Only if the country (or business) is fundamentally doing well and not requiring any leadership.
That's complete and utter bullshit. Boring is vital in the middle of a crisis. If a leader panics and , oh I don't know, post 40 incoherent tweets over the course of four hours that has a ripple effect downhill. Boring keeps everyone calm and focused on their task.
I would not call FDR a leader that panics in the middle of a crisis. And yet FDR was nothing at all boring. Same true with Lincoln.
Lincoln was faced with the greatest crisis in American history. I think much of the "Ilk" would have preferred a President that let the South secede, but most Americans agree Lincoln was great.
FDR was faced with two big crises: the Great Depression and the Second World War.
I've just named the three greatest crises in American history. For most other Presidents,
boring is good.
Under Bush-43, the tragedies in Iraq, the bad response to Katrina, and the Wall St. pampering that led to the 2008 financial crisis were all "own goals." Contrast those 8 years, with the eight years of prosperity and debt reduction under Clinton. Liberals and conservatives BOTH hated Clinton, and unlike Lincoln or FDR or even JFK he had no outstanding accomplishment to brag about. But it was under Clinton that people spoke of "The End of History", and were worried that not issuing Treasury long bonds would cause confusion in financial contracts! Boring is good.
Boring is a good quality in a president.
Rate the U.S. Presidents is a fun game sometimes played at get-togethers or on message-boards. Some people are surprised at the high rating Eisenhower gets: "But nothing happened when he was President!"
"Precisely."
JFK made big mistakes at the Bay of Pigs and, contrary to myth, with the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ had the Vietnam War. Bush-43's term was particularly full of exciting actions and inactions by the federal government!
But Ike's Presidency was forgettably boring. He built some freeways.
Yet historians rate him as a better President than anyone we've had since.
Eisenhower had the Federal Highways system.... arguably one of the biggest and most useful (destructive?) federal works projects
Good is generally boring. Bad is generally notable. Good gets things done, bad tries to take credit for things that they had little to do with.
Good versus bad is a measurement subject to the eye of the beholder.
A performance measurement of a leader would better be based on something more like successfulness versus failure. Data points that everyone would agree on regardless of political ideology.
Boring is good. Most Americans would be hard-pressed to name ANY geopolitical event under 8 years of Ike (except ending the Korean War). Under less than 3 years of JFK, we had the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and escalation of the War in Vietnam.
Under Trump, the U.S. backed out of its Iran deal, turning a country that was on a path to better behavior back to virulent anti-Americanism. Under Trump, Russia increased its geopolitical reach in Syria and Eastern Europe. Under Trump, the U.S. backed out of TPP and did other things that strengthened China. Trump met with, and doted on, North Korea's Kim. His actions led to persecution of immigrants and Muslims.
Boring would have been much better.
So what are we blaming "Brandon" for today? Wearing masks? The price of gasoline, or does blaming him for that require its very own thread?