Schlüter, Nyrup and Fogh as important heads of state whose reigns as PM mark a particular era, and Canute, Valdemar I, Margrethe I, Christian IV and Christian VII as ditto kings, but you can’t put all of them on a christmas ornament (and if I had to pick, I’d say the kings would be more appropriate)
As an American who is interested in politics and history, I found this quite interesting! Thanks for the theories!
Never thought about the history as you described..thank you for another perspective JJ!!
I am reminded of a "The Simpson's" gag where the school children are doing a play about the presidents and lump together a group they call the unremarkable and forgettable presidents... who are for the most part the one term presidents from prior to World War II. I don't believe that those presidents are as sentimentalized as the two termers are. For instance with the possible exception of William Henry Harrison, none of them are on anyone's list of favorite, best or worst presidents.
I thought that song was fantastic.." We are the mediocre presidents..you won't find our faces on dollars, and , or stamps"
Between the Presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, no sitting president during that time was even re-nominated by his own party, let alone re elected President. I guess back then we didn't care about any kind of celebrity status he may have had. My American history professor had a whole lesson on the post civil war/pre depression era called "President Who?" if that tells you anything.
I read a book about Israeli politics that said "in America, the past presidents sometimes meet in one room and have nice chats, in Israel it's impossible because every past leader is either in jail, in a hospital, not leaving his room or still thinking about comeback". Due to America's term limit, a president can just leave all of his political fued behind him after 8 years and become a smiley figure that goes on talk shows and ceremonies. in Israel they all continue to be involved in politics until they decline and ruin their reputation.
You always upload right when I get my lunch break. It's much appreciated.
As a Texan who's tried it, skip the DC Mexican food. There's an interesting spy museum, and the entire Smithsonian is great.
when I heard the line "in other countires it is not taboo for leaders to seek re-election after losing" I thought to myself that my country will make for an example; when I heard "Italy" I had my confirmation this was true ahahah. Awesome video J.J. !
I think it has a lot to do with Washington as well. He is such a revered and important figure in American history that the successors to his office are always going to be very important to us as well.
I'd love to listen what JJ would think about Brazilian history, because I, as a Brazilian, get surprised sometimes. We were a kingdom, had 2 kings, then the republic was made by a coup. Nowadays there are some people that idealize our second king, thinking How good he was suposed to be, despite being a king and, at that time, not working for the end of slavery. Not even mentioning when the portuguese royalty came to Brazil running away from Napoleon
I mean to be fair the situation of slavery with Dom Pedro II is a bit more nuanced than just “not doing anything as emperor”
@@mr.anderson2241 It was, you are right. But he had the Power to manage the parliament, he could use It. I know, It was another context, etc. But today, looking behind, there are more reasons to be critic than "oh he was perfect" as we see in Brazil
Kings? Emperors, we had Emperors. And though our second Emperor would only abolish slavery till later, he had passed policies as to reduce what slavery would actually entail during his whole reign.
Then, when he finally abolished it, it costed him his throne as to the agricultural elites that was the last straw.
@@konglight4070 uhhh, ok, the Emperor. I'm sorry for this terrible mistake, you highness
Pedro II is very respected in Brazil because everyone or nearly everyone that came after him was quite worse as a ruler, whether it was due to corruption, incompetence, authoritarism, or, more often than not, all of those combined
Lotta people with opinions on this 12-minute video three minutes after it debuted.
Can't hesitate if you want a top comment!
I think he missed the biggest, most obvious reason.
Which is that in America, our head of state and head of government are the same person. Unlike in Britain (sub in any parliamentary republic), where the queen is the ceremonial head of the nation, and the prime minister is responsible for the actual day-to-day running of things, in America, the president has most of the ceremonial role of the British monarch, as well as most of the authority of the British prime minister. So within the system, the president just is more important than either a parliamentary head of state or head of government.
There’s also the fact that unlike most parliamentary democracies which are functionally unicameral, America’s congress has a non-vestigial upper house. This generally serves to make the legislative process slower, magnifying the role of the president even more, especially considering his non-ceremonial authority to veto laws. A two chamber legislature also reduces the impact and visibility any one congressman can have, further increasing the president’s profile in comparison.
Almost 650k subs, so glad this brilliant channel is getting more visibility. The presentations continue to teach me more about my own country than I ever knew. Thank you JJ for your objective and honest videos, you are a beacon of integrity in the chaos of information in this crazy works. Happy Saturday everyone!!
Founding fathers definitely have a big role to play in it. There is a whole, very (recent) popular play, about a founding father that wasn't even a president.
Plus like Benjamin Franklin lit af and so were those other dudes who fought armies and partied in Paris and wrote a bunch of letters about the governments role in life and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know if this is unique to us, but its kinda awesome to get this list of guys in class, and then find out they fought two massive wars, then dueled each other and everything.
Great video. As an American I never really realized how much importance we place on presidents now and in the past. You're reasons for it make a lot of sense though!
I think you made a great point with the whole "consistency" theme. I often think about how it'd feel to be the person who put words to paper about how there'd be a presidential election on the 2nd Tuesday of November every four years, and it actually still being the case more than 200 years later. Like, I can be already certain that there'd be a presidential elections on Nov 3, 2076
As time marches on, 4 years doesn’t seem like that long of a period of time. So you really get to appreciate that Presidents come and go fairly quick.
No matter how indispensable, all leaders are disposable. That’s what Washington wanted to instill when he was President and set the tone of the office from there on out.
I think it was more to preserve a generational connection with the populace. Jefferson thought revolutions should occur every 20 years, after all.
@@rainmanjr2007 no, he thought the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years.
This guy is so interesting and intelligent I’ve been watching him for over a year now and I don’t always agree with his political views but jj is so awesome keep it up dude.
One interpretation of the presidency I was taught is that the founders modeled many things after ancient rome and that among them was the intention to have the american president be a sort of modified version of a roman consul.
I was fairly early on this one. Very thorough and great video, J.J.!
Spotted the Khruangbin song. You’re awesome jj!
Clear separation of executive and legislative has got to be important too. Britain, and many other countries, if the executive does not control the legislative, the legislative picks a new Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister resigns. Whereas in the US the executive was established as something above the law makers, and if they don’t control the legislative, there isn’t an expectation of resignation. This ties into the point about stable terms, because it makes terms in the UK and other such countries much more fragile.
Except it's not prime ministers that matters it's political party. We have relatively stable terms for the elected party regardless of who the interchangeable head of the party is.
@@Ushio01 I was more talking historically as well. But even so I believe my point still stands.
J.J we need a video on the freedom convoy
Nice reasonable speculation and a very entertaining script. Great content once again, J.J.
Love to JJ. good job.
09:39 🇳🇴Tiny correction from a Norwegian: Quizling (the Nazi shown in the video) was never Prime Minister, but held the title of Minister President. Still a horrific time of Norwegian history, but wasn't a big blow to the office of PM.
One theory that has always made sense to me when discussing this topic is when compared to much of the rest of the English speaking world, the US having a directly elected head of government is rather unique. The fact that Americans are able to directly cast a vote for a president I feel plays a factor here. Like in the UK or Canada for example, unless you specifically live in Johnson’s or Trudeau’s district you’re not exactly voting for your country’s leader, you’re voting for a random representative whom may end up voting to elect that leader to their position. While the US system with the electoral college is functionally the same, the fact that on the ballot itself we’re given the options of the candidates running for the office combined with the media very much portraying it in such a way gives Americans a more direct connection to the presidential race.
The traveling green screen really emphasizes how much value is added by JJs usual home background, which is relatable and displays his personality and interests.
I loved the video J.J.! I just started watching your videos and I think your analysis is quite refreshing. The only thing I think you got wrong in this video is that we did have a few rebellious moments in the beginning of our history here in the US, as well as the civil war, which could be seen as "challenges to the presidency", as you put it.
I remember in university I once asked my professor in a historiography class why was that Americans seemed to revere George Washington while the first thought that came to my head when thinking of D. Pedro I of Brazil, the Liberator, was that he was a shamelessly unfaithful husband*. He laughed, but then highlighted that the great man history thought common in the USA might lead to uncritical reverence to the presidents and the presidency, which is not necessarily healthy.
I tend to agree. I mean... Do you *really* want the face of Andrew Jackson or Herbert Hoover as a Christmas decoration?
* Emperor Pedro I of Brazil famously gave the title of Marchioness to his favorite mistress.
I remember during my 2nd or 3rd grade, in music class, we had a whole unit where we learned songs listing every state, every president, and another sort of song with the same theme I don't remember. These weren't any kind of Animaniacs quality songs, though, these were just listing things to a jingle with a vague attempt at a rhyme scheme. For pure nostalgia's sake, I tried to find a version of the songs online, but I'm almost convinced my music teacher just made up the songs herself. Anyone else have to learn anything similar?
Fifty Nifty United States and the Thirteen Original Colonies song :)
@@kootiblu113 ack, I thought that was the song too, but it wasn't. I can't remember the entire listing, but I don't think the states were listed in any particular order like alphabetically or by size.
This was definitely a thing in like kindergarten or the first grade just to help kids get more familiar with history and country wide knowledge
No, but I remember the little cartoon bill singing to instruct us how he becomes a law, LOL
@@supercolinblow Schoolhouse Rock, "I'm Just a Bill..."
JJ, i watch every single video You post since 2018. You are the only real constant in my life it seems
Haven't watched the video, but just want to say thank you jj, many of the views I hold on Canada and being Canadian vs American have been inspired by you.
I don’t always agree with JJ, but his videos certainly make me think!
"there was never a situation where you had an evil psychopath in the top job"
Andrew Jackson: hold my beer
meh debatable.
Based on his perspective at the time, He had no real obligation towards native Americans. And so his genocide isn't viewed as evil psychopathy (and wasn't for many decades) until Modern American Society become far more inclusive and willing to address its past
By that same metric Washinton, Jefferson, Polk etc would be vilified today (and part from very progressive circle, they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder how Hitler would have been remembered had Germany not gone to war with half the world and had he died in a car accident in the late 30s and over the subsequent decades Germany become more progressive and addressed the failure of "That dark time"
In many ways a part of our understand of Hitler comes from THE WAR, and the final solution (which really kicked off during the war)
It's one of those weird counterfactuals about how we view history and really puts into context how much we've grown as a society.
I do believe that there is a somehow monarchical origin to this way of viewing the American Presidency, here in Europe some countries (although it was much more common decades ago) see their royal families in also like celebrities and have pictures and images of them, no one had a picture of Harold Macmillan in the 1950s but sure they'll have a picture of Queen Elizabeth
It is very curious. In Spain, I would say, we don't view or treat like that neither the president nor the king, and mostly see the "personality cult" towards both US presidents and British monarchs as something weird. Any of them are specially popular celebrities nor more than any other random politician or aristocrat, and it's not common at all for people or even public places to have pics of any of them. Also, neither the king or the president is seen as a more relevant persona in real life even if the monarchy's reason of being is to act as a living symbolic representation.
You should do a video series documenting each presidential library you visit. Also have u done a video visiting Ottowa and Parliament, yet?
Good stuff j.j. hope your having a good time in D.C.
"Like" is a strong, optimistic word
The Office, he means, not necessarily the people sitting on it. If Americans didn't place so much value on the Presidency, there wouldn't be so much hyper attention placed on the election for it.
Because it combines the ceremonial role of 'Head of State' and the operational role of 'Head of Government', resulting in a much more powerful singular leader than many other countries (Germany, UK, France etc - where there is a President/ Monarch as Head of State and a seperate PM/ Chancellor as Head of Government).
