Another one of my favorite differences between today's candidates and older presidents would be the level of "bad-assness" that I touched on before. It is something I think the American people would be shocked to see.

Many of these men, especially Washington for example, had a "lead from the front" approach to war. When Washington went into battle, he was the first man in leading the Calvary.

Even as early as the early 1900's, after Teddy Roosevelt had left office he strongly opposed Woodrow Wilson staying out of WW1, and being in his mid-50's offered to lead a force over to Europe (which he planned to fight alongside) if Wilson would allow him to. And we damn well would have; the man was shot in the shoulder a few minutes prior to being scheduled to give a 1 hour speech. He dressed the wound there on the podium, and continued on with his speech before seeking real medical attention.

You know the way if there is a threat the secret service surrounds the president, and ushers him out, while he cowers, bends down, and basically crawls away with 50 guys on top of him? Yeah, someone like Andrew Jackson would never accept that, even in today's times. He would carry a gun, and probably a sword, and if someone tried to assassinate him the secret service would have to chase him down, because he'd be the first man rushing after the assailant to make sure he killed him. They'd have to drag him away, he definitely wouldn't leave the scene willingly.

Most of the presidents pre-1900 knew the gravity of sending young men to war because they went along with them. Something that I think is a regrettable loss to political culture. Too many politicians are willing to throw young lives at wars and problems, almost completely uncaring, because they know it won't affect them personally.