Sometimes in attempting to make an institution, country, or process better, it makes sense to determine what the worst instances of something were or are - in the hopes of entirely avoiding similar mistakes in the future, thereby learning from History.

Democracy is a very fine institution, cherished, well-respected and admired by many around the world - yet not without its flaws. Unfortunately, Democracy does not always ensure electing the best person or even the most qualified person for its topmost executive position as President of the United States (Pres. of the U.S., POTUS).

Popularity, in and of itself, does not ensure a highly qualified, effective, compassionate, empathetic, experienced, gifted, intelligent, sometimes flexible and willing to compromise government leader.

Leadership of a democracy, of, by and for the people - also demands excellence. Furthermore, popularity is sometimes elusive, obscure or perhaps, at times, of lesser great importance, than other necessary-additional leader attributes. What if a governing leader of a democracy loses the popular vote but yet gets elected by what some might label a technical flaw in the election process? What if a leader seems somewhat popular before being elected, but becomes overly allured by the powers inherent in a very high level executive position, subsequent to taking power? What if his or her judgment is fatally flawed, through perhaps no fault of his or her own? These qualities, these success and failure attributes, are difficult to measure in advance of ascendancy, to the highest executive office in the land. Yet aren't attributes other than popularity also crucially important?

Per historical rankings of U.S. presidents: Five worst Presidents in U.S. history (consensus per both Liberals and Conservatives) include: Warren Harding (29 th President), Ulysses S Grant (18 th President), James Buchanan (15 th President), Andrew Johnson (17 th President), and Richard Nixon (37 th President). ^[2]

Warren Harding is also among TIME Magazine's (Times Mirror Co.) 10 Worst Presidents. Republican bosses [Harding ran on the Republican ticket] found favor with Harding, finding him charismatic and pliant [Harding was easy to get his way with, by Republicans, after Harding got into office], and Harding won the presidency in 1920 promising to restore pre– World War I"normalcy." His underlying principles were: a) restoring the U.S. to a prior period, sometimes called regression ^[1]and b) conservatism. In office, Harding appointed a slew of corrupt officials... for the first time sent a Cabinet secretary to prison. Author Malcolm Gladwell: In his book Blink, Gladwell says the "Warren Harding error" led supporters to assume he'd be a good President simply because he appeared stately and presidential. It didn't quite work out that way. ^[0]

Ulysses S. Grant's administration was plagued by corruption (unethical conduct, dishonesty - also sometimes known as doublespeak) and errors of judgment. Grant certainly was not stupid, he was a former U.S. Civil War General, yet as President he made errors in judgment. The popular vote electing Grant was close, but Grant won an electoral landslide in 1868. Radical Republicans in Congress were ecstatic, at least at first. Tragically, Grant had zero prior experience in government leadership. Good or even great leadership from one vocation in life does not automatically translate to good, knowledgeable, experienced leadership in government, at least in Grant's case. ^[14]This is all the more true in 21 st century government where processes, world views, leadership-education(s) and opposing government leaders are much more experienced and knowledgeable in government leadership than in centuries or even mere decades gone past.

James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania-born Democrat, was deeply devout in his faith and the only bachelor elected to the presidency.

Buchanan rejected slavery as an indefensible evil but, like the majority of his party at that period in time, refused to challenge a perceived constitutionally established order [that slavery was implicitly allowed under the United States Constitution ]. ^[17]Most societies, including Christians and most other religions, today view slavery as morally wrong, intellectually repugnant. ^[19]Buchanan failed to do anything at all; he failed to follow his moral and his faith's internal compass. He failed therein - to follow the fundamental "all men and women are created equal" American value. The U.S. Civil War ensued.

Andrew Johnson, a post-Civil War Reconstruction Era president (Democrat, Southerner, originally V.P. until Abraham Lincoln assassinated), is scorned for having resisted Radical Republican policies aimed at securing the rights and well-being of the newly emancipated African-Americans. Unfortunately, Johnson's battles with Radical Republicans in Congress over a host of Reconstruction measures revealed presidential political ineptitude ^[18]and an astonishing indifference or lack of empathy toward the plight of the newly freed African-Americans. In addition to vetoing renewal of the Freedman's Bureau and the first Civil Rights Act of 1866, he encouraged opposition to the 14thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.

An increasingly nasty power struggle ensued - in which Congress wrongly attempted to strip him of certain constitutionally delegated powers; it resulted in the very first presidential Impeachment (U.S.) and a near conviction, see Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Failing to be renominated for president, he returned to Tennessee and was again elected to the U.S. Senate. History's current verdict may prove to be overly harsh, but it is fair to say that Johnson turned a blind eye to those southerners who tried to undo what the Civil War had accomplished. In short, Jackson failed to heal the nation; he failed to help bring it together and he failed to help those who attempted to bring America together. He was well liked in Tennessee and his election to the position of U.S. Senator assures him a certain permanent, prominent place in history; however, history regards him to be a substandard, even unacceptable U.S. president. ^[11]The level of competence in a U.S. President must surpass even that of the skills of a U.S. Senator (no small feat, a major historical achievement in and of itself).

Richard Nixon, though politically gifted, will forever be associated with the Watergate scandal and his resignation.