- a British Australian South-Asian American
As I wrote above, a lot of people from other countries, particularly parliamentary democracies like yours, assume that because he wears those two hats (head of state and head of government) simultaneously, he's automatically a dictator. You overlook the fact that, while very influential with individual senators and representatives, the President still cannot make the law. He can approve laws, he can propose laws, and he can even prevent a law from coming into being via the veto power (which Congress can actually override and thus veto the veto). But he still cannot actively participate in making the law. In the 90s, Bill Clinton vetoed his own universal health care bill he had proposed to Congress after it came back to his desk in a practically unrecognizable form, thanks to what a friend of mine call "the congressional sausage machine". In my opinion, your Australian government has better checks on it via the elected Senate, than other parliamentary systems like Canada where the Senate is appointed and powerless and the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, MP is.....well.....god incarnate. (OK that's an exaggeration but you get the idea.
I’d say you’re wrong about the power of the president. The US president has far less political power than leaders of countries like Canada and the UK. I’d argue Congress is the most powerful branch of US government. Congress votes on wars externally and controls every bit of American life regarding laws internally, they also have the power to remove the president from office and have the power to override his veto on bills. The most the president has in regards to power is federal territories which are very insignificant and usually only consist of federal buildings. And he can mobilize federal resources to only a certain extent. The most power the American president has comes in diplomacy with other nations.
The whole presidents as a source of time-keeping thing is very true. At least in my family, we def talk about what president we were born under, how many elections we remember and all that fun stuff.
Love your work
….we do?? Since when? Pretty sure we only like them after they’re ⚰️ 💀 tbh
As a Brit, we do the same still with the monarchy. In school you still learn of things as being during the Victorian, Stuart or Edwardian era. I find it interesting that the ‘modern era’ as it’s known in the UK basically just refers to the era Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne.
I agree.
70 years is a long period.
And JJ impresses me again!!
Excellent video, JJ!
America does have some legitimacy issues, especially in recent years. Whether "not my president" during the Trump era, or politicians not recognizing election results because of "voter fraud". I'd say the single case of the Presidency being contested or wholly not respected by half the country was the CIVIL WAR. Perhaps worth a mention in the seemingly uncontested 200+ years of presidents.
The trump era most likely won’t go down in history as a major event
It's basically a combination of what you alluded to: the US is the most powerful and influential nation in the world, so its leader will be widely known, the time period of Presidents is stable (fixed terms, all but 2 being President over a year at least), and the fact that the President is the head of state and head of government of the US, unlike in other countries, so he/she is the clear leader of the country
BRILLIANT. This is a WONDERFUL video.
This wound up being one of your best videos.
One contributing factor may be that in the US there isn't a head of state and head of government who are a different person so it's more clear which office you tend to associate with political chronology. Of course, the US isn't unique in this. There are many other countries, such as France, with a president in the top leadership position both symbolically/ceremonially *and* functionally. But I think it might still be a factor.
From Reagan to Obama with the exception of bush 41, the presidents symbolized the decades they were presidents in. For good or ill the 80s are the Reagan era, 90s Clinton, 2000s Bush, and 2010s obama
JJ.. you really need me make a video about what’s going on in our country.. love ya man keep it up
11:35 Gompertz Law of Human Mortality has shook me to the core UA-cam FAMILY... Great Video j.j. J.J.
Anyone who is interested in the presidency should check out Stephen Sondheim's musical "Assassins." It looks at American culture surrounding the office through the warped lens of those who have entered into history by killing or attempting to kill a president.
One monologue that sticks out:
"Ladies and gentlemen, a toast. To the presidency of the United States. An office, which by its mere existence, reassures us that the possibilities of life are limitless. An office, the mere idea of which reproaches us when we fall short of being all that we can be. A grand and glorious office to which at least one among us may one day aspire. Ladies and gentlemen, what can I say? Hail to the chief!"
Probably my favorite musical, it’s so good
AMOGUS?
@@DwRockett One of my favorite "history/politics nerd musicals." Up there with Hamilton, and to a lesser extend Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.
There's also a lot to like about 1776, but I'm just not a fan of the music so I don't love it the way I love the others.
