Selecting a leader for a nuclear-armed nation isn’t like hiring a middle manager, though we often treat it that way. We get bogged down in "vibes" or whether we’d grab a beer with them. Honestly, that’s a terrible metric. When you look at the actual traits of a good president, the reality is much gritier and far more technical than the stump speeches suggest. It’s about the intersection of temperament and an almost obsessive understanding of the levers of power.
People think charisma is the big one. It’s not.
Look at someone like Lyndon B. Johnson. He wasn't exactly a "cuddle up by the fire" kind of guy. He was intimidating, crude, and often deeply unpleasant to be around. But he understood the Senate. He knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak. His ability to navigate the legislative process—a core trait of a good president—is why the Civil Rights Act actually became law instead of dying in committee. Success in the Oval Office is rarely about being liked; it's about being effective within the constraints of a three-branch system.
The Myth of the "Strongman" vs. Intellectual Flexibility
We have this weird obsession with "strength." We want a president who stands their ground and never wavers. In reality? That’s usually a recipe for disaster.
The best presidents are actually the ones who can change their minds when the data changes. Think about Abraham Lincoln. Early in his career, his views on abolition were complicated and, by modern standards, deeply flawed. But he had this incredible capacity for growth. He listened to Frederick Douglass. He observed the shifting moral and strategic landscape of the Civil War. He wasn't static. That intellectual flexibility—the willingness to admit a previous position was insufficient—is a trait of a good president that we rarely reward on the campaign trail but desperately need in the Situation Room.
Contrast that with leaders who dig in their heels during a crisis. Flexibility isn't weakness; it's high-level processing.
👉 See also: What Really Happened With the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz
Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is More Than Just a Buzzword
A lot of people roll their eyes when you bring up EQ. They think it's some "soft" skill. It’s not. When the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding in October 1962, John F. Kennedy was surrounded by generals who wanted to start bombing immediately. They were convinced that a show of force was the only language the Soviets understood.
Kennedy had the emotional intelligence to look past the immediate adrenaline. He could put himself in Nikita Khrushchev's shoes. He realized that if he pushed Khrushchev into a corner where the only options were total humiliation or nuclear war, Khrushchev would choose war. By finding a way for both sides to "save face"—publicly removing missiles from Cuba while secretly agreeing to remove US missiles from Turkey later—Kennedy avoided a global catastrophe. That’s not just "being smart." That’s a deep, intuitive understanding of human psychology under pressure.
Why Technical Competence and "The Grudge" Matter
It’s easy to talk about vision. Vision is cheap. Anyone can hire a speechwriter to talk about "a shining city on a hill." The real work happens in the boring stuff.
Does the president understand how the Department of Justice actually functions? Do they know how to fill the thousands of political appointments that keep the federal government from grinding to a halt? A good president needs to be a bit of a policy wonk. Or, at the very least, they need to be a world-class recruiter who doesn't feel threatened by people smarter than them.
Dwight D. Eisenhower is a masterclass in this. People thought he was a "do-nothing" president who spent all his time on the golf course. It was a ruse. Behind the scenes, he was running a "Hidden-Hand Presidency," as scholar Fred Greenstein famously called it. He used his military organizational skills to manage a massive bureaucracy with surgical precision. He knew that the traits of a good president included knowing when to stay out of the spotlight so the work could get done.
✨ Don't miss: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
The Problem With Hero Worship
We tend to look for a savior. We want a George Washington or a FDR to come in and fix everything with a wave of a hand. This is a dangerous way to view leadership.
The US Constitution was literally designed to stop one person from being a hero. It’s a system of friction. Therefore, a good president must be a master of friction. They have to be comfortable with the fact that they will only get about 60% of what they want, even on a good day. If a candidate promises they will "single-handedly" fix a complex systemic issue, they are either lying to you or they don't understand how the job works. Neither is a good sign.
Integrity and the "Quiet" Traits
We talk about integrity, but we usually define it as "not getting caught in a scandal." That’s a low bar. Real integrity in the White House is about the decisions made when nobody is looking and there's no immediate political payoff.
It's about James K. Polk—regardless of how you feel about his expansionist policies—vowing to only serve one term and actually sticking to it, even though he probably could have won again. He did what he said he would do, worked himself to the point of physical exhaustion, and left. There’s a certain grim discipline in that.
- Resilience: You’re going to get blamed for things you didn't do. You’ll be hated by roughly half the country at any given moment.
- Decisiveness: You can’t "circle back" on a drone strike or a banking collapse. You have to choose, often with only 50% of the necessary information.
- Curiosity: A president who stops reading or stops asking "why?" is a president who becomes a captive of their own advisors.
The Trap of Populism
In the modern era, we’ve seen a shift toward populism as a primary leadership style. It’s effective for winning elections. It’s usually disastrous for governing. Why? Because populism requires an "enemy." Effective governing, however, requires a coalition.
🔗 Read more: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
A good president has to be able to talk to the people who didn't vote for them. If you only speak to your base, you’re not a national leader; you’re a faction leader. Ronald Reagan, for all the polarized opinions about his economics, was remarkably good at reaching across the aisle to Tip O'Neill. They disagreed on almost everything, but they shared a fundamental respect for the institution of the presidency and the necessity of a functioning government. They'd argue all day and then have a drink at 5:00 PM. We miss that. Not because it's "nice," but because it's the only way a divided government actually produces results.
Navigating the Information Age
Today, the traits of a good president have to include digital literacy and a high resistance to disinformation. In 1940, FDR had the luxury of time to craft a Fireside Chat. Today, a president has about 30 seconds to respond to a viral video that might be a deepfake or a coordinated foreign influence operation.
This requires a different kind of temperament. It requires a leader who doesn't "tweet from the hip." (Or whatever the 2026 version of tweeting is). They need a filter. They need to be the coolest person in the room when the internet is on fire. If a president is as reactive as the general public, the country is in serious trouble.
Summary of Actionable Insights for Voters
When you’re evaluating a candidate, stop looking at the polished ads. Instead, look for evidence of these specific behaviors:
- Check their "Team of Rivals" potential. Has this person ever hired someone who publicly disagreed with them? If they only surround themselves with "yes-men," they will fail the first time a real crisis hits.
- Look for "The Pivot." Find an instance where they changed their mind based on new evidence. If they brag about "never changing," that’s a red flag for intellectual stagnation.
- Assess their legislative "Box Score." If they’ve been in office before, did they actually pass anything? Or did they just give "brave" speeches that went nowhere? Results in the US system require compromise. No compromise = no results.
- Listen for the "We" vs. "I." A candidate who frames every success as a solo effort doesn't understand the bureaucracy they are trying to lead. You want a Chief Executive, not a King.
- Evaluate their Boring Factor. Is their policy platform detailed and somewhat dry? Good. Real solutions to complex problems like healthcare or infrastructure aren't "exciting." They are complicated and involve a lot of math.
The presidency is a high-pressure, often thankless job that requires a unique blend of ego (to want the job) and humility (to do it well). We often prioritize the ego and ignore the humility. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that the "quiet" traits—patience, curiosity, and a deep respect for the rule of law—are what actually keep the ship of state upright when the storm hits.
The next time an election rolls around, look past the stage lights. Look for the person who seems ready to do the homework. Because at the end of the day, a good president is the one who understands that the office is much, much larger than the person sitting in the chair.