Nixon's failings were the stuff of dark tragedy ^[8]: uneven judgment (or paranoid state) and a deeply suspicious character verging on the delusional, combined with great political gifts and even considerable vision. The drama of Nixon Agonistes or his agonistic display concludes with his resignation under a cloud of wrongdoing. For obstruction of justice (see also Obstructing government administration) re the investigation of a petty crime committed by some of his own campaign operatives—an attempt to burglarize the Democratic National Headquarters—Nixon's name and reputation will forever be linked with one word: Watergate. ^[9]

A number of abuses of power or abuses of the system (i.e. activities not subjected to Congressional pre-approval and or open voting, including no open public commentary pre-implementation or attempted-implementation) occurred during Nixon's presidency, including the Nixon administration's use of illegal audio surveillance to spy on political opponents. Additionally, Nixon ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, and Internal Revenue Service to harass activists and political figures. Nixon's patently false quote, "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." ^[10]

It can, at times, be helpful to look for Excellent Presidential Qualities outside the United States, like from the Philippines: ^[23]

See also Constitution of the Philippines and Philippines-US relations. The Philippines have, until very recently (2017) been a strong, long-term ally of the United States (since 1951) - over half a century. Although the country may be losing some luster (U.S. - Philippines alliance has frayed) at its top, see President Rodrigo Duterte, the Presidential "ideal qualities" listed above are very sound, possess integrity. Benjamin Franklin quotes,"Who is wise? He (she) who learns from every one." and "Who is powerful? He (she) who governs his (her) passions " (yet with sincere, genuine empathy). [21]

The costs to an economy of a leader exhibiting demagogeury are enormous, rippling, geometric, if not infinite. "True prosperity is built not merely when the rich and privileged reach their potential. But when everyone does. That is the great challenge of every true leader. And it’s also what demagogues don’t do. In an Age of Rage, when the world is broken, demagogues position themselves as saviors. That is the foundation of their moral appeal." ^[4] Opportunity costs, opportunity cost of capital, social costs, individual productivity costs and psychological costs are frequently hidden, yet very real costs. If a demagogue chief executive starts pushing his or her agenda through an economy, people start to become side-tracked from their lives, becoming activists, and getting involved in protests. What gets lost is people's focus on what they had prior to the demagogue attaining power. Just as the gawker ^[5]effect slows down traffic geometrically, a previously vibrant economy will inevitably start to experience an economic slump, since people start to focus on protesting issues (and the demagogue), not their jobs and higher developmental thought-progress, etc. If scientists are out protesting or always defending their work, progress drops to zero or near zero.

Protests are a democratic right and even at times a necessity, but their costs can be very high, particularly in the presence of a demagogue and or an off-centered, even well-meaning chief executive of that country.

The costs of the protests to the country and its economy are huge, particularly if measured in terms of: 1) erosion of confidence, 2) muddying of the narrative for foreign and domestic investors, and 3) weakening of the country’s controls over the economy (people's lives become interrupted) and 4) the country's ability to discharge its regulatory and oversight duties (policing costs, for instance, increase as oversight of protests escalates; whether those protests be peaceful or otherwise).

There may not be an immediate impact in terms of loss of output and or damage to infrastructure, but over time - the cost to the underlying pillars upon which a free market economy operates can be immeasurable. ^[6]

Xenophobia (intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries) starts erecting barriers to free-trade, thereby directly inflating import costs and reducing the supply of import goods. Xenophobia costs can be very high, particularly if such fears are fanned by a chief executive and or his-her political party. Per the Washington Post in early 2017, the cost of building a Mexican-U.S. border wall could cost as much as $25 billion to U.S. taxpayers ^[7]; further, Mexico is the U.S.'s third largest trading partner. Forcing another country to pay a country's expenses would be the equivalent to war reparations (impossible without an actual war) or increased tariffs and or increased import taxes, would would then escalate counter-trade measures, export restrictions and or create a trade war, costly in and of itself.

The costs of increasing deportations of illegal immigrants and banning immigrants from entering a country are equally hidden and costly.

Astronauts and particularly Astronaut Pilots- as one example - are required to undergo highly rigorous NASA training prior to assuming their duties. It can take up to two years of training to become a fully qualified astronaut. They have to take multiple classes, above and beyond minimum educational requirements. They have to pass achievement, maturity and stability tests. They have to fully and repeatedly demonstrate - the ability to function under very difficult, stressful, unusual, trying circumstances. They need to be able to actively demonstrate immense problem-solving skills, quick-but-deliberative ^[15]-thinking, self-sacrifice, ability to logically and decisively react to emergency situations, guide a crew through sometimes impossible odds, possess a high degree of ethical conduct, exhibit situational awareness, empathy for other astronauts-teammates and much, much more. They have to pass, not just physical tests, but emotional stability and psychological profile tests (fitness to serve). ^{[12] [13]}Astronauts cannot just brag about how great they are; they must demonstrate it, prior to assuming their role(s).

Should the requirements for office of President of the United States be any less rigorous, any less intensive or - in any way, shape or form - be anything less than par excellence ^[16]? Presidency is the highest executive office in the United States of America. Incompetence or "less than high-standard" in the office can be and is an enormous waste of national, personal, social, time and other resources. History proves it. In short incompetency, even less-than-average therein, should be deemed unacceptable by a 21st century, modern, and world-class democracy.

"A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and life is after all a chain."

^[21]-William James (Philosopher and Psychologist).

See also: