United States presidents are expected to be great: great people, great leaders, and great presidents. But is it really possible for every single president to be great? Would that not just turn what was once considered greatness into mediocrity? Turn greatness into something no more or less than the expected performance of each president, something usual and expected and entirely unremarkable? As compelling as these questions are what first must be considered when considering such inquiries is how to actually determine what presidential greatness is. There are many different beliefs as to what makes a president “great” and many different proposed models that are meant to help determine the greatness of a president. Political scientist …show more content…
Barber’s model proposes that there are four types of presidents: Active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, and passive-negative (Barber, 1972). Each of these four types in Barber’s theory are based off a series of personal characteristics that help to determine what type of president a potential candidate would be and thus how successful that person may be were they in office. Barber’s apparent findings with this model show that active-positive presidents tend to be more successful than passive negative ones (Barber, 1972). Yet while Barber’s model seems to be pretty accurate in determining what a president may be like it fails to accurately predict the success of a president and also fails to show particular difference in the greatness of past presidents. Each of the four categories that Barber theorized includes at least one president who is considered to have been a great president and at least one who has been considered to be an unremarkable president at best. That means that regardless of where a president may fall in Barber’s model they may still manage to make a great president. With this aspect of unreliability Barber’s model, much like Neustadt’s, cannot be used a single designator of presidential