I was writing a reply to a comment, when I realized something depressing. A commenter had suggested that Michael Steele was a RINO, and in the process of explaining why I disagreed, I mentioned that the last president I wholly agree with was either Grover Cleveland or Andrew Jackson.  What a depressing realization, that not one president in the past century has been one I could agree with 100%.

But it is true. For all his brilliance, Reagan was far too tolerant of deficits, did not push his advantage thanks to his huge popularity to reign in congress as much as he could have, and was completely wrong to withdraw entirely from Beirut, as it sent the message to terrorists that terror attacks could intimidate the US. (Especially coming after Carter let us be paralyzed by a few hostage takers.)

On the other hand, Cleveland was generally in the right. Free trade, pro gold, and strongly opposed to intervening, except when protecting the public safety. In fact, the one event which most recall, though seen as a negative, is a positive in my mind. While he is much maligned by the left for allowing the use of troops to break up union inspired (and also promoted by socialist Eugene V. Debs) Pullman strikes, I see it as perfectly correct. The unions were not just "striking", workers were physically, violently, preventing replacement workers from taking their jobs, as well as impeding the operation of the railroads. Cleveland correctly saw this as riot and authorized the use of the military to restore order. In other words, he wasn't "union busting", he was dispersing a violent mob. Though unions have now been elevated into icons by some, partly thanks to FDR giving them quasi-governmental powers, we should not forget pre-FDR "strikes" were really nothing more than mobs gathering in front of plants to violently disrupt business. And while today we think of it as "civil disobedience" and many find it honorable, in the past men had a more sensible belief, that those who disrupt business and cause disorder are criminals, and if they don't disperse on the request of the authorities, they have no right to complain if force is used, even lethal force. It is only in modern, foolish times that we could have events such as the WTO riots and worry more about the welfare of the rioters than the property and safety of the law abiding.

So, yes, I think Cleveland is the last president with which I agree. Which is a bit less depressing. If I had to go all the way back to Jackson I would be truly depressed. At least it was only a century since the US showed some common sense. Even if it was a last gasp for common sense. It still gives me hope that it was only a few generations since sanity had a chance of holding the highest office.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who don't follow links, my argument was that, yes, Steele is to my left, but I realize no politician is going to agree with all my beliefs, and so I judge on something of a sliding scale. Taking a fictional "average" Republican, midway between Lincoln Chaffee/Olympia Snowe and Bobby Jindall (or Sarah Palin if you don't like Jindall), Steele definitely falls to the right of that midpoint. He may be to my left, but so is Jindall (except maybe on social issues, where people insist my libertarian views "aren't conservative" -- it's only fair, I argue intervention/restriction views "aren't conservative"). So I am happy with anyone to the right of my fictional average. You have to fall to the left, and maybe a good way to the left, before I will start calling you a RINO.

Actually, that is a better explanation than I gave in my reply. But there I was limited by the character count. (Not really, that description would fit easily, I just hadn't thought of that particular explanation and offered the same idea in a less clear way.)

POSTSCRIPT II

Cleveland issued a statement, when vetoing the Texas Seed Bill, which may be my site's motto:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

If only a modern politician would say something even close to that. It is the clearest statement (at least since Madison's thoughts on the "general welfare" clause) of government minimalism, one can find issuing from the mouth of  a president. And to think it was uttered as recently as 1887.

POSTSCRIPT III

I don't mean to allow my fondness for Jackson to malign two other good presidents who came between Jackson and Cleveland. First, Jackson's VP, James K. Polk, who basically followed the Jacksonian line, and so is generally a respectable president. Second Franklin Pierce, who was also a traditional Jacksonian Democrat, though perhaps a bit too fond of subsidizing railways and other ventures, and thus showing a tendency toward government "investment" that would lead us into a lot of trouble following the Civil War and straight through to today. 

Beyond those four, only Reagan deserves much credit, though he was neither as bold as Cleveland in stating his views, nor as consistently committed to absolute government minimalism. He did wonderful things considering the time in which he was elected, but I can't help but think he could have done a little more.

And, of course, prior to Jackson, there were the usual luminaries. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, all minimalists who understood the proper role of government (excepting Jefferson's strange fondness for public education and his simplistic faith in the moral virtue imparted by farming). Unfortunately, because they understood the proper role of government so well, so intuitively, perhaps they did not do as much as they could to explain that role. Though Madison did make a few statements often quoted by small government proponents, they are sadly few in number, and, though I doubt they foresaw the outcome, they did leave the vague interstate commerce and general welfare clauses in the Constitution, opening the door to all of our present horrors. (Then again, had they not, I am sure some clever judge would have found a justification in the emanations of the penumbras for government expansion. After all if interstate commerce can cover purely intrastate trades, the RICO statutes and the Violence Against Women Act, then they could have warped any clause imaginable to justify big government.)

So that makes six good (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Cleveland) and two fair (Pierce and Reagan) presidents out of 43 presidents (because Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th). That is not exactly an impressive record. Then again, given the record since 1900 (1 fair president out of 18 elected presidents, or 19 total presidents), I suppose 8 acceptable presidents out of 43 isn't so bad.

Then again, why is the list so front loaded with good presidents? Should that tell us something?