@@jonhanson8925 100%
Great video, i laughed when you said that the USA had no military coups and things like that, because in my country half the coups were really influenced by the USA.
Regardless, im from argentina so here is a short version of our political history
1810 - 1820 war against spain through all south america
1820 - 1860 civil wars, there wasnt presidents, most leaders were deposed or killed after 1 or 2 years with some exceptions (like Rosas)
1860 - 1880 final civil wars, there were presidents at that time, they were like founding fathers but not so popular back then and now they are still controvertial
1880 - 1916 the conservative age, they created the argentinian identity to unite all the inmigrants as argentinians. They were all elected by systematic fraud, to them "the people were not ready to choose"
1916 - 1930 The first democratic presidents, the radicals.
1930 - 1946 coups, fraudulent conservatives again and then more coups
1946 - 1955 PERON, the most controvertial and popular president
1955 - 1973 coups, then a couple of well intended presidents that were totally controlled by the military, during that time the peronism was proscribed and peron exiled
1973 - 1976 PERON AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME IS FULL FASCIST, but dies. Then Chaos between the communists - left wing peronism and conservatives - right wing peronism.
1976 - 1983 The worst coup, Pinochet was really bad, but videla, viola and galtieri were waaay worse.
1983 - 2001 Democracy without economy, it had two peak economic crisis that ended two presidencies.
2001 - 2022 The fallout of the economic crisis and rise of the kirchner family.
So yeah, its been a really unstable history, so its hard to speak of presidencies as a stable leadership, its easier to talk about the age of conservatives or the radical age as a defined era
Great video, I think another reason is a lot of countries have different people for their head of state and their head of government, kinda splitting the iconic-ness of both, but in the US it's the same person/same job.
I like the brief green screen reveal at 12:32.
First Formal President of 3rd Polish Republic that served only one year was General Jaruzelski. The Grim speech guy. So I guess poles csn relate to Australians in that matter.
Kiedy widziałem to wideo JJ'a to pomiślałem o pierwszego Prezydenta III RP i jak go nie znam.
9:00 January 6th was somewhat close. On the world stage it’s benign, because some countries have had multiple military coups.
Ive watched a bit of your videos and always wondered what the paper alien/spaceman looking thing was pinned up in the background
Now i know thanks to the thumbnail!
Great vid! For a future topic relating to this, can you do a video on political families and how they affect democracies?
People really do need to focus on local politics more.
Perhaps part of the reason we tend to "cultify" the president, as if he were some sort of monarch, is that his office combines the ceremonial duties along with actual power. Sort of a combination of what Walter Bagehot called the "dignified" and the "efficient", rolled into one. Even so he doesn't have nearly the same amount of power within the American government that a Canadian or British prime minister has within the governments of Canada or the UK respectively. (Some of your videos have covered this, I think?) People abroad don't often realize this. Now, there certainly is a cult around the presidency and his office is more powerful than was originally intended; but he is far more collegial than he looks to them. They do not seem to realize this, and they assume that our Head of Government (& State) naturally has as much power as their head of government does, plus the ceremonial duties, which---since they separate those duties and powers into two separate offices---seems dictatorial to them.
Yet, even the likes of a Richard Nixon would salivate at the amount of power concentrated in the hands of most prime ministers in parliamentary systems. Look at the things the president of the United States *cannot* do that other heads of government are empowered to do: affect the timing of elections, appoint judges (and cabinet ministers) with little legislative oversight, even kick people out of his party for not towing the line. The presidential system is not "superior" in any way to the parliamentary system, it just depends on which set of flaws a country and its government prefer to live with.
So if there is a cult to the presidency, it's mostly in his ceremonial duties and the public's perception of his office and the personality he projects within that office.
Another great video, JJ keep 'em coming!
Good comment.
The fact American presidents have their own plane was weird to me at first because the Dutch PM mostly cycles to his job haha. But I guess in such a big country it's also kind of essential to be able to get everywhere quickly