Many times, a ruler's intentions in issuing a decree were good, and the order itself might have been correct. If it could be carried through, it would benefit most people. Looking at that alone, there were actually very few foolish monarchs in history who deliberately issued bad orders.
Most rulers gave orders not entirely for the sake of the people, perhaps, but even if it was to preserve the stability of their own rule, it still benefited some of the populace. At the very least, it benefited overall stability, and stability was in the interests of most ordinary people.
So where did all those foolish tyrants in history come from? The problem was in the implementation of policy. More precisely, they had never considered implementation when they issued the order. Some policies simply could not be carried out, some could not be carried out but were forced through anyway, and some could have been carried out but were sabotaged along the way. No matter which it was, the outcome was never good.
The breadth and depth of policy implementation were equally important. Every ruler regarded the extent of their control over local regions as a major concern.
Take Arkham Batman, for example. Though he had already united the three branches of government, and Congress and the military had basically stopped causing trouble, the Federation's fifty states were no pushovers. They had grown accustomed to freedom and disorder. They did not care who the US President was; they would keep playing king in their own territory, and none of his orders would get carried out.
This problem had not plagued just one US President. Even Roosevelt's control below the state level had been insufficient, or his policies would not have left behind so many hidden dangers.
Arkham Batman's control over the