Actually, this is just stupid. I think Reagan is great, but people have to be ignorant not to place George Washington at #1, and the ONLY remotely possible alternative is Abraham Lincoln. To put Reagan #1 is largely a political statement. This country is the way it is because of Washington, and because Washington wasn't any other kind of person. Up to his time, the only historical figure with a similar resume to Washington was Oliver Cromwell. They were both generals in antimonarchal revolutions who transfered their military reputations to political leadership. Cromwell was the more capable and innovative general, while Washington was a product of a generation of creative generalship prompted by Pitt to counteract the military powerhouse of France. Cromwell siezed control after the war, while Washington went back to farming. Cromwell's efforts to establish a working parliament produced incompetence and a religious test that is hardly different than the recent Iranian election. Washington let Congress sort itself out in many ways. Cromwell centralized control of the government; Washington established a cabinet. Cromwell became a dictator; Washington a manager. Cromwell tried to create a heriditary leadership; Washington fortunately had no sons. Cromwell ruled until death; Washington refused to run for a third term. After Washington's time, we have the impirial Napoleon in France, the incompetent Bolivar in Venezuela (not knocking Bolivar's positive role, but not everybody is cut out to be an executive), the parliamentary weakness of Weimar Germany. There are many liberalizing influences in history, but the US could have ended up quite differently if we didn't have Washington. Can you imagine if Adams was the first president? He pushed the line toward dictatorial, anti-liberal powers in ways that were dangerous without the Washington ideal.