his 'New Deal' approach to government created much of the problems we have with domestic policy today.

The thing is, a lot of the issues with, for example, Social Security didn't come under FDR but rather under later Presidents and Congresses that expanded the program without really worrying about what would happen if our growth rate ever leveled off. Anyway, I give FDR credit for what he did, even if it wasn't perfect, because the alternatives are downright scary. Hoover tried very hard to ameliorate the effects of the Depression with less radical policies, but he was unable to quell popular unrest - it would have been very hard for anyone to stop a socialist/communist uprising (whether political, or violent, or both) without going at least as far as FDR did. It was a very tense time. Despite his reputation, FDR was actually a fairly conservative reformer. Much of the left was pushing for all-out socialism or even communism during the 1930s, but FDR implemented reforms that, while they were fairly radical, didn't change the overall nature of our economic system. Perhaps it would have been better if he had gone further (it would have, at least, taken out some of the contradictions of our system, such as our desire for lots of expensive welfare programs combined with an unusual reluctance to fund them), but generally I think he did a decent job. I don't think we can blame him for our failure to realistically adapt the policies he crafted in the middle of the Great Depression to the economic circumstances of the following century (I mean, do you think Hamilton's 1790s economic policy would serve us perfectly well now?).

On another note, I do think Lincoln would be a good choice, but I'm not completely convinced of his perfection because his assassination made it difficult to really judge his legacy. He never had to deal with the "hard" part of the war, and I think that if he had lived he would have had a lot of problems and might not have the same sort of saintly aura that he has now. For example, Lincoln was generally very conciliatory towards the Southern states. His policies in occupied Missouri and Louisiana, plus some of his other actions and writings suggest that he would have allowed most of them back in with only minimal emancipation of the former slaves. Now, this may have been better (arguably, Southern white hatred of African Americans may have been less if emancipation had been more gradual and the white power base / social institutions hadn't been so radically and quickly altered and destroyed in the aftermath of the war) or it may have been worse, but the most important thing to recognize is that this plan would have clashed radically with the desires of Lincoln's own party in Congress. This is important, because Lincoln himself was very deferential to Congressional wishes in everything other than war policy (it was part of his ideology - generally speaking he thought the presidency should be a fairly hands-off position). It strikes me that if he had lived, Lincoln would have had a lot of problems squaring the circle of his desire to be conciliatory towards the South while at the same time maintaining the support of his own party. Also, Lincoln was arguably not a very good "war president" as he consistently interfered with military operations as well as appointed a series of disastrous generals before finally settling on Grant (indeed, one of his early favorites - George McClellan - was such a bad pick that he apparently considered executing a coup against Lincoln, and later ran for President against Lincoln, and probably would have won if the Northern armies hadn't had a few timely victories in the months before the election). So, I see where you're coming from with Lincoln, but I'm just skeptical enough that if push came to shove I'd rather have FDR.

That's one thing that really jumped out at me when looking at the Presidential succession list. Other than president pro tem of the senate, everybody else on the list has a position that's rather "sexy" to begin with. It's interesting that it's an elected but position but one that's "traditionally" given to the most senior member of the ruling party. I guess that kinda shows you how unimportant it is. The sort of amazing thing is that there's a deputy president pro tem reserved for former presidents and veeps in the senate. that's the kind of frill and circumstance I expect to see more in the british or parliamentary government than the US.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.